if i was in the first situation i would say something like: ¨you can keep the loot of the goblins that you killed and we can keep the loot of the goblins that we killed¨, i think that would be a neat reply.
It's a good idea, but when I saw this I immediately thought if I were playing the rogue guy, maybe I'd reply to that with something like "But they all ran off scared!" Probably that would require deception or something, but if someone was committed...
A good thought. But I feel like that would have just provoked the antics further. Which yes dude needed to lighten up but it probably would have just devolved into more antagonizing
@@ShibuNub3305 well it depends on the person, location, whether or not you want the body dissolved vs buried vs abandoned vs dumped in the ocean plus a bit of blackmail in case the client gets cold feet…or so I’ve heard
Honestly, if I was that 'other player' I would have picked up on the vibe of the table and tried to suppress my wish to see the rogue help the party. Everyone else is having a good time. If I was that salty, I would have smiled and said "Nah, I think we should stick to looting the bodies we killed. These are ours, the goblins you fought off are all yours bro."
Yeah, that would've been a funny response *and* would have likely calmed the thief in character, as he can't argue against those terms without blowing his cover
i would have tried an insight check and maybe letting him loot the corpses with the rest and then question him about the corpses of the goblins so i could try again, but before this i would have been vocal instead of pouting
I do not think a player should feel like they have to swallow their wishes for the sake of everyone else at the table. I think it is reasonable to bring that up OOC, "hey I kinda expected something else and it's bugging me a bit." If you have a good table, they will compromise with you. if you don't, then ditch them and let them do what they want, but they aren't entitled to you as a player if they can't try to accommodate you.
@@MidoriMushrooms it's not always fair to expect others to change to accommodate you, reach a compromise instead of expecting them to do all the changing and loosen up a bit as well to meet in the middle. But communication is definitely needed.
"I shoot the thief with my bow" and "I'll give you 10 bucks if you turn that miss into a critical hit" had so much comedic timing. I'd lose my shit if I was in that game and just kind of let it ride, it's hilarious. The GM actually unironically taking the bribe is kinda scummy though.
With the first story, I probably would be a bit annoyed at the guy who disappears for the fight and then expects a share of the loot. But I'd like to think I would be quick-thinking enough to say, "Why don't you loot that goblin ambush you defeated, while we share the loot from these guys?" Going the PvP route and bribing the DM is just absurd. If he was angry about the thief not fighting, he should have said something - either in character ("we're not paying you to cut and run") or out of character ("I'm here for more of a serious game, so maybe try a Sneak Attack or two?").
Why be annoyed? He may not have contributed to the fight but he contributed to the session with some funny RP and unless your characters have reason to doubt his story (which I think there would be ample grounds to investigate in-character) then they would give him a share. The fact that the player didn't chuck some polyhedrons and read some numbers in the combat is, to me, such a dumb reason to be annoyed. It might be a different story if the other players expended significant resources in the fight which needed to be recouped but as I say, I think there's plenty of ways that can be resolved with in-character suspicions and everyone not being a douche.
Thief literally said 'you're sharing the loot cause I could kill you right now' no matter what you know OOC it seems appropriate to make the first strike in character. The paid crit was bad.
@@Lucky13Ravens no, the thief never said they were sharing or he'd kill them. He said ic that he fought an ambush from behind and therefore deserved some loot (which could have been handled by the ranger telling him to loot the ones he killed, or just even mentioning something ooc) but his first response was just to shoot. the attack missed and then the thief basically said "hey, stop attacking me or i'll defend myself". He never told the ranger he'd kill him before the ranger shot at him
Thief: *comes back with bloodless daggers and perfectly clean clothes without a scratch on him at all* Thief: as far as you know I was fighting ambushing goblins!
I'd have told him "You already got to loot the dozens of goblins you stopped from ambushing us! Leave these ones for us! :P" But I'd also have given him good loot from the end of the dungeon considering his good trap disarming work. XD
as someone who used to do free art for the people she played DnD with, a "oh. cool." would make me never do free art for that person again. Like that was hilarious, you would think The Guy would at least not expect that to happen, and seeing that OP really DID draw it, would at least be laughing about it too XD as dumb as it sounds that is a red flag if i've ever heard of one XD
Sadly some people just aren't good at thinking on the spot . Though it'd have been funny 'you know what dude, you took care of a whole ambush by yourself and uninjured too. Since you are so good, you can clear the next room while we conserve our strength'
I would've wanted to see what happened. If *I* were the DM, I would've taken the money and found some way to keep the character alive no matter what. Judging from what I read under other comments, I'm not the only one who would've done that. Of course, had the DM let the character die, that would've been an entirely different situation and I would've walked out as well.
I can understand the frustration of that first guy, although he handled it really poorly. Antics like that can be funny one or two times but if a character runs off everytime there is some sort of trouble and then does expect a reward it is going to be annoying. Personally I would've insisted that the thief gets to keep all the loot from the goblins he killed while the rest of the party shares the loot of the enemies they killed. Seems fair enough. Situations like that are difficult because there is a clear gap between character and player knowledge. While the characters didn't know what was happening (should've had to pass a deception check though), the players do and some might genuinely feel like it is unfair. That is going to be a sentiment that is going to provoke some kind of hostile reaction from the agrieved player in game.
Ehhh, to be fair the theif was there to disable traps. So he is contributing to the party. Just not through combat. If it was you only get loot for the work you put in, the thief would get everything from lock chest, safe, rooms and the like.
@@flameloude The thief would never get to those places if it wasn't for the rest of the party keeping him safe though. In the end, loot and especially XP are earned through combat and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that everyone does their part.
@@generaldreagonlps6889 I think it's important to note that there are DMs who give out XP without combat or simply don't use XP in favor of milestones because how XP is used doesn't make a lot of sense sometimes in DnD. Also, not giving someone XP after a fight like that in the first session or two is VERY detrimental to their ability to fight for a few sessions because they WILL fall behind in levels. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with you wanting to do that, but I also don't think it's fair to say that him not participating in combat means that he isn't holding up his end of the deal when he was payed to come with them and disable the traps.
@@generaldreagonlps6889 XP is not only earned through combat; XP can and should be given out for roleplay, meeting story milestones, as well as dealing with non-combat related obstacles like traps. The party specifically said they needed someone who could disable traps as they were having difficulty. When he mentioned, out of character, that his character would be a coward who'd avoid combat, the person playing the ranger (or fighter, since OP doesn't remember his specific class) should have raised his issue then or, instead, went out of character to say "I'd rather have a more serious experience going forward". Going into PvP with no warning whatsoever and, worse still, bribing the GM are absolutely unacceptable. That means that events in a game can be influenced by essentially microtransactions; got a nat 1? Pay me $20 and I'll make it a threat instead. This completely unbalances the game. D&D is at its core a Tabletop ROLEPLAYING game. Overcoming his cowardice could and SHOULD be a character story arc. The GM completely wasted that possibility by allowing the other player to pay him to kill the thief.
Tbh, I would be a little annoyed if it was a life or death situation and the rouge just left to not fight. But if it wasn't that situational, I would be laughing too. Also, there's so many ways to handle the situation as mentioned by commenters. My jaw dropped that the DM accepted $10 to screw over OP, like how down bad are you to accept 10 bucks to ruin someone else's fun or the DM was a early teen, still bad a DM
My guess is if things started spiraling toward that point, OP would have come running back in. However, OP DID tell them ahead of time that his character a coward and a non-combatant. Just sayin'...
I had a character like this once. I used him during a one shot in pathfinder. The funniest part about it though was I multiclassed into a bunch of different classes. I was level 1 in 7 different classes and min maxed my bluff and disguise so that I could lie to my party. The players loved it, which was a relief to me since I wasn’t sure how they would react. 😅😂
What a well-rounded and mature individual. I sure hope he doesn’t take a dice-rolling board game so seriously he pays real money to kill another player character.
Or, and hear me out, maybe since OP decided to turn the game into a joke, that guy felt like it was ok if he made a joke of his own. The lady was the only mature person at the table because she’s the only one who said to calm down and talk about it rather than throw a fit like a baby and rage quit. Paying $10 to have one single attack crit in impromptu pvp is just as hilarious as faking the ambush. It’s a game. Chill out. OP should have just said “haha ok it crits as long as you promise I don’t die from it.” But instead he was fine pissing people off with his own jokes, and then rage quit when someone else made a joke of their own.
@@Faint366 Giving someone 10 bucks isn't a joke and he was the only one upset while the other two were laughing. The fact that the DM would willingly get bribed SESSION 1 sets a very bad standard especially when you have a player who would rather spontaneously team kill rather than say a word about what is upsetting them.
@@starkiller1289 This wasn't session 1. 1:02 mentions the party had been running into a lot of traps so he ran a Thief. This was an already established group with a (seemingly) already established playstyle. If anyone was spontaneous it was the new player who decided to pretend to be ambushed instead of helping the party of 2 with the actual encounter. OP even tells Guy he would be hiding *behind* the party. Very different than pretending to be in a whole different encounter by yourself, keeping up the 'joke' and then demanding the part of the loot from the actual enemies you didn't help with.
@@starkiller1289 first of all, this isn’t session 1. You got that right? This was OP joining a long time campaign in the middle and immediately derailing it with his shenanigans. And who are you to say that getting bribed isn’t a joke? It was the funnies fucking part of the whole story. And how do you know that ranger was the only one who didn’t like OP’s antics? All you have to go on is the word of OP and no one else. If everyone was on OP’s side and ranger was so out of line then why would the DM have been so eager to kill off the joke character? You’re taking this one sided story written by a toxic asshole of a player and just believing every word he says without a second thought.
First story: would have done the same ad OP and just got up and left at the bribing to crit. Even in normal play that would have been bad but in PvP it is unacceptable. No matter what antics the OP was doing there was no reason for that to occur. The DM loses all integrity as a DM from that point and honestly I would have had a few choice words for him as a human being as well.
Exactly. That was just as hilarious as faking the ambush. OP can dish out jokes at other people’s expense but rage quits the minute a joke is turned back on him
@@flipthecat yes. That was the joke. God people like you are impossible to talk to because you try to define what humor can and can’t be to everyone else. At least two people thought it was funny: the DM and the ranger. Therefor it was humorous. What part of OP abandoning the party and then coming back to threaten them for the loot he didn’t earn was a joke? The ranger didn’t feel like that was funny. So it wasn’t a joke right?
@@Faint366 Pretty sure the Ranger didn't consider it a joke and was serious. I mean, the player was serious enough to pay the DM a bribe. Pretty sure the only person who thought it was funny was the DM. Which, in hindsight, may be the biggest problem here. This DM sounds like a really REALLY bad DM if he thinks everything is funny. I mean, this DM though what OP was doing was funny and that pissed off "The Guy." Then he though "The Guy" bribing him was funny and that pissed off OP. Seems to me this DM shouldn't be a DM.
I've played a cowardly character in a campaign before and I feel like it's really not hard to make it work like adults, if only the ranger had bothered to talk about how he felt. My cowardly character was a kobold artificer, and to fit with the tone of the game and group he would VERY reluctantly enter battle in the beginning and be the first to try and escape if things looked bad, but as he got to know the others he became more loyal and more inclined to stick it out in tough situations. And the group was made aware of this tendency early on and nobody had a problem with it. But yeah, this is the stuff for a session zero and actual communication as opposed to knee-jerk reactions.
"Well, I think we're going to split the treasure equally cause you look really banged up and I don't have a scratch on me." Are we just going to ignore the fact that it sounded like the guy who ran off when the fight began, came back not showing a physical sign of actually having been in combat, comes back to act like the big hero and quickly argues that he deserves loot, ALSO proceeded to threaten the other player? Like, the fighter didn't attack until after op seemed to suggest a threat. Pointing out that he's not hurt, and the other guy is, and that's why other guy should listen to him really sounds like a threat to me
Ah yes, microtransactions have finally made their way into dnd. We always knew it would happen, the only questions were "how" and "when". While we're at it how about another 10 bucks to let me make my character level 20. We'll call it a "timesaver", after all who actually wants to *play* the game anymore right?
3:08 - I'm with CritCrab. Mentioning the value of a good Session 0 is awesome: I don't hear enough of that when these horror stories come up. And yeah, agreed, That Guy's reaction to OP leaving the fight was valid. * OP was a bit of a douche bag, running off to leave them fight alone. * It was funny OOC, the characters shouldn't have had any patience for such obvious cowardice. * Yes, *obvious cowardice.* OP said he was supposedly fighting an ambush by himself but came back completely clean with no goblin blood? He even pointed out that he didn't have a scratch on him. *Recognizing the stench of the bullshit wouldn't even require a roll or the DC would be ridiculously low.* * So the fighter/ranger stiffing the guy on the loot for this one encounter, was a reasonable and not disproportionate response. They JUST hired him and he didn't contribute to the battle. * In that context, OP escalated the situation by threatening the fighter/ranger, talking about how he didn't look like he was strong enough to stop him from taking what he wanted. * But yeah, That Guy and DM were stupidly out of line. Paying to change a result of a combat roll? WTF?
As the DM, I would've asked for a Bluff vs Sense Motive roll off to determine if the other PCs ('that guy' esp.) To see if any of them bought it. And I wouldn't have let the problem player in the 2nd story play that character in the first place.
