Man, I've got one player who's said OOC that because my DMPC hasn't done anything for his character "in particular," his character doesn't have a reason to see DMPC as anything more than a paycheck, but yet said character is trying to bang another PC based purely on surface-level attraction, while claiming to be a deep romantic who yearns for love. In the player's defense, when I voiced my concerns along the lines of "am I supposed to pretend this is a good person?", the answer was at least "no, she's MEANT to be a narcissistic hypocrite who's trying to force a relationship because she's desperate". But it still makes me think to myself, if the character doesn't give a fuck about anyone else in the party, why stay? (Short answer: multiple personalities, at least one of whom DOES have some genuine fondness for certain party members)
@@shadowrose8907 I wasn't there and don't know the situation in details, but could it be "I don't care for your DMPC because they are DMPC"? I'm not saying that it's inherently wrong to have one (if it works for your group - it works, and if it works for everyone but this player - you need to find some middle ground), but a lot of people don't like it
I don't know. Maybe the character could be like Clarisse LaRue from Sea of Monsters. The prophecy for the quest said that only one would return with the golden fleece. She went alone because she didn't anyone to get killed. Plot twist (because the first interpretation of a prophecy can never be 100% correct), she was the only one to return because they only had one plane ticket. Percy, Annabeth, and Grover just found a different way to get back to camp and arrived a few days later. Or Bakugo Katsuki from My Hero Academia, who learns how to work with a group. Just because the character doesn't want to work with the others doesn't mean that the player doesn't want to work with the other players and DM or fulfill the quest.
5:40 A, _'Why can't you DM like Mercer,'_ proper response is _"After you prove you can play like the CR cast."_ PS, that includes STFU when the DM makes a decision.
Not mention another oft forgotten fact: DMing for a table and DMing for UA-cam are two different things that rarely overlap. You can't just copy paste one to the other and expect it to work.
"Don't expect in-game benefits for out-of-game actions." Except for buying me, the DM, pizza. C'mon people. First person that gets a slice in my grubby little hands doesn't get targeted next turn in combat.
@@BorisderBankwarmer only one of the players is allowed to use that particular bribery method but, if he decides to take that one for the team then who am I to argue?
@Lrbearclaw that's fair, but if that is the bar the player considers it makes me very skeptical of their interest in a collaborative game. Most of those kinds of builds ooze MC syndrome and basically take the fun out of the game for everyone but the player in question.
@@cgathunder2 I can understand that. I tend to be a min-max munchkin and look for these sorts of builds. Not to be the most powerful but because it makes my brain happy. That and because to be able to explain the mix in role-play requires a very interesting character.
My solution to any player trying to pull the "it's what my character would do" card, especially if it disrupts the rest of the players (such as attacking or stealing from one or more of them), is ask the others if letting that guys character continue to travel with them after that, something that *their* character would do. They usually say no, and at that point, it's group killing that guy, group getting the guards to arrest that guy, or group deciding to abandon that guy. And when that guy complains, I remind them that if being a dick that would get himself ostracized from his party is what their character would do, then why'd they make them like that? It usually ends up with them learning to knock that crap off, or in a couple instances, actually leaving my table. In either case, my problem is solved.
God bless you. We need more people like you instead of people just pandering because they want more warm bodies at a table. Id buy you a beer if i ever met you.
I said .... That's what my character would do is always valid...... Is rp after all.... Going with that what the other players characters would do in response is also valid lol .... Wanna murder hobo... Cool if your party wants to back away and let you try take on a town.... Or turn you in for a bounty or w.e. ... It's what their character would do
One of my players tried to pull the "i have a revenge target, but i wont tell you who it is" He was very new to dnd, so i pulled him into a separate discord chat and explained why he cant do that to the dm. Sometimes people just need guidance on it (His homebrew enemy was Gordan Ramsey as a Tiefling with a empowered Vicious Mockery)
@genericname2747 My friend wanted to make a super cringey and edgy character So we went with the whole story of revenge thing. How his father, the greatest warrior he knew, lost his life in a battle against Chef Rams, in a tournament. Ever since he has trained and walk the lands to seek vengeance. Once he got his footing on dnd, he made a new character that was a sibling that reveal the original character is incredibly delusional because the dad was a chef, got last place in a cooking competition hosted by Chef Rams, and the reason he isn't in their life anymore is because he's in jail for unethical treatment of employees and tax evasion.
Had one player criticising me for being the only bard player in existence to not take Vicious Mockery (I was playing College of Swords) for several sessions. Of course criticism works both ways, and he was an "It's what my character would do!" player who would often separate from the party, or be generally chaotic for the lols. It turns out asking (between sessions) if his new character is going to be capable of working as part of a team was not taken kindly. Who would've thought that having demands on how other people play their character would be seen as a dick move? 🤣
The player who tries to read the plot or the scenario before anything happens; "I roll an insight check." "On a tree?!" "Yeah, this is clearly a Viper Tree!" "Your character has no information to act on that!" "It's obvious!" "TO YOU- not a Level 3 Bard with low intelligence!" "Whatever- you're just butthurt cause I spoiled your trap!" "IT'S A TREE I WANTED YOU TO CLIMB AND FIND SOMETHING ON TOP OF!!!"
That's why I have "back-ups". If they Meta-Game like that, I immediately swap the trap I intended for them to fall for to be exactly what I describe it as, and while they're too busy studying it something like a Goblin jumps out of a bush behind them, screaming its head off, and holding a bomb that's about to go off. I've quickly instilled in people that however bad something I put right in front of them can be, there is something far worse waiting for them if they spoil my fun like that.
I love describing things in the most suspicious way possible. "You see an old man. He appears to be unarmed. He looks unremarkable, just like any old man. He doesn't look at you as he passes." He's literally just an old man. Have fun wasting time investigating him
@@salavast1522 nah dude, never punish bad behavior in game, stupid people won't get it and narcissistic people won't either. some people need to be filtered as quickly as possible and being direct does that while allowing the people with actually good intentions to stay instead of thinking "wow the DM is a huge douche that asspulls traps every time I disagree"
I have a party member who is playing a paladin that thinks he’s a monk Some of the most fun RP moments I have ever had never would have happened without him The most recent of which had the session end about 30 minutes early because DM.exe stopped responding and no one could breathe past the laughter This is to say that all of these have exceptions
There was one phrase that made me think that person was going to be an awful player. "I am going to play as a murderhobo." Instead of being the kind of murderhobo that goes around killing willy nilly, this guy played a character (A paladin) that was resisting his murderous impulses. He was trying to find a cure for it. There were some problems during this playthrough when he failed some of his intelligence saving throws and killed some people. Some very important people. The kind of importance that gained them friends in high places. It turns out his character was possessed by an infamous serial killer, and this serial killer is slowly taking control. You get the idea where this is going. Unfortunately, the paladin had to be put down when the serial killer managed to fully take control despite the paladin's efforts of trying to cure himself of his ailment.
Dark Urge is great in a single player game, but screw that in a team game. That's the sort of character where it's perfectly reasonable to say "No." before the game even starts. Not cleaning up the mess, or chastising the player when it goes wrong. Just flat out veto that concept entirely before the game even starts.
"Oh, yeah, i just homebrewed this in". Not without running it by me first, you didn't. Or less often than it used to be but still pops up, "That's not how Critical Role/Dimenson 20 does it!"
@paperip1996 bro i hate when a player pulls that shit. Especially when they act butthurt that I won't allow a homebrew adaptation from another edition without my say-so ahead of time
The multiple personality one actually accidentally led to one of my favorite player characters of all time. I used to run 4e Hackmaster for a fairly large group back in the early 2000's and had two players in particular that would almost always try to play twins, often with the same class and stats. Both players showed up to me before one campaign to show me the characters they had made over the weekend on their own, something I didn't allow for multiple reasons, all players were required to make their character in my presence during what was the equivalent of our session zero back before that was the term for it. Low and behold they had perfect stats, outrageous skills, next to no quirks and flaws (A system that game used to gain more building points to spend during character generation), and they expected me to believe that their stat and skill rolls were anywhere within the realm of realistic. One thing they did both have though was the "multiple personality" quirk, so I approved the characters, took their stats, skills, and flaws, divided them into two separate personalities of one character (The stats not inherited this way were set to 8's automatically), and told them they would be each playing one of this shared character's personalities. What was intended to be a punishment for blatant cheating during character creation turned out to be unintentionally amazing. They spent most of the first two sessions arguing over what their character was doing and generally being forced into contested wisdom checks to see who was actively in control of the body at the time, but starting session three and moving forward they began actually leaning into the bit and roleplaying the situation, and by the time the campaign was in full swing they pretty much had an entire routine developed for the character where the conflicting personalities had separate goals and methods and would try to reason with each other or outwit the other to give up control so they could do things a particular way or make use of a skill that only one of the personalities possessed. It ended up being a lot of fun for the entire party, and was some of the most fun I've had as a DM.
6:50 ive always had an idea for a character that slayed a dragon as part of his backstory... Except not actually. Due to a horrible twist of fate, he was the only survivor of an entire squadron sent to kill a dragon, and the dragon's not even dead. Now he's stuck with this title of being a dragonslayer that he knows he doesn't deserve and can't seem to get rid of, and lives terrified of the actual dragon deciding it might be fun to hunt him down one day. He can't go home because he really doesn't want everyone who hyped him up (despite him trying to stop that) to realize the truth, and turn on him. I've always wanted to play a character that's a fake legend, who wishes he could be the person people think he is. Never find the chance.
That sounds really Incredible. I love that Idea. Now that you say this,i just remembered an old animated movie where one guy was part of an ancient race of very strong,powerful warmongering People who all died in a civil war against each other. He was the only survivor and he always kinda bragged about being part of this race and being so strong. Then at the end when they visited the old country of the tough guy,it was revealed that he was just hiding the whole time,terrified of this war,this bloodshed. I think the movie was called "The snow queen" or "Queen of the snow" or something like that.
"But my last Dm didnt do it like this" Unless you are a very new and inexperienced player and are genuinely confused, this is pretty much always followed by some sort of complaining about how you were allegedly treated unfairly or should get smth you want.
I’ve had a DM try to justify an awful rule simply because “it’s how my past DM’s ruled it”, I made an argument against it, because I find the rule to be pretty unfun. (For context, it was that if you try to hit a swarm occupying an Ally’s space and you miss, you hit your ally if you roll to low.)
The only time I have ever used “that’s what my character would do” was when my character had encountered their children, tricked into working for the bad guys. She ran into the enemy line, eating an opportunity attack from a dangerous minion, because she was worried about her kids.
People forget an evil aligned character can be patient, charming, and conniving, giving an outwardly good aligned impression, and just think evil means "I stab, I steal, I commit war crimes"
One I have gotten a surprising amount of times is some version of "How long is this campaign going to be? I had some ideas for one of my own." which isn't bad but if I'm 2 sessions in it definitely feels like you're trying to hijack a group I organized because you were to lazy to ask people to hang out for dnd.
Or another version "My game is going to be a SERIOUS role play experience." transition, no joking at all and I expect rp to be how I have it in my head.
"This is bullshit, you're just changing things on the fly!" No man, you're just expecting your metagaming to work when I present a challenge or deliver a twist I planned from the start. Stop trying to bypass the challenge.
Okay, to be fair, when the challenge my barbarian is presented with is "there is a locked door between you and people who are actively in danger" or "there is a locked door between you and the people who just tried to kill your friends", I highly suspect that those doors were not, in fact, protected by invincible magic barriers that negate all damage but for some reason have no safeguard against mundane lockpicks.
@@paperip1996 But when the challenge is "These kobolds seem to be way too confident in their abilities, weren't hurt by a direct hit from a mundane dart, are very proud of their pet pig, and there's clearly something off about them..." and the player decides I'm gonna jump in the middle of all seven of them and try to kill their prized pig", and I reveal that the seven kobolds were infact werebears? Then no, the player has no right to cry foul.
@@paperip1996exactly for basic stuff like that. Somtimes it truly is bs and somtimes DM is inderd in the wrong and is doing that. Not always and probably not that offten but it dose happen.
@@dreamcream3738 when I hit another PC with an attack that blocks regeneration because I rolled nat 1, while we have never discussed crit fumbles, and when I ask you how exactly it works so I can plan for it, you say "in no particular way, I just apply it when I see fit"... Well, I won't say "it's bs", but I will be much more reluctant to do much of anything, and it's not even me being passive aggressive, it's genuine analysis paralysis
@@dreamcream3738 bruh id call foul at that, it makes it sound like the way to beat that encounter would be to kill the pig as its granting them something (assuming this was already a combat)
0:23 I've found this to happen more often when the GM has allowed one player to completely dominate the session so much that everybody else got bored WAITING for their turn.
One to detect awful DMs: "Death isn't a punishment, it's a release." Basically their way of saying "I'm going to torture your character in the most humiliating and emasculating ways I can think of, instead of giving your reckless decisions the surprisingly fitting consequence of Darwin Award participation."
@@derpaderpy4931 also "I don't care if you like the game, I just roleplay as the world". I mean, if the DM cares as much as other players, it's fair. If they care significantly less... I'll pass, thank you.
best character I ever did was an airhead priest that was clumsy as hell with malfunctioning spells for her good rolls but somehow she turned out to be the best healer we ever had in a campaign
I had a bard with an alignment somewhere between TN and CG (in my note it was "moral rebel" from 5*5 table). My most beloved character and not even the weirdest guy in the party. He wasn't a tiefling though
When no is never an acceptable answer to them. I'm not talking about "yes and" sort of things. I'm talking about when the barmaid who is supposed to be our informant in this town has, in the middle of trying to act as our informant, turned the player's character down subtly, directly but politely, directly, directly with a threat, and FOLLOWED THROUGH ON SAID THREAT, and you're still trying to hit on her. I think after she pinned your hand to the table with a dagger, most people would know she's not into you, bro.
To be utterly and completely fair "Comically stupid romantic/horndog" is a long standing traditional archetype in fantasy. I agree it can be annoying but it feels off to complain about a genre staple character type universally.
6:59 I had this from my DM. He had this massive homebrewed world and never explained any part of it. His world, had basically 4 mini suns orbiting a mountain illuminating the world and when we broke a seal we broke 1 of the 4 suns and how there's no stars, no moon, not even a proper night time. this was session 6 and I'm like. "That changes SO much about my view of the world." He said he's explained it talked about it before and one of the other players was like. "Yea, last time we played this campaign. He's new." Said DM also let me join a few sessions into Tomb of Anniliation for my first ever dnd campaign and never once told me some key parts of Tomb of Anniliation. A - That revivify and turn undead don't work. I picked a Life Cleric. B - That we are actually trying to save the world. I thought it was tomb raiding to get rich. C - That they where level 3 so I went through my first session as a level 1 Cleric in a level 3 dungeon except for the final fight of said dungeon when someone is like. "Why are you out of spells?" and I told them I only had like 2 spell slots. So I had to scramble and choose spells that sounded cool for a boss fight.
The ToA section: I acknowledge this is rough and must have been frustrating, but it's kind of funny when you put it like that. I'm just imagining the A-Team rocking up to the dungeon with like an out-of-shape security guard in tow and no one realising there's been a bureaucratic fuckup and they're on the wrong assignment.
I probably gave this vibe in a first session involving a new player who I'd just met. I completely zoned out and suddenly realised her character was trying do mine a favour and had to sheepishly say, "I'm sorry, I was watching your dog go for a wee in the garden." 😆
I remember posting an ad for a game on the mr. ripper discord, and the first applicant I got, I interviewed (as I did with all the follow-up applicants). Well, I ask this guy if he has any questions before we begin, and his literal first question is "what game is this again?" Like he didn't read the ad and just applied without really deciding he was interested in my game as much as he just wanted to play a game
That's why I like to bury a random nonsequitur like "the ideal player will share their most controversial opinion about kumquats when reaching out" in my player search posts. It helps weed out so many of the problem players from the get go.
