Dungeon Master Doesn't Understand How Roleplaying Works | Narrated D&D Story

Check out Awaken Realms Vault: Story Dice: gamefound.com/projects/awaken...
Submit your D&D story here: / allthingsdnd
Join our Discord: / discord
Follow us on Twitter: / allthingsdnd
Credits
Story Source (Reddit):
Video Editor: Murtaza Bohari
Editors: Lonny Foran ([e-mail])
Narration: MyLo (Twitter/VoMylo)
Thumbnail Art & Channel Artwork: NalaFontaine (Twitter/@nala_fontaine)
#dndstories #dnd #dungeonsanddragons

[@justinhitriz8770]

Wow, that first DM was a real jerk. I would've praised the player for being so heroic like that.

[@Grayald]

I'm guessing it was a group that plays with each other because they've all been kicked out of other games for being assholes.

[@justinhitriz8770]

@@Grayald I'd believe it given how they reacted to the whole "It's what my character would do" line. I get it is sometimes sued by murderhobos and would sour people's opinion on the line, but here they let that go way too far and now hate it even when it's sued positively.

[@davidtherwhanger6795]

I was getting the vibe that the DM wanted the family to die just so he could rub it in the party's face that they let innocents die. Then OP went and ruined that and the party still got the dragon. I'm fairly positive if OP hadn't said "It's what my character would do." the DM and the other players would have had it in for OP. Eventually kicking them for some other BS.

[@thenerdbeast7375]

Whole group were jerks

[@empryme]

Honestly, it sounds like it was a brilliant and awesome moment, truly befitting y'know actual heroic characters. That first group sounded like buttheads

[@mill336]

That first one isn't even a "it's what my character would do", it's probably the first thing any normal human would want. Save the people in a burning building.

[@midnightstorm6576]

I actually blame the second DM Hear me out. As a DM you should have looked them and gone "SO, you are retconning them? Well, you all died and the world is gone, roll new level 1s... and make sure their backstory is former slave." A DM needs to be consistent to their own story, changing the entire world because your players are being Karens makes you too damn weak to DM anything besides a meme campaign.

[@GoldDragon527]

I hate people getting mad at someone who was rolling terrible all night for trying to do something different that has no negative effects on the party. I did a VERY similar thing in my first D&D campaign where the BBEG set a town on fire but know my friends were already super overpowered with a bunch of hombrew i wasnt utilizing cause i didnt understand the game I thought my character's better efforts would be to save townsfolk, so I broke out of the fight to do just that. If my DM and table gave me the same treatment as that story did I would have never played again. I'm very happy he didnt and my character was actually praised for his deeds.

[@Dash_Rendar2050]

I would never penalize a player for doing something heroic. Quite the opposite if a player was rolling horribly I would allow that player a chance to do something heroic and reward them for their actions. That’s what makes playing D&D so much fun.

[@FoolsGil]

2nd DM was a coward. Stand by your decision, call your parties' bluff, replace everyone if you have to

[@FatedGamer]

I disagree. The game should be fun for everyone. If you hurt everyone's fun then you weren't a good fit for the group anyways and getting kicked is likely for the best. Also all it would have done was disband the group or caused the OP to be bullied in character and probably out as well. This was probably the best thing for them.

[@kartermichaels6789]

​@@FatedGamer on that same page the party is then ruining that players and that DMs fun because those two players came together decide this is a fun twist and turn for the story those players didn't like that for some reason and then chose to kick that player out. They didn't say hey we weren't fans of this move they kicked them out immediately

[@FatedGamer]

@kartermichaels6789 I would agree but the fact the group outvoted the dm tells me it's probably 4+ people. So the enjoyment of 4 people is more important and it sounds like OP was still more of a new addition to the group. I also keep in mind when dming the players enjoyment is equal if not more important than my own. No players mean no games and finding good consistent players is a pain in the ass. So to me the dm and player fucked up by doing this secret thing in the background while fully knowing the rest of the players would hate it. They made a choice and like it or not there were consequences to that choice. I often have similar ideas to this to cause conflict but I don't do them because I know my friends and it's just stupid to ruin their game for my something that just adds to my enjoyment. It's very very important to think through betraying your party. It signals to all the players you are willing to screw them over no matter what character your playing if you believe your idea is better than theirs.

