"Only one session and 3 of the 5 players dropped out" That's not a red flag, that's a fire alarm.

@jamiekamihachi3135

2 жыл бұрын

The Soviet Union didn’t raise as many red flags as this guy.

@Nerobyrne

2 жыл бұрын

The first scenario was an international Tankie convention 🤣

@bretsheeley4034

2 жыл бұрын

That's not a fire alarm, that's the building already burning down around you. :)

@thetiredbiker3652

2 жыл бұрын

More like a hurricane warning: you can see the crap from miles and miles away!

@realdragon

2 жыл бұрын

China have less red flags

I strongly disagree on the "It's what my character would do" interpretation. That's essentially an accusation of being antagonistic at the table, having fun at the expense of other players. This player was trying to play their character, reacted reasonably to the situation put forth, and generally roleplayed well. The other players were on board. The DM was contemptuous of the player's character and role-playing decisions, and vetoed the entire group to make sure this role-playing event never happened. No. Just, no.

@Nerobyrne

2 жыл бұрын

yeah, me too. "It's what my character would do" is literally what roleplaying is. You're playing the role of your character and doing what they would do. The reason it's frowned upon sometimes is because some people use it as a way to dodge responsibility. But, I always ask: "Why did you choose to play this kind of character?" This is kind of what a session 0 is for. You introduce your character, and that SHOULD show everyone what they're dealing with and if they want this kind of person in their party. Also, hell no, "use out of game reasons to justify in-game actions"? What the hell? I'm trying to get immersed into a world, if I wanted to meta-game all day I'd just stick to video games. This is somewhere I very much disagree with Crispy on.

@falxblade1352

2 жыл бұрын

@@Nerobyrne here's my opinion on "it's what my character would do:" Is it? And why would he do that? For example, let's compare Coraline to a different story. The character lost the only real link to her creator, and can't get it back. It's reasonable to be distraught. Compared to... The KZreadr Reddx has been covering an Edge of the Empire Horror story where the antagonist (a Jawa force user, if you're curious - first red flag) has so far tried to steal from his comrades, stolen the OP's last stimpack and used it on himself while their teammate was dying, abandoned their teammate after angering a horde of killiks, and most recently, cutting off his own legs in order to force OP's character to put in cybernetic legs. This guy's *supposed* to be a noble hero, but the player plays him like a deranged psychopath. One of these is CLEARLY what the character would do, and the player can easily give a solid justification. The other clearly is what the PLAYER wants to do, and when he's called out, he just obfuscate until the point is dropped.

@Smeagolthevile

2 жыл бұрын

I literally came here to say just this. 100% This is a really bad take.

@thunderstruck206

10 ай бұрын

I came here just to add if you don't want my character to be hung up on or act like items aren't important to them....don't fuggin give em to me (especially in my backstory)

"I guess Coralline leaves the party then." Would've been so sweet if one of the other party members said "you mean the party leaves the dm" and they all get up and leave him behind

To clarify, the second story DM The one who hates gnomes He *made* that system, yes? The one that *has gnomes in it?*

@DrZombieMoogle

2 жыл бұрын

Loooooool

@byronsmothers8064

2 жыл бұрын

No way of explaining how they had the luck of rolling 22 twice, but imagine he tells new players the number they roll is gnome regardless of what his list says, just to hate out noobs.

@goncalocarneiro3043

2 жыл бұрын

@@byronsmothers8064 I would find it hard to justify how both a 22 and a hipothetical, say... 67 would both be gnomes. So even thought the DM is bad, 8 can believe 22 was Gnomes and the DM didn't plan for that.

@chrisrudolf9839

2 жыл бұрын

He possibly planned to troll the new player from the start, since new player was the only one who had to randomly roll their character and the alleged d100 table wasn't visible to the player. Otherwise it would be hardly explainable why they didn't just agree to roll a third time or just pick something else, since the player wasn't even keen on playing a gnome either.

@krystopherguadalupe1760

2 жыл бұрын

Fictional or otherwise… I’m pretty sure he is engaging in actual racism… to an imaginary character

The entire reason "it's what my character would do!" is so widely mocked is because, very often, it's used to justify actions that absolutely *do not* make sense in character, and are the product of out-of-character desires that have nothing to do with good roleplaying. I know this because when someone acts in a way that *is* consistent with their character, it rarely requires explanation or justification. In the third story, the problem here is clearly the DM. The actions made sense for the PC, all the other players were fine with it, but the DM didn't want to give her character the moment because he thought it was silly and dumb. And, frankly, the player was correct for leaving because it was clear the DM didn't respect her or her character enough to let her have her moment.

@AmiableDingo

2 жыл бұрын

Yup. I disliked the video because the narrator complained about the player of the doll character's great roleplaying as "it's what my character would do". The idea of a funeral makes perfect sense thematically. A good DM would love it if a player gets this involved in the game. The narrator accusing the player of using "it's what my character would do" and saying that they should need to explain that it is a good RP moment as justification for bringing it up is ridiculous

DM: "You can roll any race on this table, which includes gnomes." Also DM: "You rolled a gnome, fuck you."

Having to explicitly say "this will be something fun to roleplay" or "this will create roleplay opportunities" to justify a roleplay scene for the sake of not having to be accused of flirting with "It's what my character would do" is undercutting organic roleplay moments. If you can infer that "this is what my character would do," you should definitely be able to infer that this is also a roleplay moment. Especially if it's important to a character and -literally- everyone else is on board. At least we can all agree that the GM was a jackass in that situation though, and I look forward to the video on the topic. I stand by my opinion that "That's what my character would do" is only bad when it's the only explanation you have for derailing the fun for everyone else. Otherwise, it's just roleplaying. I certainly hope everyone is playing their characters as they would do things to tell a fun story overall. Even if not every point is the apex enjoyment at all times for everyone.

@ArawnNox

2 жыл бұрын

I've had to invoke that once and it feels awkward to do. I was in a game of Rogue Trader and I had a trait that required me to do everything in my power to avoid getting sent to prison if I was in such a situation. Well, we were facing a group of Arbiters with guns drawn telling us the ole "Get down!" speech. I looked at the other players and said, "Sorry, I have to fight here, its on my sheet." fortunately, the GM wasn't a jerk about it and actually anticipated us fighting our way out of the situation.

