In that first story, they were talking about caning as in striking people with a cane. The Singaporean government does not punish people by putting them in cans lol.

@SIS3W3N

10 ай бұрын

Singaporean government hardliner: "Write that down. Write that down."

@anthonyseverino8292

4 ай бұрын

Dude that shit scared me when I was in Singapore. One guy I knew got drunk and smashed someone car window and got cain'd for it. That shit will fuck you up.

Regarding the "player 0" I think there is blame on both sides. Yes, player 0 gave the "surprise me" go ahead, but as a player, it can get really annoying when your DM is constantly making changes. Like, if the DM had presented his tweaks, and been done with it, I could see that as no problem. But the way the story reads, the DM kept on making more and more tweaks....and as a player who has dealt with DMs like this, that can get annoying. You hear and accept the tweaks, and you want to start making chocies, decisions, a story in your head, and what you don't want, is to have your story just waiting for the "next set of tweaks" until you feel like it isn't your character anymore. And that sounds like what this DM was doing. A perpetual case of "wouldn't it be cool if"

@starofjustice1

10 ай бұрын

One, maybe two rounds of that. Then yeah, it does start to feel like the DM is just wanting to tell his own story.

@l0stndamned

10 ай бұрын

I think I agree with you. If it was just one set of tweaks I'd be on the DMs side for sure, but the time the DM had finished I suspect the character would have been unrecognisable from the initial idea, and I know that would kill the vibe for me certainly.

@Sinturions

10 ай бұрын

@@l0stndamned Like I said, I've dealt with this myself, and when your DM starts constantly making tweaks, it gets to be too much

@loselot6044

10 ай бұрын

My brother in christ he agreed to that on the form for the game, that's on him if it got on his nerves he could've just asked him to not change anything or say "no I don't want to change that," the Dm (if he's telling the truth) said that he offered to not change the backstory at all when the guy was thinking about leaving

The DM in Ghosts should have just made a few premade sheets and offered that. It's one thing to tweak something like which small town someone is from it's another to change someone's character every session.

Story 2 If you can’t play a character that wants to be in-or at least work with-the party, then they need to make a new character. “Ok. So you made me an NPC. Now go back and make an actual character before [date].”

@srlong1123

10 ай бұрын

This. I am pretty lenient when it comes to the kinds of characters I’ll let people play at my table, but one of my hard rules is that your character has to be willing to work with the party

@starofjustice1

10 ай бұрын

@@srlong1123 If you don't want to rp as part of a group, that's fine. Just stay home and play Elder Scrolls instead of wasting the other players' time.

@CatacombD

10 ай бұрын

Absolutely. It's like if you say, "Hey guys, I want to run this mega-dungeon campaign!" and then one of the players comes back with a character who is terrified of dungeons and refuses to go into them. Or if you join a West Marches game and make a character who only wants to travel east. When you make a character for dnd, you are making someone who is meant to be a party member. If they have no intention of joining the party, then that is one of the few ways you can outright fail at character creation.

The traitor story could easily have been fixed along these lines: The touchstone destroys the demon and nobody dies. It turns out there is no "touchstone of life" and the whole thing was a ruse created long ago to trick the demon into destroying itself. Party wins, That Guy loses, and nothing has to be retconned.

Oh God, I was getting Nam flashbacks during the first story, sadly, as the DM who didn't shut that S down soon enough. It resulted in a player ruining a year old campaign, because I got tired of running campaigns for people who wanted to defend their rights to shout the F slur randomly.

@starofjustice1

10 ай бұрын

Obnoxious people who defend themselves by saying "free speech" usually don't know what that actually means...