Devil's advocate, Some people are just desperate for *something* to play in and are at a point where they aren't picky anymore and just grab on as fast as they can for fear of missing a chance to play anything at all. As someone whose been stuck forever DMing before, I can understand being at the point of "I'll learn whatever new system I have to at this point."
@akumaouja4062 yeah, I can understand the sentiment. I don't think it's inherently a terrible trait in a player as a general rule. But I'm very passionate and intentional about my projects as the games I'm running and the stories I'm telling, so I would never mesh with someone who doesn't reciprocate it on a similar level. The point is my players don't come to my table for a game of dnd, they come to my table for _my_ game of dnd, and I'm very proud of it being that way
@@Forever-GM-Dusty Yeah I get that. I've got a pretty decent homebrew that I'm debating fluffing up and compiling to publish, even, nearly sold it to LRG Games awhile back so you know I'm proud of it so I definitely get that, but sometimes somebody can get hooked on without any real bait. I see it as a good opportunity to, once they have a chance to find their feet, get them invested in your material.
1:53 The first character I ever played was Link from Breath of the Wild (made before BotW even came out). Having a simple fighter with a pre-made backstory (though we had to make up a couple things since the game wasn't out - gist of it was Link did the whole "saving Hyrule" thing, then accidentally stumbled through a random portal into a D&D universe) made it a lot easier for me to figure out how to play/roleplay, so in some instances this isn't terrible. Granted, I also prefer not being the center of attention, so that probably also helped
Never played with them, but based on the way they spoke I could tell they are probably quite the problem player: "I only play forgotten realms because homebrew settings are plagaristic $5 garbage." I pitty the poor DM who considers deviating from the established Forgotten Realms lore in an attempt to try something creative while with this player.
Ive seen quite a few homebrew worlds that are literally just "The DMs half finished fantasy novel where situations they saw in other media end up how they THINK they should go" and players are pretty much an audience, not the driving force. Much like homebrew classes, theres a lot of trash out there.
@@Insanity2thePrawn Very true, but this guy was an extreme FR fanboy who very much gave off the vibes that the lore was practically gospel to him and everything homebrew was trash. Even claiming seeming to claim that Baulders Gate 3 got game of the year because it was set in the FR.
Tbh, given how stupidly huge and detailed with a mountain of weird shit Forgotten Realms is and how legitimately "Look how clever/original I am regurgitating Eberron or Dragon Age" 90% of homebrews are I can't agree. FR's a huge setting with all kinds of insane nonsense like post-apocalyptic space ogres and the descendants of the IRL Egyptians who got kidnapped by evil wizards and who fought an interplanar war against invading orcs where Ra and the Orc God Gruumsh blew eachother up and all kinds of other wild and creative nonsense. 90% of the time your homebrew is not as creative or interesting as you think it is and unless you have a real passion project or are legitimately doing something original, actually learning about an existing setting with massive pre-existing material support is the better option. I've seen a billion generic homebrews that are just the same paint by numbers "Subversive Morally Gray Dungeon Punk" setting over and over again because of how often they're made by someone who's idea of what Forgotten Realms or Dragonlance or Mystara or whatever is just a pop culture osmosis version with like maybe 1 5E sourcebook that barely touched the lore for basis so they thought they were really cooking when they gave people guns and put them on skyships or made the gods not real or whatever.
I love the Forgotten Realms... but the characters doing literally anything in it past a certain level or scale is inherently going to change things. That's inherent to the actual act of playing, I'd have been absolutely fascinated to speak to that person about their view of it... from a Sociological perspective.
"It's what my character would do" isn't an issue. Creating a character that can't work well in groups and would fuck over everyone and everything is a problem.
I think the issue here is people only ever saying this to justify something stupid THEY, as a player, want to do. Not PCs making a bad, counter-productive or "not optimal" decision because of the character's inherent flaws or qualities.
I had an oddball character once, cn sorcerer iirc. Whose actions were often weird but not detrimental. The best part of the game for me was his in character explaining the strange personal logic underlying those actions. Things like taking his up front payment for a job to a spa to get his head shaved, including a massage with scented oils, before hunting down magical bugs.
I have this character and shes extremely self dependant, and part of her backstory is being a bounty hunter. One time she was fighting a monster on her own, she got it close to death, then the other player showed up last minute to help. When reward money was given out, she argued she should recieve most of the pay for doing most of the work. The people at this table are some of my best friends but they gave me shit for it. I have played with them for years, they should know im not trying to fuck someone over. But based on her backstory, if she felt she did almost all the work she definitly wouldnt be splitting the pay equally. I did use the "I'm just roleplaying my character", and the DM relented and gave in to the other players dismay. Then later on in the session, there was a mission where she felt said other player did more than her. So even though the other player and DM got initially upset when I said i wanted to sleight of hand into the other characters bag. They were surprised to find extra money and a note stating why. Im trying to play a character with nuance and principles. Just because theyre harsh or not a charity case doesnt mean theyre problematic.
To be fair the "History check to gain advantage" sounds like attempting Recall Knowledge checks in pathfinder, which is something you can do. I can see someone unfamiliar with the system doing something similar, but I can also see how that could cause problems.
I'm actively playing a character who gives all of his money away to his party because modern currency is against his religion. It sucks not being able to buy things like potions or armor, but simply put...its what my character would do.
"its what my character would do" is often abused by bad players with bad characters to justify why doing something stupid like killing another PC is OK
My character would accept all their money and equip them, because that's how the party survives. Even "My Favorite Drow" wouldn't screw over a member of the party because that weakened the group and he would have hated to die just because he put the Halfling in a stew pot six sessions ago.
For bad DMs it would have to be "This is going to be a realistic campaign." When they say "realistic", they just mean constant suffering via unfair homebrew, and overly punishing combat as well as them inserting their IRL sexism or Homophobia into the game because "Thats just how it was like back then."
In all fairness as long as its not rampant or obvious self inserting i dont think theres anything wrong with prejudice or punishing combat. There are just ways to do it improperly.
"My character is a {insert role that gives them a massive role in the setting as a whole}." IE, they're a prince, the main lawman of an entire campaign setting, a king, ect, with absolutely no reason that won't overshadow the party. Now, this kinda thing CAN work, especially if say they're the prince who was deposed or in a Princess and the Frog situation where they got booted out to live among the commoners until they learn humility. But if there's not one of those clauses attached, often times it's an attempt to make their character far more important than the other PCs and get special privilages from NPCs.
I kinda suffer from this problem of wanting to take more of the Spotlight. But i know how annoying and unfair that can be so i always talk with the DM on how we can make those thinks works and dont overshadow the rest. Maybe we can settle for only being the son of a count. Or maybe the King is mad at us and i have to redeem my family,kinda like the walk to Canossa. Im just putting this here because i know it can be done well,its just more difficult to do right
"I'm a short-tempered Thief-Rogue, you can't punish me for following my characters intentions" great, same as YOU can't blame me for the fact my Monk kicked your Rogue in the Balls for stealing his Temples holy insignia, usually the crime would be handled much harsher!
@@johnowen9349 you wouldn't believe how offended some people can get when their actions have consequences >_> I know why I stopped playing with specific people of my past.....
I remember playing a CE drow bard. She was self-entitled, full of herself, cared only about getting as much attention as humanly possible, and such. She also always had her teammates back, never jepordized the mission, never caused problems just for the sake of causing problems, and always made sure that things were as fun as possible, usually with good jokes and music to go along with the fights. She grew as a character and even found love and had children with a top-sider. CE and chaotic douche are not the same thing.
Oh and here's a couple of phrases that get me: "My character mains as a DPS tank. Who's our heal-bot?" - this person will have the attention span of a mayfly and will be face down in their phone, and asking "Huh? Wait, what are we rolling for?" every time you ask them what they want to do. "I stop him from doing that." Yeah cowboy no you don't. You can say "I *want* to _try_ and stop him from doing that..." but odds are that's a player with MCS and they're going to be a pain to game with. And while this is less a _phrase_ and more a _type_ ... the rollmasters. Not Rolemasters, no, the Rollmasters. The phrase that tips me off that they're going to be an awful player is when they say they want to do something, usually it's something terrible you don't want in your game ("I totally do the barmaid!" or "I kill all the orphans!") and the phrase that sets me off is, "There, I rolled for it, I rolled a nat 20, she has to sleep with me/I successfully kill them." (oftentimes both) Typically followed by "You have to! I rolled for it and got a nat twenty!" Also people who use the phrase "Nat Twenty" like it's the iddqd of Dungeons & Dragons.
@@Czarro672 yeah. There is some absolutely great stuff out there. Obiouslt keep a veto power and request they bring it up to you before they even start making character if their thinking about it so you can evaluate it.
@@Czarro672 It depends on when and how it comes up. If one of the first things a new player asks the DM is about homebrew, it pretty much indicates that they want to have an overpowered character.
Been playing with the same group for over a decade. One player always tries bad builds, has a shorter attention span, and has trouble playing to what his character really *is* in-setting. Excited for his new one for the next campaign. He decided what he would play before really hearing out what the adventure would be about. However, it can work. He's playing a particularly old elf who remembers when the youngest of the gods was still a mortal, on a vacation trip to the east with his great great great great granddaughter. Around a hundred years ago, his home country was enveloped in a rift that pours out demons from the abyss, so he has nowhere to return to. In those hundred years, he became a level 1 fighter, learning how to use every martial weapon and don every armor despite his advanced age. That done, he sees himself fit to travel and protect himself and his great(x4) granddaughter. Little does his character know (but the player does) that he's about to become a pirate
I find the rage about " its what my character would do" blown out of proportion. Perhaps I've only played with mostly reasonable people, but yeah, sometimes characters take actions that don't help , or worse, hinder the party’s intentions. As long as the world doesn't conveniently kill or protect that character, and there are logical consequences, good or bad, for their solo act, it should be fine.
I generally allow it with the understanding that if you fuck up, you might get your ass killed, and even then only with parties who are more comfortable and okay with things being derailed for a session or three from time to time if things go sideways.
Now hear me out. Perhaps a party based game isnt for you if you just want to screw over the group. If it was something like hey i gotta steal this artifact so the bad guy doesnt kill my kidnapped family. I get that. Honestly DM could spin that off as part of the adventure even. Its something reasonable. But if youre just stealing gold or whatever for personal greed. I doubt a person like that in any fantasy world would live long enough to see themselves become adventures, let alone get into a party with their bad reputation. "ItS wHaT mY cHaRaCtEr WoUlD dO" is just a cheap cop out for terrible people being terrible people.
@@DaClaptainyeah except literally like you said when that genuinely isn't the case. I also often find that people who get mad at that phrase are people who see just ANY action no matter how justified by plot or good roleplay as the player just being a cunt, simply because they didn't like the action. The online DnD community don't seem to realize that these things go both ways, you can be a total cunt in the opposite direction too but nobody likes thinking they're the ones being unreasonable, ESPECIALLY not Reddit users. DnD is about cooperation to tell a good story, if nothing bad ever happens in your story between characters then your party isn't going to have any depth. If they always agree and sing kumbaya all campaign long you might as well go watch My Little Pony but even MLP has characters who do things other characters disagree with or take larger issue with. I get it, don't be a cunt and seduce the dragon JUST because you're a bard, but also don't be a cunt and whine about a character killing the villain before he gives you any intel just because it's the "sUb-OpTiMaL" action to take especially if it's ACTUALLY what their character would do (like mayhaps their character doesn't take insults well and finds it difficult to let them go without retribution). I know DMing is hard and it's not always easy to find a new way to move the story when something like that happens, but at the same time I think a lot of the Reddit DMs just don't like accepting that sometimes shit happens and doesn't go as planned. Shit. Happens. Overall I think most people online just don't like when their campaigns aren't silky-smooth lazy river rides where nothing goes wrong ever, and don't get me wrong it's genuinely nice to have stories like that but sometimes shit's gotta go a little deeper.
@@DaClaptain Maybe you just need to learn to differentiate between the character and the player. Well-made characters have motivations, and those motivations sometimes bring them into conflict with each other. That means one character could try to kill or steal from another, but it also means tit for tat. If one character steals from the other, and then that second character discovers that, it's going to lead to consequences IC, possibly even a confrontation that ends with one of them dead. Outright banning that kind of behavior is just stifling the characters because some people aren't emotionally mature enough to deal with it.
@@DaClaptainthe implication that "it's what my character would do" can only be said in the context of screwing over the group for personal enjoyment is laughable to me. I play in a great group where everyone does "what his character would do" all the time and it's amazing. Do we mess up on adventures? Yeah a lot, none of us is perfect. Could we play it perfectly instead, minimizing consequences and taking the best path of action based on outside knowledge, sure, but what's the point? I don't wanna see my 8 int babarian come up with a well thought out plan, that guy's gonna go up there and smash things, and the rest of the party knows that's the type of person he is. And either we convince him that's not the best approach or we roll with it and decide that's a different way of approaching the problem, based on how our characters would act in any given situation. In my group this only led to interesting situations, sometimes chaotic, but in a fun way, it can definitely be played without screwing up the party and leads to the most fun most unexpected scenarios possible. We're all having a lot of fun, and I'm glad I have such great friends to play a roleplay based campaign with.
~12:30 I had a DM who requested that my bard would sing at least a few bars before casting a spell, or inspiring someone. I either got disadvantage, or a penalty (usually-1) on how bad my performance was. I hadn’t played a spellcaster in awhile. Playing a bard this way was my chance to audition to play a full caster next campaign. (We were starting the new Dragonlance book. Everyone wanted to be a wizard connected to the Tower of High Sorcery).
"Niche borderline broken mechanic. NAAAAAIIIL!" okay that made me roll with laughter. Wasn't expecting a DBZ Abridged Lord Guru impression. Edit: About that one with the player unable to understand not playing 100% to the archetype. I once had someone give me crap for taking Skill Focus: Painting as a monk. His words were, "I've never seen anyone blow a feat on pure roleplaying."
I have played two characters that were either Chaotic Evil or Chaotic Neutral with evil leanings. Neither of them were murder hobos. One was generally a nice and helpful person most of the time but was a yandere stalker towards her boss's teenage son and would gleefully blow up any enemy that got between them. The other was a witch who took great pleasure in cursing people, but primarily targetted other jerks because she liked breaking the arrogant. People who only want to play Backstab mcMurder ruin things for everybody.
Reminds me of the chaotic evil rogue/barbarian (semi glass-cannon build) I played once in 3.5E. He was basically a braggart who would happily throw himself in easily winnable hostile encounters to show off his combat prowess and get his fix of bloody violence, but was too much of a coward to do anything that would anger the party (at worst he would annoy them by suggesting violent quick-fix solutions to complicated problems) or fight recklessly against a serious opponent.
What if I want to play a normal character, but end up with bad stats in blocks that would result in being bad at murderhoboing, and then decide I want to become a really inept murderhobo/chaotic idiot? One that is constantly failing to take stuff, kill people, and such? Is there a way to pull that off without pissing off people?
@@spankyjeffro5320 Sorry. Shall I play the Generic Grizzled Rogue/Fighter 45798 that does nothing but brood about how their family was killed in a needlessly gory way for no reason, angst angst brood brood?
One that I don't hear people talking about near as often as they should, any more: "I kick the door open!" For anyone new enough to the game to be wondering what I'm talking about, I'm not talking about players who say this when they need to get through a door that they legitimately have no other way of getting through. I'm talking when they're in the middle of a dungeon, with no idea what's on the other side, often without having finished finding out what's in the room they're already in. "I kick open the door!" is usually a sign of a player who's too interested in instant gratification to be a good fit with...any other players than fellow door kickers.