[@GreenGrin86]

@@FatedGamer Imho the gruop showed a really immature and childish behaviuor. Even if they truly disliked OP and DM twist, a group of adult person playing a game together for 2+ years with friends should be able to manage a conflict.

[@FatedGamer]

@GreenGrin86 Not that I disagree that there were better ways to handle it. The fact they were willing to kick him so quickly tells me he probably rubbed them the wrong way the entire time and he just never noticed. So when he overstepped the bounds he was kicked. Don't forget OPs always tell a version of events that are biased to their perspective. We have to consider the reaction of multiple people (so not just 1 nutjob)

[@greggp4840]

"The DM told me he was outvoted". What sort of DM lets himself get outvoted? DMs are at a premium, players can be scraped up off the street. Just say "lol no" and tell them to get stuffed. Storyteller made no mistake, big shame that he think's he's learned not to do it again.

[@KingofCanada22]

I could see a young group thinking like that. Hopefully the DM is young and will learn that they have more power than they think.

[@---jx4vh]

Yeah what rubbed me wrong is that OP somehow thinks that he was wrong. Wtf?

[@JDStone-jg8cg]

First story DM creates a combat focused murderhobo campaign and then gets mad when players don’t do exactly what he wants

[@jonathanstern5537]

The first story made me go WTF?! If I were DM, I’d reward the player. Either have the people saved be a merchant/shopkeeper and their family, thus granting the player a 10% discount with them. The servants of a noble/royal/rich person, gifting the player a magic item or gold. Or, the people were members of a rebel group, who would aid the hero should they get in trouble with the authorities

[@the_multus]

10% for two lives seems petty

[@jonathanstern5537]

@@the_multus They could likely negotiate the merchant down.

[@the_multus]

@@jonathanstern5537 that's not what matters…

[@ryanfladung8490]

I guess the first dm hated role play In dnd

[@BadassHater1]

Was in the game where i refused any sort of reward for saving a plot relevant noblewoman (because my character is an altruistic undead that wants to redeem himself for the horrible things he did in the first life) Both other players and DM called me a suicidal moron (not my character - ME) because if i didn't accept my reward i would've been dead at the start of the next session since these rewards were min-maxer's all-you-can-eat buffet. But...i am an RPer....and the campaign was advertised as RP HEAVY. Yeah needless to say - i left right after that.

[@georgesarreas5509]

If I was the second gm I'd just keep the wizard player. Players like that allow you to plan nothing and just improvise amazing moments with them

[@articusramos808]

Ah yes, give it to the table who can't take a hint. How about they all go on Cod for mindless violence instead? That's what they're good at anyway. Fighter deserves better

[@jonathanstern5537]

As for the second story, how did the wizard betray them? She didn’t kill any of the other party members, side with the enemy, and she was the only one who knew about how to defeat the dracolich.

[@nyotamwuaji6484]

By siding with the evil god who was the enemy?

[@caiusdrakegaming8087]

@@nyotamwuaji6484 Yeah, a sudden reveal that you made a contract with the same evil god that basically has the dracolich trying to take over the world would be seen as a betrayal. Because technically in-character it would be, it'd just take a while for the new host to be corrupted and controlled by the evil god. Both the dracolich and evil god were enemies of the party, it's just the god doesn't care who its host/avatar is so it'll 'side' with a hero.