@andy10121984

10 ай бұрын

Everytime I meet someone like that and ask "did I get any" or "snowflake libs" i tell them a lie something to effect of a use to be a virgin until i stop calling women b***s and don't worry someday you will to. Lol I can't change people but I be a jerk to them and if they don't quit I talk the DM if that doesn't work I just leave.

so... about the Motivation Story. is one that hits kinda close to home. i think it was my third character ever, a Warforged reflavored a skeleton. transmuation wizard [reflavored as an Alchemist] the idea was, the character had a previus life and attempted to create some sort of Inmortality potion, brew, pill, whatever, but... while it seem like a success. he was a completly different person. from the bleached bones what woke up did not had a name, did not had memories, and the closes to a motivation he had was -seeking understanding- which is when he met the Party, scaring them at first as he raised from pile. he actively protected them from other skeleton and didnt spoke unless spoken first. when they asked, my character told them what he knows, He woke up in an alchemy lab, and doesnt know who or how he is exist. they adopted him. and Name him Momonga [based in some anime.] the character was kinda of a Joke. he could do stuff like pulling a bottle of chloropholm [sleep spell] make skeleton punches [magic missile] ... and separate his bones [a hand for mage hand. his whole body as pure flavor but DM did let me pretend to be regular coprse a few times.] now, he never refused to be part of the Party, and the Party never questioned if he should part of the group [evil campaign, Dm had a plot hook in which if one of us died, we all died, so were protective of each regardless Except of the rogue who liked to go on his own... and that is a story for another time].... what im trying to say. not having motivation, is not necessarely the worse thing. activelly using it to interrupt the game or just not caring about one is completly different issue.

@CatacombD

10 ай бұрын

You've misunderstood what "motivation" means in this context. What they mean is, "Your character needs to decide to be an adventurer, for any reason." You said that your skeleton actively protected the party, so that is already "motivation" in this context. He (perhaps instictively) helps the party, so of course the party wants to keep him around. He travels with them so that he can figure out this strange new world. The story in question is different because the character didn't engage with the party in any way. It would be like if your skeleton character came to life, watched them fight the other skeletons without helping, then refused to join the party and wanted to stay in the room in was born in and just collect dust.

@darkwin1977

10 ай бұрын

​@@CatacombD i think we agree in the general point and disagree in Definitons. the way i see motivation and how i heard it in the story is -a reason- and -the meaning- my skeleton would have protected even common people. because the other skeletons attacked first. he didnt need a reason other than that to protect them. and when he got recruited by the bigger evil ones, when they ask him his greater desire like they did to other player, it was -to know everything he needs to know- of course. that doesnt go against any other party member desire and having a wizard that -know stuff- is always usefull. so in their own way it was beneficial. to have me around. in the story the person who never found a motivation for their undead character seem lack both -a reason- and -a meaning- on the point of doing it. there were a dozen reason he could have come up with if he wanted. but he wouldnt had found meaning into doing so. he wanted other people to make it for him

@CatacombD

10 ай бұрын

@@darkwin1977 Your skeleton wants to acquire knowledge. That is a motivation, and, as you said, one which gels fine with an adventuring party. The skeleton in the story had no motivation. No reason to adventure, and was insisting that the rest of the party break character and force him to come along. There is an obvious difference between these two. Yours is a naive being on a search for knowledge. His is the same as the edgelord who stays in the darkest corner of the tavern and wants the other party members to beg them to come along on the adventure. They are not the same. Yours has motivation; his does not. Reluctant adventurers can work, but if a player wants to run one of those characters, it is on THEM to come up with a reason why they are going to join the party. P.S. Your skeleton reminds me of the skeleton in my current pathfinder game. They're in a megadungeon, and a horrible trap activated that killed one of the party members and simultaneously animated a bunch of skeletons. One of the skeletons, however, was sentient, and decided to tag along with the party. (basically the player wasn't enjoying their first character, so we came up with a way to let them switch in character) This is another example of a blank slate character, but they didn't force the party to come up with a reason why they would join. Instead the skeleton gave himself the motivation of "wanting to be helpful to others," so when he saw the party members smashing the other skeleton, he decided to join in and help.