"I'm a lone wolf that wants nothing to do with anyone and will never work with people". This is an immediate red flag for an awful player. These type of players will try to high-jack the game and take it away from the rest of the players. You will end up running two different games and any attempts to get them to come together will be forced apart by that one player. I have banned the lone wolf archetype from my games. Another thing not a phrase but behavior is when they continuously question the DM/GMs rulings, this player was also playing a lone wolf character and a is a 'that's what my character would do" type. Heard this from a friend so not directly involved. This one player kept questioning the DM and it got to the point where the DM said something along the lines of "well you run a game". That player did and my friend decided to join that game to teach a little lesson. It was Pathfinder. My friend played a Druid that wanted nothing to do with the group. The game started and that guy stated everyone was in a tavern. My friend was like "I wouldn't be in there. I hate humans.", of the 5 PC 4 were humans. The guy went 'you hear yelling and when you look out you see an Orc holding a pack of Dire Wolves by chains. Roll for initiative". It goes around the table like normal until it gets to my friends turn. She looks at the guy and says "I want to attack the Orc." The guys says "You've got Dire Wolves to deal with." She goes "I don't fight animals. I want to fight the Orc." The guy says "Dire Wolves are monsters and that you should seek to kill them." She goes "No they aren't." They spend about 20 minutes going back and forth only to find out that Dire Wolves are normal beasts. The guy goes "Well the Orc is off the map. So he isn't a valid target." She goes "There is no such thing as off the map so I will chase it down if I have to, I have no problem leaving people I have zero attachments to, and don't care if they die ." Needless to say the game fell apart right there. I do think that guy did change his play style and cut down on questioning the DM/GM.
That's actually fair, depending on the task. For example, if you're trying to kick down an average door and your strength is the maximum amount, barring any special bonuses or items, it's pretty ridiculous that they'd fail.
@@J05TII always make em roll for the chance of a nat 1. “Oh yeah, you open the door, after you trip, fall, and slam into it face first. Now you’re on the ground and the two guards on the other side are about to go to town on you if your party doesn’t step up” It’s hilarious 🤣 at least from what I’ve heard from my players
@@stealth_meister4939Trying to figure out if you’re joking or if we just have completely opposite opinions on what’s fun (because that sounds legitimately awful)
@ we have two opposite opinions on what is fun, and that’s okay. Some people don’t enjoy crit fumbles/success, some do. The only people I’ve seen have a problem with this are those who use rogue’s reliable talent (I ignore it if they roll a 1) The situation I made up has never actually come to pass because I don’t have a quest that does that.
"My character wouldn't do/allow X" X = the whole darn point of the campaign. School for superpowered misfits campaign. Doesn't want their character to go to that school or be treated as a misfit. Not the character resisting. The player resisting.
7:26 I've recently lost my character to this phrase, Viktor Bariton jr was an avid user of beverages that hit good in the head, because he lost his brother while attacking thugs that abused his village for years. The spirit of his brother made him into an echo knight, and the DM helped me integrate this guy into the story. Thing is, our party found ourselves running to deffend the city we were based at, to deffend it from the hordes of undead that layed siege, and in that moment, Viktor regained his honour, for the good of the people, the old Viktor returned, to battle those who dared pick on defensless citizens, he rushed into battle after battle, and after the fifth or sixth, all of us were out of resources... yet, the battle was long from being over, there were still two dark obelisks near the city that powered the undead and needed to be destroyed. Our druid got downed in the last encounter, having only 1 hp left and receiving damage that surpassed his max HP, he didn't even have to throw any Dth saves, so my character waited for two hours (one of the other characters who was knocked out woke up later than him), so all of the remaining characters could see our party druid laid to his final rest. Then... Viktor limped towards the city by himself as others clearly knew that they achieved their limits, but Viktor was being overwhelmed by the sentiment of the past, by the sense of duty he had long forgoted. It was, what he would do... My DM asked me to make a Con saving through which I promptly failed with a nat 1, and so, Viktor perished, his last moments being dedicated to helping the city guard defend the settlement.
"My character is sitting in the corner and refuses to talk to anyone" (that included the other players) and "I want my character to be introduced by being robbed and thrown through a wall". Same player, different campaigns. I was brand new to Tabletop Gaming. The only time I ever used "It's what my character would do", it was in explanation for why he was going to do something I didn't want to do. I rolled insight and got a 10. So while I the player knew this character was shady AF, I the character had no reason NOT to do it. I started off with "Out of character" (we have a way of indicating alongside using words). I did it to explain why I wasn't metagaming.
To be fair re: that second one, who _doesn't_ love the opportunity to be introduced in a high-stakes situation where the rest of the party gets a Big Damn Heroes moment out of it? It lets you quickly establish who your character is and what they do, while _also_ making it clear that they're not the main character and won't make it without the rest of the party.
@FlameUser64 the idea itself is fine, and for the reasons you stated. But the player is the reason it sets alarm bells off in my head. His characters never had a reason to work with the rest of the party (as characters). In this case for the entrance, it was a Star Wars campaign and my Wookie went over to check on the rando thrown thru the wall. The rest of the party went to check it out but one (he threw a stun grenade); my Wookie was the only one to make it to him. The problem player had his character pee on my Wookie (who carried him) and attacked him once he was able. What use is a cool entrance if it's for a character the rest of the party doesn't want to work with or be attacked by on a regular basis?
@@bradwolf07 I don't think pissing on and then attacking the dude who rescued you has literally anything to do with the choice of intro. That's just weird.
@@FlameUser64 It was intro then immediately shenanigans; same with the other intro a mentioned. These are only two examples of him wanting a "wacky" or "brooding" intro just as a setup for FUN at the expense of everyone else. Judging by your comment, you haven't had someone in your life who has ruined innocuous behavior/words due to their behavior they've done alongside the innocuous thing. If that is the case, I'm happy for you. The name of the video is ""D&D Players, What phrases immediately tip you off that the person is going to be an awful player?" I gave examples that applied to me. It would be weird to expect everyone else to have the same experiences, so I gave some context. So if you don't think the same, you can at least see why it does to me.
When I have to play a chaotic neutral in a party of goods, I usually play them as being significantly easier to piss off than the others characters, but I still ask them for their opinions. Sometimes, I do stuff without consent from the part, but that’s only if I know it won’t be terrible. Ex: Party telling me not to cast fireball in the room me and the enemies are in, doing it anyway because nobody in the party besides me gets hurt and I know I can tank it.
and one of the worst things you can do to a new player is restrict them. theyll grow out of the weird phase soon enough. and banning weird at your table implies you weren't an excited noob yourself when you started playing
I have a player who has been in 5+ campaigns who fell into the DnDBeyond trap, and he constantly has to be reminded of his own abilities and basic rules of the game. I love the guy, but holy shit it can be grating. In our upcoming campaign its largely homebrew, so DnDBeyond isnt an option. Helping him navigate a physical sheet was painful. There is nothing wrong with being new, but not even attempting to memorize mechanics of the game can be painful for everyone else and kill the flow.
Session 1, level 1, first combat. New player: how do I attack? DM explains. Session 40, level 4, combat. New player: what do I roll for damage? Sure, not everyone can learn every detail perfectly, but few of them should be clear after dozens of sessions, especially those about your own character sheet.
4:45 Guess I’m a problem player for wanting to play a combo class that doesn’t synergize as well as the other players want. Everyone else can power game and I’ll just go with with the luck of the dice that equalizes everyone anyways while I enjoy my Warlock/Druid build ✨
you can curb that behavior easily. they take damage from it one night from a knights "broadsword" then you give them a penalty to movement speed, and dex saves, then you have a mad wizard go on a terror campaign with like 20 scrolls of fire ball. horny cat girl is much less fun when theres penalties for being a slut in game
"You're overthinking this" This is a game where people famously overthink everything and where not thinking can have dire consequences for people other than you. If I see any person shutting down the creativity or on the spot eureka moments of other people simply because their brainstorming doesn't fit in a neat little box for That Player, then they can book the first Plane Shift out of my campaign before they shame other people into not participating in roleplay or planning sessions because they feel like they'll be targeted, especially since it becomes a vicious cycle where That Player keeps getting their way by bullying everyone else into compliance.
When every little encounter takes an entire afternoon to resolve because everyone overthinks, then it's a more than legitimate complaint. My group had this problem, our DM decided to time our turns in combat to make things less boring. And it worked. We were all experienced players at this time, so even with 5 seconds to take a decision, no one made any big mistake.
Okay, to - kinda - counter this: I actually DO have a player, who overthinks things way too much. Not in a way, that leads them to creative solutions; but instead it leads them to not act on something they've been prepping for several sessions. They think, the moment they actually act, their character immediately dies - despite me telling them, randomly killing a character is the most boring shit I could do as a GM. The one time I - accidentally, due to an oversight in planning the encounter - almost killed 4 of the 5 PCs, I immediatley rolled it back to have them "just" badly wounded. (and even then it felt shitty) So, there IS bad overthinking, if it turns into the players doing nothing simply, because they'd rather sit back and "do more research" (despite me trying to tell them there is nothing more to find without going into the lion's den), than "run into a trap or one hit Boss"; despite me explicitely telling them I have no interest in anything that leads to a dead end or pointless death. In my specific example, I'm not running D&D, but Vampire: The Masquerade (game is set in modern day earth and a focus on paranoia and social intrigue) - said player was invited to a "talk" with a powerful Vampire-Mage (Clan Tremere, if you're familiar) in their guild house, a local museum. The scene was supposed to establish, that said Treme offers the player help to gain a powerful position; in exchange of the player having to use their position in favor of the Tremere and her allies. Typical "Big bad offering you power in exchange for your free will and morals"-stick. The problem was, the player was convinced that, when NPCs warned them about the Tremere, that meant "The moment you go in there, she's gonna kill you." Despite the fact, that the players knows, that a vampire killing another vampire is forbidden. The warnings were meant (and later clarified), that the Tremere could try to trick the player into agreeing to something stupid - while the player tried to map out the whole guildhouse for an escape plan because they were convinced they will die the moment they set foot in that museum. It ended in the player dragging out the meeting for several sessions until I outright told her "I'm not planning this to be more than 5 minutes, this won't take the whole session. Please for the love of Caine, I really want this off my agenda. I told you several times, I won't pointlessly kill you unless you literally try to kill the Tremere first. Just do it, I promise it will be fine."
I think for me its a lack of enthusiasm. I love dnd, and mt favorite part has always been the BS with the other players (as both player and DM), but a lack of enthusiasm or exasperation definitely makes the whole situation awkward
that first one reminds me of a video by Puffin Forest, where one of his players put in his backstory that he was *permanently invisible* ! also "really long and complicated backstory" reminded me of the notorious Old Man Henderson. he wasn't D&D, but he was created to mess with a nasty GM who had unfairly killed off TWO of that player's previous characters! "min-maxing" always makes me think of a character NAMED "Minmax" in a VERY violent webcomic called "goblinscomic". he took it to an extreme: "i traded my ability to speak in rhyme for learning "improved Unarmed Strike" at level 1."
I ran a one-shot a few weeks ago where I directly asked my players to be ready with their character sheets and laptops/other personal device because I use digital maps. One player showed up without either of them, then asked "how was I supposed to know?"
Is it bad that my idea of "chaotic neutral" would be them randomly deciding they want to kill a dragon, not for any glory or treasure, but because they need a new belt. Maybe make two lists of 10, one of a random item, then the second one is either a material or property (like a pair of gnoll skin boots, or an enchanted umbrella)
when I see videos like this, it makes me glad that the only things I ever asked for when I first started playing DnD was 1. a homebrew (I didn't make it) Witcher class that the DM okayed. 2. when I played in another campaign and I was a ranger I asked if I could swap out one of their starting scimitars for a shortsword (part of the character's backstory was that the shortsword was a gift from a blacksmith he helped in the past). and 3. if I could flavor the Horizon walker abilities to be from strength instead of otherworldly energy. and i will admit that same ranger had a 'it's what my character would do.' moment. though I honestly don't think it was too problematic, the party was in a town that was ruled over by clockwork guards and people were having a hard time getting food due to a very strict curfew, my character has the ideal that they need to help people in need, and so when the party was asleep, he went hunting. he snuck out of the town, got food, then snuck back in, took maybe 20 minutes and only that because one of the other players wouldn't stop yelling at me.
When the dm asks you to change your elven ranger into a cleric then literally crap over your character instead of run his game properly. Eventually he got bored and moved his game to where i was running my game despite that not being possible without cooperation. Given that wasnt happening i quit.
No joke, if I was ever told by a DM that I had to change my class (and if I was using one of the more questionable classes like Mystic or Blood Hunter) I'd just walk away from the table without another word.
This isnt exactly what happened to me, but my DM friend tried to convince me on multiple occassions that instead of making the ranger I wanted (for a monster hunter campaign), that I should make a Bow fighter because it would be so much better. I kept telling them that may be true, but i wanted to play ranger, and if i wanted to build optimal I could. Fast foward, and now he's beefing up monsters to be more powerful than normal because my Gloomstalker scout(rogue) with the way ive built them has the potential to nuke an enemy for a large amount of health on the first turn. And I know he did, cuz we once fought a dragon and I looked it up out of curiostiy, cuz he said it was an adult but it felt too powerful for that. Turns out he gave us Adult dragon rewards, but the stat block he was using (including feats, + to hit, HP, etc...) was almost the same as an ancient dragon. Not to mention completely new thing he homebrewed that basically gave it a 2nd health bar. You wanted me to build something stronger, but now cant handle it. So everyone at the table is getting punished because you dont want to take it into consideration. I didnt even min max either.
I have an extension of this; changing fundamental mechanics for seemingly no reason. "Advantage gives a flat +2 in my games" Neat, so my Assassin Rouge has a +8 against this creature because they're blinded, got hit with Guiding Bolt, I have True Strike and they haven't taken an action in combat yet, but I can't sneak attack them because they're one square away from my bow's minimum range. That makes total sense, dude.
@@Czarro672 advantage/disadvantage should cancel out, so if they’d actually bothered to think about their homebrew they’d know that you’d be able to Sneak Attack and have +6.
@brilobox2 That would be the case, but in rules as written you can't use sneak attack if you have disadvantage, regardless of if you also have advantage.