It's what my character would do" is basically a "My backstory and situation make this action the most sensical and workable" its how me and my friends play, i hate how distorted it got, since it's one of the basics of RP

@hdnfbp

2 жыл бұрын

@Naukumaija Mau-mau Sad truth. I've had some of those while gming, my way with them is ask for clarification, if they can't explain or don't give a good reason for the lawful good cleric stealing from peasants and taking their daughters, I'm shutting it down

DM hates gnomes? Red flag right there. Gnomes are lovable.

@donniejefferson9554

2 жыл бұрын

I'm definitely more of a halfling guy but I can appreciate a gnome that's basically friendly rocket raccoon

@thetiredbiker3652

2 жыл бұрын

Gnomes are the worst! ((Bias because kobold player ^__^))

@stevenschnepp576

2 жыл бұрын

Gnomes are obnoxious and completely extraneous in most editions.

@mrmaat

2 жыл бұрын

Gnomes suck.

@CaptainFoofoo64

2 жыл бұрын

Gnomes are great gardeners!

Healing magic is selfish if you use it on yourself? By that logic, a cobbler shouldn't wear shoes he made for himself.

@goji3755

2 жыл бұрын

Cobblers always used to cross their fingers and hope that, while they slept, elves would come into the workshop and make a pair for them so as not to be viewed as selfish. If a trio of elvish Elvis Impersonators rocked in and made enough Blue Suede Shoes to fill the store, it was proof of the cobbler's undisputed selflessness.

@byronsmothers8064

2 жыл бұрын

@@goji3755 sounds like the kind of lie a cobbler would tell their customers to justify making their finest shoes for themselves, people believed anything back then

@goncalocarneiro3043

2 жыл бұрын

As far as I could tell, the story about cobblers was more in the lines of "if the cobbler uses their own shoes they won't have money to live." Because every pair they sell gave them just enough to live until they made a new pair. May not be true at all, but it is what I thought would be the logic.

"You'll have to try really hard to make me warm up to your character because I hate the race you didn't even get to pick" And that fellas is where I'd start to consider leaving the game Yeah after that hell hound incident I'd be gone

@animeotaku307

2 жыл бұрын

“Well, seeing as you basically forced me to roll for my race, I think I’ll have no part of this abusive relationship. Have fun being short a player.”

@Nerobyrne

2 жыл бұрын

If the DM already tells you they can't be objective, just leave.

@thetiredbiker3652

2 жыл бұрын

“Here’s $0.50 for you to get a nice hot cup of ‘fsck off’, DM.”

@angiep2229

2 жыл бұрын

I don't even get it. If a DM hates a race that much, it's fine to just not allow it in the game. It's really okay to set limitations. It's not okay to single out a PC and treat them like that.

@JD-mh8be

2 жыл бұрын

@@angiep2229 it's because dm hate boner was so strong I'm assuming he made the race the bad guys in his world

if the guy hates gnomes then why make it an option on his table?

You are *supposed* to do what your character would do. What you're not supposed to do is create a character who would do random disruptive shit.

12:40- ah yes nothing makes you look more adult than calling someone else childish for rping a character that the DM approved of. In all seriousness, I really dig the OP’s idea of a sentient doll that regards the tools that make it as its parents and it’s clear that the DM neither understood or cared to understand the character. I will say in the moment, it might not have come to mind to make in and out of game justification

@Damalon01

2 жыл бұрын

Personally if I was GMing that game I would have warned that Rogue that stealing from party members is just a really bad idea, it rarely ends well. That being said I would have allowed it if they insisted but only after I warned them and I WOULD NOT have had the NPC destroy them! I would have done a little side quest ending in the tools being retrieved and hopefully the thief learning just how much those tools meant to the Doll character.

@paulpetersen2426

2 жыл бұрын

The key issue is that the DM clearly did not understand or care about the character's story and motivations. The tools never should have been destroyed. They were a key component of the character's identity and the DM treated them like some random item. Plus, imagine how much adventure could have been driven by the quest to recover them.

@chrisrudolf9839

2 жыл бұрын

@@paulpetersen2426 It looks to me that the DM was rather fed up with that character concept and considered it silly for some time, so he took the opportunity to spite the player and force them to change the way the character acts (or write the character out of the game). Possibly he was also not happy that the players created their own side quest with the stealing and subsequent loss of those tools, possibly derailing his campaign. I don't think he was just being oblivious, especially because he needlessly had the thief NPC destroy the tools, which doesn't make much sense in the first place. In any case, trampling over the character decisions of a player like that is never OK (unless the decision violates rules or causes heavy discomfort at the table, in which case the problem has to be adressed out of game, not by targetting the player in game and spitefully breaking the player's "toys")

@hiropisku1078

2 жыл бұрын

It reminds me of Gwen (League of Legends) and Pinocchio

@vapx0075

6 ай бұрын

It is amazing, the 'I'm RPing' excuse for her behavour is so F*ing obvious to her in that moment she couldn't utter it, as much to say she also didn't mention she was breathing. Crispy coming in with an unpopular opinion on this one.

I disagree with needing to reword Coraline's reasoning for her actions. Yeah, "It's what my character would do" has negativity attached to it, but that doesn't mean it in and of itself is bad. Staying in character, having the character act as they should, is a GOOD thing. It's just that problem players tend to use it as a get out of jail free card. Considering that the other players were on board with the funeral, this was fine. If anything, the DM could've handwaved it like 'it happened, let's move on' if he didn't want to do it. Also, I'd think that most anything a player presents mid-session is something they think would be fun or interesting to play through, so wording it that way is just silly. I mean, otherwise they wouldn't have suggested it.

@princeOpalite3650

2 жыл бұрын

I totally agree with you

@lordinquisitor6233

2 жыл бұрын

I feel that is too much of a connotation that ‘it’s what my character would do’ as being murderhobos looking for an excuse to be a tool. As you have said, the players were completely fine with it and the DM’s response was absolutely out of proportion to any perceived behaviour (there is rarely a good reason to insult someone, especially when you don’t need to)

"It's an important part of my character's backstory and I'll therefore pursue it" isn't a good reason? That's the whole point of why they are present in the campaign. That's like saying that what happened with a recurring villain in session three doesn't matter in session twenty-five. But beyond that, everyone deserves to have their moments and there are things that they consider to be important. (There is the caveat here of it actually being relevant and important to the character. Simply announcing "It's what my character would do!" has well-known and well-documented associated behaviors.) Getting it out there, the roleplaying is important BECAUSE of the story and vice versa. But why have a vested interest in either? Because it's fun and meant to bring people together. Refusing to acknowledge what is important or interesting to someone is an immediate way to invalidate them and harm the relationship.