Ooooh, “Alpha” stories are always fun for me because I pretty much always come out of them thinking “So by 'Alpha’ you mean that you’re in your most primitive form right? You mean you’re the version of humanity we should have long abandoned right? Or like in software in its alpha stage, barely works and shouldn’t be shown to the public?” and here was no exception! Good on OP for eventually taking a stand and leaving that group. If someone’s actually proud of being an unevolved caveman then they’re not worth your time! Heh, it’s actually a bucket list thing for me to put one of these self proclaimed “Alpha Bros” in their place by telling them that mentality is SO stupid that even the guy who came up with it admitted it was wrong, and tell them “Just call me the Omega Male son!” and walk off into the sunset! … It’ll never happen but a man can dream though! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

@robertwildschwein7207

10 ай бұрын

But you don't understand, he probably has problems with his ego and confidence, so he plays the tough guy on the outside to overplay his insecurities.

@unknowntitan5884

10 ай бұрын

That's fucking cringe dude.

@c6rn6g2k1d

10 ай бұрын

It really takes the desperate and ignorant to cling onto the alpha-beta wolf back theory and repurpose it into something of a schlong-measuring ideology. The hilarious part it is that, not only is the alpha-beta theory wrong, it was declared erroneous and inaccurate by the very same person who created the theory.

@SIS3W3N

10 ай бұрын

@@c6rn6g2k1d It can still be fun to use their own BS against them, e.g. "An alpha wouldn't need to tell me he's an alpha." or "But there are five of you. I thought there could only be one alpha?"

@c6rn6g2k1d

10 ай бұрын

@@SIS3W3N Could be, but I honestly don't have the patience to indulge them that much. I'm sure it would be funny to watch though.

Story 1: Prompt: "If something like this bothers you, how do you survive even going down to the convenience store?" Response: "Easy, I just remember that you won't be there." (When people talk smack, I'll smack right back; I have no regrets, it can be fun). Joking around aside, it's cool that you bailed, Jerk really was one. You firmly asked for them to knock it off and their response was to try insulting you, you didn't have to take that lying down, so you left, good on you. Don't pay them any more attention in your mind, odds are they ran off everyone else in that group as well as many others, just let them stew in their own mistakes. Only real thing to think about is why DM didn't give Jerk the boot, 2 out of 4 people did not like having Jerk around, that should have been a good enough reason for DM to give Jerk a warning that their behavior was being a problem, if not the boot. Story 2: I don't think OP forced Problem to make a new character, Doge, I think "Consequences of my actions" paid Problem a little visit. I figure Problem would just brood and not engage with the party and their response to that is to simply walk away, they have no connection with the character, why should they ask someone they don't know to join them if they showed no interest in assisting them? They'd just figure that Problem's character would most likely refuse to join if prompted, so they didn't bother. Story 3: Everybody's the A-----. Admittedly, yes, 0 should've thought it through a bit more when they allowed OP to start digging into their backstory, but OP, my dude, we gotta talk. It sounds like you kept making changes one after the other instead of all at once, and it sounds like you didn't really wait to get the okay from 0 for it. At that point, you were starting to take their agency from them. If you made one total change and then asked for 0's approval, then they'd likely take it, they gave their idea, you added your 10 cents, everybody feels happy like it was a team effort. This way felt like you were slowly taking their character away from them, your response of "The changes were all for 0's benefit" reinforces this feeling, whenever I see people say this, the usual response is "Well, I didn't ASK for you to help benefit me.", I know it doesn't apply here, but it's what I've seen. Plus, your thread title, "Player gives red flag, leaves, I get to keep their money.". No. No, no, no. Bad OP. Story 4: Just a suggestion, take for what it's worth, maybe run one campaign that's serious and another campaign that's just to let chaos rein. You seem like a tight group of people, if looking back at a moment that would ruin friendships and laughing is something you all do, so maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a campaign to let Problem run amok and DM to blow off steam during their mood swings by watching their world burn. Just remembering DOOM Eternal playthroughs, it can be a bit cathartic just letting the inner murderhobo out of its cage.