You say that and it makes me laugh. My first time playing a bard, i told the DM i wasnt trying to get a harem, buy i guess he wanted me to have a harem because my charisma was so high and my character was a sweet guy. So everytime my character was nice, caring or whatever it just emboldened people to him. I didnt have a choice 😂 the harem chose me 😭 it got to a point where other players at the table (all women btw) started joking that they were all a part of my characters harem just didnt know it yet 😂
When I DM, starting with a new party, I allow the players to pick their stats, which I will then balance between them all after everyone has their characters in to me. I warn the players to not go too unbalanced, like 14+ in all stats. Make sure your characters have flaws or you will not like the flaws I give them. Typically, I do this with the whole group. The whole party should be involved with making the party
Not a player, but someone who I’m friendly with once asked if our party “won” when i mentioned I played a game recently, and that immediately rubbed me the wrong way. Pretty insignificant, I said it wasn’t about winning and they said they’d never played, which would check out, but some other “personality” aspects about them give me the distinct feeling that they would likely be a murder-hobo
One time I tried joining a game of dnd. First sessions we did a good old everyone met at the tavern cause everyone was responding to job request flyer. We were all level 1 and head out for the quest and got attacked by goblin bosses, not goblins, goblin BOSSES plural multiple and their pet leeches. I got really confused about this but there was 8 of us so didn’t think much of it. Then after that we encountered a second group of enemies shortly after. 3 specters and 4 wisps at level 1. I immediately asked “Did you read what these monsters do before picking them?” I invite who ever reads this go read the specter’s attack right now. This fight lasted forever because almost none of us had magic and those that did spent a good bit of it on the goblin bosses from before. I was playing a barbarian and would sit there for minutes waiting for my turn to swing at an enemy who resists my attacks and had an AC of 19. I quit after that session, partly cause virtual tabletop is hard with 9 people and also the fact I had to unironically ask the DM if they had read what the monsters do. Feel like if someone says that either the DM or player should be avoided depending on context of asking. TL;DR Party got jumped by specters at level one and I asked the DM “Did you read what these do before picking them” and feel that phrase is a good indication to not play with the DM
@ even then wisps are challenge 2 and specters really shouldn’t be cr1 and anyone who reads their attack can tell you don’t send that at a level 1 party. The dm didn’t have them do their potentially INSTAKILL part of their attack after I pointed out the specter’s attack is bad for low con baby adventurer characters. I knew this cause I’m an ex-forever dm from high school and tend to play necromancy school when I do play so I have flipped through the undead monster several times. Fun fact Necromancers can PERMANENTLY control an ancient white dracolich with their lvl 14 class trait
On the "it's what a character would do" thing that keeps coming up repeatedly. The real issue with it isn't doing "what the character would do", because doing what your character would do is simply good roleplaying. Rather, the problem is that it's used as an excuse to do things that the character, in fact, has no sensible reason to do. So, the chaotic evil character wants to murder the town? Why? What is their reason as a character? A chaotic evil character is selfish and doesn't care about laws, but they still have reasons for doing what they do. Are they trying to make a name for themselves and instill terror in the populace? Are they trying to attract the attention of some specific goody-two-shoes nemesis? Is this specific town an obstacle towards their path to power? Do they have a tragic backstory element where the place somehow wronged them as a kid? In those cases, I can see it happening, but if the only reason that comes to mind is "they just would, okay!" then there's no good roleplaying, just an excuse for the player to make a mess. Even if they get to do it, there should be consequences. You start killing people? Okay, the guards show up. You kill them too? Alright, you're fine for now, but the local lord hears about it and sends someone after you. If you somehow survive that and don't want the assassination attempts to keep happening, you have to deal with the lord. If you go after a lord, it's the king's problem, and his army is big. That in turn will probably lead to you getting dragged before a court somewhere and executed unless you can find some way to defuse the situation. It's a complete derail from the campaign, yes, but don't forget that whilst you're busy doing all of this, the original enemy gets to execute his plan in peace. You are, in fact, a very convenient distraction - at least until you become inconvenient, at which point he can conveniently re-appear as an enemy.
It's most likely because most of the people who play this game never matured past middle school. Just like toddlers, they will continue to push until they discover what boundaries there are. If no boundaries are set, they will not stop.
Had one of those, but he actually managed to turn it into one of the funniest bits of the campaign. And it helped we moved on from where he was after a couple sessions.
1) It's time for another shot ( another drink of alcohol / the more alcohol & drugs the person does , the worse they will most likely be ). 2) A player writes more than 10 pages of backstory ( likelihood increases for every 10 more pages. ) 3) New player wants tons of homebrew stuff for character class , background & race. 4) obsessed with wanting to make a dream character based on another media. 5) People that follow optimizer channels , streamers , & writers. The problem is them getting upset over thier characters being show up by other players characters. [ Edit ] These issues don't always occur , but are common signs of trouble players.
For a backstory, I've seen an idea for the player to write a TLDR of their backstory for the DM to use in the campaign preparation, and separately - as much fluff as they wanted for themselves and whoever in the group may feel like reading it just as a fiction. I mean, you can play the game *and* write the book, as long as you use the right tools for each
I must admit, I can definitely see myself under number 5. While I don't try to be obnoxious about "optimal play", having watched optimizer videos for more than an hour has changed the way I think about the game to the core, in such a way that there's people that absolutely wouldn't gel with me. I would never judge another player or tell them how to play their character, but if we're using a tool that makes character sheets public like D&D beyond, I would absolutely look over my fellow players' character sheets and need to hold myself back from giving unsolicited advice.
I fucking wish my players would write 10+ page backstories for my games. Both ones I run and ones I play in. Fuck, most of my friends are authors in some form or another but in my current player group nobody other than me wrote more than like, a paragraph, if that, resulting in everyone being listless hobos with no motivation or direction.
to your second point, there are two types of players who do that. the first has ten pages of mostly bullet point events, and the other has 3 events written natively that are actually interesting to read. count the number of backstory events not the number of pages
Player once told me, in session 3-4, that his wizard character was literally him, from our reality, drawn into the game and suddenly a magic user and has all his real world knowledge of technology so he can build radios and guns and whatever. (Things the player certainly doesn't know how to build)
that last one was just the OP being a dick. not everyone can afford to drop $60 on a luxury item. that's literally why there's content sharing on beyond. gatekeeping is a douche move.
@@piens51 basic rules a VERY limited, but yeah, that too... people who rage about beyond and new players... i don't get them... oh no, more accessibility, whatever will we do... lol
@davidaward82 Yeah they are. For firs 2 years I DM'ed my group all I had was basic rules and Monster Hunter Monster manual (its genuenly great) as my monster book alongst with colection of odd mix of monster posted on r/UnearthedArcana that caught my intrest. Character options, spells and feats alongst with items where all googled lol. Certanly made my games diffrent from standart.
positive story, i played a warforged who is shorter than most humanoids (think like... dwarf height) and a big ol wind-up key in his back, dm allowed and I did not describe the character, but it was within reason, so dm asked me how my character would introduce himself, party is at the tavern, I descrive the door flying open, an ominous metallic whirr and clicking as my character enters, he was a robot catboy, and I loved playing him
I'm playing a lawful evil inventor in a party of goods, they saw the team as an extention of their power, eventually saw them as family, improving them improved themselves, their needs became my needs, my character was just willing to do what was needed, and the team came to be a sort of moral balance.
evil does not mean stupid and mass murdering psycho, I have played Chaotic evil characters and the only person that ever knew was the DM at least till the games paladin pinged in divine sense for the first time. Also had a character whose backstory made him seem like Elminster, merged with Drizzt. Granted thats because he was completely insane. I tend to describe certain mechanics to the DM because I make alot of multiclass characters. So I tend to check with the MD that two features work in tandem with each other the way the rules seem to claim. Favorite was the Druid Barb Paladin wild shape rage then smite all legal
6:20 I think there can be merit to having a character who is not new to adventuring and has some sort of epic history- but for reasons typically out of their control, they have lost access to all of their old powers or skills or are being inhibited by something. I think it can set up a very interesting character arc and unique dynamic with a typical party- though I can generally assume most of these guys probably aren't thinking like that
If someone saw a D&D book (or any book at all for that matter) in my collection they might think I am some kind of nerd. You won't find any of that near my collection of sports and hunting magazines. Don't worry, though. Just like I learned karate by watching Steven Seagal movies, I know D&D from watching Critical Role and I could even tell you what Mercer would do.
@@johnowen9349 having some physical books (for D&D 5e specifically, it's not everyone's primary system) but not PHB is weird. But saying that you have to have it, and only in a physical form, no other ways, kinda is elitism
“So that’s a 13 plus 2 is 15.” “What’s the plus 2 from?” “Proficiency bonus. Oh wait, sorry, sorry, just 13.” “I’m going to .” “Haven’t you already used that today?” “Yeah but we short rested” “That ability can only be used once per long rest.” “Are you sure? Well look at that. Sorry, my mistake.” “I cast .” “By my count you’re out of spell slots at that level.” “I thought I had one left. My character sheet says I have one left.” “Nope. .” “Sorry. Must have missed one.” “I’m going to and then as my bonus action.” “Wrong subclass for that bonus action.” “Really? News to me. I’ve always played it as a class feature. Learn something new every day.” “I’m going to attack twice using dual wielding.” “15 points of damage. You get attacked. What’s your AC?” “19.” “19? How do you get 19?” “Dex bonus plus armour plus shield.” “You’re dual wielding. No shield.” “Of course. Sorry. AC 17.”
It’s exhausting keeping track of these players. They always have plausible deniability and are apologetic when caught out. Players mess up mechanics/book-keeping all the time. With these players, though, it always seems to be to their advantage.
Funny thing about the "Split personality" player. We were all new to DND except one. And this guy made A little girl who was a vampire with multiple personalities. Horror story waiting to happen, right? WRONG! And it was one of the most interesting, well played characters I've ever seen. To this day, I think about how Sally/Salem was simultaneously hilarious, tragic, and just... so much fun to play with. I'm glad that guy's one of my best friends.
Most people who want to play chaotic evil characters are just idiots that want to justify being a troll or griefing the rest of the party with their stupid actions, murderhoboing included. Intelligent evil characters may do things their way and be happy betraying the rest of the party, or in some way causing harm to others...but only in ways that don't backfire and the math of the current situation checks out to go through with it. They scheam, plot, and set things up, often they work through proxies. They only personally take down people they know can't retaliate in any meaningful way, of they wait until combat starts to sate their darker desires. As long as the party believes they will never be on the recieving end of your shenanigans in some way, they're likely to look the other way, especially if you're outright honest about your motives behind your darker tendencies. 'Better to deal with the devils we know' and all that, especially if they see your mind as useful in combatting other malevolant opponents.
Watching this video makes me realize how genuinely horrible this community is, 90 percent of the videos that I see are talking about how atrocious and vile OTHERS are. ITS A SOCIAL GAME! I don’t think that I’m comfortable with telling others that I play an evil character anymore because they may give me a 30 minute rant. And, just to add on, DM have become so entitled. Almost all of them treat it like THEY control YOUR character, and they don’t! I get not being able to write OP backstory’s and stuff like that, the the severity in which most DMs will say no is absurd.
2:15 me and my friend (with DM approval) will be playing red dragonborn healer with "german" accent and dwarf warrior in the next campaign. Referencing Medic and Heavy from TF2 respectively ^_^ Added: 4:32 i had a literal situation when my character dragged another player's one (almost) by the ear like a grandpa drags the mischievous kid. The situation is even funnier when my guy is a dragonborn and another is a halfling
Why a dwarf? A goliath would work better. Unless you're doing only PHB races. A dwarf would be a better fit for a certain black, one-eyed sorcerer. I mean, it's your character but I'd like to know the reasoning here.
@IRQ17 we play base 5e dnd with no additional races for now. So even if dwarf is not tall, we decided that the dwarves body build is like a small Heavy and rolled with that
I've had so many examples of "insert OP character here", but the one i remember the most was a Lucario with absolutely obscene Attack (like 400 atk), mandatory tragic backstory and like 6 or so personalities. He of course tried (and suceeded for a while) in moving the story however he wanted since we didn't really have *a* story back then. He moved the story in ways to flex his op doggo. We did manage to remove his character from the story (taking advantage of the fact bro was never looking at the darn game), which he replied by attempting to make their next character (who at least did not start OP) speedrun levels. We then had to get rid of that one too and ban the guy from the server so he would not try again to take over the story that had been created.
"My character has no motive for working with the party." Then I guess _someone_ isn't playing
Man, I've got one player who's said OOC that because my DMPC hasn't done anything for his character "in particular," his character doesn't have a reason to see DMPC as anything more than a paycheck, but yet said character is trying to bang another PC based purely on surface-level attraction, while claiming to be a deep romantic who yearns for love. In the player's defense, when I voiced my concerns along the lines of "am I supposed to pretend this is a good person?", the answer was at least "no, she's MEANT to be a narcissistic hypocrite who's trying to force a relationship because she's desperate". But it still makes me think to myself, if the character doesn't give a fuck about anyone else in the party, why stay? (Short answer: multiple personalities, at least one of whom DOES have some genuine fondness for certain party members)
"What's in it for my character?"
Getting to be in the game.
@@shadowrose8907 I wasn't there and don't know the situation in details, but could it be "I don't care for your DMPC because they are DMPC"? I'm not saying that it's inherently wrong to have one (if it works for your group - it works, and if it works for everyone but this player - you need to find some middle ground), but a lot of people don't like it
I don't know. Maybe the character could be like Clarisse LaRue from Sea of Monsters. The prophecy for the quest said that only one would return with the golden fleece. She went alone because she didn't anyone to get killed. Plot twist (because the first interpretation of a prophecy can never be 100% correct), she was the only one to return because they only had one plane ticket. Percy, Annabeth, and Grover just found a different way to get back to camp and arrived a few days later.
Or Bakugo Katsuki from My Hero Academia, who learns how to work with a group. Just because the character doesn't want to work with the others doesn't mean that the player doesn't want to work with the other players and DM or fulfill the quest.
"Wait wait! Dont you want to hear my super tragic backstory?
Now I'm tempted to use 'that's what my character would do' for random acts of charity.
In reality?
I have had to do that to explain why my paladin would tithe money to the church
@@Tribozom Imagine being homeless and just see a dude giving you 1 euro, when you ask him why he just answers "that"s what I would do"
Use it for almost every interaction.
“I order a drink at the tavern because that’s what my character would do.”
W
~_~
5:40 A, _'Why can't you DM like Mercer,'_ proper response is _"After you prove you can play like the CR cast."_
PS, that includes STFU when the DM makes a decision.
I mean, have you seen Marisha play in the 2nd campaign? I'd rather play with the jessica rabbit girl or the guy who's always on his phone.
@@Reepicheep-1 that's.... a really good response
Also, your username is cool af
@@akumaouja4062 I don't know, I like her better than in the first one, that's for sure.
“Because I’m not Matt Mercer and I’m not going to try to be. I run my game my way and if that’s not good enough go ask to join Matt’s game.”
Not mention another oft forgotten fact: DMing for a table and DMing for UA-cam are two different things that rarely overlap. You can't just copy paste one to the other and expect it to work.
"He stares at you with his doll-like eyes"
sends shivers down your spine
Oh God, just reading that makes me uncomfortable.
Ah ole good Fehkar, he never gets old. (Mostly because he's long dead in a Dragonturtle's gut.)
i think i've heard that one before...in a video called "bad edgelord" or something similar.
It was an r/rpghorrorstories video, either by critcrab or den of the drake @@ericb3157
That one is a hilarious classic lmao.
"Make a doll-like eyes check."
"Don't expect in-game benefits for out-of-game actions."
Except for buying me, the DM, pizza. C'mon people. First person that gets a slice in my grubby little hands doesn't get targeted next turn in combat.
I feel you. If a homie blows me under the table then he can definitely get that enchanted weapon he wanted.
@@BorisderBankwarmer If you're willing to go as far as giving a mouth hug, you deserve that magic weapon.
@@SaitoBatch And an aprreciative pat on the head.
@@BorisderBankwarmer only one of the players is allowed to use that particular bribery method but, if he decides to take that one for the team then who am I to argue?
@@BorisderBankwarmerDuring the game?
"I want to try this build idea i found online."
*Looks up build and its one of the DnD shorts videos about a build to make your DM hate you*
That's a fun channel
Counterpoint:
Knowing the build lets you (as the DM) lean into it at times to help them feel badass AND counter it to up the ante.
@Lrbearclaw that's fair, but if that is the bar the player considers it makes me very skeptical of their interest in a collaborative game. Most of those kinds of builds ooze MC syndrome and basically take the fun out of the game for everyone but the player in question.
@@cgathunder2 I can understand that. I tend to be a min-max munchkin and look for these sorts of builds. Not to be the most powerful but because it makes my brain happy.
That and because to be able to explain the mix in role-play requires a very interesting character.
Ok im guilty with a *dragonborn deathknight* right there. The build sounded cool but imma do my own flavor with it
My solution to any player trying to pull the "it's what my character would do" card, especially if it disrupts the rest of the players (such as attacking or stealing from one or more of them), is ask the others if letting that guys character continue to travel with them after that, something that *their* character would do. They usually say no, and at that point, it's group killing that guy, group getting the guards to arrest that guy, or group deciding to abandon that guy. And when that guy complains, I remind them that if being a dick that would get himself ostracized from his party is what their character would do, then why'd they make them like that? It usually ends up with them learning to knock that crap off, or in a couple instances, actually leaving my table. In either case, my problem is solved.