There are so many ways of dndfy joke concepts My party has a cleric to vtuber Watame... And it's very legit (peace domain cleric to a small deity, mechanic wise)
@@ebutuoytikcus4352 Ranger 'ok lets go loot the goblins YOU killed. Oh look no goblins, no blood, no signs of battle, no nothing. Yeah dude you lied. No loot for you' its the same outcome just 2 minutes later
We had a player that bribed the DM so much that it actually became thier damn subclass. Thankfully, they never bribed the DM for anything that would make them all powerful, they instead bribed the DM to allow really stupid or silly things to happen (like a book that can turn those who read it into the monster of whose page was read, or a sentient minor deck of many things that has to be persuaded not to draw itself when scared). The funny part is the DM was a hard-line rules-as-written DM, but free pizza would get him every time xD
We had a dungeon dive, low roleplay session where PCs and onlookers could pay for better rolls or attempts to kill players once. It was part of our local game store's 25 hour daylight savings game-a-thon, and all the proceeds went to charity. It was a lot of fun!
Eh as far as the first story I can't blame the villian of the story to much. You wouldn't even need a sense motive to know someone wasn't fighting of they had no blood on anything. Also the players quote did sound like a threat. So just shooting the their is acceptable. The issue really is the bribery. And the dm did take the money but he was in a jokey mood so its hard to know if that wasn't him just absolutely memeing or thinking that the OP didn't mind.
Honestly that first story is definitely getting the illustrious "they're both in the wrong" award from me. Or "all" I guess, since the DM was also being an ass.
Lady was in the clear. And since OP did say he would be a coward who avoids fights before even stepping to the table (1:16), he is covered. Even if he didn’t run down the hall to fake a fight, he did make it clear he would not fight. He was specifically hired for his ability to disable traps, the DM designed an encounter where he didn’t have to fight for them to win, and he was not rewarded loot for doing his job. If The Guy was intelligent, he could have said “You know what: you get the loot from the Goblins you beat, and we’ll get the loot from the ones we beat.” Assuming this roll was in their edition, any Guy with half a brain could still say “Insight check.”
@@LocalMaple You are right, Lady is fine. But I don't think OP is off the hook just because he said he'd be playing a coward. Not to mention we're inherently getting a biased perspective and don't know exactly how clear this was to everyone, but even if we assume he communicated this perfectly, there's a difference between saying "My character is a coward who will hide behind the more combat-oriented characters in a fight" and "My character will not fight, but will pretend he did and act like a glory hound about it." I don't think The Guy handled it well, (obviously) but I would definitely be irritated by that myself. Yeah, if you disable traps, you've got claim to a share of treasure that's lying around, but i'd say stuff looted off bodies of monsters killed in combat should probably only go to the people who actually helped out. YMMV though And it's easy to think of saying clever like that when we're hearing the story, but at the actual table, he might not have thought of something like that in the moment.
100% agreed. First story had three people at fault: OP, the guy, and the DM. Just terrible manners all around. OP didn't respect the social contract of the table: making a character that plays with the team. The guy had a knee-jerk reaction and handled the situation poorly instead of talking about it. The DM allowed all this to happen, as well as taking bribes and allowing the PvP. Horrendous table.
@@LocalMaple I feel he's in the clear for being a coward at least the one time, if it continued maybe not. However he went 'you're injured and i'm not so we are splitting this loot' that very much sounds like. 'I'm about to start pvp if I don't get a share' so I don't actually blame that guy for shooting first, he received a threat and decided to act before the threat could be actioned.
@@norandomnumbers But he DID make a character that played with the team. He, literally, made a character that the entire table requested. Also, from the beginning, before he joined up, he, outright, told the entire table what kind of character he was playing and how that character would act. Sure, the whole bravado thing might have been unexpected, but still fit within the spirit of the character he laid out to everyone before the session began. It's not his fault that nobody told him no. If anything, it's "The Guy" who broke the table's "Social Contract" by Metagaming his way into PvP and outright bribing the DM.
Soon as the DM accepted the $10 I would have left as well. Now the DM is letting outside bribes affect in-game actions. But this sounds like OP joined an existing group without a session 0. So his actions 100% came out of left field and isn't normal. Everyone except Lady failed imo.
Personally, I would have done one of two things: -Since the Guy didn't say anything when he took out his wallet and handed over $10, I would have taken it, put it in my pocket, and then said "Wow thanks... But were you really serious about giving me $10 for a critical hit, too?" Or -Take the tenner, put it in my pocket and say "Alright, you swing and miss the thief, but since we're turning that miss into a crit, the arrow ricochets into your knee. Roll double damage."
@@SapphireDragon357 yeah but both those options don't do anything for the frustration the Guy had. That just seems like passive aggressiveness. Let's say you ask if he was serious and he says yes, then what? Or let's say you take his 10 bucks. He's going to be mad that you just took his money for no reason. Even worse if you make it a joke that actually damages him.
I honestly don’t fault the other guy for what he did. OP showed up and turned the game into a joke so why wouldn’t he feel like he can make a joke of his own? The lady was the only mature person in that entire story cuz she told OP to calm down and talk rather than just throw a fit and rage quit. He should have just said “haha ok it crits as long as you promise my character won’t die from it.”
@@Cloudz2021 I do assume I'd be giving that $10 back in either scenario, but the Guy lost his right to seriousness and the option to talk it out, not when he pulled out his bow and fired it at thief, (the story was still salvageable at that point) but when he tried to bribe the DM to change the game AFTER getting a warning from the thief. At that point, he can piss off.
@@Faint366 Doing something funny completely in character is vastly different from "turning the game into a joke." The only thing that turned the game into anything other than what it was is the DM taking an out-of-game bribe to change the game. Maybe ragequitting was an overreaction to that, but not a totally unjustified one.
The op did say about how they were gonna be playing a coward, but session 0s are always a good idea, its hard to do when a new person is dropping in but thats where messages and such are good. Basically a session 0 on discord before the game.
@@Latreylantras its a bunch of goblins, doubt they have good loot, and in character they wouldn’t know he didn’t fight. And as op said, if they had of asked them to help they would have.
@@masonzeo801 they were goblins so their plus to attack would have been bad, plus even the other player missed them when they attacked. Its almost as if players can get though encounters without taking damage.
@@shadowjezzter with no blood on his weapons or armour no cries from goblins from down the hall no bodies or loot anywhere? There's so little reason to believe the Thief. All you have is his word and literally nothing to back it up with
One time a DM hired a former player to build and run NPCs for an encounter, to challenge us. Still laugh about the fact that he hired a merc to defeat us in D&D
Critcrab of all takes I have ever heard you give, and may I add I usually agree, but when a player threatens another player that player is in every right to roll initiative, in fact if I was DM I would have given OP a warning about threats to party members, especially when you killed your own goblins you could loot. That would 100% be my action both irl and in character with most of my characters I have ever played to react to a threat with force.
Personally, while I do not condone the reaction (pvp or bribery) of the other player, I honestly can commiserate with him getting upset with the antics. I’ve left groups over similar stuff. Probably would also have been angry, but again, not a good plan to just get angry and start pvp instead of communicating
Seriously. If I were one of the bystanders, I would have retaliated by assaulting the ranger. PvP is supposed to be consent-based in DnD (since classes aren't balanced to fight each other), so initiating it unilaterally would absolutely kill my investment in the game.
oh my god... as a dm, i'd immediately improvise that by the 3rd or 4th turn of this madness, he notices an actual ambush, and see how he reacts to that.
If I was DM, I wouldn’t do that immediately. I’d wait until the third time he pulled that antic. Also, I’d allow perception checks to determine if he actually fought.
@@LocalMaple "as you flail against the imaginary ambush you hear the screeching of many winged beasts it seems your banging caused enough vibrations to wake the bats sleeping not too far from your position" now he has to fight a swarm of bats and i would have him roll a wisdom save to see if he is stricken with fear. As for the bribe i would take it and put the arrow straight into a goblin that was actually ambushing the thief. if the guy wanted his money back i would tear that 10 up and tell him to not bribe the DM again
@@wishstruck you and this comment's op are really showing up story 1's op, absolutely incredible also sounds like so much fun, honestly it'd just spur me on to be a Complete Menace 😂
That first story was painful to listen to. I doubt OP's antics were as appreciated by the others as he said they were if DM was willing to kill their character for $10
OP mentiones that Ranger's face showed he was angry. So OP knew he was annoying the Ranger also can we acknowledge that he said he should get a share of the loot because Ranger was injured and OP wasn't? Cause that straight up sounds like a threat of pvp to me.
I was in a one-shot run by our local pastor, and we had a cowardly (and lazy) rogue. He spent the entire “get our ship through the fog” opening of the game hiding below decks, so we didn’t see the pirate ambush. Then snuck onto the pirate ship to loot it while the monk and Paladin were fighting off boarders (we yelled at him IC to help, didn’t work.) Jokes on him though. He got caught in the hold by a sahuagin pirate, ran onto the deck next to the illusionist priestess, and got attacked by both sides (we thought he was a traitor or an illusion). Then he got knocked out and a kraken attacked both ships. The Paladin of Conquest was all for leaving him when we escaped, but my monk reasoned that the cirates had tried to kill him so he wasn’t an enemy, just an idiot, and rescued him. Poor Pastor Greg had run this adventure many many times, and was just shaking his head at the shenanigans the whole time.
5:04 to be fair, from an in-character perspective, if I'm the fighter, this shifty thief just ran off and left me in danger, obviously didn't actually fight because as he said himself "not a scratch on him", and now just threatened me... shooting him is actually a reasonable response if you're not averse to killing, generally speaking. That being said, he wasn't actually acting from an in-character perspective, and everything after that was garbage, from fighter and DM. I wouldn't have wanted that kind of character rp (thief) in my game either, tbh, but he actually did the right thing (as a player) by noping out of that.
Look I'm gonna play Devils advocate but the ?"you look banged up while I'm full health comment could come off as a threat of pvp " and while communication is important and he should have said something sooner if everything happened fast he might of wanted to wait till the later to say something and the perceived pvp threat might of might of made him snap patients wise . Don't get me wrong rogue fight traps 1v1 wile the party is a safe distance away so that alone can justify their share of the loot but when a skill monkey rough is steeling from the party (wouldn't say he was in this instance) it can feel like great I didn't build my caracter for pvp because I was prepared for a team game .
I think I would have let the thief roll persuasion against the other player when he tried to lie about the ambush. I know it's generally not a good idea to do PvP social rolls, but in this case the player very clearly did meta gaming, so I think it's valid. And if I was the DM I would have taken that money and not done it, because that's how you punish bribery.
Yeah, Deception vs Insight isn't a terrible way to go about it. Alongside the arrow still missing if I was bribed, it might ricochet off the stonework and hit the ranger's foot. Bribing me, blatantly acting off meta knowledge, then inexplicable pvp? Not how we do things at my table.
I think ranger at the beginning should have said, "Really? An ambush? Great! More loot! What did you get off the ones you killed? Let's split it up!" Anyway, if thief wants to escape fighting, that's fine. But he used a ploy that implies some sort of loot. If it was all in fun, then he's the sort who'd have enjoyed being hoisted by his own petard. Anyway, what happened after--including hauling off and shooting the guy the first time--was way out of line.
No, the shooting was 100% deserved since the thief straight up threatened the rogue when he said “we split it 50/50 because you’re already banged up and I’m at full health.” That’s a threat of combat. And I honestly can’t fault ranger for doing the bribe. It was just as hilarious as faking the ambush. If OP can turn the game into a joke then why can’t the ranger? OP is a hypocrite, and neither of them are good players.
@@Faint366 Seems you've been busy posting this... Rogue is un-threatening. That Guy with his metagaming had his character know he was bluffing. And if he's too much of a coward to fight goblins, what threat would that pose? As it's been mentioned before, loads of RP chances to make it interesting, but That Guy is a bitter asshole who didnt like the RP, and instead of saying anything, immediately went into kill mode, and ruined the integrity of the campaign just to get his way in killing the rogue. "OP is a hypocrite" Yes, because a funny encounter around a cowardly thief during combat that ultimately gives more chances for RP is COMPLETELY equal to just immediately going for the kill, and being a salty ass when you dont kill them.
None of it matters. He bribed DM and DM took it. Anything else that happened in that game is superceded by that shameful display. GM and player should be banned for life. OP did right by leaving.
Just because someone i dunno killed someone doesn't mean the person who commited assault didn't do something wrong. Sure the bribe was very wrong. However OP continued a joke when he saw it was annoying one of the players and he threatened Ranger saying 'You'll give me a share of the loot because you are injured and i'm not' OP was still a bastard, just not as much of a bastard as the Ranger.
OP was an asshole who could have got his party killed because "ITS WHAT MY CHARACTER WOULD DO!!!!!!". The Ranger could very easily write his own RPGhorrorstory about this.
@@myname9130 except his character was oked and he was hired in game as trap disarmer not fighter or assaisain and it was clear the fight was balanced around it as non of the party member where downed or super low on hp
In that first one, I think they're both in the wrong. I get that the narrator was in character, but he said he saw the guy getting annoyed with it, and he kept egging him on. It's just not how you deal with someone getting frustrated, it just makes things worse, and it makes me think of the audacity of the narrator to go on and act all offended later. Bribing the dm was obviously wrong as well, but this was not a one-sided issue.