"It's what my character would do" is a sentence that only has positive connotations if seen without any biases. It means someone is role-playing and that is strictly good. What makes it bad isn't the sentence itself, it is the character doing it. Bad characters do bad actions. If a character is just endlessly antagonistic, pety and vengeful, they might have a reasonable reason to kill a party member that deeply annoyed them, that makes the character a bad choice to have in the party, it doesn't make the role-playing choice bad.

@theuncalledfor

2 жыл бұрын

But the player is still a dick because they chose that character, knowing they would cause such problems. (But yes, I agree with you.)

I honestly hate the hate for "it's what my character would do". Because, when it's NOT being used by people who are just looking for an excuse to be an absolute dick (which to be fair is almost always, but in instances like THIS story specifically) it's practically always going to lead to a moment of strong RP and character building. But the statement just has a bad rep from people who are using it to excuse their awful behaviour, so now apparently you don't even have to SAY the words, you just need to imply them apparently.

@kwehknight9001

2 жыл бұрын

yeah, I think if you think your character would legitimately do that, then you shouldn't be afraid of saying the words. If you're being a complete ass about it and using it to justify actions because you want to do that, then that's when you're wrong to use it.

@hugrat

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah it's silly to whine just about the expression being "loaded". The only valid point is in which context it's being used. In this story "what my character would do" was used in the correct context. Also, the whole party agreed so it did make good narration. That's all that counts.

@LetholdusKaspyr

2 жыл бұрын

The issue is that it's an obvious excuse. The character has done something to irritate the other players. You're playing your character in a way that's fun for you, at the expense of someone else's fun. If you have to use your character as a shield, maybe you should examine why you chose to play the character that way. It's still your own fault for making that creative decision.

@cassiswyrm8121

2 жыл бұрын

@@LetholdusKaspyr So, when someone is annoying the whole group or constantly annoying some/one of them or if their actions would cause some genuine problems for another character or mess them up somehow then yes. I can see how even if it's in character it's a problem because they chose to play a character that would make the game not be fun for others. But your minimum requirement for a campaign can't be that every aspect of every other player's character and every idea that comes up HAS to be your absolute favorite, and trying to roll with it for five minutes when an idea that someone else likes more than you comes up shouldn't be a dealbreaker if it's not some pattern of neglecting all but certain people.

@LetholdusKaspyr

2 жыл бұрын

@@cassiswyrm8121 Obviously, I wouldn't expect or want every character to have to be every other character's super special best friend. But I've never seen the excuse of "it's what my character would do!" used to defend harmless behavior. Stealing from or attacking PCs is the kind of behavior that people actually feel the need to defend.

I do not agree with the whole not justifying the reason for your actions IC. While doing it just to be a dick is possible. The OP wasn't trying to be a dick, they actually had agreement for it at the game table. The only one not agreeing was the DM, he could have said "sure you can hold a funeral, but I don't want to run it, we can say it happens off screen." instead the DM decided to write the character out of the group. Not cool, and definitely not warranted.

@ArawnNox

2 жыл бұрын

I wonder if it wasn't resentment? The players decided to go off on a tangent, hijacking his game (I'm using unfair verbage to describe the GM's possible POV) and distracting from the main adventure. I mean, he could have easily have said "You find the tools intact" but for some reason the DM decided they'd been destroyed. So... maybe the DM was just butthurt the players had made their own fun?

@chrisrudolf9839

2 жыл бұрын

Thats the old narrativist versus simulationist argument (aka author stance vs character stance). The narrativist will first and foremost go for what he thinks would make the best story, the simulationist wants to fully immerse himself in the game world and his character and will do what he thinks his character would most likely do in that situation and consider out of game reasons like "it would make for a better story" as a bit sketchy (close to metagaming). The narrativist on the other hand will consider the "its what my character would do" excuse selfish and disruptive when it leads to actions that in his opinion don't make a good story. Of course those two points of view are extreme archetypes and most players are not either-or, but a mix of both. I think most of the time it is best to stay in game and argue with in game reasons, but when a roleplay decision causes an argument between the players (not only the characters), it is probably best to step back from the game and discuss both the character's reasons and the story-motivated reasons why the player wants to do this and why the DM and/or other players might have a problem with that.

@theuncalledfor

2 жыл бұрын

@@chrisrudolf9839 Oh hey, you just taught me that I'm a simulationist. Neat.

@nvfury13

2 жыл бұрын

Thing is, that is the kind of moment that a DM doesn’t need to *do anything.* It is an entirely PC role play driven thing that also makes everyone more grounded to the world.

To the 1000 word backstory DM who refuses to give any details about the world, they can enjoy my 1000 "Nope" as I walk out the metaphorical door.

@heatherharrison264

2 жыл бұрын

Good idea. If I got a request like this and wanted to really wallow in my distaste, I would write a 1000-word backstory (exactly 1000 words - no more, no less) about the most boring, generic character possible with all aspects of the backstory being vague generalities. It might be fun to mess with an idiot like this.

@MrCrunchytime

2 жыл бұрын

@@heatherharrison264 That's too much effort. I'd literally just copy "Nope" exactly to 1000 and send it.

@Karmasu_L

2 жыл бұрын

You could write a nice long story and nullify it all in the last paragraph.

@K_i_t_t_y84

2 жыл бұрын

I would GLADLY write even more than 1k words if I knew where the hell my character was, what world we're on, what cities exist, what gods exist, or any general effing information to give me a starting point. But if they tell me nothing I can write nothing.

@MogofWar

Жыл бұрын

That one's an excerpt of a longer story. It gets even worse. Basically the mofo demands 10 page backstories, vetos most of them, and kills them off casually. The DM in question is actually rejecting the character ideas he likes because he wants to add those ideas to his setting and accepting the ideas he doesn't like because he plans on killing off the PC's quickly.

60% turnover after the first game? 🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩

I love writing backstories. I'll even use them to help flesh out a campaign world, if asked. But if a DM gives me nothing to work with, I'm out. My favorite was when a DM was trying to recruit me, and was telling me about his setting. He mentioned goliaths were a broken and dispirited people, but he hadn't figured out why yet. Immediately I created Ufthak Anvilbreaker, a goliath who had to break the heart of his entire race - especially his own- to save their lives, and now lived with the consequences.