God bless you. We need more people like you instead of people just pandering because they want more warm bodies at a table. Id buy you a beer if i ever met you.
I said .... That's what my character would do is always valid...... Is rp after all.... Going with that what the other players characters would do in response is also valid lol .... Wanna murder hobo... Cool if your party wants to back away and let you try take on a town.... Or turn you in for a bounty or w.e. ... It's what their character would do
One of my players tried to pull the "i have a revenge target, but i wont tell you who it is"
He was very new to dnd, so i pulled him into a separate discord chat and explained why he cant do that to the dm.
Sometimes people just need guidance on it
(His homebrew enemy was Gordan Ramsey as a Tiefling with a empowered Vicious Mockery)
Guidance? (✌️1d4)
Oh my god I love that character
@genericname2747
My friend wanted to make a super cringey and edgy character
So we went with the whole story of revenge thing.
How his father, the greatest warrior he knew, lost his life in a battle against Chef Rams, in a tournament. Ever since he has trained and walk the lands to seek vengeance.
Once he got his footing on dnd, he made a new character that was a sibling that reveal the original character is incredibly delusional because the dad was a chef, got last place in a cooking competition hosted by Chef Rams, and the reason he isn't in their life anymore is because he's in jail for unethical treatment of employees and tax evasion.
@@YesThatWasa That's legit awesome. I'm glad the guy improved when given guidance.
"That's not how you're supposed to play your character"
Saying that unironically sounds like a fantastic way to learn what your armor class is in real life.
Had one player criticising me for being the only bard player in existence to not take Vicious Mockery (I was playing College of Swords) for several sessions. Of course criticism works both ways, and he was an "It's what my character would do!" player who would often separate from the party, or be generally chaotic for the lols. It turns out asking (between sessions) if his new character is going to be capable of working as part of a team was not taken kindly. Who would've thought that having demands on how other people play their character would be seen as a dick move? 🤣
Take a shot every time "It's what my character would do" comes up in this video
No thanks, I don't want to die.
Alcohol poisoning is a bad way to go, dude.
I won’t die, but standing is gonna be a challenge! 😂
Completely valid reasoning.
"I want to do (ridiculous thing)!" Rolls die immediately and unprompted. "Nat 20! It has to work now!" Yeah, no.
The player who tries to read the plot or the scenario before anything happens;
"I roll an insight check."
"On a tree?!"
"Yeah, this is clearly a Viper Tree!"
"Your character has no information to act on that!"
"It's obvious!"
"TO YOU- not a Level 3 Bard with low intelligence!"
"Whatever- you're just butthurt cause I spoiled your trap!"
"IT'S A TREE I WANTED YOU TO CLIMB AND FIND SOMETHING ON TOP OF!!!"
That's why I have "back-ups". If they Meta-Game like that, I immediately swap the trap I intended for them to fall for to be exactly what I describe it as, and while they're too busy studying it something like a Goblin jumps out of a bush behind them, screaming its head off, and holding a bomb that's about to go off. I've quickly instilled in people that however bad something I put right in front of them can be, there is something far worse waiting for them if they spoil my fun like that.
@@salavast1522I actually wanted them to find a treehouse and use it as a base of operations or something. But, nope.
I love describing things in the most suspicious way possible. "You see an old man. He appears to be unarmed. He looks unremarkable, just like any old man. He doesn't look at you as he passes."
He's literally just an old man. Have fun wasting time investigating him
Players don't declare rolls.
@@salavast1522 nah dude, never punish bad behavior in game, stupid people won't get it and narcissistic people won't either. some people need to be filtered as quickly as possible and being direct does that while allowing the people with actually good intentions to stay instead of thinking "wow the DM is a huge douche that asspulls traps every time I disagree"
I have a party member who is playing a paladin that thinks he’s a monk
Some of the most fun RP moments I have ever had never would have happened without him
The most recent of which had the session end about 30 minutes early because DM.exe stopped responding and no one could breathe past the laughter
This is to say that all of these have exceptions
Oh, you gotta tell us now
That sounds hilarious.
share the details?
I am now imagining a Paladin using his fists for Divine Smite. I want to know more.
There was one phrase that made me think that person was going to be an awful player.
"I am going to play as a murderhobo."
Instead of being the kind of murderhobo that goes around killing willy nilly, this guy played a character (A paladin) that was resisting his murderous impulses. He was trying to find a cure for it.
There were some problems during this playthrough when he failed some of his intelligence saving throws and killed some people. Some very important people. The kind of importance that gained them friends in high places.
It turns out his character was possessed by an infamous serial killer, and this serial killer is slowly taking control. You get the idea where this is going.
Unfortunately, the paladin had to be put down when the serial killer managed to fully take control despite the paladin's efforts of trying to cure himself of his ailment.
Oh that’s sad :(
F in the chat for Paladin
That's not what a murderhobo is, and that person needs to learn the definition of it.
Sounds like a Baul-Spawn idea.
@@addison_v_ertisement1678 fr. people do the same thing with rules lawyers, too.
Dark Urge is great in a single player game, but screw that in a team game. That's the sort of character where it's perfectly reasonable to say "No." before the game even starts. Not cleaning up the mess, or chastising the player when it goes wrong. Just flat out veto that concept entirely before the game even starts.
"Oh, yeah, i just homebrewed this in".
Not without running it by me first, you didn't.
Or less often than it used to be but still pops up, "That's not how Critical Role/Dimenson 20 does it!"
@paperip1996 bro i hate when a player pulls that shit. Especially when they act butthurt that I won't allow a homebrew adaptation from another edition without my say-so ahead of time
The multiple personality one actually accidentally led to one of my favorite player characters of all time. I used to run 4e Hackmaster for a fairly large group back in the early 2000's and had two players in particular that would almost always try to play twins, often with the same class and stats. Both players showed up to me before one campaign to show me the characters they had made over the weekend on their own, something I didn't allow for multiple reasons, all players were required to make their character in my presence during what was the equivalent of our session zero back before that was the term for it. Low and behold they had perfect stats, outrageous skills, next to no quirks and flaws (A system that game used to gain more building points to spend during character generation), and they expected me to believe that their stat and skill rolls were anywhere within the realm of realistic. One thing they did both have though was the "multiple personality" quirk, so I approved the characters, took their stats, skills, and flaws, divided them into two separate personalities of one character (The stats not inherited this way were set to 8's automatically), and told them they would be each playing one of this shared character's personalities.
What was intended to be a punishment for blatant cheating during character creation turned out to be unintentionally amazing. They spent most of the first two sessions arguing over what their character was doing and generally being forced into contested wisdom checks to see who was actively in control of the body at the time, but starting session three and moving forward they began actually leaning into the bit and roleplaying the situation, and by the time the campaign was in full swing they pretty much had an entire routine developed for the character where the conflicting personalities had separate goals and methods and would try to reason with each other or outwit the other to give up control so they could do things a particular way or make use of a skill that only one of the personalities possessed. It ended up being a lot of fun for the entire party, and was some of the most fun I've had as a DM.
6:50 ive always had an idea for a character that slayed a dragon as part of his backstory... Except not actually. Due to a horrible twist of fate, he was the only survivor of an entire squadron sent to kill a dragon, and the dragon's not even dead. Now he's stuck with this title of being a dragonslayer that he knows he doesn't deserve and can't seem to get rid of, and lives terrified of the actual dragon deciding it might be fun to hunt him down one day. He can't go home because he really doesn't want everyone who hyped him up (despite him trying to stop that) to realize the truth, and turn on him. I've always wanted to play a character that's a fake legend, who wishes he could be the person people think he is. Never find the chance.
Mmmyoink
That sounds really Incredible. I love that Idea. Now that you say this,i just remembered an old animated movie where one guy was part of an ancient race of very strong,powerful warmongering People who all died in a civil war against each other. He was the only survivor and he always kinda bragged about being part of this race and being so strong. Then at the end when they visited the old country of the tough guy,it was revealed that he was just hiding the whole time,terrified of this war,this bloodshed. I think the movie was called "The snow queen" or "Queen of the snow" or something like that.
I'm stealing this
Yeah, I love the movie Shark Tale
I would so swiftly allow that into my campaign...
"But my last Dm didnt do it like this"
Unless you are a very new and inexperienced player and are genuinely confused, this is pretty much always followed by some sort of complaining about how you were allegedly treated unfairly or should get smth you want.
“Nat 20 always succeeds though!”
I’ve had a DM try to justify an awful rule simply because “it’s how my past DM’s ruled it”, I made an argument against it, because I find the rule to be pretty unfun. (For context, it was that if you try to hit a swarm occupying an Ally’s space and you miss, you hit your ally if you roll to low.)
i could also it it used on an inexperienced dm when your old one was a veteran
@ Sounds like a fair ruling tbh
@@duck_entertainment if they roll too low to hit fish in a barrel, how are they hitting the Fighter with an AC of 20?
The only time I have ever used “that’s what my character would do” was when my character had encountered their children, tricked into working for the bad guys. She ran into the enemy line, eating an opportunity attack from a dangerous minion, because she was worried about her kids.
People forget an evil aligned character can be patient, charming, and conniving, giving an outwardly good aligned impression, and just think evil means "I stab, I steal, I commit war crimes"
Imagine all evil party in which one member would do random acts of kindness and say „that’s what my character would do”
Chaotic Good.
Chaotic Good.
One I have gotten a surprising amount of times is some version of "How long is this campaign going to be? I had some ideas for one of my own." which isn't bad but if I'm 2 sessions in it definitely feels like you're trying to hijack a group I organized because you were to lazy to ask people to hang out for dnd.
Or another version "My game is going to be a SERIOUS role play experience." transition, no joking at all and I expect rp to be how I have it in my head.
I lost it at the DBZA guru "naiiill"
Was looking for someone else who noticed that. Instantly made my morning better.
🤣🤣🤣
I CAN SENSE YOUUUUUU.
"This is bullshit, you're just changing things on the fly!"
No man, you're just expecting your metagaming to work when I present a challenge or deliver a twist I planned from the start.
Stop trying to bypass the challenge.
Okay, to be fair, when the challenge my barbarian is presented with is "there is a locked door between you and people who are actively in danger" or "there is a locked door between you and the people who just tried to kill your friends", I highly suspect that those doors were not, in fact, protected by invincible magic barriers that negate all damage but for some reason have no safeguard against mundane lockpicks.
@@paperip1996 But when the challenge is "These kobolds seem to be way too confident in their abilities, weren't hurt by a direct hit from a mundane dart, are very proud of their pet pig, and there's clearly something off about them..." and the player decides I'm gonna jump in the middle of all seven of them and try to kill their prized pig", and I reveal that the seven kobolds were infact werebears?
Then no, the player has no right to cry foul.
@@paperip1996exactly for basic stuff like that. Somtimes it truly is bs and somtimes DM is inderd in the wrong and is doing that.
Not always and probably not that offten but it dose happen.
@@dreamcream3738 when I hit another PC with an attack that blocks regeneration because I rolled nat 1, while we have never discussed crit fumbles, and when I ask you how exactly it works so I can plan for it, you say "in no particular way, I just apply it when I see fit"... Well, I won't say "it's bs", but I will be much more reluctant to do much of anything, and it's not even me being passive aggressive, it's genuine analysis paralysis
@@dreamcream3738 bruh id call foul at that, it makes it sound like the way to beat that encounter would be to kill the pig as its granting them something (assuming this was already a combat)
12:30 I don't know if I would give a bonus to the bard but if a player picks up a guitar and plays the music himself? I think that's awesome!
0:23 I've found this to happen more often when the GM has allowed one player to completely dominate the session so much that everybody else got bored WAITING for their turn.
Dude the party gets split so often I just tapped out in S2
@@duck_entertainmentWhy would that matter? Do you stop taking turns at some arbitrary distance threshold?
@@mnmnrt Turns could last from 15m to an hour
One to detect awful DMs: "Death isn't a punishment, it's a release." Basically their way of saying "I'm going to torture your character in the most humiliating and emasculating ways I can think of, instead of giving your reckless decisions the surprisingly fitting consequence of Darwin Award participation."
@@derpaderpy4931 also "I don't care if you like the game, I just roleplay as the world". I mean, if the DM cares as much as other players, it's fair. If they care significantly less... I'll pass, thank you.
best character I ever did was an airhead priest that was clumsy as hell with malfunctioning spells for her good rolls but somehow she turned out to be the best healer we ever had in a campaign
"Gonna play a CN Tiefling.... "
IF The next words are Bard or Rogue, I am expecting the party to murder your PC in 2 weeks.
Depending on the party I'd bet session 1 lol.
i had a CN tiefling bard who was just chilling and the dm turned him into a girl and gave him a bf 💀
I had a bard with an alignment somewhere between TN and CG (in my note it was "moral rebel" from 5*5 table). My most beloved character and not even the weirdest guy in the party. He wasn't a tiefling though
I just hate it when they say CN, write CN on their sheet, and then play a character that can only be described as a CE homicidal maniac.
In real life or just the game? Could go either way with some…
When no is never an acceptable answer to them. I'm not talking about "yes and" sort of things. I'm talking about when the barmaid who is supposed to be our informant in this town has, in the middle of trying to act as our informant, turned the player's character down subtly, directly but politely, directly, directly with a threat, and FOLLOWED THROUGH ON SAID THREAT, and you're still trying to hit on her. I think after she pinned your hand to the table with a dagger, most people would know she's not into you, bro.
This player has personal issues
To be utterly and completely fair "Comically stupid romantic/horndog" is a long standing traditional archetype in fantasy. I agree it can be annoying but it feels off to complain about a genre staple character type universally.
@@akumaouja4062canned comedy hijinks are only fine during downtime. If the barmaid was staying under the radar, you're not in downtime.
Any sort of sexualization should be immediately punished. That shit does not belong in any DND game. No exceptions.
@akumaouja4062 this was beyond that. The example I'm giving was literally interrupting an NPC giving us exposition to hit on her.
6:59 I had this from my DM. He had this massive homebrewed world and never explained any part of it. His world, had basically 4 mini suns orbiting a mountain illuminating the world and when we broke a seal we broke 1 of the 4 suns and how there's no stars, no moon, not even a proper night time. this was session 6 and I'm like. "That changes SO much about my view of the world." He said he's explained it talked about it before and one of the other players was like. "Yea, last time we played this campaign. He's new."
Said DM also let me join a few sessions into Tomb of Anniliation for my first ever dnd campaign and never once told me some key parts of Tomb of Anniliation.
A - That revivify and turn undead don't work. I picked a Life Cleric.
B - That we are actually trying to save the world. I thought it was tomb raiding to get rich.
C - That they where level 3 so I went through my first session as a level 1 Cleric in a level 3 dungeon except for the final fight of said dungeon when someone is like. "Why are you out of spells?" and I told them I only had like 2 spell slots. So I had to scramble and choose spells that sounded cool for a boss fight.
That muct have been an experience... That kind of things vital for seting up.
The ToA section: I acknowledge this is rough and must have been frustrating, but it's kind of funny when you put it like that. I'm just imagining the A-Team rocking up to the dungeon with like an out-of-shape security guard in tow and no one realising there's been a bureaucratic fuckup and they're on the wrong assignment.
I probably gave this vibe in a first session involving a new player who I'd just met. I completely zoned out and suddenly realised her character was trying do mine a favour and had to sheepishly say, "I'm sorry, I was watching your dog go for a wee in the garden." 😆
"-one dude who played a female tabaxi-"
Yep. Say no more. I know where this is going.