It seems everyone forgot this was a long running campaign that op joined and then immediately started to make trouble in. I love how we only have ops word that everyone loved their antics. It appears that everyone loved it so much that literally no one does anything to stop his character getting killed off even to the point of taking a bribe. Everyone sucks in the post: op for their everyone look at me antics derailing party cohesion on their first session and inability to take the blowback. That guy for literally everything said start to finish. The GM for not trying to stop the problem from the start and taking them money which even as a joke undermines the game. To me it sounds like the trash took its self out and they should probably have a stern chat to that guy or replace them as well.
Thief was hired to disarm traps. He wasn't making trouble. He just didn't have a job to do at the time and made up a funny excuse in a DM-proclaimed light-hearted game to not take on other responsibilities that weren't asked of him. If anything, this would've been a fine time for Ranger to renegotiate what was expected of the new recruit. I can only imagine going into town, hiring a torch-bearer, heading to the dungeon, fighting some monsters along the way while torch-bearer did nothing to help but hold a torch, returning to town before reaching the dungeon to lick wounds, proclaiming torch-bearer did nothing because it was broad daylight, refusing to pay him, and killing him when he insisted on collecting the fee he was due. Holding Thief to additional standards because he was a player-controlled character is as meta-gaming as Ranger claiming he knew there was no ambush and bribing the DM.
@@FlatOnHisFace You are right! Imaging holding a real human person to a higher standard of play that a random unnamed NPC hired to do a job. If you don't understand how this play could be disruptive I would strongly suggest you go watch some videos on how to improve your level of play. In a COLLABORATIVE story telling game of play-pretend literally the only thing that matters is, is everyone having fun? If something you are doing is at the direct expense of that you should 100% look at that behaviour and most likely cut it out. "It is/n't what my character would/wouldn't do!" I don't care you made them this way! Is you imagination so weak and your social skills so lacking you are unable to think of a rationale reason for a non disruptive action? It's not "meta-gaming" it's being a good person who understand that good play is about what you do both in and out of the game.
@@BloodPixi3 Indeed. Imagine having everyone around you laugh and then assuming they're having fun. The gall! And what kind of monster doesn't notice the one who isn't, even though they don't speak up? Truly, we must find this maniac immediately and see that he pays for his actions. Nothing short of crucifixion will do for these sorts of sins!
@@daviddaugherty2816 "And everyone clapped" right? They were having so much fun with OP that they did literally nothing to stop them leaving the game or stopping them from killing the character off. Even in OP's own one sided narrative those sound like the actions of people who really love having you there. It seems more like the actions of people stuck between two assholes having a fight like children.
5:00 yes he should have talked with him but im going to play devils advocate and say, to be fair thats a completely logic reaction (until that point) against someone that just made an implicit threat, strike first, but yeah before getting to that i woul have done things very different, instead of just pouting and then bribing the DM
Me and my friends have been playing a new homebrew campaign for a few weeks, and like you said a session zero would have really helped us out. Most of us wanted a more serious game but two of the players were more focused on combat and goofiness respectively. Thankfully it was talked out and the goofy/murder hobo player had his character killed last night to play a more serious Goliath while the combat guy has grown accustomed to the more serious role-playing we've been doing. All in all it worked out but a proper session zero would've let us avoid two sessions of nonsense and confusion.
So first story: I get it, if someone has a problem then they should speak up. It may cause the whole session to hit a little speed bump, but better to speak up before the issue becomes a real problem. That said, body language speaks too. I'll gladly admit that I chuckled at the combat described, but there's a point at which it's obvious this person isn't appreciating it and I can certainly understand his being upset that this person - who did no combat - was getting a cut of any gold or items the enemies might have had. The exchange after between disgruntled player and DM/GM definitely doesn't fly, but let's not pretend like there weren't enough signs to pull back and realize that perhaps your RP is derailing things for any other players. TL;DR: Issues abound on all sides and no one comes out squeaky clean in this first story.
I have a very similar tabaxi rogue named luck during my party's first boss fight hid in the bosses tent stealing all his gold. Through a bunch of story stuff later he became a pirate captain and instilled the motto of "Run away like a hero" on his crew
Side note. If a player wanted a gender-bent bodypillow of me, not only would I be 100% okay with it, I'd spend way too much on a comission and probably get the real thing made for myself
OP in the first story's an asswipe. He runs from combat, badly pretends he's fighting enemies they can't see, comes back with no injuries or blood on his person or weapons, and then threatens the party if they refuse to share the loot he did nothing to earn. The Guy and the DM aren't much better, but OP is definitely the worst of them.
We also have a cowardly rogue in a game I dm, and we got some amazing character development for the whole party. They rarely got involved in combat in the begining, but now they have faith in our fighter and paladin who is adjusted to be more defence based. It's been a really interesting development, some PCs disliked him, others tolerated him, but ultimately it's been worth it. And he contributes in non combat based ways, now he feels more brave to be in a few combats or he works as look out and the like.i feel really had for op in the first story, sounds like that table is gonna loose out on a lot of potential fun
You said some disliked him and others tolerated, but I don't see you saying anyone liked or likes him. There could be people just taking it because they don't want to find another group. Is everybody having fun or just the thief and DM? Oh, and are you sure?
This could of been a good "buddy" movie-esque adventure, the rogue could only do things like this so many times before the other party members caught on in-game, and this could lead to the ranger/fighter/whatever teaching the rogue to grow a damned backbone, and at some pivotal moment when all hope is lost the rogue turns to flee, but instead steels himself and actually saves the day for once. Soon as the DM took the 10 bucks to change the roll I too would of noped the fuck out as well.
In that first story, everybody pretty much sucks. The guy attacked OP but it was also in response to what I inferred as a threat from OP's character. As a DM I'd probably hold the OP equally responsible.
But then bribing to practically cheat in a player v player section to the death is worse, like every active players in this story is bad with a lick of hindsight. It's like getting pranked with a water bucket and retaliating by shooting him with a glock.
Honestly, I believe the only people in the wrong here are the ranger and the DM. OP didn't know how badly the ranger was upset by their antics. Ranger never communicated on how he didn't like it, just outright attacks the thief out of the blue (RPing his character first on immediately available meta knowledge), then tries to cheat when it didn't work. The DM is at fault for not trying to defuse the situation and for accepting the bribe in the first place. The Lady did nothing, good or bad. OP was simply playing his character, a stated coward. I will agree his character had no claim to the loot of the actually killed goblins, but that's still no reason for the ranger's actions.
I'm going to have to go against the grain here and say the OP ain't innocent in this either. That implicit threat of violence did not go unnoticed. He threatened violence and the Ranger answered in kind. There's no other way to interpret that. The thief put his nuts on the table but the Ranger had a 10 dollar hammer. No one is right in this situation. Not the DM, not the Ranger and not the Thief. It's all just differing degrees of wrong.
Problem is, that was an IC threat. It could have been responded with in multiple ways, but That Guy picked the most over-the-top butthurt route possible. Yeah while it would be allowed, it's akin to someone telling you "Fuck You" on your commute to work, and you just pulling a gun and shoot at them with the intent to kill/harm. Extremely over-the-top hair trigger. Especially considering in this scenario, said threat is un-threatening. That Guy's Metagaming with knowledge he didnt do jack shit, and promptly should have known said threat is bullshit. If he's such a coward he cant fight goblins with the party, why would he be a threat to them. At worst that'd encourage suspicion and keeping an eye out while they're asleep. Of course, while it could've been RP'd into a far better path, That Guy was a prick. He escalated it drastically, then when he expectedly missed, bribed the DM to "win." He's in the wrong for sure for being that bitter asshole who doesnt like RP and gets personal when anyone DARES to do it. DM's wrong for taking it, and more or less ruining the game at that instant.
While the DM and mr. Guy did not handle the whole thing particularly well, the thief did everything to antagonize the group. Such antics is only acceptable if you know eachother. The whole "I'm playing a cowardly thief and that's what my character would do", I complete BS.
"antagonise the group" he tried to make them laugh and one person was taking it seriously and while probably imagining he was the adult in the room for not laughing at the silliness was so butthurt he paid to stop the other player having fun.
@@dillonblair6491 the person offering the 10$ was not being silly, the DM may have taken the money as all good humour, but the guy was not happy at all.
I want to hear the story from the point of view of the annoyed Ranger. I can absolutely see if he had posted his version first, and said they agreed on a semi-serious approach without clowning around, and that everyone at the table was laughing uncomfortably (per his perception) and not really knowing what to do, but when he tried to make a dumb joke on that guy's expense by offering real money for an in-game kill (to which the others all reacted with chuckling, seeing the joke), which resulted in the jokster being pissed off and walking out now that he was the punchline, people would have sided with him. Still, a different solution would have been more mature, but the bad guy would clearly have been the one who turned the game into a joke but couldn't handle one at his expense, and after all, none of the others, DM included, seriously tried to convince him to come back for another session, so that says it all. I don't say this is what actually happened but this sounds like one of those stories where the bad guy is actually a misunderstanding coming from not being used to each other's sense of humour/how it shows on their faces. And that the story from the perspectives of the others might a) feature the OP as the bad/antagonistic guy or even the DM and b) from that angle, they kinda got a point, too.
I don't know. The Op made clear at the beginning to the other players that he was making a noncombative character and even if the guy didn't appreciate his antics he did metagame to start that pvp out of nowhere. Not to mention that he did actually give the gm the money. It wasn't a joke. I can get you saying that the OP is not blameless and perhaps the other player had a more serious game in mind, but even from the guy's perspective he still really overreacted and OP was right to leave the table.
@@joelsasmad he didn’t start pvp out of nowhere. OP threatened to fight him for the loot. And the $10 thing absolutely sounded like a joke. It doesn’t matter if he went through with it, it’s still a joke because it’s still funny as hell
@@Faint366 A coward who ran from a fight is threatening a proven warrior? And when PvP started at a miss, continuing to threaten rather than make good with the promise? I don’t know about you, but clearly this was a bluff. If The Guy really knew how to play D&D, rather than pay D$D, he would have rolled perception for either a lie or for bloodless daggers. Then you could intimidate back, and knowing he is a coward win the loot. If The Guy didn’t know how to play, but still had half a brain, he could have said “you loot your goblins, and I’ll loot mine.” As described in the story, OP was hired as a trap dismantler and nothing else. He should have been given loot due to doing his job, and appearing to go above and beyond.
Just came across this and the people paying to exclude others immediately hit a chord with me, as in highschool the semi-rich bully of my school paid some of my friends specifically to not hang out with me.
Honestly, OP initiated that PVP. He doesn't help in the fight and then makes a veiled threat in-character. Shooting him in-character was justified. Real-life bribery is not justified, however.
agreed he missed which open up for ops character to try and talk there way out of it and cleared up wether it was threat or just boasting that accidently came off as a threat
I think my favorite part about the second story is that it feels like the DM and OP were main characters in an eldrich horror/darkest dungeon kinda thing where it's like "well at least you didn't do the thing, didn't encourage it to get worse, that would have been crazy. Wait y-you DID do the thing? Well, ok, but at least you didn't take it a step farther, that would have been mad... you WHAT!?"
As a DM I find the idea of taking money to qualify a miss as a critical hit, a very dangerous door to open, so I would've just shut this down as soon as it was proposed. PvP or not. DnD is not a Pay to Win game and never should be. Like seriously - do we want to devolve into having purchasable loot boxes in DnD?
One of the biggest issues in the first story is that thief says they lied and there was “no way” the other characters could know he lied. However, he never mentions anything about actually rolling deception checks and the party failing insight checks. Almost certainly because those rolls never happened. OP essentially said “my characters tells a bad lie and both of your characters totally fall for it” Sure you can say he was “just RP’ing his character” but he wasn’t JUST doing that actually, he was making RP decisions for the other characters by simply saying it would be impossible for them to detect any of his lies with nothing mechanical to back it up
Immaturity of the players aside, the biggest asshole at the table is the DM for agreeing to the bribe. OP *might* have been able to stay and make it work somehow, it was the accepting of money that drove him away - and rightly so. Trying not to favor any player for any reason is one of my personal highest priorities, and this guy blatantly tossing that aside makes me want to choke a lich.
honestly, the guy paying the DM $10 to make it a crit is hilarious. I would have absolutely side bared with the DM in post for a side hustle. If he's willing to pay $10 to pk, I'd see how far I can push the envelope.
I agree: According to the post, OP said straight out of the gate that his character would not fight (Well, I assume he would have helped if the situation needed it, looking at how he worded "as the humans could handle the goblins, I [fled and pretended fighting at a safe distance]"). Also, The Guy could have found a smart way to tell OP off the loot while being Meta on knowing he didn't actually fight. Like, saying "Let's share it like that: Each group gets his goblins' loot. I'm sure your ambush had nice things!". Of course, as is for most of these stories, we only have one side of the story. But looking a the post, if OP did anything wrong, it was to push his pretend-ambush a bit too much in a combat situation. And that's a big IF, it didn't look like the situation called for snappy and strategic combat rounds.
Respectfully I couldn’t disagree more. OP at 4:40 says that to man, which insinuates that if they don’t split the loot, then OP will fight and beat man for it because OP abandoned them in combat. Like here’s the thing, with character who have negative traits that affect the party, it was the choice of the player to institute that trait, so him abandoning them is the stereotypical “that’s what my character would do”. I don’t think OP had bad intentions at all, I just think he was inconsiderate to his other players and it caused tension.
@@NWolfsson I think because OP said what he did at 4:40 is why the man chose to fight. If I were a player and heard that, it sounds like “You’re going to give me equal loot because I didn’t do anything and have full health so if you don’t I’ll just beat you and take it”, which is super aggressive and rude.