"I asked someone to make sure you know what you're doing under the pretense of being new! They're going to test your knowledge and make sure you're qualified to run a downtime activity and this will have no negative impact on our interactions, especially after my attempts to undermine your leadership in front of everyone else." I think I would just ban Joe at that point. I hope he mellows out and has lots of fun with TTRPG in the future, but it wouldn't be at my table.

@thetiredbiker3652

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah if you have to bring in a guy to ‘quality check’ the fun, you have no idea how fun is supposed to work.

@theuncalledfor

2 жыл бұрын

He did get banned.

@bryantspears119

Жыл бұрын

@@theuncalledfor How do you know exactly?

@theuncalledfor

Жыл бұрын

@@bryantspears119 That post was 9 months ago, I don't remember.

I'd wager the DM that wanted the 1,000 word backstories wanted to use them for himself or even turn them into characters in some crappy fan fiction they were writing. They had more flags than the Russian Navy....

@michaeldolan5792

2 жыл бұрын

"I refuse to tell you anything about my campaign setting because I don't actually have anything to tell you, and I'm depending on you players to create it for me through your backstory novellas."

"Hex blade is stupid anyway" Hex blade/pact of the blade is one of the best you can go with. It's (at this point) a classic combo and very well balanced

@eloidasarmi6815

2 жыл бұрын

Very well balanced? Nice way to say, that it's broken like hell and nuked entire balance system from release xd

@Nerobyrne

2 жыл бұрын

@@eloidasarmi6815 that just sounds like an excuse a bad DM would give for not being able to deal with player choice 😎

@eloidasarmi6815

2 жыл бұрын

@@Nerobyrne I say it from player's perspective. This subclass just wrecked the balance of the game. As a dm I don't give a damn what my players choose, as long as they communicate it to me before the game)

@Nerobyrne

2 жыл бұрын

@@eloidasarmi6815 how did it do that?

@eloidasarmi6815

2 жыл бұрын

@@Nerobyrne it's the subclass with absolutely insane lvl 1 value. Before it multiclassing with warlock was rare thing. After - 1 lvl deep in hexblade is the most common multiclassing option in the game.

With regards to the second story: Obviously, DM playing favorites (or unfavorites, as the case may be) is always bad. But it's even worse when the reason they're playing favorites is due to factors entirely outside of the player's control. Like, dude, you're the one that set up the random tables, why'd you make them options if you were just going to kill off any characters that rolled those numbers? You're the DM, making a homebrew campaign in a homebrew setting. You can just... not have those types of characters show up. The Genre Police aren't going to show up at your door because you didn't put the entire list of playable races in your game.

@Nerobyrne

2 жыл бұрын

yeah, that was my thought. Just get rid of the gnome option if you hate them so much 🤷 Especially because it sounds like the DM was pretty good at their job, aside from that weird hang-up.

I think you're wrong on bringing up the "It's what my character would do" thing in regards to OP by the fact that they weren't being a role-play terrorist (look up the Seth Skorkowsky video on that front). You don't... really need to justify something like that out of game when the intentions are very clearly not malicious, and are just trying to express the character. Doesn't need to be justified as anything, just that it isn't malicious.

I wish players had the gumption to tell DMs how horrible they are treating them in the moment instead of later or venting online.

This is not the first time I hear about somebody hating gnomes. Somebody who played in my current campaign actually does so. Is there a particular reason or is it just kind of a meme to just dispise gnomes? That DM really came up with a whole lot of baloney to get in the player´s way. Cleric not able to heal themselves because of it being selfish? The hell?

@pv1612

2 жыл бұрын

It’s not like they’re the kender or something. I don’t get it.

@animeotaku307

2 жыл бұрын

I had a DM who disliked gnomes. He said it was because they were discount halflings, though I don’t see it.

@K_i_t_t_y84

2 жыл бұрын

It's probably a weird holdover from edgy World of Warcraft players who only play Horde because "they're the bad guise" and hate gnomes because they're small and cute.

There is a difference between "It is what my character would do." and "This is how I am role-playing my character.".

@vapx0075

6 ай бұрын

F english at this point.

What's wrong with Coraline's player just wanting to respond to their character's tragedy in an appropriate way? Especially since the other players were on board? "It's what my character would do" is actually a valid reason sometimes, make no mistake. What would you have had them do? Just go along with their connection to their patron (that they view as their parent) being destroyed and move on immediately?

@CrispysTavern

2 жыл бұрын

Okay other people did not understand what I was saying, but this is THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF WHAT I WAS SAYING. What she did was fine. I said that. I said it was “good” in fact. I was saying that when trying to *convince* people of valid character actions, using out of game arguments is generally a better idea. The DM is a stubborn ass, so it probably wouldn’t have mattered. But my claims were meant as recommendations to people who find themselves in discussions about what decisions can or can’t be made.

@Zolanark

2 жыл бұрын

@@CrispysTavern After listening to that section, I believe the issue is that you didn't word yourself very well in switching from the "she used it right" point to the next thought of "but it's loaded so here's how to use it when someone disagrees" point, and they sort of melded into one misunderstood point of "she did it bad here's how to do it right". Maybe a longer pause or a separating sentence between those thoughts would have been better to avoid the flood of people disagreeing with a misunderstanding, as I at first misunderstood what you said and viewed it as you attacking her for even implying she wanted to do it because it fit her character and then going on to say something about "all decisions should be made and explained based on what is best for the story". Just some food for thought that maybe the issue was in presentation

Story 1 is just a npc farm, he wants characters to keep

One of the things that make me livid while listening to these is when the party does excellent RP and the DM shits on it.

we have a Rules lawyer in our Group .... oh sorry he's only a Rules lawyer hen it benefits him, using your Dragon Example as an example. Rules Lawyer would remember the exhaustion if his turn was next and he knew he could kill it, as he's keeping track of it's HP, Oh and he would score a Crit as well, yer he's a massive Meta Gamer & that Guy as well.

@falionna3587

2 жыл бұрын

That's the definition of a rules lawyer. They'd argue for the win by any means. Be it following the rules, "physics" or rule of cool. As long as they "win".

I think the problem is less with "what my character would do" than a player having a somewhat inflexible notion of what that character would do. In the case of this person, they specified that everything was mutual with the other players, so the DM was obviously the one in the wrong. Your cringe at the expression is totally understandable, though, and I really look forward to your video on the topic.