I remember posting an ad for a game on the mr. ripper discord, and the first applicant I got, I interviewed (as I did with all the follow-up applicants). Well, I ask this guy if he has any questions before we begin, and his literal first question is "what game is this again?" Like he didn't read the ad and just applied without really deciding he was interested in my game as much as he just wanted to play a game
That's why I like to bury a random nonsequitur like "the ideal player will share their most controversial opinion about kumquats when reaching out" in my player search posts. It helps weed out so many of the problem players from the get go.
@paperip1996 I did that. He must've scanned for the keyword and either skipped reading the rest or somehow forgotten in a very short amount of time
Devil's advocate, Some people are just desperate for *something* to play in and are at a point where they aren't picky anymore and just grab on as fast as they can for fear of missing a chance to play anything at all. As someone whose been stuck forever DMing before, I can understand being at the point of "I'll learn whatever new system I have to at this point."
@akumaouja4062 yeah, I can understand the sentiment. I don't think it's inherently a terrible trait in a player as a general rule. But I'm very passionate and intentional about my projects as the games I'm running and the stories I'm telling, so I would never mesh with someone who doesn't reciprocate it on a similar level. The point is my players don't come to my table for a game of dnd, they come to my table for _my_ game of dnd, and I'm very proud of it being that way
@@Forever-GM-Dusty Yeah I get that. I've got a pretty decent homebrew that I'm debating fluffing up and compiling to publish, even, nearly sold it to LRG Games awhile back so you know I'm proud of it so I definitely get that, but sometimes somebody can get hooked on without any real bait. I see it as a good opportunity to, once they have a chance to find their feet, get them invested in your material.
1:53 The first character I ever played was Link from Breath of the Wild (made before BotW even came out). Having a simple fighter with a pre-made backstory (though we had to make up a couple things since the game wasn't out - gist of it was Link did the whole "saving Hyrule" thing, then accidentally stumbled through a random portal into a D&D universe) made it a lot easier for me to figure out how to play/roleplay, so in some instances this isn't terrible. Granted, I also prefer not being the center of attention, so that probably also helped
Never played with them, but based on the way they spoke I could tell they are probably quite the problem player:
"I only play forgotten realms because homebrew settings are plagaristic $5 garbage."
I pitty the poor DM who considers deviating from the established Forgotten Realms lore in an attempt to try something creative while with this player.
Ive seen quite a few homebrew worlds that are literally just "The DMs half finished fantasy novel where situations they saw in other media end up how they THINK they should go" and players are pretty much an audience, not the driving force. Much like homebrew classes, theres a lot of trash out there.
@@Insanity2thePrawn Very true, but this guy was an extreme FR fanboy who very much gave off the vibes that the lore was practically gospel to him and everything homebrew was trash.
Even claiming seeming to claim that Baulders Gate 3 got game of the year because it was set in the FR.
Tbh, given how stupidly huge and detailed with a mountain of weird shit Forgotten Realms is and how legitimately "Look how clever/original I am regurgitating Eberron or Dragon Age" 90% of homebrews are I can't agree. FR's a huge setting with all kinds of insane nonsense like post-apocalyptic space ogres and the descendants of the IRL Egyptians who got kidnapped by evil wizards and who fought an interplanar war against invading orcs where Ra and the Orc God Gruumsh blew eachother up and all kinds of other wild and creative nonsense. 90% of the time your homebrew is not as creative or interesting as you think it is and unless you have a real passion project or are legitimately doing something original, actually learning about an existing setting with massive pre-existing material support is the better option.
I've seen a billion generic homebrews that are just the same paint by numbers "Subversive Morally Gray Dungeon Punk" setting over and over again because of how often they're made by someone who's idea of what Forgotten Realms or Dragonlance or Mystara or whatever is just a pop culture osmosis version with like maybe 1 5E sourcebook that barely touched the lore for basis so they thought they were really cooking when they gave people guns and put them on skyships or made the gods not real or whatever.
I love the Forgotten Realms... but the characters doing literally anything in it past a certain level or scale is inherently going to change things. That's inherent to the actual act of playing, I'd have been absolutely fascinated to speak to that person about their view of it... from a Sociological perspective.
"It's what my character would do" isn't an issue. Creating a character that can't work well in groups and would fuck over everyone and everything is a problem.
I think the issue here is people only ever saying this to justify something stupid THEY, as a player, want to do.
Not PCs making a bad, counter-productive or "not optimal" decision because of the character's inherent flaws or qualities.
I had an oddball character once, cn sorcerer iirc. Whose actions were often weird but not detrimental. The best part of the game for me was his in character explaining the strange personal logic underlying those actions. Things like taking his up front payment for a job to a spa to get his head shaved, including a massage with scented oils, before hunting down magical bugs.
I have this character and shes extremely self dependant, and part of her backstory is being a bounty hunter. One time she was fighting a monster on her own, she got it close to death, then the other player showed up last minute to help. When reward money was given out, she argued she should recieve most of the pay for doing most of the work.
The people at this table are some of my best friends but they gave me shit for it. I have played with them for years, they should know im not trying to fuck someone over. But based on her backstory, if she felt she did almost all the work she definitly wouldnt be splitting the pay equally. I did use the "I'm just roleplaying my character", and the DM relented and gave in to the other players dismay.
Then later on in the session, there was a mission where she felt said other player did more than her. So even though the other player and DM got initially upset when I said i wanted to sleight of hand into the other characters bag. They were surprised to find extra money and a note stating why.
Im trying to play a character with nuance and principles. Just because theyre harsh or not a charity case doesnt mean theyre problematic.
To be fair the "History check to gain advantage" sounds like attempting Recall Knowledge checks in pathfinder, which is something you can do. I can see someone unfamiliar with the system doing something similar, but I can also see how that could cause problems.
I'm actively playing a character who gives all of his money away to his party because modern currency is against his religion. It sucks not being able to buy things like potions or armor, but simply put...its what my character would do.
"its what my character would do" is often abused by bad players with bad characters to justify why doing something stupid like killing another PC is OK
@@easiestcc6451Okay, and?
@@addison_v_ertisement1678 That phrase has a stigma attached to it because of players like that
@@easiestcc6451okay, and?
My character would accept all their money and equip them, because that's how the party survives. Even "My Favorite Drow" wouldn't screw over a member of the party because that weakened the group and he would have hated to die just because he put the Halfling in a stew pot six sessions ago.
For bad DMs it would have to be "This is going to be a realistic campaign." When they say "realistic", they just mean constant suffering via unfair homebrew, and overly punishing combat as well as them inserting their IRL sexism or Homophobia into the game because "Thats just how it was like back then."
So your DM made you play F.A.T.A.L?
You mean inserting historically accurate sexism and homophobia, because that really is how it was.
In all fairness as long as its not rampant or obvious self inserting i dont think theres anything wrong with prejudice or punishing combat. There are just ways to do it improperly.
Yes, it is realistic for sexism and homophobia to be in the game, since they exist in real life.
"My character is a {insert role that gives them a massive role in the setting as a whole}."
IE, they're a prince, the main lawman of an entire campaign setting, a king, ect, with absolutely no reason that won't overshadow the party.
Now, this kinda thing CAN work, especially if say they're the prince who was deposed or in a Princess and the Frog situation where they got booted out to live among the commoners until they learn humility.
But if there's not one of those clauses attached, often times it's an attempt to make their character far more important than the other PCs and get special privilages from NPCs.
I kinda suffer from this problem of wanting to take more of the Spotlight. But i know how annoying and unfair that can be so i always talk with the DM on how we can make those thinks works and dont overshadow the rest. Maybe we can settle for only being the son of a count. Or maybe the King is mad at us and i have to redeem my family,kinda like the walk to Canossa. Im just putting this here because i know it can be done well,its just more difficult to do right
"I'm a short-tempered Thief-Rogue, you can't punish me for following my characters intentions"
great, same as YOU can't blame me for the fact my Monk kicked your Rogue in the Balls for stealing his Temples holy insignia, usually the crime would be handled much harsher!
Like, can't punish them in-game? Hahahahahahaha, talk about hilariously incorrect.
@@johnowen9349 you wouldn't believe how offended some people can get when their actions have consequences >_>
I know why I stopped playing with specific people of my past.....
I remember playing a CE drow bard. She was self-entitled, full of herself, cared only about getting as much attention as humanly possible, and such. She also always had her teammates back, never jepordized the mission, never caused problems just for the sake of causing problems, and always made sure that things were as fun as possible, usually with good jokes and music to go along with the fights. She grew as a character and even found love and had children with a top-sider. CE and chaotic douche are not the same thing.
Oh and here's a couple of phrases that get me: "My character mains as a DPS tank. Who's our heal-bot?" - this person will have the attention span of a mayfly and will be face down in their phone, and asking "Huh? Wait, what are we rolling for?" every time you ask them what they want to do. "I stop him from doing that." Yeah cowboy no you don't. You can say "I *want* to _try_ and stop him from doing that..." but odds are that's a player with MCS and they're going to be a pain to game with. And while this is less a _phrase_ and more a _type_ ... the rollmasters. Not Rolemasters, no, the Rollmasters. The phrase that tips me off that they're going to be an awful player is when they say they want to do something, usually it's something terrible you don't want in your game ("I totally do the barmaid!" or "I kill all the orphans!") and the phrase that sets me off is, "There, I rolled for it, I rolled a nat 20, she has to sleep with me/I successfully kill them." (oftentimes both) Typically followed by "You have to! I rolled for it and got a nat twenty!"
Also people who use the phrase "Nat Twenty" like it's the iddqd of Dungeons & Dragons.
Homebrew.
Matt Mercer.
Critical Role.
Just "Homebrew" as a red flag makes next to no sense.
@@Czarro672 yeah. There is some absolutely great stuff out there. Obiouslt keep a veto power and request they bring it up to you before they even start making character if their thinking about it so you can evaluate it.
@@Czarro672 It depends on when and how it comes up. If one of the first things a new player asks the DM is about homebrew, it pretty much indicates that they want to have an overpowered character.
“I want to play my home brew character! His name is Matt Mercer, and he is from a secret guild called ‘called Critical Hit’!”
Been playing with the same group for over a decade. One player always tries bad builds, has a shorter attention span, and has trouble playing to what his character really *is* in-setting. Excited for his new one for the next campaign. He decided what he would play before really hearing out what the adventure would be about. However, it can work.
He's playing a particularly old elf who remembers when the youngest of the gods was still a mortal, on a vacation trip to the east with his great great great great granddaughter. Around a hundred years ago, his home country was enveloped in a rift that pours out demons from the abyss, so he has nowhere to return to. In those hundred years, he became a level 1 fighter, learning how to use every martial weapon and don every armor despite his advanced age. That done, he sees himself fit to travel and protect himself and his great(x4) granddaughter. Little does his character know (but the player does) that he's about to become a pirate
I find the rage about " its what my character would do" blown out of proportion. Perhaps I've only played with mostly reasonable people, but yeah, sometimes characters take actions that don't help , or worse, hinder the party’s intentions.
As long as the world doesn't conveniently kill or protect that character, and there are logical consequences, good or bad, for their solo act, it should be fine.
I generally allow it with the understanding that if you fuck up, you might get your ass killed, and even then only with parties who are more comfortable and okay with things being derailed for a session or three from time to time if things go sideways.
Now hear me out. Perhaps a party based game isnt for you if you just want to screw over the group. If it was something like hey i gotta steal this artifact so the bad guy doesnt kill my kidnapped family. I get that. Honestly DM could spin that off as part of the adventure even. Its something reasonable. But if youre just stealing gold or whatever for personal greed. I doubt a person like that in any fantasy world would live long enough to see themselves become adventures, let alone get into a party with their bad reputation. "ItS wHaT mY cHaRaCtEr WoUlD dO" is just a cheap cop out for terrible people being terrible people.
@@DaClaptainyeah except literally like you said when that genuinely isn't the case. I also often find that people who get mad at that phrase are people who see just ANY action no matter how justified by plot or good roleplay as the player just being a cunt, simply because they didn't like the action.
The online DnD community don't seem to realize that these things go both ways, you can be a total cunt in the opposite direction too but nobody likes thinking they're the ones being unreasonable, ESPECIALLY not Reddit users. DnD is about cooperation to tell a good story, if nothing bad ever happens in your story between characters then your party isn't going to have any depth. If they always agree and sing kumbaya all campaign long you might as well go watch My Little Pony but even MLP has characters who do things other characters disagree with or take larger issue with.
I get it, don't be a cunt and seduce the dragon JUST because you're a bard, but also don't be a cunt and whine about a character killing the villain before he gives you any intel just because it's the "sUb-OpTiMaL" action to take especially if it's ACTUALLY what their character would do (like mayhaps their character doesn't take insults well and finds it difficult to let them go without retribution). I know DMing is hard and it's not always easy to find a new way to move the story when something like that happens, but at the same time I think a lot of the Reddit DMs just don't like accepting that sometimes shit happens and doesn't go as planned. Shit. Happens.
Overall I think most people online just don't like when their campaigns aren't silky-smooth lazy river rides where nothing goes wrong ever, and don't get me wrong it's genuinely nice to have stories like that but sometimes shit's gotta go a little deeper.
@@DaClaptain Maybe you just need to learn to differentiate between the character and the player. Well-made characters have motivations, and those motivations sometimes bring them into conflict with each other. That means one character could try to kill or steal from another, but it also means tit for tat. If one character steals from the other, and then that second character discovers that, it's going to lead to consequences IC, possibly even a confrontation that ends with one of them dead.
Outright banning that kind of behavior is just stifling the characters because some people aren't emotionally mature enough to deal with it.
@@DaClaptainthe implication that "it's what my character would do" can only be said in the context of screwing over the group for personal enjoyment is laughable to me.
I play in a great group where everyone does "what his character would do" all the time and it's amazing. Do we mess up on adventures? Yeah a lot, none of us is perfect. Could we play it perfectly instead, minimizing consequences and taking the best path of action based on outside knowledge, sure, but what's the point? I don't wanna see my 8 int babarian come up with a well thought out plan, that guy's gonna go up there and smash things, and the rest of the party knows that's the type of person he is. And either we convince him that's not the best approach or we roll with it and decide that's a different way of approaching the problem, based on how our characters would act in any given situation.
In my group this only led to interesting situations, sometimes chaotic, but in a fun way, it can definitely be played without screwing up the party and leads to the most fun most unexpected scenarios possible. We're all having a lot of fun, and I'm glad I have such great friends to play a roleplay based campaign with.
~12:30 I had a DM who requested that my bard would sing at least a few bars before casting a spell, or inspiring someone.
I either got disadvantage, or a penalty (usually-1) on how bad my performance was.
I hadn’t played a spellcaster in awhile. Playing a bard this way was my chance to audition to play a full caster next campaign.
(We were starting the new Dragonlance book. Everyone wanted to be a wizard connected to the Tower of High Sorcery).
"Niche borderline broken mechanic. NAAAAAIIIL!" okay that made me roll with laughter. Wasn't expecting a DBZ Abridged Lord Guru impression.
Edit: About that one with the player unable to understand not playing 100% to the archetype. I once had someone give me crap for taking Skill Focus: Painting as a monk. His words were, "I've never seen anyone blow a feat on pure roleplaying."
Well, you picked monk. It hardly matters what choices you make at character creation after that.
I have played two characters that were either Chaotic Evil or Chaotic Neutral with evil leanings. Neither of them were murder hobos.
One was generally a nice and helpful person most of the time but was a yandere stalker towards her boss's teenage son and would gleefully blow up any enemy that got between them.
The other was a witch who took great pleasure in cursing people, but primarily targetted other jerks because she liked breaking the arrogant.
People who only want to play Backstab mcMurder ruin things for everybody.