[@jonathanstern5537]

@@caiusdrakegaming8087 but that’s the thing. With her as host, the party has time to recover and defeat them. It’s like taking the One Ring. Granted, it would have been better to throw the ring into Mt Doom, but keeping the ring still gave the elves, dwarves, humans, hobbits, eagles, and Istari time to defeat Sauron. It’s like that, except there was no way to destroy that power

[@timdrugge907]

@@jonathanstern5537 I don't think the other players were smart enough to realize that. And with the DM being as spineless as to let the other players completely rewrite what happened because they didn't like it, I get the feeling they regularly get to claim victory despite not doing what the DM intended or was mechanically proper. They just bash something for a while, cheer they won, and 'outvote' the DM into agreeing that's what happened.

[@caiusdrakegaming8087]

@@jonathanstern5537 Well yeah, but Sauron's functionally immortal as a Maiar. The dude technically died like three times total, the third being a death that left him as just a powerless evil spirit once the One Ring was destroyed. So long as the One Ring remained, Sauron wouldn't stay down for long. So yes the elves, dwarves, humans, hobbits, eagles, and Istari COULD have defeated Sauron without Frodo destroying the One Ring, it would have just been temporary. Plus the One Ring can corrupt any mortal, even hobbits aren't immune just highly resistant to the corrupting influence. Got to remember that Gollum was a hobbit once, technically still is but you get the point. And technically the party COULD have destroy the evil god thus removing the dracolich's power boost permanently, but it's still a GOD. Not really easy to kill it, and as the wizard player mentioned the DM had other options for the fight to end but the party never went down the paths they would have gave them those other options. The other PCs were 'god-fearing' which means they just don't trust gods more than likely, and it's still a evil god so very likely it would have ended up with whichever character did the contract becoming the next BBEG for another campaign. Also, they still needed to deal with an army-raising DRACOLICH that was already on the move when the power was taken away. Not really something you can or should realistically even should retreat from after getting a massive advantage. All the PCs knew that it was their only win condition given what they had gone prior, the wizard was the one that figured it out and told them. She was the only one willing but she couldn't make the choice openly because her party would kill her for basically allying with the same evil god that was essentially using the dracolich as a pawn. Her making the contract just makes her the NEWEST pawn for the evil god, thus would still be seen as a betrayal.

[@Jebbtube]

Story a) I'm a player and a DM, and I side with OC. If I were in this group, I'd have left with them too, and let the DM know he's shit at his job. Story b) Same as above, but instead my vitriol would be targeted at the party.

[@davidtherwhanger6795]

Second Story. OP did not make a mistake. The other players were wrapped up in their own mindset to a dangerous level. I would not be surprised to find out a member of this group later went on to attack people in real life for breaking "their code".

[@clericofchaos1]

Yeah, i know what it's like to be kicked from a game because the gm screwed up. It's even worse when they openly admit that in a private chat and still don't offer any way to make amends.

[@angramainyu4599]

Way of least resistance is equivalent to the banality of evil

[@Keyofone]

Ladt Friday, the group i'm in (in a 5e published adventure) had something similar enough happen that i wonder if it wss the same module. In my group, our Cleric/Rogue went to save innocents while the rest of us took on the dragon. A burning house was involved and the rescier player had creative uses of Create Water for that. No one in our group faulted the cleric/rogue for it; we all thought it was an awesome thing to do.

[@matthewshiers9038]

Regarding the first story, that was a clear failure on the part of the DM, as well as the rest of the party. Those saved NPCs could have been an excellent fresh plot hook or recurring ally to the party. And the rest of the party killed the dragon anyway, so everybody was winning here. OP deserved better from the group. Hope they're having a much better time now with a new one. Regarding second story, it's always going to be a risk when you hold a private 1-on-1 session between a player and a DM that affects the main story, and this was certainly a game-changer, both in-game and on a meta level, which isn't always going to be received well if a group prefers to play with established rules and work with each other to solve challenges that the DM throws at them. All of that said, I think it's a shame that they removed the player's wizard from the canon lore of the game and booted the player. There were better ways to resolve this - maybe even replaying the campaign from just before the point where the wizard did the thing, alternate timeline style. Might have been interesting to pit the wizard and party against their demon-possessed version in a climactic finale that would forever change the world!