Third story- Ehhhh I dunno about this one. I think I can kinda see why Player 0 had issues. Trying to put my natural revulsion of paying for GMs aside, I think the problem was this: Even if it's not how the GM runs their game, they certainly gave off Red Flags of being a super controlling railroader. The GM asking for permission to change a PCs backstory slightly is good, but in my experience those changes amount to like, maybe one or two things? Not the amount they did here. And while they weren't drastic changes, there were a lot of them, and that probably gave some bad vibes. But the worst thing, and what would have PISSED me off, was the GM saying in so many words that "It's for your own good and will make your character better." Oooooh GTFOH with that. You don't get to tell me my character isn't good enough and that you could do better. Even if that's not what the GM meant, that's how I and I'm guessing a lot of people would take it. That's why they left, I'm pretty confident in guessing. It wasnt that they didn't read, the GM just changed too much and then implied they knew better than the player. I'd call that a Red Flag too.

@informitas0117

10 ай бұрын

Payed DMs are a travesty and a cancer on the hobby. They want to turn a fun hobby into a business with all the bs that comes with it, like having a system that players need to fit for maximizing output and still being "fun enough". My guess is that this dollar dollar DM wanted player 0 to fit his practiced adventure and squeezed him into the mold with an avalanche of changes. Sure player 0 said yes but as he said he did it to please the DM. The "questioner" is a vedge between player and DM as I see it. Maybe I'm wrong but not as wrong as paying for a DM.

Dr. Evil: "I told you I'm casting Fireball on this swarm of mobs!" Austin: "But Mustafa surrounded by those mobs, Dr. Evil! He'll get caught in the blast!" Dr. Evil: "It's his fault for getting himself caught in the middle of that, Powers!"

@laughingalex7563

6 ай бұрын

“Help! Im still alive! But im very badly burned!”

In the first story I was like "canning? Wtf?" Lol until I realize he meant caning. As in hitting people with a cane.

Yoooo! I know the guy of the second post, i also was (am) in that campaign!

Third story smells like unreliably narrator, I would like to hear player 0's version

@informitas0117

10 ай бұрын

For sure, the paid DM is trying to protect his brand it seems like. Player 0 even told the DM his behavior was a red flag before he left and it's still seen as he ghosted the DM. Sure...

Dog bless you my man, I needed the kitties and cringe to forget all my work stress for a minute

"Jerk" is so clearly impressed into your mind because you know he was right lol

Glad you're feeling better!

The third story is really strange. The guy seems pretty upset a single player (quite politely) rejected his "Play out my own story as I planned it" style. Even if it's not compulsory _in paper_ they might have felt they were still somewhat expected to adjust their characters into the DMs script. I've got nothing against that kind of thing if all parts are willing and having fun. But the fact that the DM was so hurt by someone not being into it as to make that post seems like a red flag to me.

@newbienoah9461

10 ай бұрын

Yeah, sounds to me like a control freak in some capacity

@Rodrigo_Vega

10 ай бұрын

Like the guy constantly dming you asking "Hey, can we change your race? hey, can you change the enemies of your family? can we change your patron?" So that all of that fits some very precise fanfic sounds tiring after several requests. Even if you are nice about it and concede that each change would be acceptable. Bro, just change _your_ part of the story to fit the player's choices.