I think "It's what my character would do," While commonly being used for negative things, can be used for very positive Aspects! It can be used as part of an arguement or reason behind your character actions and reasons, but it can't be the sole reason, and the OP used it perfectly.

If the player had chosen the gnome as their race, one could almost understand the dm being upset…but it was a random roll. If you didn’t want someone to play a certain race, either take it off the list or allow them to pick something else? That was just so oddly petty…

I personally disagree with your opinion on the 3rd story. The "its what my character would do" only becomes a problem in the context of the situation. If the funeral was something no one wanted to do and OP kept insisting that they must, then I'd agree with you. However, everybody was on board with the funeral, so the context of the famous line has been altered.

@CrispysTavern

2 жыл бұрын

Like I said in the video, the choices she made were good. I said that when addressing someone who DISAGREES with your choices, you should use out of game reasons. If someone has a genuine problem with something you did in game, using "it's what my character would do," is a terrible idea. Like I said, you use your character's personality and backstory to drive your decisions. But when you need to defend them, use out of game reasons. I have a video on this coming on Monday.

@ebenezerboateng5915

2 жыл бұрын

@@CrispysTavern I understand what your saying, and maybe you'll sway me with your more indepth analysis of the topic on Monday, but for now I still disagree.

@adamsalvinsky2327

2 жыл бұрын

@@CrispysTavern I am trying to think about it but I think this is a way too weird concept for me. When I do decisions based on my character I do it because I think this is how my character would act. Obviously I always take other players into consideration so that my action will not negatively impact the overall gaming experience but saying "Well I am doing this because I think this will bring interesting character development" would be disingenuous from me personally. Maybe it´s the phrasing you are using though. If you said "you should also think of outside of game reasons and add them to support your point" then it would be more acceptable to me. I don´t see why you would not use both arguments meaning "in character justification" and "outside of game benefits" as well.

I recently found your channel, and I'm in love! Thank you for all of your hard work!😊

Stories like these make me feel like a way better DM. You ROLL with the punches, that's the shtick! Also a DM's power is given to them by the players. In most of these if the players rose up and told the DM's "No you are being a bully", that'd work!

0:35 -- If the DM is going to require players to submit a detailed backstory for characters starting in a custom-made world, he should have done what Ed Greenwood did with his original Forgotten Realms campaign. He gave the players a few pages describing what they would have learned growing up in his world, what was general knowledge for the regular people living there.

1000 word essay? What is this, college? RPGs are about stories yet to be told, not stories already written. As a DM, I wouldn't accept backstories with more than one page ^^ I call it, "The CEO method". If I have to flip a page, it goes in the shredder.

@alexandraelizabeth8522

2 жыл бұрын

One page is plenty to establish: who am I? Where did I come from? What are my motivations? What are my goals? And probably some random important facts

I love how some creepos say "Well, they did it in this age in the medieval times" when even back then people knew it wasn't healthy and this would be used mostly as political or traditional reasons

@hdnfbp

2 жыл бұрын

@Ethan Morrill yeah, the world is yours to build and narrate as you want, i don't want my PCs dying of desinteria every session

Loved it. Vetting.

DM hates Gnomes? Fine take em out. But I'd be damn if I'm told to roll my race and class.

If the GM despised gnomes, then why put them in his world in the first place? That's just dumb.

If the DM hated Gnome so much, wtf he would put Gnome as one of the choices?

Yes, “Stop being childish” in this game where we pretend to fight dragons with decisions made by dice.

Here crispy love listening to your storys (especially while playing Black Desert) but also wanna say that I love the art you use for your thumbnails!

@CrispysTavern

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you so much! Please check out the link to the artist in the description. Show them some love, they deserve it!

Giving people no info on your world before asking for a character and backstory only works if you are doing a “the heroes are summoned from other worlds”, a “you each get snatched from your worlds as crew for a shanghaiing spelljammer ship”, a “the Gods have decided they need the PCs on *this world* for some big cosmic thing”, or a “something opened a bunch of random portals, the party get dropped from their worlds into this one” game. All of which can be great fun.

You see “it’s a fantasy game!” Only applies until a female character is getting married then it’s historical all of a sudden

With the DM who said that "Nobles got married young", I'm happy to inform him, that it was the minority of those who did. The reason why it was even noted, was because it was notable. Most nobles got married as adults, partially because otherwise you were risking a lot on a kid who might not survive the winter, but also because, from a persepctive of "Nobles want to have a lot of kids" a teenager being married and getting knocked up would likely not to be able to produce a kid again. The mother of Henry VII literally gave birth to him at age 13, and not only was that in itself notable, but it also was so bad that many people believe that's the reason why she never had another child after that, despite her being married after that.

That story of the DM that hated gnomes had one of, if not the worst DM of which I have ever heard.

Imagine if the dude from that intro story got a submission and then rejected it because it didn't fit in with the world.

The thumbnail has me rolling. What happened to this poor woman's spine?

That rules lawyer was the Jack Thompson of rules lawyers.

"Who hungers for the color lavender" my dumb ass who is physically incapable of creating a serious character: "WRITE THAT DOWN! WRITE THAT DOWN!"

If he hates gnomes so much, why do they even exist as an option on the chart?

As someone who has had a bit of an issue, as a primarily DM, with being a bit rules lawyery sometimes, it is definitely a challenge to strike the right balance, i definitely appreciate your addendum that its not always a bad thing but would add that for others who feel that urge like me, i would just say less is more, and offering to the DM that your available if they are uncertain on a less common ruling or anything like that, are the two biggest things that ive found which have helped personally. I hope everyone has a wonderful day.

I disagree on the in character vs out of character point, especially in this case because the DM very clearly did not give a shit about the character or the role playing, he was seemingly just mad the OP was playing a Hexblade (side note what is it with bad DMs and hating classes to the point of targeting them but still allowing the character in the first place) and was trying to make them either change class or change character, and no justification involving character or RP would get him to budge on that

Can't heal myself cause my magic is benevolent and won't allow selfish healing.... wait a second, but if I consider it healing myself so I can properly support my team without having a chance to fail with the 50% failure role then technically it's not selfish. Got to have the right mindset and it's fine. Then again the DM clearly just wanted the gnome character dead cause for some reason they really, really didn't like gnomes for seemingly no reason. I've heard of disliking a race, even for it to be a trait of your character, but to effect your DMing is irresponsible, unfair(especially cause it was pure chance he got gnome) and frankly shows alot about you as a person.