@@meat2023 op sounds like the “bitch” to me. To busy cracking jokes to read the room and see how upset he’s making the Ranger and then bails once Ranger does something op doesn’t like
I can get why someone would get annoyed with OP, it’s not generally expected for a character to not contribute directly in combat however 1 the character was approved by the dm, including the part about him being a coward and he was contributing to the group in different ways, clearing out traps and such 2 That guy metagamed to justify attacking a the rogue since there was no way he could have known the rogue was lying without a sense motive and even then there is not reason to commit attempted player murder 3 the DM’s actions were downright despicable in this; he gave no indication to the OP of any wrong doing and even seemed to be encouraging it and then took a bribe to satisfy another player’s bloodlust when he should have had a conversation between the rogue and that guy about the incident and hashed it out any problems Overall I agree that a session zero could have sorted out most of the issues present and potential ones
In the first story, I would personally have taken the money, made him roll damage and then insisted he did a critical hit against the wall next to the rogue. Congratulations!
A part of me empathizes with the guy in the first story. If I get the vibe that everyone in an event is enjoying something I'm not, I get frustrated and depressed, and often am afraid to say anything because I'm afraid of people turning on me and telling me I'm the problem. I've had to overcome that crippling fear a lot to play TTRPGs so I dunno, none of us were at the table and none of us really know what signals the other player was giving off, or if the OP is one of those people too dense to actually take a hint. God have I played with people like the latter way too much...
Well if OP was accurate and/or truthful of his retelling, "The Guy" must not have been giving off barely any signals since, literally, nobody else picked up on him getting pissed off. And OP DID say that had "The Guy," or anyone else for that matter, told him to stop it, he would have. Honestly? I don't think a guy who is willing to commit Metagame Murder and commit REAL Bribing is someone who is afraid to speak his mind.
@@ForeverDegenerate Possibly. But OP said this guy also didn't know who he was, and unless OP outwardly stated that he would stop his antics if it bothered anyone during the introduction where he discussed what he wanted to play (which is a possibility but it doesn't seem mentioned) then he couldn't have known that about OP either. This story doesn't give me the same "I feel like we're missing a side" vibes that a lot of other stories do though, but I'd be curious to know how old everyone at the table is. Jumping to IC reactions to OOC things was something we did a lot as teenagers RPing on forums, and I get the vibe this might be a younger group.
@@MidoriMushrooms No OP never stold THEM he would stop. However, it falls to "The Guy" to ask him to stop. Which he failed to do. That's always step one: Ask. You never know unless you ask. And yeah, you're probably right in this group being a younger group.
@@Spectrum0122 I forgot what this was even in reply to since it's a 2 year old comment but I'm gonna take a shot in the dark and say "you don't comprehend nuance." tbh after re-reading the comment chain it probably referred to some autistic person struggling and too many people don't give autistic people the BotD, least of all other autistic people who assume just because THEY learned subtle social cues, everyone else should be able to just as easily.
Nothing went wrong until the guy offered the DM a bribe to change the dice roll. PvP is iffy with a new group, but the players were all seemingly acting in character. When the rogue, obviously lying, tried to horn in on the loot and then threatened the ranger, I’d imagine some rangers would shoot the rogue for being a giant tool.
@@coolsceegaming6178 I wasn’t random; the rogue ran away, leaving the other to party members in danger to fight with 33% less effectiveness. Then he comes back without a scratch on him or a spot of blood in his weapons claiming to have single handedly dealt with the goblin ambush. Now the the rogue wants some of the loot without having shared any of the risk, and to add insult to injury, threatens the Ranger. That’s the context. The ranger’s actions make perfect sense in character. The problem is the mismatch of tone and expectations between the rogue player and everyone else.
@@coolsceegaming6178 According to the story, before the Guy shoots the thief, the thief says "I think we're going to split the treasure equally, because you're banged up and I don't have a scratch on me." It's a veiled threat because it implies that the thief is more capable of fighting and in a better resource position to enforce the equal splitting of loot he did nothing to earn.
@@mrmaat Thats looking very deep into it, which would likely require a deception roll. No one did one. Would that not count as meta gaming to assume it’s a lie?
Not believing the most insanely obvious lie is not metagaming, it's common sense. Rogue fought off an ambush on his own, with no blood on his daggers, without a scratch on him, and it sounded like daggers hitting rocks? Disbelieving that is not metagaming, it's the ranger having a wisdom and int score above 3.
@@DarthSironos ok and he didnt role perception or anything to check if the the daggers where not bloddy as its likely theif put them in a sheath on his return trip and wihtout a scratch the theif was really goof at doging accounting for the no scatches and as for the rock clasing sound it could just be clashing agiest armor if they heard at all over there own fight which is where most of there focus would be on and they didnt have dark vision so they couldnt see the op theif even id somehow they descoviered the ops lie in character shooting him immdently isnt a good idea
I see this as a fun RP moment wasted. Like a nice "insight check", then the ranger shoots his bow but not to the guy just really really close to him and say "oh that was close, seems like you missed one". A sarcastic RP way to say fuck off
I'll play devil's advocate and try to argue on the side of the paying guy. While personally I would have said, "You can get all the loot from those other goblins you were effortlessly holding off", but with how the story played out, 10 bucks is practically nothing, he paid for everyone's snacks next game, basically, and paying-guy could have also played it off as fun; "What's a little death between friends? You make a couple jokes I don't find funny, I make a couple jokes that you don't find funny. Win-win. Now kindly die and roll up a new character." Now if this started a trend where anyone could pay the DM to change an outcome, we might have a problem on our hands, but as a one-time gag, it's fine. And it's guaranteed that the cowardly-rogue wouldn't be able to pull off that "I'm holding off an ambush" gag more than once.
Well remember this too: that guy didn’t pay $10 to kill OP. He only paid for a crit. OP just assumed that a crit would insta kill him without even waiting for a damage roll. I have a hard time imagining a single crit could do double negative damage to a rogue at full health to begin with.
@@Faint366 Wouldn't have to be double negative HP if he just leaves him there to possibly bleed out to death saves. Are you going to revive/heal the guy you have started PvP with and just paid the DM to cheat a critical for you?
@@SilencedBTM yes? Yes I would? Do you know for a fact that the other guy would have let him bleed out? No. It’s just yet another assumption you’re making
@@Faint366 Yes you would? What do you mean? That you would save the guy you had enough beef with that you paid real life money to get a critical hit on? And if so, why did you state it as a question?
@@SilencedBTM yes. Yes I would heal the guy I paid $10 to crit on because it’s just a fuckin game. I stated it as a question because I’m confused at how someone can be so self absorbed that they don’t understand that other people find humor in different things. Kind of like both the people in the story. OP didn’t give a shit if his joke upset the ranger, the ranger didn’t give a shit if his joke upset OP. Besides, ranger isn’t the only party member. So unless ranger dealt enough damage with one arrow to put OP into full negative HP (which he can’t even on a crit) then OP wouldn’t die. Saying ranger paid $10 to kill OP is a lie. He paid $10 to turn a miss into a crit. Ranger was upset at what OP was doing. Ranger got more upset when OP was going to get away with what he was doing without consequence. So ranger paid $10 to ensure OP had a consequence for being a dick. Whether or not ranger would have pushed for character death or not is something you don’t know. That’s my point. You’re trying to say that no one would heal the person they fought with. That’s just blatantly not true. Plenty of people become really good friends with people they initially fight with because the fight let’s them work out their frustrations and then move on with a better understanding. Is ranger one of those people? I don’t know, and neither do you. You’re making assumptions to try to confirm what you already chose to believe, rather than looking at what actually happened.
Last story - not really a player problem. A GM problem. He should have said "that character does not work. Try something else or maybe this game is not for you."
Something similar happened to me once. Guy's character wanted to pocket some platinum bars he found instead of sharing the loot with the party (he didn't try to hide it or anything but he opened the chest that they were held in). My character wasn't going to let that happen so we started arguing. When we got back to the city my character actually set up a day in court to appeal to a judge and have the matter solved officially. The city was attacked by a foreign nation before my case had a chance to be heard.
Idk, not justifying his or the DM's actions but OP 1 is kinda giving off "It's what my character would do" vibes. I don't nessesarily think he would've stopped if asked, especially after Lady and DM were so into it. I get that maybe Guy should've said that he didn't like the bullshit, and going into PVP and paying the DM are obviously over the line, but like, If you're in a situation where you're at a table with people and everyone is enjoying this shit and you're the odd one out... Are you really gonna be the party pooper in that situation? Probably not, right? If OP noticed that Guy wasn't laughing along he probably could've put 2 and 2 together and see that he didn't like the shit he was pulling. I know I'd be pretty annoyed if someone pulled this shit at a table I was at. These kinds of shenanigans are only cool if everyone is having fun, if not then you should stop. OP may not be AS BAD as the Guy or DM but he definitely isn't the victim he's painting himself to be and holds some responsibility for the situation imo.
Indeed, his statement that he would have stopped is with 20 years of hindsight and with the intent to make himself sound better when reddit called him out.
That kind of situation is why my group doesn't allow PVP without consent of both parties. Forces us to talk through character issues that the players are taking too personally or seriously, because we can't just shortcut into inter-party violence. But that bribe the DM took? F^&* that DM, dude, wow. Regarding the second story, my brother did that to me when I was DM'ing a game. Admittedly, the first campaign I ran with him in it was the Rick & Morty game, so... That one was pure nonsense from the word GO. That said, I was pretty clear that the new campaign was going to be a serious one, and his answer to that was to show up as TITANIUS ANGLESMITH, FANCY MAN OF CORNWOOD. (For those not in the know, it was a Futurama reference. He was straight up playing Bender from "Bender's Game.")
ONLY 9 DAYS LEFT ON CRITCRAB PLUSH www.makeship.com/products/crit-crab-plush
You became a marketable pluss again. Congratulations Capitalism has won again!
HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
What a title!
LETS GO!!!!
*cry's* Stop! You already have my money
I’m to poor for crab.
Hey crit, do you have a link to the first post? Sometimes I'd love to read them but I never see any links.
if i was in the first situation i would say something like: ¨you can keep the loot of the goblins that you killed and we can keep the loot of the goblins that we killed¨, i think that would be a neat reply.
That’s what I thought too
Exactly what I would have done
Exactly my thought!
It's a good idea, but when I saw this I immediately thought if I were playing the rogue guy, maybe I'd reply to that with something like "But they all ran off scared!"
Probably that would require deception or something, but if someone was committed...
A good thought. But I feel like that would have just provoked the antics further. Which yes dude needed to lighten up but it probably would have just devolved into more antagonizing
“Has someone ever offered to PAY you to kill someone else?”
“Yes”
“How about in Dungeons & Dragons?”
“…”
…Hypothetically speaking, how much do you charge?
@@ShibuNub3305 well it depends on the person, location, whether or not you want the body dissolved vs buried vs abandoned vs dumped in the ocean plus a bit of blackmail in case the client gets cold feet…or so I’ve heard
i’d gladly accept it
Hold the f**k up
@@DwarfDaddy hypothetically, how much would you think it costs to dissolve a body in sulphuric acid?
Honestly, if I was that 'other player' I would have picked up on the vibe of the table and tried to suppress my wish to see the rogue help the party. Everyone else is having a good time. If I was that salty, I would have smiled and said "Nah, I think we should stick to looting the bodies we killed. These are ours, the goblins you fought off are all yours bro."
"It wouldn't be fair for us to take your loot since you killed all the ambushers" would've been gold
Yeah, that would've been a funny response *and* would have likely calmed the thief in character, as he can't argue against those terms without blowing his cover
i would have tried an insight check and maybe letting him loot the corpses with the rest and then question him about the corpses of the goblins so i could try again, but before this i would have been vocal instead of pouting
I do not think a player should feel like they have to swallow their wishes for the sake of everyone else at the table. I think it is reasonable to bring that up OOC, "hey I kinda expected something else and it's bugging me a bit." If you have a good table, they will compromise with you.
if you don't, then ditch them and let them do what they want, but they aren't entitled to you as a player if they can't try to accommodate you.
@@MidoriMushrooms it's not always fair to expect others to change to accommodate you, reach a compromise instead of expecting them to do all the changing and loosen up a bit as well to meet in the middle. But communication is definitely needed.
"I shoot the thief with my bow" and "I'll give you 10 bucks if you turn that miss into a critical hit" had so much comedic timing. I'd lose my shit if I was in that game and just kind of let it ride, it's hilarious.
The GM actually unironically taking the bribe is kinda scummy though.
If everyone at the table already paid this makes it extra scummy. You are providing an experience for pay.
Seriously, that is hilarious. I think OP just couldn’t take what he dished out. If lying about combat is fair play then so is sudden pvp and bribery
If 10 bucks was enough I don't think anyone liked his character
Bro said it was a light hearted game
Only thing scummy is a thief got outbribed
With the first story, I probably would be a bit annoyed at the guy who disappears for the fight and then expects a share of the loot. But I'd like to think I would be quick-thinking enough to say, "Why don't you loot that goblin ambush you defeated, while we share the loot from these guys?" Going the PvP route and bribing the DM is just absurd.
If he was angry about the thief not fighting, he should have said something - either in character ("we're not paying you to cut and run") or out of character ("I'm here for more of a serious game, so maybe try a Sneak Attack or two?").
Yeah, i agree. might have been a bit annoyed too but going the pvp route and then bribing the dm is just... wow...