@andrwblood9162

10 ай бұрын

Ok, I find this a weird response to that third story. If mentioned player of the story changed their mind to what they're consenting to on a paper, that's fine and the DM explicitly said was too. But this player refused to communicate that. They were hoping, it seems, to get past all the character changes part or hope that DM would just stop. That's a terrible solution. Like, I don't like confrontation myself. It can be struggle for a lot of people and that's a factor of the world. But, communication. The DM was all in on communicating with the player and the player wasn't. If story was that player's POV, it certainly would be a horror story still and would probably say, "I wish I said something to the DM before it went to shit." Like, maybe this hypothetical version the player adds that the forum was written weirdly. Any element of communicating can be done better and the DM can be better at explaining his game style. But the player had problematic communication in the lack of it. Then engaged in petty words of discontent of the concept of taking away players' agency, however the DM wasn't a good representation of that concept at all. This was a lot, I'm sorry. But it was weird take away from the story. It seems like if you had seen that forum, you would considered if you should playing in the campaign. Nothing wrong with that, vibing with a DM is important. But the player we're talking about is one taking away agency from themselve, until they seem to reach an emotional impasse. That's not good, that's not how people should resolve issues. It doesn't lead to desired outcomes to either party. Again, I'm sorry for the length. I could always be better at communicating by positions too.

@Rodrigo_Vega

10 ай бұрын

@@andrwblood9162 It's fine. I mean, could the player have communicated better if at any point they would have rather NOT giving in to the DMs suggestion? Yes. Are they really at fault for deciding not to? I don't think so. Is this a HORROR story? Definitively no. Maybe they were willing to give the style of game a try and didn't like it. Maybe they had other tables options they enjoyed more and focused on those. Maybe they _did_ had a rather sudden change of heart after a particularly pushy suggestion or boring session. What of it? Add all of this while keeping it mind we are hearing this from the DM's point of view that was oh so hurt. I'm confident that most tales are at least ever slightly polished in the favor of the narrator. I just find it sus.

@CatacombD

10 ай бұрын

@@andrwblood9162 It is most likely a case of mismatched expectations. DM thought they had received cart blanche to suggest any/all changes to the characters backstory, and was enthusiastically talking about how the changes would make the character so much better. The player was meekly accepting the changes, so the DM assumed that they were okay with larger and larger changes. Player thought that the DM just wanted to do a few tweaks (like the early changes of incorporating a backstory villain into the plot) but then was put off when the DM wanted to start adjusting his patron and other significantly more intrusive changes. As the changes piled up, it eventually made the player disengage, and, since they seem to be conflict averse, they just felt better leaving and ghosting rather than dealing with it. The thing that stands out to me is that the DM tries to conflate a minor aesthetic change with a massive character altering one. A warlock's patron can be a massive part of their character. Changing that is in no way similar to the earlier bit where the DM just reflavored some bandits.

That chad in the first story though... Definitely not something i would find attractive at all. Dude thinks he's Lamar from gta...

on the "ghost" part... I get the player despite him not handling well the situation. I put a lot of love on my characters to create a backstory i am happy with, if the DM tells me he is unhappy with one aspect or two i can re-write it a bit (or complete overhaul if necessary) BEFORE SESSION 1. I am not a fan of having re-writes of a backstory in the middle of a campaign, because i feel like then it isn't the same character anymore. Plus the "can i touch things on your backstory" is pretty "vague", some players may take that as "things that happened in your backstory may be referenced later" or "a big plot twist regarding your backstory could be coming", but i wouldn't be expecting "change this tattoo of the character" or "time to make your loving father into the bad guy who never really loved you and contradicts completely what you had in mind only because i wanted a whole different story for your character than the one you set up". Maybe the player was just expecting one minor change here or there, and wasn't expecting this much of a departure on what the DM wanted. And, tbh, i have a feeling that, seeing how the DM said "this was the last straw for him" it tells me that the player did not see some minor tweaking and it didn't happen only once or twice and i doubt it the minor aspects the DM claims were minor to the player.... and then the DM saying "BUT NOW IT'S BETTER" kinda sold it for me that in this instance the DM accused to be controlling was being controlling and believed his ideas on what the character's backstory should be better than the ones the player actually wanted for his character.

@valivali8104

10 ай бұрын

So DM should have been mindreader and understand that player didn’t want changes even after player gave thumps up, and DM tried to fix things?