[@Keiji555]

Yeah. I agree on the second part, but in my groups, there was a general consensus that 1-1 sessions for important situations like this was accepted, but generally, at least one person of the party needed to be aware that it happened, but not of the scenario behind it. Personally, I would tell the DM that he needs to stay firm with the events, and that retconning would mean he would have to reconsider how to defeat the Dracolich. Every DM I know believes that fun needs to be the end result, but throwing a fit to retcon is something grander to consider. I would ask them if they want to redo combat, or no, and adapt from there. If they said they didn't want to redo the combat, I would ask how they would try to defeat the dracolich, which it seems like it was confirmed that bashing him wouldn't work, and if they said they continued the fight with him, and I would say that the party was TPKed. I have done this kinda thing depending on RPing. (I know I planned a villains campaign that would lead into a hero campaign, and one player had a character that telepathically killed her crush, but because of how he played her, and how incompetent his character was, I opened up the crush to be played as a hero, and someone said they wanted to use him. I didn't tell the player playing the villain because we didn't get that far.) If they booted the player, and said they wanted to fight against the PC-turned-BBEG, I would say that there is a bounty on their old characters, because to the armies (Which if I recall correctly, there were witnesses to the final battle) it looked like the group stopped attacking the BBEG, and focused on an ally, which might be taken as being traitors. If they wished to redo the entire combat, I would be merciless, and have them fight against the Dracolich, and up his difficulty rating. It's not right for the DM to go against the people at the table, but to kick out another player, and tell them they can't trust any future characters because of that one character, it shows that the DM took it easy on them. Hell, I know one DM that would end the campaign, and in future campaigns, keep the events of what happened, and bring it up with another party altogether. The DM should have decided to stop playing with that group, and keep the events of the campaign canon, and move onto another group, or have the setup for a future campaign.

[@travusfaulkner1461]

That first story. Whoever you are, you would always be welcomed at my table for role play like that. I was in love with it. I was waiting for the DM to come to your aid. Although I never thought of giving them a way out heroically like that. If one of the party member is about to die , and the players look's like they want to run but don't want to run because of the code. It's a nice tip of the hat and give them a way out with clever storytelling. Love the role playing!

[@mrjamieb1899]

Video begins at 1:18

[@lovelyname117]

The last story's players were out of line for what they did to the narrator, and the DM was a coward for not standing up to them.

[@caiusdrakegaming8087]

More the DM didn't want to lose the setting that had been used for two and a half years persistently in a single campaign. It'd be nearly impossible to find enough people to fill the spaces that will get invested in a setting that's been used for that long by the previous players. I know from experience, it'd have taken the DM like another year minimum to find even one or two more players for it. Besides, the DM seemed to like the wizard so maybe they invited OP to a different game the rest of the players weren't apart of. We likely never get the full story of what happens after these horror stories, just what happens during.

[@Keiji555]

@@caiusdrakegaming8087 It depends on the DM. I actually have one DM that has established a world for over 20 years, and future groups are always eager to play in the setting. Hell, he's used various different systems in it. He would actually be a dick to the party, and pretty much screw them over, because of their behaviour.

[@xtrem5428]

Damn, that last story, those players are assholes. If they can't make the difference between the player and the character, they aren't ready for D&D. It's one thing if it had happened again and again, but a player betrayal, with the DM's approval, on the last fight, it's pretty good story.

[@---jx4vh]

Yeah, this is clearly disability to understand the difference between a player and his character.

[@pinkliongaming8769]

"No it's what my character would do" I'm only supposed to do what my character wouldn't do?

[@alexisjohnson3836]

With the first situation, under those circumstances (and given the fact that I wouldn't have introduced the burning building/screaming family element into the equation without expecting them to at least acknowledge it, if not more) I would have awarded the player on the spot with inspiration for using very good judgement, playing his character, and rescuing innocent people. I run a pretty RP heavy campaign with a group of us who've been playing together for a very long time and we've learned how to be able to play the whole, "It's what my character would do," within the bounds of the group without quashing each other's enjoyment.