But talking to someone who annoyed me is harrrrrrd! It’s not like communication is an essential still in virtually every multiplayer game ever!
Why be annoyed? He may not have contributed to the fight but he contributed to the session with some funny RP and unless your characters have reason to doubt his story (which I think there would be ample grounds to investigate in-character) then they would give him a share. The fact that the player didn't chuck some polyhedrons and read some numbers in the combat is, to me, such a dumb reason to be annoyed. It might be a different story if the other players expended significant resources in the fight which needed to be recouped but as I say, I think there's plenty of ways that can be resolved with in-character suspicions and everyone not being a douche.
Thief literally said 'you're sharing the loot cause I could kill you right now' no matter what you know OOC it seems appropriate to make the first strike in character.
The paid crit was bad.
@@Lucky13Ravens no, the thief never said they were sharing or he'd kill them. He said ic that he fought an ambush from behind and therefore deserved some loot (which could have been handled by the ranger telling him to loot the ones he killed, or just even mentioning something ooc) but his first response was just to shoot. the attack missed and then the thief basically said "hey, stop attacking me or i'll defend myself". He never told the ranger he'd kill him before the ranger shot at him
Thief: *comes back with bloodless daggers and perfectly clean clothes without a scratch on him at all*
Thief: as far as you know I was fighting ambushing goblins!
Too bad Guy didn’t point that out in game and instead chose violence
@@Ridiculous77 he also didn't perception check it or anything.
Yeah, coming back without a scratch and no blood on any weapon, or environment probably wouldn't have held up in court.
I'd have told him "You already got to loot the dozens of goblins you stopped from ambushing us! Leave these ones for us! :P"
But I'd also have given him good loot from the end of the dungeon considering his good trap disarming work. XD
If Abandoning the group for a laugh is funny that’s your choice.
But if then if I shoot you in retaliation then that’s funny too right?
Pluck you.
as someone who used to do free art for the people she played DnD with, a "oh. cool." would make me never do free art for that person again. Like that was hilarious, you would think The Guy would at least not expect that to happen, and seeing that OP really DID draw it, would at least be laughing about it too XD
as dumb as it sounds that is a red flag if i've ever heard of one XD
I am the 70th like, I have failed you.
That was nice of you to draw free art for people. I can't draw very well myself, so I mostly stick to MS paint.
@@bonefetcherbrimley7740 muahaha jokes on you i use ms paint for my digital art!
YOU HAVE OUTTED YOURSELF AS TALENTED!
Repping for the 509 nerds. I wish I was good at art
I know, art commissions aren’t cheap. This got was so rude.
If I was That Guy in the first story, I would have told the rogue:
"You can have the bodies you left behind. We'll take these."
Sadly some people just aren't good at thinking on the spot
.
Though it'd have been funny 'you know what dude, you took care of a whole ambush by yourself and uninjured too. Since you are so good, you can clear the next room while we conserve our strength'
Holy crap. The DM actually taking the bribe was legit shocking and, to me, disgusting. I would have immediately dipped as well.
I would've wanted to see what happened. If *I* were the DM, I would've taken the money and found some way to keep the character alive no matter what. Judging from what I read under other comments, I'm not the only one who would've done that.
Of course, had the DM let the character die, that would've been an entirely different situation and I would've walked out as well.
I can understand the frustration of that first guy, although he handled it really poorly. Antics like that can be funny one or two times but if a character runs off everytime there is some sort of trouble and then does expect a reward it is going to be annoying. Personally I would've insisted that the thief gets to keep all the loot from the goblins he killed while the rest of the party shares the loot of the enemies they killed. Seems fair enough. Situations like that are difficult because there is a clear gap between character and player knowledge. While the characters didn't know what was happening (should've had to pass a deception check though), the players do and some might genuinely feel like it is unfair. That is going to be a sentiment that is going to provoke some kind of hostile reaction from the agrieved player in game.
Ehhh, to be fair the theif was there to disable traps. So he is contributing to the party. Just not through combat. If it was you only get loot for the work you put in, the thief would get everything from lock chest, safe, rooms and the like.
@@flameloude The thief would never get to those places if it wasn't for the rest of the party keeping him safe though. In the end, loot and especially XP are earned through combat and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that everyone does their part.
@@generaldreagonlps6889 I think it's important to note that there are DMs who give out XP without combat or simply don't use XP in favor of milestones because how XP is used doesn't make a lot of sense sometimes in DnD. Also, not giving someone XP after a fight like that in the first session or two is VERY detrimental to their ability to fight for a few sessions because they WILL fall behind in levels. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with you wanting to do that, but I also don't think it's fair to say that him not participating in combat means that he isn't holding up his end of the deal when he was payed to come with them and disable the traps.
@@generaldreagonlps6889 XP is not only earned through combat; XP can and should be given out for roleplay, meeting story milestones, as well as dealing with non-combat related obstacles like traps. The party specifically said they needed someone who could disable traps as they were having difficulty. When he mentioned, out of character, that his character would be a coward who'd avoid combat, the person playing the ranger (or fighter, since OP doesn't remember his specific class) should have raised his issue then or, instead, went out of character to say "I'd rather have a more serious experience going forward". Going into PvP with no warning whatsoever and, worse still, bribing the GM are absolutely unacceptable. That means that events in a game can be influenced by essentially microtransactions; got a nat 1? Pay me $20 and I'll make it a threat instead.
This completely unbalances the game. D&D is at its core a Tabletop ROLEPLAYING game. Overcoming his cowardice could and SHOULD be a character story arc. The GM completely wasted that possibility by allowing the other player to pay him to kill the thief.
Two words from 2 people:
“Insight check.”
“Roll deception.”
Tbh, I would be a little annoyed if it was a life or death situation and the rouge just left to not fight. But if it wasn't that situational, I would be laughing too. Also, there's so many ways to handle the situation as mentioned by commenters. My jaw dropped that the DM accepted $10 to screw over OP, like how down bad are you to accept 10 bucks to ruin someone else's fun or the DM was a early teen, still bad a DM
My guess is if things started spiraling toward that point, OP would have come running back in. However, OP DID tell them ahead of time that his character a coward and a non-combatant. Just sayin'...
I had a character like this once. I used him during a one shot in pathfinder. The funniest part about it though was I multiclassed into a bunch of different classes. I was level 1 in 7 different classes and min maxed my bluff and disguise so that I could lie to my party. The players loved it, which was a relief to me since I wasn’t sure how they would react. 😅😂
What a well-rounded and mature individual. I sure hope he doesn’t take a dice-rolling board game so seriously he pays real money to kill another player character.
... Lemme guess: a m'lady at the table?
Or, and hear me out, maybe since OP decided to turn the game into a joke, that guy felt like it was ok if he made a joke of his own. The lady was the only mature person at the table because she’s the only one who said to calm down and talk about it rather than throw a fit like a baby and rage quit. Paying $10 to have one single attack crit in impromptu pvp is just as hilarious as faking the ambush. It’s a game. Chill out. OP should have just said “haha ok it crits as long as you promise I don’t die from it.” But instead he was fine pissing people off with his own jokes, and then rage quit when someone else made a joke of their own.
@@Faint366 Giving someone 10 bucks isn't a joke and he was the only one upset while the other two were laughing. The fact that the DM would willingly get bribed SESSION 1 sets a very bad standard especially when you have a player who would rather spontaneously team kill rather than say a word about what is upsetting them.
@@starkiller1289 This wasn't session 1. 1:02 mentions the party had been running into a lot of traps so he ran a Thief. This was an already established group with a (seemingly) already established playstyle. If anyone was spontaneous it was the new player who decided to pretend to be ambushed instead of helping the party of 2 with the actual encounter.
OP even tells Guy he would be hiding *behind* the party. Very different than pretending to be in a whole different encounter by yourself, keeping up the 'joke' and then demanding the part of the loot from the actual enemies you didn't help with.
@@starkiller1289 first of all, this isn’t session 1. You got that right? This was OP joining a long time campaign in the middle and immediately derailing it with his shenanigans. And who are you to say that getting bribed isn’t a joke? It was the funnies fucking part of the whole story. And how do you know that ranger was the only one who didn’t like OP’s antics? All you have to go on is the word of OP and no one else. If everyone was on OP’s side and ranger was so out of line then why would the DM have been so eager to kill off the joke character? You’re taking this one sided story written by a toxic asshole of a player and just believing every word he says without a second thought.
I am now crab
yes 🦀
GET IN MY BELLY!!!
CARCANIZATION
Welcome to the fold
@@Gazing-09 Your comment indicates treason against the good citizens of the Crab Kingdom. Your sentence is *_Death._* (by crab)
First story: would have done the same ad OP and just got up and left at the bribing to crit. Even in normal play that would have been bad but in PvP it is unacceptable. No matter what antics the OP was doing there was no reason for that to occur. The DM loses all integrity as a DM from that point and honestly I would have had a few choice words for him as a human being as well.
“I’ll give you $10 if you make it a critical hit instead of a miss.”
I’m screaming
Oh, sure, cool.
**puts $10 in my pocket**
The arrow that still misses the thief ricochets into your face. Critical hit, roll double damage.
Exactly. That was just as hilarious as faking the ambush. OP can dish out jokes at other people’s expense but rage quits the minute a joke is turned back on him
@@Faint366What part was the joke, the bribery or the dm taking it?
@@flipthecat yes. That was the joke. God people like you are impossible to talk to because you try to define what humor can and can’t be to everyone else. At least two people thought it was funny: the DM and the ranger. Therefor it was humorous. What part of OP abandoning the party and then coming back to threaten them for the loot he didn’t earn was a joke? The ranger didn’t feel like that was funny. So it wasn’t a joke right?
@@Faint366 Pretty sure the Ranger didn't consider it a joke and was serious. I mean, the player was serious enough to pay the DM a bribe. Pretty sure the only person who thought it was funny was the DM. Which, in hindsight, may be the biggest problem here. This DM sounds like a really REALLY bad DM if he thinks everything is funny. I mean, this DM though what OP was doing was funny and that pissed off "The Guy." Then he though "The Guy" bribing him was funny and that pissed off OP. Seems to me this DM shouldn't be a DM.
I've played a cowardly character in a campaign before and I feel like it's really not hard to make it work like adults, if only the ranger had bothered to talk about how he felt. My cowardly character was a kobold artificer, and to fit with the tone of the game and group he would VERY reluctantly enter battle in the beginning and be the first to try and escape if things looked bad, but as he got to know the others he became more loyal and more inclined to stick it out in tough situations. And the group was made aware of this tendency early on and nobody had a problem with it. But yeah, this is the stuff for a session zero and actual communication as opposed to knee-jerk reactions.
"Well, I think we're going to split the treasure equally cause you look really banged up and I don't have a scratch on me."
Are we just going to ignore the fact that it sounded like the guy who ran off when the fight began, came back not showing a physical sign of actually having been in combat, comes back to act like the big hero and quickly argues that he deserves loot, ALSO proceeded to threaten the other player?
Like, the fighter didn't attack until after op seemed to suggest a threat. Pointing out that he's not hurt, and the other guy is, and that's why other guy should listen to him really sounds like a threat to me
Ah yes, microtransactions have finally made their way into dnd. We always knew it would happen, the only questions were "how" and "when". While we're at it how about another 10 bucks to let me make my character level 20. We'll call it a "timesaver", after all who actually wants to *play* the game anymore right?
3:08 - I'm with CritCrab. Mentioning the value of a good Session 0 is awesome: I don't hear enough of that when these horror stories come up.
And yeah, agreed, That Guy's reaction to OP leaving the fight was valid.
* OP was a bit of a douche bag, running off to leave them fight alone.
* It was funny OOC, the characters shouldn't have had any patience for such obvious cowardice.
* Yes, *obvious cowardice.* OP said he was supposedly fighting an ambush by himself but came back completely clean with no goblin blood? He even pointed out that he didn't have a scratch on him. *Recognizing the stench of the bullshit wouldn't even require a roll or the DC would be ridiculously low.*
* So the fighter/ranger stiffing the guy on the loot for this one encounter, was a reasonable and not disproportionate response. They JUST hired him and he didn't contribute to the battle.
* In that context, OP escalated the situation by threatening the fighter/ranger, talking about how he didn't look like he was strong enough to stop him from taking what he wanted.
* But yeah, That Guy and DM were stupidly out of line. Paying to change a result of a combat roll? WTF?
As the DM, I would've asked for a Bluff vs Sense Motive roll off to determine if the other PCs ('that guy' esp.) To see if any of them bought it.
And I wouldn't have let the problem player in the 2nd story play that character in the first place.
There are so many ways of dndfy joke concepts
My party has a cleric to vtuber Watame... And it's very legit (peace domain cleric to a small deity, mechanic wise)
I mean his daggers were clean, so you can see he didn't fight anybody
The problem with that is if the player’s character fails the role, the player will still feel resentment about OP not being a team player.
@@Lycaon1765 How would they know that? Apparently it was really dark.
@@ebutuoytikcus4352 Ranger 'ok lets go loot the goblins YOU killed. Oh look no goblins, no blood, no signs of battle, no nothing. Yeah dude you lied. No loot for you'
its the same outcome just 2 minutes later
We had a player that bribed the DM so much that it actually became thier damn subclass. Thankfully, they never bribed the DM for anything that would make them all powerful, they instead bribed the DM to allow really stupid or silly things to happen (like a book that can turn those who read it into the monster of whose page was read, or a sentient minor deck of many things that has to be persuaded not to draw itself when scared).