Reminds me of the chaotic evil rogue/barbarian (semi glass-cannon build) I played once in 3.5E. He was basically a braggart who would happily throw himself in easily winnable hostile encounters to show off his combat prowess and get his fix of bloody violence, but was too much of a coward to do anything that would anger the party (at worst he would annoy them by suggesting violent quick-fix solutions to complicated problems) or fight recklessly against a serious opponent.
What if I want to play a normal character, but end up with bad stats in blocks that would result in being bad at murderhoboing, and then decide I want to become a really inept murderhobo/chaotic idiot? One that is constantly failing to take stuff, kill people, and such? Is there a way to pull that off without pissing off people?
You still ended up really cringe, though. Just as bad as a murder-hobo. Knock off the weeb shit.
@@spankyjeffro5320 Sorry. Shall I play the Generic Grizzled Rogue/Fighter 45798 that does nothing but brood about how their family was killed in a needlessly gory way for no reason, angst angst brood brood?
@@spankyjeffro5320 "knock off the weeb shit"
You are acting as if DnD and specially Roleplaying arent seen as cringe by most people lol
One that I don't hear people talking about near as often as they should, any more: "I kick the door open!"
For anyone new enough to the game to be wondering what I'm talking about, I'm not talking about players who say this when they need to get through a door that they legitimately have no other way of getting through. I'm talking when they're in the middle of a dungeon, with no idea what's on the other side, often without having finished finding out what's in the room they're already in. "I kick open the door!" is usually a sign of a player who's too interested in instant gratification to be a good fit with...any other players than fellow door kickers.
Why can't they choose to kick open a door?
"I'm a lone wolf that wants nothing to do with anyone and will never work with people". This is an immediate red flag for an awful player. These type of players will try to high-jack the game and take it away from the rest of the players. You will end up running two different games and any attempts to get them to come together will be forced apart by that one player. I have banned the lone wolf archetype from my games.
Another thing not a phrase but behavior is when they continuously question the DM/GMs rulings, this player was also playing a lone wolf character and a is a 'that's what my character would do" type. Heard this from a friend so not directly involved. This one player kept questioning the DM and it got to the point where the DM said something along the lines of "well you run a game". That player did and my friend decided to join that game to teach a little lesson. It was Pathfinder. My friend played a Druid that wanted nothing to do with the group. The game started and that guy stated everyone was in a tavern. My friend was like "I wouldn't be in there. I hate humans.", of the 5 PC 4 were humans. The guy went 'you hear yelling and when you look out you see an Orc holding a pack of Dire Wolves by chains. Roll for initiative". It goes around the table like normal until it gets to my friends turn. She looks at the guy and says "I want to attack the Orc." The guys says "You've got Dire Wolves to deal with." She goes "I don't fight animals. I want to fight the Orc." The guy says "Dire Wolves are monsters and that you should seek to kill them." She goes "No they aren't." They spend about 20 minutes going back and forth only to find out that Dire Wolves are normal beasts. The guy goes "Well the Orc is off the map. So he isn't a valid target." She goes "There is no such thing as off the map so I will chase it down if I have to, I have no problem leaving people I have zero attachments to, and don't care if they die ." Needless to say the game fell apart right there. I do think that guy did change his play style and cut down on questioning the DM/GM.
“But I have a 20 in why do I even need to roll?”
That's actually fair, depending on the task. For example, if you're trying to kick down an average door and your strength is the maximum amount, barring any special bonuses or items, it's pretty ridiculous that they'd fail.
passive ain't high enough.
@@J05TII always make em roll for the chance of a nat 1.
“Oh yeah, you open the door, after you trip, fall, and slam into it face first. Now you’re on the ground and the two guards on the other side are about to go to town on you if your party doesn’t step up”
It’s hilarious 🤣 at least from what I’ve heard from my players
@@stealth_meister4939Trying to figure out if you’re joking or if we just have completely opposite opinions on what’s fun (because that sounds legitimately awful)
@ we have two opposite opinions on what is fun, and that’s okay.
Some people don’t enjoy crit fumbles/success, some do. The only people I’ve seen have a problem with this are those who use rogue’s reliable talent (I ignore it if they roll a 1)
The situation I made up has never actually come to pass because I don’t have a quest that does that.
"My character wouldn't do/allow X"
X = the whole darn point of the campaign.
School for superpowered misfits campaign. Doesn't want their character to go to that school or be treated as a misfit.
Not the character resisting. The player resisting.
7:26
I've recently lost my character to this phrase, Viktor Bariton jr was an avid user of beverages that hit good in the head, because he lost his brother while attacking thugs that abused his village for years. The spirit of his brother made him into an echo knight, and the DM helped me integrate this guy into the story. Thing is, our party found ourselves running to deffend the city we were based at, to deffend it from the hordes of undead that layed siege, and in that moment, Viktor regained his honour, for the good of the people, the old Viktor returned, to battle those who dared pick on defensless citizens, he rushed into battle after battle, and after the fifth or sixth, all of us were out of resources... yet, the battle was long from being over, there were still two dark obelisks near the city that powered the undead and needed to be destroyed. Our druid got downed in the last encounter, having only 1 hp left and receiving damage that surpassed his max HP, he didn't even have to throw any Dth saves, so my character waited for two hours (one of the other characters who was knocked out woke up later than him), so all of the remaining characters could see our party druid laid to his final rest. Then... Viktor limped towards the city by himself as others clearly knew that they achieved their limits, but Viktor was being overwhelmed by the sentiment of the past, by the sense of duty he had long forgoted. It was, what he would do... My DM asked me to make a Con saving through which I promptly failed with a nat 1, and so, Viktor perished, his last moments being dedicated to helping the city guard defend the settlement.
"My character is sitting in the corner and refuses to talk to anyone" (that included the other players) and "I want my character to be introduced by being robbed and thrown through a wall". Same player, different campaigns. I was brand new to Tabletop Gaming.
The only time I ever used "It's what my character would do", it was in explanation for why he was going to do something I didn't want to do. I rolled insight and got a 10. So while I the player knew this character was shady AF, I the character had no reason NOT to do it. I started off with "Out of character" (we have a way of indicating alongside using words). I did it to explain why I wasn't metagaming.
To be fair re: that second one, who _doesn't_ love the opportunity to be introduced in a high-stakes situation where the rest of the party gets a Big Damn Heroes moment out of it? It lets you quickly establish who your character is and what they do, while _also_ making it clear that they're not the main character and won't make it without the rest of the party.
@FlameUser64 the idea itself is fine, and for the reasons you stated. But the player is the reason it sets alarm bells off in my head. His characters never had a reason to work with the rest of the party (as characters).
In this case for the entrance, it was a Star Wars campaign and my Wookie went over to check on the rando thrown thru the wall. The rest of the party went to check it out but one (he threw a stun grenade); my Wookie was the only one to make it to him. The problem player had his character pee on my Wookie (who carried him) and attacked him once he was able. What use is a cool entrance if it's for a character the rest of the party doesn't want to work with or be attacked by on a regular basis?
@@bradwolf07 I don't think pissing on and then attacking the dude who rescued you has literally anything to do with the choice of intro. That's just weird.
@@FlameUser64 It was intro then immediately shenanigans; same with the other intro a mentioned. These are only two examples of him wanting a "wacky" or "brooding" intro just as a setup for FUN at the expense of everyone else. Judging by your comment, you haven't had someone in your life who has ruined innocuous behavior/words due to their behavior they've done alongside the innocuous thing. If that is the case, I'm happy for you.
The name of the video is ""D&D Players, What phrases immediately tip you off that the person is going to be an awful player?" I gave examples that applied to me. It would be weird to expect everyone else to have the same experiences, so I gave some context. So if you don't think the same, you can at least see why it does to me.
When I have to play a chaotic neutral in a party of goods, I usually play them as being significantly easier to piss off than the others characters, but I still ask them for their opinions. Sometimes, I do stuff without consent from the part, but that’s only if I know it won’t be terrible. Ex: Party telling me not to cast fireball in the room me and the enemies are in, doing it anyway because nobody in the party besides me gets hurt and I know I can tank it.
13:35 I don't think you should be that harsh with someone because they don't know a lot about the game, everyone starts somewhere.
and one of the worst things you can do to a new player is restrict them. theyll grow out of the weird phase soon enough. and banning weird at your table implies you weren't an excited noob yourself when you started playing
I have a player who has been in 5+ campaigns who fell into the DnDBeyond trap, and he constantly has to be reminded of his own abilities and basic rules of the game. I love the guy, but holy shit it can be grating. In our upcoming campaign its largely homebrew, so DnDBeyond isnt an option. Helping him navigate a physical sheet was painful. There is nothing wrong with being new, but not even attempting to memorize mechanics of the game can be painful for everyone else and kill the flow.
@@TheHumanShitpostIt doesn't imply any such thing.
Right?? Like most dms have a slew of rules they change or ignore. God forbid players confirm rulings with their dms.
Session 1, level 1, first combat. New player: how do I attack? DM explains.
Session 40, level 4, combat. New player: what do I roll for damage?
Sure, not everyone can learn every detail perfectly, but few of them should be clear after dozens of sessions, especially those about your own character sheet.
4:45 Guess I’m a problem player for wanting to play a combo class that doesn’t synergize as well as the other players want. Everyone else can power game and I’ll just go with with the luck of the dice that equalizes everyone anyways while I enjoy my Warlock/Druid build ✨
ok, enjoy being completely irrelevant and unable to participate in any meaningful way.
9:00 the tabaxi female character in heat. but this time, the tabaxi is a bard too, and wants to mate with everything that has two legs.
poor DM.
you can curb that behavior easily. they take damage from it one night from a knights "broadsword" then you give them a penalty to movement speed, and dex saves, then you have a mad wizard go on a terror campaign with like 20 scrolls of fire ball. horny cat girl is much less fun when theres penalties for being a slut in game
"You're overthinking this"
This is a game where people famously overthink everything and where not thinking can have dire consequences for people other than you. If I see any person shutting down the creativity or on the spot eureka moments of other people simply because their brainstorming doesn't fit in a neat little box for That Player, then they can book the first Plane Shift out of my campaign before they shame other people into not participating in roleplay or planning sessions because they feel like they'll be targeted, especially since it becomes a vicious cycle where That Player keeps getting their way by bullying everyone else into compliance.
When every little encounter takes an entire afternoon to resolve because everyone overthinks, then it's a more than legitimate complaint. My group had this problem, our DM decided to time our turns in combat to make things less boring. And it worked. We were all experienced players at this time, so even with 5 seconds to take a decision, no one made any big mistake.
Okay, to - kinda - counter this:
I actually DO have a player, who overthinks things way too much. Not in a way, that leads them to creative solutions; but instead it leads them to not act on something they've been prepping for several sessions. They think, the moment they actually act, their character immediately dies - despite me telling them, randomly killing a character is the most boring shit I could do as a GM. The one time I - accidentally, due to an oversight in planning the encounter - almost killed 4 of the 5 PCs, I immediatley rolled it back to have them "just" badly wounded. (and even then it felt shitty)
So, there IS bad overthinking, if it turns into the players doing nothing simply, because they'd rather sit back and "do more research" (despite me trying to tell them there is nothing more to find without going into the lion's den), than "run into a trap or one hit Boss"; despite me explicitely telling them I have no interest in anything that leads to a dead end or pointless death.
In my specific example, I'm not running D&D, but Vampire: The Masquerade (game is set in modern day earth and a focus on paranoia and social intrigue) - said player was invited to a "talk" with a powerful Vampire-Mage (Clan Tremere, if you're familiar) in their guild house, a local museum. The scene was supposed to establish, that said Treme offers the player help to gain a powerful position; in exchange of the player having to use their position in favor of the Tremere and her allies. Typical "Big bad offering you power in exchange for your free will and morals"-stick.
The problem was, the player was convinced that, when NPCs warned them about the Tremere, that meant "The moment you go in there, she's gonna kill you." Despite the fact, that the players knows, that a vampire killing another vampire is forbidden. The warnings were meant (and later clarified), that the Tremere could try to trick the player into agreeing to something stupid - while the player tried to map out the whole guildhouse for an escape plan because they were convinced they will die the moment they set foot in that museum.
It ended in the player dragging out the meeting for several sessions until I outright told her "I'm not planning this to be more than 5 minutes, this won't take the whole session. Please for the love of Caine, I really want this off my agenda. I told you several times, I won't pointlessly kill you unless you literally try to kill the Tremere first. Just do it, I promise it will be fine."
No, overthinking is a symptom of a bad game system.
I think for me its a lack of enthusiasm. I love dnd, and mt favorite part has always been the BS with the other players (as both player and DM), but a lack of enthusiasm or exasperation definitely makes the whole situation awkward
that first one reminds me of a video by Puffin Forest, where one of his players put in his backstory that he was *permanently invisible* !
also "really long and complicated backstory" reminded me of the notorious Old Man Henderson.
he wasn't D&D, but he was created to mess with a nasty GM who had unfairly killed off TWO of that player's previous characters!
"min-maxing" always makes me think of a character NAMED "Minmax" in a VERY violent webcomic called "goblinscomic".
he took it to an extreme: "i traded my ability to speak in rhyme for learning "improved Unarmed Strike" at level 1."
I ran a one-shot a few weeks ago where I directly asked my players to be ready with their character sheets and laptops/other personal device because I use digital maps. One player showed up without either of them, then asked "how was I supposed to know?"
Is it bad that my idea of "chaotic neutral" would be them randomly deciding they want to kill a dragon, not for any glory or treasure, but because they need a new belt. Maybe make two lists of 10, one of a random item, then the second one is either a material or property (like a pair of gnoll skin boots, or an enchanted umbrella)
when I see videos like this, it makes me glad that the only things I ever asked for when I first started playing DnD was 1. a homebrew (I didn't make it) Witcher class that the DM okayed. 2. when I played in another campaign and I was a ranger I asked if I could swap out one of their starting scimitars for a shortsword (part of the character's backstory was that the shortsword was a gift from a blacksmith he helped in the past). and 3. if I could flavor the Horizon walker abilities to be from strength instead of otherworldly energy. and i will admit that same ranger had a 'it's what my character would do.' moment. though I honestly don't think it was too problematic, the party was in a town that was ruled over by clockwork guards and people were having a hard time getting food due to a very strict curfew, my character has the ideal that they need to help people in need, and so when the party was asleep, he went hunting. he snuck out of the town, got food, then snuck back in, took maybe 20 minutes and only that because one of the other players wouldn't stop yelling at me.
I dig the videos, and I’m glad there’s a fade out when it comes to an end but the crazy voices sometimes take me out of things.
When the dm asks you to change your elven ranger into a cleric then literally crap over your character instead of run his game properly.
Eventually he got bored and moved his game to where i was running my game despite that not being possible without cooperation.
Given that wasnt happening i quit.
No joke, if I was ever told by a DM that I had to change my class (and if I was using one of the more questionable classes like Mystic or Blood Hunter) I'd just walk away from the table without another word.
This isnt exactly what happened to me, but my DM friend tried to convince me on multiple occassions that instead of making the ranger I wanted (for a monster hunter campaign), that I should make a Bow fighter because it would be so much better. I kept telling them that may be true, but i wanted to play ranger, and if i wanted to build optimal I could. Fast foward, and now he's beefing up monsters to be more powerful than normal because my Gloomstalker scout(rogue) with the way ive built them has the potential to nuke an enemy for a large amount of health on the first turn.
And I know he did, cuz we once fought a dragon and I looked it up out of curiostiy, cuz he said it was an adult but it felt too powerful for that. Turns out he gave us Adult dragon rewards, but the stat block he was using (including feats, + to hit, HP, etc...) was almost the same as an ancient dragon. Not to mention completely new thing he homebrewed that basically gave it a 2nd health bar.