[@benkayvfalsifier3817]

Second Story: It seems the other players can't separate their game characters from their real selves. Best that the player left that group cause they don't seem to have a tight grip on reality. Also, having one player secretly an enemy, but saving the party at the last second, * chef kiss * divine. There's nothing wrong with that cause there are countless stories on reddit of similar actions in other campaigns. This is the first time I've heard of players having a problem with this particular story trope. 🙄 People today are too sensitive.

[@benclark8229]

First DM and party where jerks the fighter did right. The second group the DM should have stood his ground.

[@darko-man8549]

Second DM is spineless for not sticking up for his player

[@gamepromatt1]

Kind of a reversal on the topic, but I was in a game played over discord once where a session left on a bit of a cliffhanger. A bad one. Our cleric had died in a fight that had gone horribly wrong and it was around our scheduled stop time, so the DM called it there, midfight. The player…didn’t take it so well. This guy got really into his characters and losing one hurts, as I’m sure we all know. He got quiet as we were wrapping up, and left the call without saying goodbye. A couple days later, though, he seemed like his old self, so we wrote it off as, y’know, grief in the moment leading swiftly to acceptance. We were told early on both ooc and IC that the campaign had no ways to revive characters (something about the DM wanting the events to coincide with the Death Curse from Tomb of Annihilation), so a loss was a loss. It happens. Skip ahead to our next session time (2 weeks later) and the DM cancels unexpectedly at the last minute. The DM is generally self-critical about session prep and so it wasn’t entirely out of character for them to decide the session wasn’t prepped up to their standards yet and skip a week. Meanwhile, the (ex)cleric has started getting excited about a new character, ready to introduce it. In hindsight, there likely wasn’t much communication between this player and the DM during this time The next session rolls around and it’s been roughly a month in real-time since the cleric’s death. We’re continuing down initiative, the player waiting in the wings to introduce their new character (or so we thought). When it got to the dead cleric’s initiative, there’s an awkward pause on the DM’s end of the voice chat, and then a stranger joins the chat. The DM then describes to the cleric their afterlife, dark clouds, a light piercing through, their god greeting them, etc. Then the stranger begins to narrate the cleric’s god speaking to them, asking them if they wished to return to the fight and help their friends. Turns out the reason the DM skipped the previous session is he was trying to arrange a guest voice actor friend of his to come on for this bit and timing didn’t match up. He thought it would be a special moment for the cleric, that it would be this amazing RP scene. The cleric, on the other hand, gets real quiet again. Then they angrily ask if the DM was f’ing joking with them. It turns into this big back and forth with the DM really confused why the cleric was so upset, and the cleric getting even more upset as a result. There had been zero communication between the two. The cleric player had been planning to ask about where their new character could jump in after the fight concluded and the GM hadn’t realized that the cleric player had already moved on to a new character. The guest guy excused himself, uncomfortably, while the rest of us tried to de-escalate up until the cleric just left the call. All in all, the campaign died right there. The cleric player was frustrated after being told there would be no resurrections and didn’t appreciate the sudden turnaround on that after they’d mourned the character for a month and had moved on. The GM felt icky enough about the whole situation that they didn’t want to run this particular campaign again. Up to this point, the campaign had been going pretty good. A lot of inter party connections had been made, some minor IC conflicts that we were playing off of (Pragmatic vengeance Paladin meets do-gooder Fighter, etc) and all of it blew up over bad communication and a DM’s desire to create a surprise epic RP moment. R.I.P.

[@pinkliongaming8769]

"The DM explained that he had been out he had been outvoted by the other players" My allegiance is to the Republic, to democracy!