The funny part is the DM was a hard-line rules-as-written DM, but free pizza would get him every time xD
We had a dungeon dive, low roleplay session where PCs and onlookers could pay for better rolls or attempts to kill players once. It was part of our local game store's 25 hour daylight savings game-a-thon, and all the proceeds went to charity.
It was a lot of fun!
me with an auditory processing disorder dyslexia: turning on subtitles
youtube: this is vietnamese
me: audible confusion
Eh as far as the first story I can't blame the villian of the story to much. You wouldn't even need a sense motive to know someone wasn't fighting of they had no blood on anything. Also the players quote did sound like a threat. So just shooting the their is acceptable.
The issue really is the bribery. And the dm did take the money but he was in a jokey mood so its hard to know if that wasn't him just absolutely memeing or thinking that the OP didn't mind.
Honestly that first story is definitely getting the illustrious "they're both in the wrong" award from me. Or "all" I guess, since the DM was also being an ass.
Lady was in the clear.
And since OP did say he would be a coward who avoids fights before even stepping to the table (1:16), he is covered. Even if he didn’t run down the hall to fake a fight, he did make it clear he would not fight. He was specifically hired for his ability to disable traps, the DM designed an encounter where he didn’t have to fight for them to win, and he was not rewarded loot for doing his job.
If The Guy was intelligent, he could have said “You know what: you get the loot from the Goblins you beat, and we’ll get the loot from the ones we beat.”
Assuming this roll was in their edition, any Guy with half a brain could still say “Insight check.”
@@LocalMaple You are right, Lady is fine. But I don't think OP is off the hook just because he said he'd be playing a coward. Not to mention we're inherently getting a biased perspective and don't know exactly how clear this was to everyone, but even if we assume he communicated this perfectly, there's a difference between saying "My character is a coward who will hide behind the more combat-oriented characters in a fight" and "My character will not fight, but will pretend he did and act like a glory hound about it." I don't think The Guy handled it well, (obviously) but I would definitely be irritated by that myself. Yeah, if you disable traps, you've got claim to a share of treasure that's lying around, but i'd say stuff looted off bodies of monsters killed in combat should probably only go to the people who actually helped out. YMMV though
And it's easy to think of saying clever like that when we're hearing the story, but at the actual table, he might not have thought of something like that in the moment.
100% agreed. First story had three people at fault: OP, the guy, and the DM. Just terrible manners all around.
OP didn't respect the social contract of the table: making a character that plays with the team.
The guy had a knee-jerk reaction and handled the situation poorly instead of talking about it.
The DM allowed all this to happen, as well as taking bribes and allowing the PvP.
Horrendous table.
@@LocalMaple I feel he's in the clear for being a coward at least the one time, if it continued maybe not.
However he went 'you're injured and i'm not so we are splitting this loot' that very much sounds like. 'I'm about to start pvp if I don't get a share' so I don't actually blame that guy for shooting first, he received a threat and decided to act before the threat could be actioned.
@@norandomnumbers But he DID make a character that played with the team. He, literally, made a character that the entire table requested. Also, from the beginning, before he joined up, he, outright, told the entire table what kind of character he was playing and how that character would act. Sure, the whole bravado thing might have been unexpected, but still fit within the spirit of the character he laid out to everyone before the session began. It's not his fault that nobody told him no. If anything, it's "The Guy" who broke the table's "Social Contract" by Metagaming his way into PvP and outright bribing the DM.
No way a fighter sub class is fooled by someone not fighting.
Paying the DM is and DM taking it is absolutely a nope the # out.
That story where OP actually drew the body pillow is fucking brilliant, everyone at that table was completely obvious.
Everyone at the table should have stood up and left. Any DM which can be bought cannot be trusted.
Soon as the DM accepted the $10 I would have left as well. Now the DM is letting outside bribes affect in-game actions. But this sounds like OP joined an existing group without a session 0. So his actions 100% came out of left field and isn't normal. Everyone except Lady failed imo.
Personally, I would have done one of two things:
-Since the Guy didn't say anything when he took out his wallet and handed over $10, I would have taken it, put it in my pocket, and then said "Wow thanks... But were you really serious about giving me $10 for a critical hit, too?"
Or
-Take the tenner, put it in my pocket and say "Alright, you swing and miss the thief, but since we're turning that miss into a crit, the arrow ricochets into your knee. Roll double damage."
@@SapphireDragon357 yeah but both those options don't do anything for the frustration the Guy had. That just seems like passive aggressiveness. Let's say you ask if he was serious and he says yes, then what?
Or let's say you take his 10 bucks. He's going to be mad that you just took his money for no reason. Even worse if you make it a joke that actually damages him.
I honestly don’t fault the other guy for what he did. OP showed up and turned the game into a joke so why wouldn’t he feel like he can make a joke of his own? The lady was the only mature person in that entire story cuz she told OP to calm down and talk rather than just throw a fit and rage quit. He should have just said “haha ok it crits as long as you promise my character won’t die from it.”
@@Cloudz2021 I do assume I'd be giving that $10 back in either scenario, but the Guy lost his right to seriousness and the option to talk it out, not when he pulled out his bow and fired it at thief, (the story was still salvageable at that point) but when he tried to bribe the DM to change the game AFTER getting a warning from the thief. At that point, he can piss off.
@@Faint366 Doing something funny completely in character is vastly different from "turning the game into a joke." The only thing that turned the game into anything other than what it was is the DM taking an out-of-game bribe to change the game. Maybe ragequitting was an overreaction to that, but not a totally unjustified one.
The op did say about how they were gonna be playing a coward, but session 0s are always a good idea, its hard to do when a new person is dropping in but thats where messages and such are good. Basically a session 0 on discord before the game.
did they, though? There's a big difference between "won't fight" and "won't fight, but still demand a share of the loot".
@@Latreylantras its a bunch of goblins, doubt they have good loot, and in character they wouldn’t know he didn’t fight. And as op said, if they had of asked them to help they would have.
@@shadowjezzter he came back after saying he fought unscratched and no blood anywhere. They definitely would've known
@@masonzeo801 they were goblins so their plus to attack would have been bad, plus even the other player missed them when they attacked. Its almost as if players can get though encounters without taking damage.
@@shadowjezzter with no blood on his weapons or armour
no cries from goblins from down the hall
no bodies or loot anywhere?
There's so little reason to believe the Thief. All you have is his word and literally nothing to back it up with
5:31 "Yeah sure, it's a critical hit. You do double damage to the spider your arrow landed on when it sailed past the thief"
Crit: tonigth we have Premium cringe
Me: Well the title says paid DM so that's a given.
One time a DM hired a former player to build and run NPCs for an encounter, to challenge us. Still laugh about the fact that he hired a merc to defeat us in D&D
Critcrab of all takes I have ever heard you give, and may I add I usually agree, but when a player threatens another player that player is in every right to roll initiative, in fact if I was DM I would have given OP a warning about threats to party members, especially when you killed your own goblins you could loot. That would 100% be my action both irl and in character with most of my characters I have ever played to react to a threat with force.
Personally, while I do not condone the reaction (pvp or bribery) of the other player, I honestly can commiserate with him getting upset with the antics. I’ve left groups over similar stuff. Probably would also have been angry, but again, not a good plan to just get angry and start pvp instead of communicating
The rogue threatened his character's life. Rogue started that PVP 100%.
Seriously. If I were one of the bystanders, I would have retaliated by assaulting the ranger. PvP is supposed to be consent-based in DnD (since classes aren't balanced to fight each other), so initiating it unilaterally would absolutely kill my investment in the game.
oh my god... as a dm, i'd immediately improvise that by the 3rd or 4th turn of this madness, he notices an actual ambush, and see how he reacts to that.
That would have been awesome.
If I was DM, I wouldn’t do that immediately. I’d wait until the third time he pulled that antic.
Also, I’d allow perception checks to determine if he actually fought.
@@LocalMaple "as you flail against the imaginary ambush you hear the screeching of many winged beasts it seems your banging caused enough vibrations to wake the bats sleeping not too far from your position" now he has to fight a swarm of bats and i would have him roll a wisdom save to see if he is stricken with fear.
As for the bribe i would take it and put the arrow straight into a goblin that was actually ambushing the thief. if the guy wanted his money back i would tear that 10 up and tell him to not bribe the DM again
@@wishstruck you and this comment's op are really showing up story 1's op, absolutely incredible
also sounds like so much fun, honestly it'd just spur me on to be a Complete Menace 😂
Ohhhhh, that would have been perfect!
That first story was painful to listen to. I doubt OP's antics were as appreciated by the others as he said they were if DM was willing to kill their character for $10
Exactly. We only get one side of the story and even then OP seems like a jerk
OP mentiones that Ranger's face showed he was angry. So OP knew he was annoying the Ranger
also can we acknowledge that he said he should get a share of the loot because Ranger was injured and OP wasn't? Cause that straight up sounds like a threat of pvp to me.
If that's the case, any one of them should have said something. They did not.
That doesn't entirely make sense.
@@fairystail1the cowardly character making the threat? Hmmm, no.
I was in a one-shot run by our local pastor, and we had a cowardly (and lazy) rogue. He spent the entire “get our ship through the fog” opening of the game hiding below decks, so we didn’t see the pirate ambush. Then snuck onto the pirate ship to loot it while the monk and Paladin were fighting off boarders (we yelled at him IC to help, didn’t work.)
Jokes on him though. He got caught in the hold by a sahuagin pirate, ran onto the deck next to the illusionist priestess, and got attacked by both sides (we thought he was a traitor or an illusion).
Then he got knocked out and a kraken attacked both ships. The Paladin of Conquest was all for leaving him when we escaped, but my monk reasoned that the cirates had tried to kill him so he wasn’t an enemy, just an idiot, and rescued him. Poor Pastor Greg had run this adventure many many times, and was just shaking his head at the shenanigans the whole time.
5:04 to be fair, from an in-character perspective, if I'm the fighter, this shifty thief just ran off and left me in danger, obviously didn't actually fight because as he said himself "not a scratch on him", and now just threatened me... shooting him is actually a reasonable response if you're not averse to killing, generally speaking. That being said, he wasn't actually acting from an in-character perspective, and everything after that was garbage, from fighter and DM. I wouldn't have wanted that kind of character rp (thief) in my game either, tbh, but he actually did the right thing (as a player) by noping out of that.
good job reading the right words through all those typos. not missing a beat
Look I'm gonna play Devils advocate but the ?"you look banged up while I'm full health comment could come off as a threat of pvp " and while communication is important and he should have said something sooner if everything happened fast he might of wanted to wait till the later to say something and the perceived pvp threat might of might of made him snap patients wise . Don't get me wrong rogue fight traps 1v1 wile the party is a safe distance away so that alone can justify their share of the loot but when a skill monkey rough is steeling from the party (wouldn't say he was in this instance) it can feel like great I didn't build my caracter for pvp because I was prepared for a team game .
I think I would have let the thief roll persuasion against the other player when he tried to lie about the ambush.
I know it's generally not a good idea to do PvP social rolls, but in this case the player very clearly did meta gaming, so I think it's valid.
And if I was the DM I would have taken that money and not done it, because that's how you punish bribery.
Yeah, Deception vs Insight isn't a terrible way to go about it.
Alongside the arrow still missing if I was bribed, it might ricochet off the stonework and hit the ranger's foot. Bribing me, blatantly acting off meta knowledge, then inexplicable pvp? Not how we do things at my table.
I think ranger at the beginning should have said, "Really? An ambush? Great! More loot! What did you get off the ones you killed? Let's split it up!" Anyway, if thief wants to escape fighting, that's fine. But he used a ploy that implies some sort of loot. If it was all in fun, then he's the sort who'd have enjoyed being hoisted by his own petard. Anyway, what happened after--including hauling off and shooting the guy the first time--was way out of line.
No, the shooting was 100% deserved since the thief straight up threatened the rogue when he said “we split it 50/50 because you’re already banged up and I’m at full health.” That’s a threat of combat. And I honestly can’t fault ranger for doing the bribe. It was just as hilarious as faking the ambush. If OP can turn the game into a joke then why can’t the ranger? OP is a hypocrite, and neither of them are good players.
Calling the thief's bluff and having to role-play that out would have been a great opportunity that, unfortunately, did not happen.
@@Faint366 Seems you've been busy posting this...
Rogue is un-threatening. That Guy with his metagaming had his character know he was bluffing. And if he's too much of a coward to fight goblins, what threat would that pose?
As it's been mentioned before, loads of RP chances to make it interesting, but That Guy is a bitter asshole who didnt like the RP, and instead of saying anything, immediately went into kill mode, and ruined the integrity of the campaign just to get his way in killing the rogue.
"OP is a hypocrite"
Yes, because a funny encounter around a cowardly thief during combat that ultimately gives more chances for RP is COMPLETELY equal to just immediately going for the kill, and being a salty ass when you dont kill them.
None of it matters. He bribed DM and DM took it. Anything else that happened in that game is superceded by that shameful display. GM and player should be banned for life. OP did right by leaving.
Just because someone i dunno killed someone doesn't mean the person who commited assault didn't do something wrong.
Sure the bribe was very wrong.
However OP continued a joke when he saw it was annoying one of the players and he threatened Ranger saying 'You'll give me a share of the loot because you are injured and i'm not'
OP was still a bastard, just not as much of a bastard as the Ranger.
OP was an asshole who could have got his party killed because "ITS WHAT MY CHARACTER WOULD DO!!!!!!". The Ranger could very easily write his own RPGhorrorstory about this.