You wanted me to build something stronger, but now cant handle it. So everyone at the table is getting punished because you dont want to take it into consideration. I didnt even min max either.
4:28
"NAAAAAAIIIIIILLL! Gather the dragon balls...
4:26 "Niche borderline broken mechanic, NAILLLLL!!!" - had me dying. I love dbza
From DM's not from players "I've banned all these things for no good reason"
See, thats why you nerf those things instead.
I have an extension of this; changing fundamental mechanics for seemingly no reason.
"Advantage gives a flat +2 in my games"
Neat, so my Assassin Rouge has a +8 against this creature because they're blinded, got hit with Guiding Bolt, I have True Strike and they haven't taken an action in combat yet, but I can't sneak attack them because they're one square away from my bow's minimum range. That makes total sense, dude.
@@Czarro672 advantage/disadvantage should cancel out, so if they’d actually bothered to think about their homebrew they’d know that you’d be able to Sneak Attack and have +6.
@brilobox2 That would be the case, but in rules as written you can't use sneak attack if you have disadvantage, regardless of if you also have advantage.
@@Czarro672 its HOMEBREW, wtf are they doing using RAW interpretations when they’ve introduced a major homebrew mechanic?
"Harem"
You say that and it makes me laugh. My first time playing a bard, i told the DM i wasnt trying to get a harem, buy i guess he wanted me to have a harem because my charisma was so high and my character was a sweet guy. So everytime my character was nice, caring or whatever it just emboldened people to him. I didnt have a choice 😂 the harem chose me 😭 it got to a point where other players at the table (all women btw) started joking that they were all a part of my characters harem just didnt know it yet 😂
When I DM, starting with a new party, I allow the players to pick their stats, which I will then balance between them all after everyone has their characters in to me.
I warn the players to not go too unbalanced, like 14+ in all stats. Make sure your characters have flaws or you will not like the flaws I give them.
Typically, I do this with the whole group. The whole party should be involved with making the party
When they complain about the dm having to put lore in front of their face but when it isn’t pointed out to them they don’t try to find anything out.
Not a player, but someone who I’m friendly with once asked if our party “won” when i mentioned I played a game recently, and that immediately rubbed me the wrong way.
Pretty insignificant, I said it wasn’t about winning and they said they’d never played, which would check out, but some other “personality” aspects about them give me the distinct feeling that they would likely be a murder-hobo
One time I tried joining a game of dnd. First sessions we did a good old everyone met at the tavern cause everyone was responding to job request flyer. We were all level 1 and head out for the quest and got attacked by goblin bosses, not goblins, goblin BOSSES plural multiple and their pet leeches. I got really confused about this but there was 8 of us so didn’t think much of it. Then after that we encountered a second group of enemies shortly after. 3 specters and 4 wisps at level 1. I immediately asked “Did you read what these monsters do before picking them?” I invite who ever reads this go read the specter’s attack right now. This fight lasted forever because almost none of us had magic and those that did spent a good bit of it on the goblin bosses from before. I was playing a barbarian and would sit there for minutes waiting for my turn to swing at an enemy who resists my attacks and had an AC of 19. I quit after that session, partly cause virtual tabletop is hard with 9 people and also the fact I had to unironically ask the DM if they had read what the monsters do. Feel like if someone says that either the DM or player should be avoided depending on context of asking.
TL;DR Party got jumped by specters at level one and I asked the DM “Did you read what these do before picking them” and feel that phrase is a good indication to not play with the DM
I am 99% sure this is a case of a new DM not understanding that CR in 5E is, in fact, a crock of shit.
@ even then wisps are challenge 2 and specters really shouldn’t be cr1 and anyone who reads their attack can tell you don’t send that at a level 1 party. The dm didn’t have them do their potentially INSTAKILL part of their attack after I pointed out the specter’s attack is bad for low con baby adventurer characters. I knew this cause I’m an ex-forever dm from high school and tend to play necromancy school when I do play so I have flipped through the undead monster several times.
Fun fact Necromancers can PERMANENTLY control an ancient white dracolich with their lvl 14 class trait
@@Czarro672 The Rules Lawyer is full of shit.
On the "it's what a character would do" thing that keeps coming up repeatedly. The real issue with it isn't doing "what the character would do", because doing what your character would do is simply good roleplaying. Rather, the problem is that it's used as an excuse to do things that the character, in fact, has no sensible reason to do.
So, the chaotic evil character wants to murder the town? Why? What is their reason as a character? A chaotic evil character is selfish and doesn't care about laws, but they still have reasons for doing what they do. Are they trying to make a name for themselves and instill terror in the populace? Are they trying to attract the attention of some specific goody-two-shoes nemesis? Is this specific town an obstacle towards their path to power? Do they have a tragic backstory element where the place somehow wronged them as a kid? In those cases, I can see it happening, but if the only reason that comes to mind is "they just would, okay!" then there's no good roleplaying, just an excuse for the player to make a mess.
Even if they get to do it, there should be consequences. You start killing people? Okay, the guards show up. You kill them too? Alright, you're fine for now, but the local lord hears about it and sends someone after you. If you somehow survive that and don't want the assassination attempts to keep happening, you have to deal with the lord. If you go after a lord, it's the king's problem, and his army is big. That in turn will probably lead to you getting dragged before a court somewhere and executed unless you can find some way to defuse the situation. It's a complete derail from the campaign, yes, but don't forget that whilst you're busy doing all of this, the original enemy gets to execute his plan in peace. You are, in fact, a very convenient distraction - at least until you become inconvenient, at which point he can conveniently re-appear as an enemy.
It's most likely because most of the people who play this game never matured past middle school. Just like toddlers, they will continue to push until they discover what boundaries there are. If no boundaries are set, they will not stop.
Not exactly a phrase, but when they’re focused on annoying this one NPC and leave the other players to deal with the actual adventure
Had one of those, but he actually managed to turn it into one of the funniest bits of the campaign. And it helped we moved on from where he was after a couple sessions.
1) It's time for another shot ( another drink of alcohol / the more alcohol & drugs the person does , the worse they will most likely be ).
2) A player writes more than 10 pages of backstory ( likelihood increases for every 10 more pages. )
3) New player wants tons of homebrew stuff for character class , background & race.
4) obsessed with wanting to make a dream character based on another media.
5) People that follow optimizer channels , streamers , & writers.
The problem is them getting upset over thier characters being show up by other players characters.
[ Edit ] These issues don't always occur , but are common signs of trouble players.
For a backstory, I've seen an idea for the player to write a TLDR of their backstory for the DM to use in the campaign preparation, and separately - as much fluff as they wanted for themselves and whoever in the group may feel like reading it just as a fiction. I mean, you can play the game *and* write the book, as long as you use the right tools for each
I must admit, I can definitely see myself under number 5. While I don't try to be obnoxious about "optimal play", having watched optimizer videos for more than an hour has changed the way I think about the game to the core, in such a way that there's people that absolutely wouldn't gel with me. I would never judge another player or tell them how to play their character, but if we're using a tool that makes character sheets public like D&D beyond, I would absolutely look over my fellow players' character sheets and need to hold myself back from giving unsolicited advice.
I fucking wish my players would write 10+ page backstories for my games. Both ones I run and ones I play in. Fuck, most of my friends are authors in some form or another but in my current player group nobody other than me wrote more than like, a paragraph, if that, resulting in everyone being listless hobos with no motivation or direction.
@@nabra97
A TLDR is a good idea.
to your second point, there are two types of players who do that. the first has ten pages of mostly bullet point events, and the other has 3 events written natively that are actually interesting to read.
count the number of backstory events not the number of pages
Player once told me, in session 3-4, that his wizard character was literally him, from our reality, drawn into the game and suddenly a magic user and has all his real world knowledge of technology so he can build radios and guns and whatever. (Things the player certainly doesn't know how to build)
that last one was just the OP being a dick.
not everyone can afford to drop $60 on a luxury item. that's literally why there's content sharing on beyond.
gatekeeping is a douche move.
I haven't even bought a new DMG since 3.5e. Everything I need to run 5e can more or less be found for free online.
I mean... the internet is your friend. I've found the PHB for free online.
You dont even need phb. There is free basic rules online.
@@piens51 basic rules a VERY limited, but yeah, that too...
people who rage about beyond and new players... i don't get them... oh no, more accessibility, whatever will we do... lol
@davidaward82 Yeah they are. For firs 2 years I DM'ed my group all I had was basic rules and Monster Hunter Monster manual (its genuenly great) as my monster book alongst with colection of odd mix of monster posted on r/UnearthedArcana that caught my intrest.
Character options, spells and feats alongst with items where all googled lol. Certanly made my games diffrent from standart.
I'm sorry but i'm down to have that kenku that went "caw caw" and teabagged everything on my party
positive story, i played a warforged who is shorter than most humanoids (think like... dwarf height) and a big ol wind-up key in his back, dm allowed and I did not describe the character, but it was within reason, so dm asked me how my character would introduce himself, party is at the tavern, I descrive the door flying open, an ominous metallic whirr and clicking as my character enters, he was a robot catboy, and I loved playing him
I'm playing a lawful evil inventor in a party of goods, they saw the team as an extention of their power, eventually saw them as family, improving them improved themselves, their needs became my needs, my character was just willing to do what was needed, and the team came to be a sort of moral balance.
evil does not mean stupid and mass murdering psycho, I have played Chaotic evil characters and the only person that ever knew was the DM at least till the games paladin pinged in divine sense for the first time. Also had a character whose backstory made him seem like Elminster, merged with Drizzt. Granted thats because he was completely insane. I tend to describe certain mechanics to the DM because I make alot of multiclass characters. So I tend to check with the MD that two features work in tandem with each other the way the rules seem to claim. Favorite was the Druid Barb Paladin wild shape rage then smite all legal
6:20 I think there can be merit to having a character who is not new to adventuring and has some sort of epic history- but for reasons typically out of their control, they have lost access to all of their old powers or skills or are being inhibited by something. I think it can set up a very interesting character arc and unique dynamic with a typical party- though I can generally assume most of these guys probably aren't thinking like that
Yeah, the issue is, as you've said, not just that they do it but WHY they do it. If it was for the interesting arc, most people would be cool with it.
If players want to do this, why not choose a system where you start out powerful?
that dude at the end who's an elitist about owning the phb is probably the problem player in a lot of peoples campaigns
Agreed. Not everyone can go and buy books just to play. Plus the newer generations use Mobile Devices anyway.
Of all the books to skip, the PHB isn't one of them. That's not elitism, that's a basic bare minimum investment into the hobby.
@@johnowen9349 pro tip! you can read it online without buying it. hope that helps!
If someone saw a D&D book (or any book at all for that matter) in my collection they might think I am some kind of nerd. You won't find any of that near my collection of sports and hunting magazines. Don't worry, though. Just like I learned karate by watching Steven Seagal movies, I know D&D from watching Critical Role and I could even tell you what Mercer would do.
@@johnowen9349 having some physical books (for D&D 5e specifically, it's not everyone's primary system) but not PHB is weird. But saying that you have to have it, and only in a physical form, no other ways, kinda is elitism
“So that’s a 13 plus 2 is 15.”
“What’s the plus 2 from?”
“Proficiency bonus. Oh wait, sorry, sorry, just 13.”
“I’m going to .”
“Haven’t you already used that today?”
“Yeah but we short rested”
“That ability can only be used once per long rest.”
“Are you sure? Well look at that. Sorry, my mistake.”
“I cast .”
“By my count you’re out of spell slots at that level.”
“I thought I had one left. My character sheet says I have one left.”
“Nope. .”
“Sorry. Must have missed one.”
“I’m going to and then as my bonus action.”
“Wrong subclass for that bonus action.”
“Really? News to me. I’ve always played it as a class feature. Learn something new every day.”
“I’m going to attack twice using dual wielding.”
“15 points of damage. You get attacked. What’s your AC?”
“19.”
“19? How do you get 19?”
“Dex bonus plus armour plus shield.”
“You’re dual wielding. No shield.”
“Of course. Sorry. AC 17.”
TL;DR- someone who is constantly trying to cheat under the DM's nose
It’s exhausting keeping track of these players. They always have plausible deniability and are apologetic when caught out.
Players mess up mechanics/book-keeping all the time. With these players, though, it always seems to be to their advantage.
"I'm gonna be late." Via text roughly an hour after the game has started.
4:27 I am so glad you caught onto what you was sounding like, because I was about to comment on that. lol
Funny thing about the "Split personality" player. We were all new to DND except one. And this guy made
A little girl
who was a vampire
with multiple personalities.
Horror story waiting to happen, right? WRONG!
And it was one of the most interesting, well played characters I've ever seen. To this day, I think about how Sally/Salem was simultaneously hilarious, tragic, and just... so much fun to play with. I'm glad that guy's one of my best friends.
4:09 That DBZA reference at the end of this one got a good laugh out of me!
Most people who want to play chaotic evil characters are just idiots that want to justify being a troll or griefing the rest of the party with their stupid actions, murderhoboing included.
Intelligent evil characters may do things their way and be happy betraying the rest of the party, or in some way causing harm to others...but only in ways that don't backfire and the math of the current situation checks out to go through with it.
They scheam, plot, and set things up, often they work through proxies. They only personally take down people they know can't retaliate in any meaningful way, of they wait until combat starts to sate their darker desires. As long as the party believes they will never be on the recieving end of your shenanigans in some way, they're likely to look the other way, especially if you're outright honest about your motives behind your darker tendencies.
'Better to deal with the devils we know' and all that, especially if they see your mind as useful in combatting other malevolant opponents.
When they have grand ambitions for their character, die within the first session, then pout about it.
Sorry folks, the dice have spoken, your dead.
Don’t worry, I’m here to take notes!… I’m sure I’m not the only one… These people are such inspiration :).
“You have to play Chaotic Neutral because then you can do anything you want”. I’ve run into that one waaaaay too many times.
Watching this video makes me realize how genuinely horrible this community is, 90 percent of the videos that I see are talking about how atrocious and vile OTHERS are. ITS A SOCIAL GAME! I don’t think that I’m comfortable with telling others that I play an evil character anymore because they may give me a 30 minute rant. And, just to add on, DM have become so entitled. Almost all of them treat it like THEY control YOUR character, and they don’t! I get not being able to write OP backstory’s and stuff like that, the the severity in which most DMs will say no is absurd.
2:15 me and my friend (with DM approval) will be playing red dragonborn healer with "german" accent and dwarf warrior in the next campaign. Referencing Medic and Heavy from TF2 respectively ^_^
Added: 4:32 i had a literal situation when my character dragged another player's one (almost) by the ear like a grandpa drags the mischievous kid. The situation is even funnier when my guy is a dragonborn and another is a halfling
Why a dwarf? A goliath would work better. Unless you're doing only PHB races. A dwarf would be a better fit for a certain black, one-eyed sorcerer.
I mean, it's your character but I'd like to know the reasoning here.
@IRQ17 we play base 5e dnd with no additional races for now. So even if dwarf is not tall, we decided that the dwarves body build is like a small Heavy and rolled with that
I've had so many examples of "insert OP character here", but the one i remember the most was a Lucario with absolutely obscene Attack (like 400 atk), mandatory tragic backstory and like 6 or so personalities. He of course tried (and suceeded for a while) in moving the story however he wanted since we didn't really have *a* story back then. He moved the story in ways to flex his op doggo.
We did manage to remove his character from the story (taking advantage of the fact bro was never looking at the darn game), which he replied by attempting to make their next character (who at least did not start OP) speedrun levels. We then had to get rid of that one too and ban the guy from the server so he would not try again to take over the story that had been created.
Why do you keep saying story? Are you playing a game or writing a book?
@@mnmnrt We started playing a game, but it turned into writing a book.
@@mnmnrt We started playing a game, but it turned into writing a book.
Sorry for not having any other word.