@swiftswalow

10 ай бұрын

@@valivali8104 No, DM should talk to the player and actually make sure the player understands to waht extent he will toy with the backstories or how many changes he will do and should know to not change a backstory once the campaign already starts... and certainly shouldn't, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, tell a player "but this works better than what you thought", that's just being an arrogant ass for no reason. I am not saying the player did it right either, the ghosting and refusing to talk to the DM or even voice his disagreements before he exploded shows lack of self reflection and control, it's not an adult way to handle things. But IMO the DM is not in the clear, because when a DM tells me "i want to make some changes in the backstory" i understand "Some things don't work for my setting, let's re-shape them so they do", not "I'll take what you did as a baseline but everything your character is will be according to my vision on how they should be and I know best and will change even minor things that have no impact on the overall story because i think they are cooler how i see them". I believe the issue here is that the player assumed the changes would only be to make the character fit inside the world and the DM meant something more akin to flavour to control more the narrative... it's an issue on communication neither of them handled well.

@valivali8104

10 ай бұрын

@@swiftswalow why did player answer "Do whatever. Suprise me!" and "No" to "Is there something you wouldn’t want me to mess with?" if he didn’t want DM to mess with backstory, and said nothing before having tantrum? How DM was supposed to know that player didn’t mean what he told without talking to him like he's lacking intelligence? Wasn’t DM's motive for asking if players wanted their backstory to be changed and weaved into story to make better story? So why not say that it would make better story, since that was goal and reason to changes?

@swiftswalow

10 ай бұрын

@@valivali8104 because there is a thing called "assumptions", depending on exactly how's it worded the player could have assumed some limits not worth mentioning the DM did not have in mind, and probably the player didn't exepct more than one or two changes, more so when the changes seem to be constant and sessions apart, which, in all honesty, would bother ANY player who has been playing a character for a couple of sessions already since it gives the vibe that the DM wants to control more on the character's life and personality than the player themselves or worse, doesn't like the PC and wants the player to play something else only because of taste, not even because there is any inherent problem with the PC... which is a big no-no: the player ultimately is the one who decides the story of the character and how to roleplay it. "Wasn’t DM's motive for asking if players wanted their backstory to be changed and weaved into story to make better story? So why not say that it would make better story, since that was goal and reason to changes?" Because maybe the player disagrees on the change making a better story, maybe the player thinks the changes are shit and there's nothing wrong with how the backstory already is (which, btw, seems like it, since the DM said it would make it "tie in BETTER with the themes I had in mind", not that it didn't work as it was) and then an argument can start and nobody likes those, and depending on how it's presented it can be understood as "YOUR CHARACTER WAS SHIT AND BORING AS IT WAS, MY IDEA FOR THE BACKSTORY IS BETTER!", which is already a non-starter: either you silently nod and bottle things up or you speak up and say "I don't think the changes you put on the table are better" in which case, depending on the ego of the DM you can have a very bad vibe at the table... which would suck more in this instance, as Player and DM don't really know each other. Important thing to remember that this logic is reversible: "How DM was supposed to know that player didn’t mean what he told without talking to him like he's lacking intelligence?" How was the Player supposed to know that the DM didn't assume what he considers to be basic limits without questioning him like he's lacking empathy and tact? More so when the Player and the DM didn't seem to know each other before and the player seems to really hate confrontation. Again, this is a situation where i see both parties as wrong in some way or another, player didn't know how to draw limits and threw a tantrum when he exploted without giving any previous hints on his frustration, and DM didn't stop for a second to think that maybe, even if given permission to change stuff, too many changes out of the blue because of his whims at the moment are annoying, showing that he cares more about HIS story than the fun of the players.