As someone who has sat on the side and observed a few times, i was just given chance to play as a monster to get me more involved, etc. "here--so yer not left out. you're this baddy." (Pathfinder back in 2012) Got me to enjoy the idea of how these games play and flow proper, and better than interrupting with a ton of questions. "your tunr, go ahead and ask what you wanted now." (felt like a tutorial while just being inclusive to some degree as well.) most of the time though my questions were relevant to "how do you keep player v character seperated?" to both the DM and the players to get idea of how they play proper too.

That "rules lawyer" didn't sound like he was legit trying to follow the rules. It sounded like he was trying to use the rules to weasel out of a penalty he didn't like for his character.

I think you’re wrong on the “childish” story. I don’t think it would of mattered what OP would of done; the DM was hostile towards the character and player. I don’t think no amount of discussion would of changed that.

Intro: So, I recently asked on r/Traveller if there were any games going within a compatible time zone and within an hour I got contacted by someone who was only 3 hours off-set from me, running a "homebrew setting." So we tee'd up a time to talk to determine if we were suitable for each other, wherein he gave me a number of points about his setting that didn't give away or spoil any plot points but nevertheless gave me enough of an idea about the setting that I could see that I would enjoy playing it and also see possibilities for my character's backstory and what career paths I would want to take during character creation. *_That's_* how you engage a potential player with your setting and get them to join. End result: I'm in a really enjoyable game with a GM and a bunch of players who are great to get along with - playing a character I like in an interesting setting. I really cannot comprehend how someone can say "no, I'm not throwing you the smallest bone about my setting and you have to come up with a detailed backstory just to be considered." What? OP's just got to trust that the setting is awesome? And just come up with 1000 words of the most generic will-fit-in-anywhere backstory?

3:00 Hi, history buff. No, they werent. Child marriages have been incredibly rare throughout almost all of known history, and when they occured kids were unlikely to be wed to adults.

@unhackerthelaziestbastardo6083

7 ай бұрын

Thank the gods, someone else said it

My first ever character was a gnome and only after I joined the game did the world hate gnomes

Vetting!

I'm guessing those three players left because the DM bitched about their backstories not fitting in with the setting he wouldn't give any details about. Either that or the setting was the DM's homebrew MLP or whatever fanfic campaign, and that was why he refused to let the OP know what they were getting into beforehand.

The real memories with friends was the rules lawyer we met along the way Or ya know....something like that

rolling a 22 twice on a d100 is a chance of 1/10,000 Good job OP ^^

19:52 **they can smell fear**

Coralline and the Rogue... So Coralline's PC and the Rogue's PC agree to the initial theft and possibly to the initial loss of the tools - creates some interesting gaming, gives them a quest to go and find/reclaim the tools. So far so good. The tools having been destroyed - that's on the DM, who's clearly a shit-stain. Knowing the character has an emotional attachment to the tools the DM has the thief destroy them anyway and then has the audacity to get pissy and insulting when the player plays her character correctly. What a wanker, glad I'm not playing in one of his games.

i'd have great fun with that first dm come up with a backstory he wouldnt be able to fit into his world happy little gnome from a beach town, spent his childhood ina secret unicorm garden in the forest nearby traveling around to spread the message of joy and love

General question for everybody here who likes to run games. How long of a back story do you like to get from players? I've always felt it's good to keep it reasonably short, because the DM is going to be dealing with a lot of other reading material and preparation work. A couple of paragraphs, talking about where my character came from, who they are, what they want, why they're adventuring. I try to include some sort of non-urgent hook, an enemy, a lost loved one, something that the DM can play with when they wish, if they wish, but not something that forces a ton more work onto them. And a first level back story should be a lot shorter than a higher level back story. 1. Who am I (parentage, passions, role in life, at least one important person from the past) 2. What changed? 3. What do I want?

@LaydiNite

6 ай бұрын

I think it really just depends on the DM and the type of game. Some want a bunch of details that can be worked into plot hooks, others just want a general overview of the characters. I tend to go for somewhere in the middle when I make my own characters, similar to what you describe. There are elements that could be relevant if the DM wants the to be, or could just be there for flavor.

Was the DM in the second story actually 3 kobolds in a trenchcoat per chance?

2:57 while some noble children did get married young, it was usually for political or financial gain and wasn't consummated until they became adults. Heck, half the time they lived in separate houses and these kinds of marriages were RARE

So, to add on to "what to you remember most of a campaign" I had a one shot with my fiance and a few others. I was a tiefling bard who had an int of...I think 9? It was low. But he had 20 charisma :D Well, we were going up against a vampire lord who held a werewolf to sacrifice her. My tiefling bard (male) said he would in exchange for sparing the werewolf, would mate with her and give the vampire lord the child. My fiance who was the DM looked at me, thinking 'there is no way im allowing this. If she rolls anything but a nat 20 im shutting this down.' But said "okay, roll for persuasion." I rolled a Nat 20. My fiance stared at the dice and then me and then groaned, thinking '...I cant let her do this.' So he rolls against me to see if the vampire lord would fall for it. Nat. Fing. 1. He literally was facepalming, and was hating every fiber of my being, regretting every choice to bring me in XD and said "Well...you just won the campaign." Not before a dumb I dont remember the class, but my fiance's friend said "I hit the vampire lord in the back of the head" My fiance looks to him. "...why? She just won the campaign" The friend: "Oh sh** really?" Well we still had to fight. We won. I still am so proud that worked in my favor. Dnd gods were in my favor. And in the sequel, curse of strahd we are starting tonight, im playing his daughter! ^^ who is smarter than him. But not very strong. (I rolled a 5. I didnt want her being dumber than her dad, or hurting the party so I put it in strength) Im so excited to see how she follows in her dad's footsteps to...do what is in this campaign. I think beat another vampire lord. ^^' I uh. Im new to dnd still. I dong know much about curse of strahd. Edit: Oh how could i forget names. I dont remember the werewolf mom name, she was unnamed int he campaign but ill edit once I remember. The tiefling is named Silence. He heard it so much as a kid, he thought it was his name. So anytime someone says "SILENCE" He answered "WHAT DO YOU WANT!?" XD Daughter of the two is named Raven Sh**, her dad chose it after his daughter was born a raven flew by, and decided his daughter's head was the BEST PLACE to take a crap. The mom said raven was fine. Silence is still loving his name. Raven just likes Raven though. 😂 for obvious reasons.