@@myname9130 except his character was oked and he was hired in game as trap disarmer not fighter or assaisain and it was clear the fight was balanced around it as non of the party member where downed or super low on hp
Nah I think op is being a baby
In that first one, I think they're both in the wrong. I get that the narrator was in character, but he said he saw the guy getting annoyed with it, and he kept egging him on. It's just not how you deal with someone getting frustrated, it just makes things worse, and it makes me think of the audacity of the narrator to go on and act all offended later. Bribing the dm was obviously wrong as well, but this was not a one-sided issue.
It seems everyone forgot this was a long running campaign that op joined and then immediately started to make trouble in. I love how we only have ops word that everyone loved their antics. It appears that everyone loved it so much that literally no one does anything to stop his character getting killed off even to the point of taking a bribe.
Everyone sucks in the post:
op for their everyone look at me antics derailing party cohesion on their first session and inability to take the blowback.
That guy for literally everything said start to finish.
The GM for not trying to stop the problem from the start and taking them money which even as a joke undermines the game.
To me it sounds like the trash took its self out and they should probably have a stern chat to that guy or replace them as well.
Thief was hired to disarm traps.
He wasn't making trouble. He just didn't have a job to do at the time and made up a funny excuse in a DM-proclaimed light-hearted game to not take on other responsibilities that weren't asked of him. If anything, this would've been a fine time for Ranger to renegotiate what was expected of the new recruit.
I can only imagine going into town, hiring a torch-bearer, heading to the dungeon, fighting some monsters along the way while torch-bearer did nothing to help but hold a torch, returning to town before reaching the dungeon to lick wounds, proclaiming torch-bearer did nothing because it was broad daylight, refusing to pay him, and killing him when he insisted on collecting the fee he was due.
Holding Thief to additional standards because he was a player-controlled character is as meta-gaming as Ranger claiming he knew there was no ambush and bribing the DM.
@@FlatOnHisFace You are right! Imaging holding a real human person to a higher standard of play that a random unnamed NPC hired to do a job.
If you don't understand how this play could be disruptive I would strongly suggest you go watch some videos on how to improve your level of play. In a COLLABORATIVE story telling game of play-pretend literally the only thing that matters is, is everyone having fun? If something you are doing is at the direct expense of that you should 100% look at that behaviour and most likely cut it out. "It is/n't what my character would/wouldn't do!" I don't care you made them this way! Is you imagination so weak and your social skills so lacking you are unable to think of a rationale reason for a non disruptive action? It's not "meta-gaming" it's being a good person who understand that good play is about what you do both in and out of the game.
@@BloodPixi3 Indeed. Imagine having everyone around you laugh and then assuming they're having fun. The gall! And what kind of monster doesn't notice the one who isn't, even though they don't speak up? Truly, we must find this maniac immediately and see that he pays for his actions. Nothing short of crucifixion will do for these sorts of sins!
@@daviddaugherty2816 "And everyone clapped" right? They were having so much fun with OP that they did literally nothing to stop them leaving the game or stopping them from killing the character off. Even in OP's own one sided narrative those sound like the actions of people who really love having you there. It seems more like the actions of people stuck between two assholes having a fight like children.
5:00 yes he should have talked with him but im going to play devils advocate and say, to be fair thats a completely logic reaction (until that point) against someone that just made an implicit threat, strike first, but yeah before getting to that i woul have done things very different, instead of just pouting and then bribing the DM
Me and my friends have been playing a new homebrew campaign for a few weeks, and like you said a session zero would have really helped us out. Most of us wanted a more serious game but two of the players were more focused on combat and goofiness respectively. Thankfully it was talked out and the goofy/murder hobo player had his character killed last night to play a more serious Goliath while the combat guy has grown accustomed to the more serious role-playing we've been doing. All in all it worked out but a proper session zero would've let us avoid two sessions of nonsense and confusion.
So first story: I get it, if someone has a problem then they should speak up. It may cause the whole session to hit a little speed bump, but better to speak up before the issue becomes a real problem.
That said, body language speaks too. I'll gladly admit that I chuckled at the combat described, but there's a point at which it's obvious this person isn't appreciating it and I can certainly understand his being upset that this person - who did no combat - was getting a cut of any gold or items the enemies might have had. The exchange after between disgruntled player and DM/GM definitely doesn't fly, but let's not pretend like there weren't enough signs to pull back and realize that perhaps your RP is derailing things for any other players.
TL;DR: Issues abound on all sides and no one comes out squeaky clean in this first story.
No one except the lady who was the only person that said “just calm down and talk it out”
The DM taking a bribe is shitty, but let's not ignore the rogue being intentionally antagonistic towards someone who's irl frustrated.
UA-cam called me the first viewer
*Signature look of superiority*
***Boils in garlic and butter***
6:43 idk what the big deal is just call it a micro transaction or a "surprise mechanics"
I have a very similar tabaxi rogue named luck during my party's first boss fight hid in the bosses tent stealing all his gold. Through a bunch of story stuff later he became a pirate captain and instilled the motto of "Run away like a hero" on his crew
Side note. If a player wanted a gender-bent bodypillow of me, not only would I be 100% okay with it, I'd spend way too much on a comission and probably get the real thing made for myself
it's always funny to me when OP shares their horror story and it's fairly clear that they were part of the problem, but they don't realize it.
Exactly. OP instigated a shitty situation.
OP in the first story's an asswipe.
He runs from combat, badly pretends he's fighting enemies they can't see, comes back with no injuries or blood on his person or weapons, and then threatens the party if they refuse to share the loot he did nothing to earn.
The Guy and the DM aren't much better, but OP is definitely the worst of them.
We also have a cowardly rogue in a game I dm, and we got some amazing character development for the whole party. They rarely got involved in combat in the begining, but now they have faith in our fighter and paladin who is adjusted to be more defence based. It's been a really interesting development, some PCs disliked him, others tolerated him, but ultimately it's been worth it. And he contributes in non combat based ways, now he feels more brave to be in a few combats or he works as look out and the like.i feel really had for op in the first story, sounds like that table is gonna loose out on a lot of potential fun
You said some disliked him and others tolerated, but I don't see you saying anyone liked or likes him. There could be people just taking it because they don't want to find another group. Is everybody having fun or just the thief and DM? Oh, and are you sure?
This could of been a good "buddy" movie-esque adventure, the rogue could only do things like this so many times before the other party members caught on in-game, and this could lead to the ranger/fighter/whatever teaching the rogue to grow a damned backbone, and at some pivotal moment when all hope is lost the rogue turns to flee, but instead steels himself and actually saves the day for once. Soon as the DM took the 10 bucks to change the roll I too would of noped the fuck out as well.
I mean.... $10 is $10
Wow I preordered the critcrab plush, thanks for the complements.
In that first story, everybody pretty much sucks. The guy attacked OP but it was also in response to what I inferred as a threat from OP's character. As a DM I'd probably hold the OP equally responsible.
But then bribing to practically cheat in a player v player section to the death is worse, like every active players in this story is bad with a lick of hindsight.
It's like getting pranked with a water bucket and retaliating by shooting him with a glock.
Honestly, I believe the only people in the wrong here are the ranger and the DM. OP didn't know how badly the ranger was upset by their antics. Ranger never communicated on how he didn't like it, just outright attacks the thief out of the blue (RPing his character first on immediately available meta knowledge), then tries to cheat when it didn't work.
The DM is at fault for not trying to defuse the situation and for accepting the bribe in the first place.
The Lady did nothing, good or bad.
OP was simply playing his character, a stated coward. I will agree his character had no claim to the loot of the actually killed goblins, but that's still no reason for the ranger's actions.
I first discovered your channel while playing Hitman so the thumbnail feels personal to me lol
I'm going to have to go against the grain here and say the OP ain't innocent in this either. That implicit threat of violence did not go unnoticed. He threatened violence and the Ranger answered in kind. There's no other way to interpret that. The thief put his nuts on the table but the Ranger had a 10 dollar hammer.
No one is right in this situation. Not the DM, not the Ranger and not the Thief. It's all just differing degrees of wrong.
Problem is, that was an IC threat. It could have been responded with in multiple ways, but That Guy picked the most over-the-top butthurt route possible.
Yeah while it would be allowed, it's akin to someone telling you "Fuck You" on your commute to work, and you just pulling a gun and shoot at them with the intent to kill/harm. Extremely over-the-top hair trigger.
Especially considering in this scenario, said threat is un-threatening. That Guy's Metagaming with knowledge he didnt do jack shit, and promptly should have known said threat is bullshit. If he's such a coward he cant fight goblins with the party, why would he be a threat to them. At worst that'd encourage suspicion and keeping an eye out while they're asleep.
Of course, while it could've been RP'd into a far better path, That Guy was a prick.
He escalated it drastically, then when he expectedly missed, bribed the DM to "win."
He's in the wrong for sure for being that bitter asshole who doesnt like RP and gets personal when anyone DARES to do it.
DM's wrong for taking it, and more or less ruining the game at that instant.
@@higueraft571
Yeah, everyone is wrong.
Just have to say, that was an amazing pitch for the plushie.
I love starting out serious campaigns with joke characters who then learn that the world at large isn't a joke. Proper character arcs and all.
The tragedy of slappy the bugbear clown
@@nicholascordero6600 I want to hear this story.
Nah, that rogue OP is completely lying. The dude sounds like a sparky instigator who says "it's just a prank bro" when being an asshole
While the DM and mr. Guy did not handle the whole thing particularly well, the thief did everything to antagonize the group. Such antics is only acceptable if you know eachother. The whole "I'm playing a cowardly thief and that's what my character would do", I complete BS.
OP = Unreliable Narrator
"antagonise the group" he tried to make them laugh and one person was taking it seriously and while probably imagining he was the adult in the room for not laughing at the silliness was so butthurt he paid to stop the other player having fun.
@@dorianleakey
The $10 thing was silliness and OP got mad and ran away
@@dillonblair6491 the person offering the 10$ was not being silly, the DM may have taken the money as all good humour, but the guy was not happy at all.
@@dorianleakey
Everyone else would have found it pretty funny, but when they started joking around with the OP he got mad and left 🤣
Literally sounds like someone playing a Rouge exactly how I’ve always wanted someone to. Like that could have been so fun
I want to hear the story from the point of view of the annoyed Ranger.
I can absolutely see if he had posted his version first, and said they agreed on a semi-serious approach without clowning around, and that everyone at the table was laughing uncomfortably (per his perception) and not really knowing what to do, but when he tried to make a dumb joke on that guy's expense by offering real money for an in-game kill (to which the others all reacted with chuckling, seeing the joke), which resulted in the jokster being pissed off and walking out now that he was the punchline, people would have sided with him.
Still, a different solution would have been more mature, but the bad guy would clearly have been the one who turned the game into a joke but couldn't handle one at his expense, and after all, none of the others, DM included, seriously tried to convince him to come back for another session, so that says it all.
I don't say this is what actually happened but this sounds like one of those stories where the bad guy is actually a misunderstanding coming from not being used to each other's sense of humour/how it shows on their faces. And that the story from the perspectives of the others might a) feature the OP as the bad/antagonistic guy or even the DM and b) from that angle, they kinda got a point, too.
I don't know. The Op made clear at the beginning to the other players that he was making a noncombative character and even if the guy didn't appreciate his antics he did metagame to start that pvp out of nowhere. Not to mention that he did actually give the gm the money. It wasn't a joke. I can get you saying that the OP is not blameless and perhaps the other player had a more serious game in mind, but even from the guy's perspective he still really overreacted and OP was right to leave the table.
@@joelsasmad he didn’t start pvp out of nowhere. OP threatened to fight him for the loot. And the $10 thing absolutely sounded like a joke. It doesn’t matter if he went through with it, it’s still a joke because it’s still funny as hell
@@Faint366 A coward who ran from a fight is threatening a proven warrior? And when PvP started at a miss, continuing to threaten rather than make good with the promise? I don’t know about you, but clearly this was a bluff.
If The Guy really knew how to play D&D, rather than pay D$D, he would have rolled perception for either a lie or for bloodless daggers. Then you could intimidate back, and knowing he is a coward win the loot.
If The Guy didn’t know how to play, but still had half a brain, he could have said “you loot your goblins, and I’ll loot mine.”
As described in the story, OP was hired as a trap dismantler and nothing else. He should have been given loot due to doing his job, and appearing to go above and beyond.
Just came across this and the people paying to exclude others immediately hit a chord with me, as in highschool the semi-rich bully of my school paid some of my friends specifically to not hang out with me.
Honestly, OP initiated that PVP. He doesn't help in the fight and then makes a veiled threat in-character. Shooting him in-character was justified. Real-life bribery is not justified, however.
agreed he missed which open up for ops character to try and talk there way out of it and cleared up wether it was threat or just boasting that accidently came off as a threat
I think my favorite part about the second story is that it feels like the DM and OP were main characters in an eldrich horror/darkest dungeon kinda thing where it's like "well at least you didn't do the thing, didn't encourage it to get worse, that would have been crazy. Wait y-you DID do the thing? Well, ok, but at least you didn't take it a step farther, that would have been mad... you WHAT!?"
As a DM I find the idea of taking money to qualify a miss as a critical hit, a very dangerous door to open, so I would've just shut this down as soon as it was proposed.
PvP or not. DnD is not a Pay to Win game and never should be. Like seriously - do we want to devolve into having purchasable loot boxes in DnD?