@valivali8104

10 ай бұрын

@@swiftswalow *why you ignored what player wrote?* Remember: "Do whatever. Suprise me!" and "No" as answer to question "Is there something you wouldn’t want me to mess with?" Which other way those can be understood than that player was alright with any changes in backstory? How aren’t you demanding that DM should have read player’s mind? Where did DM claim that original backstory was boring or in any way bad? Otherwise good backstory doesn't make good story if it can’t be woved into story; it will be detached from story and thus plays next to no part in story, likely never showing. How was DM forcing anyone to change anything in their backstories if DM asked players if they allow DM to change anything and if they allow then what? Why didn’t player say they didn’t want changes or tell what changes they didn’t want? Why didn’t player open their mouth when DM showed changes? Why should DM been able to read player’s mind and understand that "Do whatever. Suprise me!" and agreeing after being shown changes still meant that changes weren't what player wanted?

It wasn't even two minutes after seeing Alice's adorable little black toe-beans when the _necessity_ of the toe-beans became evident.

The GM integrating your pre-written backstory into their world is respecting player agency. No idea what was going through that person's mind. (I was going to call them a player, but they didn't end up playing) That cleric betraying the party must've been infuriating at the time, but it's hilarious

Was that Alice - so adorable. Alpha Chads - I swear - these men need a good cat in their life.

@shadenox8164

10 ай бұрын

Oh these are probably the doofuses that think cats are for women and dogs are for men.

WOO NEW DOGE VIDEO

new doge video is so cool

When my players roll low stats (4d6 drop the lowest and reroll 1s) and they want to change I always offer to redo it. But they have to reroll all the stats full reset. But they HAVE to take the new set even if it's worse. Fun gamble.

@GundamAngelicDevil

10 ай бұрын

I used to have a DM that would roll his d20 and that number (if higher than a 15) could be used to replace your lowest roll.

@Miedeth1

10 ай бұрын

My current DM does 4d6 drop the lowest, but if the total of all your stats is below 72, you can reroll until the total is 72 or more.

@shadenox8164

10 ай бұрын

In a pathfinder game I played the DM took everyone's stats and worked out the average and people that did very poorly got points, just enough to make sure you weren't useless. It was an interesting approach, I think being able to put those two points where I wanted them worked out better than the average roll might have.

Common sense is not common!

In D&D the only REAL 'Alpha' is the DM. (and I always wind up as DM. ;))

Hello, Doge.

Yes! I love "alpha chad" storys.

@AmaryInkawult

10 ай бұрын

As Alpha Bitch, I must defend my title through bloody combat against Alpha Chads via the traditional Gladiatorial Ring of Death. Of course, I will choose a Whip as my side arm and a Shovel as my bludgeoning implement. May the top Alpha survive with the fresh scars of battle. Oh Gods if only we weeded out alpha wannabes like that... I'd be having fun at least.

@robertwildschwein7207

10 ай бұрын

@@AmaryInkawult They are just insecure.

looking forward to when you find and read my newest story that's in the dnd doge subreddit.

I would say the first story is made up.. but how it ended? I see it more as "Ya there are red flags to me let get out so I dont test them" Like that legit fair to do. 2nd story. Sounds good that the player seemed to learn a bit.

About the player ghosting the DM for making suggestions: I always love it, when a DM makes such suggestions. We are playing a Greyhawk campaign right now, where it is kind of important, that we have a tie to a specific village, so the DM gave us NPCs and groups connected to the village and we could pick something, that would link us there. And when I wanted to multiclass my bard to warlock, he suggested me a patron linked to my backstory. I said, I liked the idea, but wanted to go archfey, which wouldn't have been impossible with this specific patron, so he suggested anotehr one (it was important, that the patron is somewhat good aligned and tied to the sea) and that worked well. So yeah, I like it, when DMs make suggestions based on story relevance and character background. They know best, what will work, since they know the story.

@TortoiseNotTurtle

10 ай бұрын

Eh I guess but Player 0 didn't seem to like it. Plus this didn't seem to just be, "Oh hey maybe go with this instead" The way the DM words it kinda just comes across as "Hey can you change this backstory aspect", then again, and then again, and then again for rather minor stuff which probably would get annoying to many at some point. Like I'm sure player 0 would've been find with one or two tweaks, but the amount of "tweaks" given made it seem less and less like they had agency. It can be bothersome if you have a char you want to play but it ends up turning into, "Great, I wonder what the next set of changes the DMs gonna make are"

So you made a character that doesn't want to work with the party? He walks off into sunset. Please make a character that isn't a frustrating waste of everyone's time now.