Vetting... Or was it venting

There are A LOT of responses to my commentary on story 3. Just to be clear: I was saying was that when there is conflict over character decisions, that argument is not a good way to resolve conflict. Like I said I have a whole video coming out on this, but I have seen so many comments here that I might as well give the cliffnotes. "It's what my character would do" is a fine way to make decisions in character, but if you want to discuss a legitimate problem in the game, it is not good for resolution. Say someone tells you that a roleplay interaction that was appropriate for your character was too spotlight hoggy and they felt pushed out. If you respond with "It's what my character would do," then that solves nothing. There is no more discussion to be had. What are they supposed to say to that? "It's... not what your character would do?" Also, it implies you hold staying in character over the other person having fun at the table. No one in that situation is being a dick. It's just a situation that left one member of the group feeling unsatisfied. That happens. Using out-of-game reasons opens up discussion and let's the other person feel heard. It allows you to resolve the conflict, rather than just putting up the brick wall response of "It's what my character would do." This story was not a good example of what I was talking about and I'm sorry for that. It's what my character would do is fine for MAKING DECISIONS, but when it comes to explaining those same decisions to another party and resolving conflict, please consider using out-of-game reasons.

@marcussawyer4751

2 жыл бұрын

Sorry but i disagree, using out of game reasons to explain an ingame decision is not a great move. Roleplaying is important and if i need to explain why my character is going to do something, i will use the ingame reasoning, backstory and characterization to explain why. Also, the DM was being a dick and even an out of game reason wouldn't have worked. I'm certainly not going to excuse my character for killing a merchant with "I thought it would lead to cool RP interaction with the party" cause it sounds even more stupid than "it's what my character would do", i kill the merchant cause i'm not as morally white as the others, one of our friends is dying and this asshole keeps raising the price of the potion every time we hand him the gold.

@chrisrudolf9839

2 жыл бұрын

@@marcussawyer4751 It depends on what the issue is that causes conflict between the players (not just the characters). I'd encourage to use both ingame and out of game explanations. Explaining the ingame reasons why your character would do something the other player didn't like might help if the issue is that the other player just isn't understanding the action and therefore perceives it as odd or immersion-breaking or petty. But if the issue is that the other player feels you hog the spotlight too much or you are sabotaging another player and ruin his fun or purposefully derailing the campaign and setting the party up for failing their current quest, then chances are that the other player won't care at all that your character has a plausible reason in his backstory to act like that, because it still ruins his fun and a solution would require to find a compromise between playing your character like you think he should act and complying with the wants of the rest of the group so that everyone can have fun. Also, generally a good idea: First ask why exactly the person who is complaining is annoyed about your action, try to understand his POV and then tailor your justification to his concerns, ideally offering a solution. Understanding each other is key. In your example with killing the merchant, why are the others upset that you killed the merchant to get the potion and save the other party member? a) They are upset because they believe you are being a murderhobo and are concerned that you will keep playing in a destructive way. Solution: Explain your character's ingame reasons and assure them that these were extreme circumstances for him because he was desperately worried about his dying friend and that you have no intention to kill off peaceful NPCs on a regular basis, offer to have an ingame roleplay discussion about this action in which you justify your actions to the party members. b) They are upset because this murder in broad daylight took place in their hometown / main quest hub and that the town guard will now regard all of them as accomplices to murder, making you all outlaws on the run. Your character motivation is totally irrelevant for this issue, because the concern is that your action just broke the campaign, understanding your perfectly plausible character motivation doesn't help (it may help to understand that you didn't do it out of spite, but it doesn't solve the problem). Solution: Discuss with the players and the DM how to handle the negative fall out of your action to have the story continue in a way that is fun for everyone. Depending on how strict your GM is with the ingame law enforcement and the competence of the enforcers, solutions might range from the DM giving the group a chance to cover up the deed, allowing you to retcon your action and change it to just knocking the guy unconcious, the DM assuring the party that he has an idea how to get your party back on track for the main plot in a satisfying way (e.g. by having you flee the country for now and later join another faction that is also opposing the BBEG or by the town rulers offering your party parole in exchange for doing a dangerous quest a la suicide squad) or you offering to take full and sole responsibility for the murder, have your character executed and play a new one without negative impact for the rest of the party. c) Another player is upset because his character (e.g. a priest or paladin) feels bound to a rigid lawful code of honor that forbids him to ally himself with murderers and compels him to help bring you to justice. He is upset because he doesn't really want PVP, but can't think of a way to avoid it without acting completely out of character (and he is possibly angry with you because you were perfectly aware of his character's code of honor and still decided to make your character commit murder right infront of him and put him in that position). In this case, understanding your character'sd motivations also doesn't help much, both players need to work out how they can resolve this in a way that enables them to keep playing together despite their conflicting alignments, which probably requires some compromise. While from a roleplaying perspective, an ingame discussion would be preferable, it is better to step out of the game and brainstorm for a solution at this point that both players could live with (like e.g. your character saying that he got carried away because he was so worried for his friend and the merchant was basically blackmailing them and showing some sincere remorse and the priest showing some understanding, bending his codex a little to not turn you in and allow you a chance to attone) than having an escalating ingame discussion that leads to PVP and leaves one player frustrated because he lost his character.

@marcussawyer4751

2 жыл бұрын

@@chrisrudolf9839 Well i agree with those points, but remember they are consequences to the action that will lead to significant RP moments... or discussions out of game of almost exclusively ingame things. What i don't like is using strictly out of game motivations(example: I thought it would be a great RP interaction; which imo is another way to say the phrase "It's what my character would do" with different words, cause that sentence is used when someone wants to justify being an asshole without explaining why(Different from using ingame motivations and characterization to justify it and then getting the consequences ingame for your action.)

@chrisrudolf9839

2 жыл бұрын

@@marcussawyer4751 I agree that in the ideal case, conflict between characters should be resolved in game and conflicts between players should be avoided by talking about your expectations and personal boundries in a session zero prior to the campaign. You can't predict everything though and when you reach the point that one player has already felt the need to complain about another player's action out of game, something already has gone wrong and it is better to step out of the game for a moment and resolve the tension between the players (not only the characters) by a reasonable discussion about the problem the players have, before that conflict escalates to things like not mutually wanted PVP, the group falling apart, the DM vetoing actions or players holding permanent grudges or quit.