Yeah well you care way more about the integrity of your game than this one did.
I would of told em you should have searched the goblins you held off for your share of the loot
Well that’s one way to start a video
One of the biggest issues in the first story is that thief says they lied and there was “no way” the other characters could know he lied. However, he never mentions anything about actually rolling deception checks and the party failing insight checks. Almost certainly because those rolls never happened. OP essentially said “my characters tells a bad lie and both of your characters totally fall for it” Sure you can say he was “just RP’ing his character” but he wasn’t JUST doing that actually, he was making RP decisions for the other characters by simply saying it would be impossible for them to detect any of his lies with nothing mechanical to back it up
Immaturity of the players aside, the biggest asshole at the table is the DM for agreeing to the bribe. OP *might* have been able to stay and make it work somehow, it was the accepting of money that drove him away - and rightly so. Trying not to favor any player for any reason is one of my personal highest priorities, and this guy blatantly tossing that aside makes me want to choke a lich.
Came along way man! Now I need a plush CritCrab
Critcrab is a cool crab
:D
Thank you oh crab lord and saviour
critcrab is best crab
@@SageLatrans a man (or woman) of culture i see
honestly, the guy paying the DM $10 to make it a crit is hilarious. I would have absolutely side bared with the DM in post for a side hustle. If he's willing to pay $10 to pk, I'd see how far I can push the envelope.
I think OP was doing "It's what my character would do" done right. If his character was cowardly, it makes sense he'd try something like that.
I agree: According to the post, OP said straight out of the gate that his character would not fight (Well, I assume he would have helped if the situation needed it, looking at how he worded "as the humans could handle the goblins, I [fled and pretended fighting at a safe distance]").
Also, The Guy could have found a smart way to tell OP off the loot while being Meta on knowing he didn't actually fight. Like, saying "Let's share it like that: Each group gets his goblins' loot. I'm sure your ambush had nice things!".
Of course, as is for most of these stories, we only have one side of the story. But looking a the post, if OP did anything wrong, it was to push his pretend-ambush a bit too much in a combat situation. And that's a big IF, it didn't look like the situation called for snappy and strategic combat rounds.
Respectfully I couldn’t disagree more. OP at 4:40 says that to man, which insinuates that if they don’t split the loot, then OP will fight and beat man for it because OP abandoned them in combat. Like here’s the thing, with character who have negative traits that affect the party, it was the choice of the player to institute that trait, so him abandoning them is the stereotypical “that’s what my character would do”. I don’t think OP had bad intentions at all, I just think he was inconsiderate to his other players and it caused tension.
@@NWolfsson I think because OP said what he did at 4:40 is why the man chose to fight. If I were a player and heard that, it sounds like “You’re going to give me equal loot because I didn’t do anything and have full health so if you don’t I’ll just beat you and take it”, which is super aggressive and rude.
@@kaidenrisser5905 The OPs fine, the other guys a bitch. No need for an essay.
@@meat2023 op sounds like the “bitch” to me. To busy cracking jokes to read the room and see how upset he’s making the Ranger and then bails once Ranger does something op doesn’t like
I can get why someone would get annoyed with OP, it’s not generally expected for a character to not contribute directly in combat however
1 the character was approved by the dm, including the part about him being a coward and he was contributing to the group in different ways, clearing out traps and such
2 That guy metagamed to justify attacking a the rogue since there was no way he could have known the rogue was lying without a sense motive and even then there is not reason to commit attempted player murder
3 the DM’s actions were downright despicable in this; he gave no indication to the OP of any wrong doing and even seemed to be encouraging it and then took a bribe to satisfy another player’s bloodlust when he should have had a conversation between the rogue and that guy about the incident and hashed it out any problems
Overall I agree that a session zero could have sorted out most of the issues present and potential ones
In the first story, I would personally have taken the money, made him roll damage and then insisted he did a critical hit against the wall next to the rogue. Congratulations!
That last story had me just keep repeating 'why' more and more incredulously.
A part of me empathizes with the guy in the first story. If I get the vibe that everyone in an event is enjoying something I'm not, I get frustrated and depressed, and often am afraid to say anything because I'm afraid of people turning on me and telling me I'm the problem. I've had to overcome that crippling fear a lot to play TTRPGs so I dunno, none of us were at the table and none of us really know what signals the other player was giving off, or if the OP is one of those people too dense to actually take a hint.
God have I played with people like the latter way too much...
Well if OP was accurate and/or truthful of his retelling, "The Guy" must not have been giving off barely any signals since, literally, nobody else picked up on him getting pissed off. And OP DID say that had "The Guy," or anyone else for that matter, told him to stop it, he would have.
Honestly? I don't think a guy who is willing to commit Metagame Murder and commit REAL Bribing is someone who is afraid to speak his mind.
@@ForeverDegenerate Possibly. But OP said this guy also didn't know who he was, and unless OP outwardly stated that he would stop his antics if it bothered anyone during the introduction where he discussed what he wanted to play (which is a possibility but it doesn't seem mentioned) then he couldn't have known that about OP either.
This story doesn't give me the same "I feel like we're missing a side" vibes that a lot of other stories do though, but I'd be curious to know how old everyone at the table is. Jumping to IC reactions to OOC things was something we did a lot as teenagers RPing on forums, and I get the vibe this might be a younger group.
@@MidoriMushrooms No OP never stold THEM he would stop. However, it falls to "The Guy" to ask him to stop. Which he failed to do. That's always step one: Ask. You never know unless you ask. And yeah, you're probably right in this group being a younger group.
Solid victim blaming excuse for someone being an antagonistic instigator
@@Spectrum0122 I forgot what this was even in reply to since it's a 2 year old comment but I'm gonna take a shot in the dark and say "you don't comprehend nuance."
tbh after re-reading the comment chain it probably referred to some autistic person struggling and too many people don't give autistic people the BotD, least of all other autistic people who assume just because THEY learned subtle social cues, everyone else should be able to just as easily.
More excited for my CritCrab plush than I am for Christmas
I mean, when you say it out loud, there's no way Tim should be real, but you just know someone like him exists somewhere.
First Story "It is all fun and games bro until I get it turned on me.
Nothing went wrong until the guy offered the DM a bribe to change the dice roll. PvP is iffy with a new group, but the players were all seemingly acting in character. When the rogue, obviously lying, tried to horn in on the loot and then threatened the ranger, I’d imagine some rangers would shoot the rogue for being a giant tool.
The ranger randomly tried to shoot him. If a dude tries to shoot me and it fails, I would tell the, to cut that shit out.
@@coolsceegaming6178 I wasn’t random; the rogue ran away, leaving the other to party members in danger to fight with 33% less effectiveness. Then he comes back without a scratch on him or a spot of blood in his weapons claiming to have single handedly dealt with the goblin ambush.
Now the the rogue wants some of the loot without having shared any of the risk, and to add insult to injury, threatens the Ranger. That’s the context.
The ranger’s actions make perfect sense in character. The problem is the mismatch of tone and expectations between the rogue player and everyone else.
@@mrmaat he threatened the ranger after the ranger attempted to shoot him, am I wrong?
@@coolsceegaming6178 According to the story, before the Guy shoots the thief, the thief says "I think we're going to split the treasure equally, because you're banged up and I don't have a scratch on me." It's a veiled threat because it implies that the thief is more capable of fighting and in a better resource position to enforce the equal splitting of loot he did nothing to earn.
@@mrmaat Thats looking very deep into it, which would likely require a deception roll. No one did one. Would that not count as meta gaming to assume it’s a lie?
I'm stealing that last story's Rogue's move for my next cowardly character. That shit was amazing.
Cowardice is perfectly acceptable in my game, pvp as a reward for that is as well. What's not ok is player knowledge.
In all interest of fairness depending on how convincing op’s rogue was they probably could’ve called his bluff.
Not believing the most insanely obvious lie is not metagaming, it's common sense. Rogue fought off an ambush on his own, with no blood on his daggers, without a scratch on him, and it sounded like daggers hitting rocks? Disbelieving that is not metagaming, it's the ranger having a wisdom and int score above 3.
@@DarthSironos ok and he didnt role perception or anything to check if the the daggers where not bloddy as its likely theif put them in a sheath on his return trip and wihtout a scratch the theif was really goof at doging accounting for the no scatches and as for the rock clasing sound it could just be clashing agiest armor if they heard at all over there own fight which is where most of there focus would be on and they didnt have dark vision so they couldnt see the op theif even id somehow they descoviered the ops lie in character shooting him immdently isnt a good idea
I see this as a fun RP moment wasted. Like a nice "insight check", then the ranger shoots his bow but not to the guy just really really close to him and say "oh that was close, seems like you missed one". A sarcastic RP way to say fuck off
I'll play devil's advocate and try to argue on the side of the paying guy.
While personally I would have said, "You can get all the loot from those other goblins you were effortlessly holding off", but with how the story played out, 10 bucks is practically nothing, he paid for everyone's snacks next game, basically, and paying-guy could have also played it off as fun; "What's a little death between friends? You make a couple jokes I don't find funny, I make a couple jokes that you don't find funny. Win-win. Now kindly die and roll up a new character." Now if this started a trend where anyone could pay the DM to change an outcome, we might have a problem on our hands, but as a one-time gag, it's fine. And it's guaranteed that the cowardly-rogue wouldn't be able to pull off that "I'm holding off an ambush" gag more than once.
Well remember this too: that guy didn’t pay $10 to kill OP. He only paid for a crit. OP just assumed that a crit would insta kill him without even waiting for a damage roll. I have a hard time imagining a single crit could do double negative damage to a rogue at full health to begin with.
@@Faint366 Wouldn't have to be double negative HP if he just leaves him there to possibly bleed out to death saves. Are you going to revive/heal the guy you have started PvP with and just paid the DM to cheat a critical for you?
@@SilencedBTM yes? Yes I would? Do you know for a fact that the other guy would have let him bleed out? No. It’s just yet another assumption you’re making
@@Faint366 Yes you would? What do you mean? That you would save the guy you had enough beef with that you paid real life money to get a critical hit on? And if so, why did you state it as a question?
@@SilencedBTM yes. Yes I would heal the guy I paid $10 to crit on because it’s just a fuckin game. I stated it as a question because I’m confused at how someone can be so self absorbed that they don’t understand that other people find humor in different things. Kind of like both the people in the story. OP didn’t give a shit if his joke upset the ranger, the ranger didn’t give a shit if his joke upset OP. Besides, ranger isn’t the only party member. So unless ranger dealt enough damage with one arrow to put OP into full negative HP (which he can’t even on a crit) then OP wouldn’t die. Saying ranger paid $10 to kill OP is a lie. He paid $10 to turn a miss into a crit.
Ranger was upset at what OP was doing. Ranger got more upset when OP was going to get away with what he was doing without consequence. So ranger paid $10 to ensure OP had a consequence for being a dick. Whether or not ranger would have pushed for character death or not is something you don’t know. That’s my point. You’re trying to say that no one would heal the person they fought with. That’s just blatantly not true. Plenty of people become really good friends with people they initially fight with because the fight let’s them work out their frustrations and then move on with a better understanding. Is ranger one of those people? I don’t know, and neither do you. You’re making assumptions to try to confirm what you already chose to believe, rather than looking at what actually happened.
Well done agent 47, the target's D&D character is no more. Proceed to the extraction point.
Last story - not really a player problem. A GM problem. He should have said "that character does not work. Try something else or maybe this game is not for you."
Something similar happened to me once. Guy's character wanted to pocket some platinum bars he found instead of sharing the loot with the party (he didn't try to hide it or anything but he opened the chest that they were held in). My character wasn't going to let that happen so we started arguing. When we got back to the city my character actually set up a day in court to appeal to a judge and have the matter solved officially. The city was attacked by a foreign nation before my case had a chance to be heard.
Idk, not justifying his or the DM's actions but OP 1 is kinda giving off "It's what my character would do" vibes. I don't nessesarily think he would've stopped if asked, especially after Lady and DM were so into it.
I get that maybe Guy should've said that he didn't like the bullshit, and going into PVP and paying the DM are obviously over the line, but like, If you're in a situation where you're at a table with people and everyone is enjoying this shit and you're the odd one out... Are you really gonna be the party pooper in that situation? Probably not, right?
If OP noticed that Guy wasn't laughing along he probably could've put 2 and 2 together and see that he didn't like the shit he was pulling. I know I'd be pretty annoyed if someone pulled this shit at a table I was at. These kinds of shenanigans are only cool if everyone is having fun, if not then you should stop. OP may not be AS BAD as the Guy or DM but he definitely isn't the victim he's painting himself to be and holds some responsibility for the situation imo.
Indeed, his statement that he would have stopped is with 20 years of hindsight and with the intent to make himself sound better when reddit called him out.
That kind of situation is why my group doesn't allow PVP without consent of both parties. Forces us to talk through character issues that the players are taking too personally or seriously, because we can't just shortcut into inter-party violence. But that bribe the DM took? F^&* that DM, dude, wow.
Regarding the second story, my brother did that to me when I was DM'ing a game. Admittedly, the first campaign I ran with him in it was the Rick & Morty game, so... That one was pure nonsense from the word GO. That said, I was pretty clear that the new campaign was going to be a serious one, and his answer to that was to show up as TITANIUS ANGLESMITH, FANCY MAN OF CORNWOOD. (For those not in the know, it was a Futurama reference. He was straight up playing Bender from "Bender's Game.")