Played with a Singaporean player before that's also an a-hole, would min max and would always have their way in game. Not all Singaporean players though, some were nice.

DOGE DOGE DOGE

Based doge

Engagement

I'd say there's another moral to story 1; DMs if there's a player in your game that's making other people uncomfortable, act on it. It doesn't matter if you don't have the entire table behind you or not; if someone isn't happy with the situation, deal with the situation. Maybe they're being a snowflake, or maybe they have legitimate concerns. Either way, do something; don't just sit there and let the jerk chase off your players.

"destorys"?

Hornybutired posted another story, just can't recall what it was. 🤔

Beep!

Story #1 - Yeah, probably a lucky escape. Jerk desperately needed to be house-broken, but I'd put a lot of this on the DM for not reining things in. Story #2 - If you join the party, actively help your teammates and DON'T pi$$ anyone off,, you can be in the game. if you don't do these things, you are out, as in don't show up. Extremely simple choice. Story #3 - Unsure what Player 0's deal was. Change of mind clearly, but only part of the issue. Social issues would be my guess. Story #4 - Put this entirely on the DM, who KNEW what Problem Player was running - or certainly should have. Also, I don't care how brilliant a DM he might have been, anyone who'll just TPK the group because he randomly feels like it is NOT anyone I would game with under any circumstances.

Acquiring females. Dnd. Choose one.

@shadenox8164

10 ай бұрын

I play with women pretty often, but you definitely shouldn't be using it to try and pick up anyone of any gender.

10th comment here

About the bad luck rolling stats - *why do people keep rolling stats* ?! Seriously, I abolished this at my table well over a decade ago. Just *pick* your stats (subject to GM approval, so don't go crazy with them). Rolling for stats abrogates player agency.

@shadenox8164

10 ай бұрын

I mean these days most people use standard array.

@jrytacct

10 ай бұрын

@@shadenox8164 Well, I go one better. If you can justify it to me, you can have it.

@informitas0117

10 ай бұрын

It's like gambling, it can be fun.

@maxb2244

10 ай бұрын

Because it's fun.

Hey people, just fyi the two anime characters on the thumbnail are canonically lesbians so Chad must be deluded. Or they're both fighting for his sister but he dumped Int so he has no idea they are.

Funny part of the story in part 1. IF people feel this way why do you support rap music that actively demeanor woman in such a way? Not a D&D question just one in general.

Player 0 was complete crap show in a very odd way. That is the first time I've heard a story about that kind of problem player. It's a little confusing in truth.

That first story is entirely cringe

Being upset about low tier insults like bitch is pretty soft. Enjoy being on the internet. But suppose they can leave the game no rules against it. I say fuck every other sentence so maybe I am just used to bad words

@DelayofUpload

10 ай бұрын

I can say from experience both types of people are annoying to almost equal degrees. Saying edgy shit to get a reaction out of people is just as irritating as someone you have to walk on eggshells around because the internet told them to be offended. I think that's the main reason I stay away from the internet groups, because "No D&D is better than bad D&D" as they like to say.

@shadenox8164

10 ай бұрын

I mean if that's the only way someone ever talks about women, you should call that shit out. Its one thing to call someone a bitch or accuse them of being a bitch but calling all women that is definitely a red flag and that is what he was doing when he got called on it.

Not sure about the first story, OP seems to be an actual asshole. The teen was not trolling, he was just awkwardly trying to start a conversation... For the DM... Just f*cking give him some time to deal with it? She assumes others will fix her problem for her right away without diplomacy and complains that people lack of it... You can not have your cake and eat it. Of course the group seemed like hell, but she was just as part of this hell as the others. Also, the last one is not horror, just a very nice warstory! We play DnD also for those moments.