@dodobarthel2249

2 жыл бұрын

The DMs complaint in the story was more a questioning of the characters ic reasoning, rather than an ooc problem though, so... normally a valid point but bad example?

"Make a 1,000 word backstory about your character in my world!" "Can I get some info about your world?" "No you're supposed to just magically know my world inside and out!" Bruh wut

Vetting.

Vetting

If you've got a serious problem with a race for some reason, and can't allow other players to play said race without singling them out and bullying them like a total ass, then just tell them gnomes aren't playable characters in this game, anyone wanting to play a gnome would be disappointed yes, but it would be way less infuriatingly annoying and honestly hurtful that they're getting essentially bullied by the DM just because they're playing a race the DM doesn't like, it's pathetic really to treat players like this.

@theuncalledfor

2 жыл бұрын

I think he deliberately forced the player to be a gnome just to have a cheap excuse to bully them. This DM was just a general trainwreck.

@PaladinGear15

2 жыл бұрын

@@theuncalledfor they rolled on a table and got the same result twice.

@cleverlyblonde

2 жыл бұрын

The player didn't even necessarily want to play a gnome. The DM forced them to roll for race...

@PaladinGear15

2 жыл бұрын

@@cleverlyblonde Yup, makes it even dumber.

As a fanfic writer, 1,000 words isn't too bad.

@chrisrudolf9839

2 жыл бұрын

Agreed, 1000 words is maybe two to four pages, depending on how spacious you format it, that's not too much if you want to make sure a player is on board with putting thought into his character and providing some hooks to let the DM give him a personal arc in the campaign, especially if you don't start at level 1 and thus have characters who already had some history with adventuring. The stupid thing was that the DM was refusing to tell the players anything about the lore of his setting.

@rune5190

2 жыл бұрын

@@chrisrudolf9839 Totes for sure. 1,000 words totally welcome. No info? Alright, bud, at that point I'm making up my own lore and you're gonna have to deal.

Was the first DM Matt Walsh? XD Screw that noise!

"DM should get invested in Charaacter" IDealy, that's what we all want to happend, BUT lion share of work is on players here to play PC well, make it well and overall endure it to the DM.

The intro story DM guy would be a great target for a troll post. Just write a backstory that goes into a ton of details about the world, make up your own political entities and their power struggles, and then go into detail about what that plague is, how it got there, and how your character was involved in creating and spreading the plague in the first place. Make the plague ridiculously complicated just to be extra sure you don't accidentally get it right. That'll show him!

6:19 That doesn’t make any sense. If you are a non-evil character you could argue that saving yourself makes it possible to save others later on. You know what they say, put your own mask on before helping others with theirs.

After some incidents with players I find that it is best to vet players since there are some that are just want to join the game to cause trouble and will mask or understate how much they know of the system.

there is nothing wrong with "this is what my character would do *because* ...", it's only bad when you say "It's what my character would do!"

Reminds me of that time someone kept rules lawyering during their turn and would only check the rules during their turn. Context, he was a rouge with the magic sub class, I was a Paladin and my brother a barbarian. We were fight in two big blue skined trolls and the rogue abused their low int stat to dress up as a smaller version of him (he was a gnome btw) At first I thought he was crossing the bridge to get to the other side of the river as me and my brother had kept the monster at the lake with me thunder smiting every turn to try and push them into the flowing river. Rouge has a short bow as I was thinking he shoot them form a spot they couldn’t chase him to without having to push aside the two tanks while also being in a spot that a nat 1 wouldn’t result in friendly fire. But no he was running away and kept screaming about how the trolls are too dumb to notice him via rules reference

Just freaking let them have the funeral, it's character development. wth is the DM trying for a speed run?

The last story....if you are in my game and you have an issue with a call or a ruling i make that is all fine *bring it up AFTER the session* and we can discuss *future* rulings. If its something super super serious 4 realz and hugely story altering i will correct it in next sessions recap i explain the before everyone joins and ill remind players the first few times they slip up (cause everyone does even me!) But I'll not waste time with squabbling or rules arguing mid session. If you are merely "sitting in" or observing I'll tell you once I'll warn you once and if i have to a 3rd time...to quote Michael Kyle (my wife and kids) "Good-bye see-ya later-loser don't-let-the-doorknob-hit-ya-where-the good-lord-split-ya kick-rocks...and get-out!"

You know, if story 2 was set in World of Warcraft I'd understand the DM's hatred for Gnomes, but from what I've seen they essentially look like short Dwarves in D&D, so I don't see the hate. Don't get me wrong I wouldn't understand his hatred of Gnomes enough for him to act like a prick to a player who chose to play one, but my *_god_* are Gnomes in WoW annoying as shit.

Ya know, I am pretty sure, too that even though marrying people young was common, they didn't ACTUALLY usually expect teenagers to have babies. Since this guy is obviously just being a massive creep it hardly matters what his reasoning is, but I enjoy making people with this squicky mindset aware that their "logical" explanation is, in fact, still bull excuses. Yeah young pregnancies *happened* (it's not like they had reliable contraception or control of these things) but for the most part, people in the middle ages were FULLY AWARE that the younger the mother, the greater the risks to both them and the child. Underdeveloped bodies aren't the best for producing offspring... who'da thunk it?

You can play in my game, but only if you can guess what 6 digit number I'm thinking of.

14:25 Disagree with you on the idea that "It's what my character would do" is always bad reasoning. I even more strongly disagree that RP decisions should always be based on OOC reasons. IWMYWD is only problematic when it comes from problematic characters, which are (usually) made by problematic players. IWMCWD, in the hands of a solid character made by a responsible player, can result in some of the best RP you'll ever find at a table. I understand that in running this channel you only really see the IWMCWD horror stories, but that's left you with a biased sample set. TL;DR- IWMCWD isn't the problem- bad players (or in this case, a bad DM) are the problem. PS- I love your videos, including this one. That just wasn't one of your best takes.

Making your player roll at random for a race and class of their character is both a dick move and it makes no sense. What if the player rolls a goliath wizard but they wanted to play as a fighter or a bard? That ruins the mood for said player even before the session starts and they won't give a damn about this character. Which takes away the fun. And what's the point of having a DnD session WITHOUT FUN in the first place?

Wouldn't it be funny if after kicking "joe" they invited "bob" to the game? Story makes them out to actually be pretty chill.