[@RavenCoyote]

the 2nd scenario the character was awesome

[@austindries3995]

So basically for The last story the group of players is either butthurt that they didn't get to kill the BBG themselves or just the fact of they don't like the fact that there are friend basically took the spotlight to be able to defeat the dragon either way that's Petty as f***

[@AndresaLiorcoiloin]

I was in a curse of strahd campaign that originally started as tomb of annihilation. Was playing a 17 y/o tiefling girl bard (this will be relevant later). The sole reason she was even in the party was to save "pops" her adopted father figure. He had been affected by "the curse" as he had died before and been brought back. We were on our journey into chult when some of the party talked the dm into changing settings to cos. This annoyed me for one, but also my character was at a loss as it was making things take longer to save her pops. In the death house, there is a part where robed figures are chanting "one must die, one must die." Several members of the party were metagaming about the shambling mound in the corner that hadn't even twitched yet. I was getting fed up with the metagaming so my character took out her pet mouse, said "sorry squeekers," and sacrificed it on the altar. The player of the lawful stupid paladin preceeded to yell at me. Everyone else was impressed as it solved the problem without using out of character info (also they didn't realize I had a pet mouse. Hehehe). Later, after saying for several irl weeks that my character would lose it if she discovers pops died while she was stuck in Barovia, it happened in Kresk. Word managed to reach her. She wandered off into the orchard, calmly and by herself. (Well some of the party followed but were sneaking.) The then preceeded to unleash a thunderwave while the emotional flood welled out of her. Mind you she is 17 y/o girl, a tiefling, and lost the only parent she has known while she was supposed to be questing to save him... the player of lawful stupid paladin screamed at me again. I almost left the campaign right then and there (and should have) but I was talked into staying. Not long after that our dm had to give up his seat due to out of game personal reasons and the campaign basicly fell apart when one of the other players took over. Was I wrong for my character's "what my character would do" moment?

[@craigtucker1290]

Story 1, Not a bad player so much as a bad group that doesn't understand player agency and interacting appropriately within the campaign world that the DM presented. If the DM did not want the player to have their character save people in a burning building, then the DM should not have created that scenario. Story 2, the players are metagaming (cheating), and do not understand how the game is supposed to work. I can only surmise that other players are immature by such a ridiculous response to good character development and storytelling.

[@stevenhicks8159]

I was once kicked out of a game because in character I was asking the stage coach driver what was there to do around town, mean while the party leader(the host) out of character asked everyone else if they wanted to leave. I spoke up about being left out the discussion and was told its fine we don't need your character, when I spoke up about i was kicked out.

[@MrStrikecentral]

Bad DMs are easy to spot. This is a prime example of one.

[@stevenhicks8159]

@@MrStrikecentral it wasn't the dm it was the host

[@MrStrikecentral]

@@stevenhicks8159 Still a bad DM for letting that happen, and a shitty host. I don't care if this is your house, this game isn't all about YOU.

[@beatrixthegreat1138]

dude every character I have ever played will run into a burning building to save people. a few will run into a building to save pets. I can't stand hearing about even fictional creatures burn to death. "it's what my character would do" hate stems from the kinda asshole that steals from their party, stabs them or murder hobos, role playing normal mindsets is totally okay. derailing a campaign because "character" is dickish and rightfully hated. okay roleplay backfire, I had a few DMs that enjoyed putting me in situations where I couldn't save children or baby animals from a terrible threat. like one invented a death cult that sacrificed children... I was at the time playing homebrew creature that would rage to protect children... I couldn't rage without derailing the campaign. I had to suck it up. these were the only people I could play with. I had no other outlet. the whole "...no D&D" part sucks ass too. not as much as sadist DMs that love to push comfort zones and belittle/gaslight you but it fuckin' sucks. been with out D&D for 20 years and trying to get back into it.

[@TheLoyalOfficer]

No decent DM would do something like that.

[@Grayald]

Assholes inevitably end up being able to play with only other assholes, hence groups like this form, where it doesn't matter if the DM is shit, because the players are just as shit.

[@jleonas]

Only hearing one side of the first story, not just the DM, but all the players were also mad with the OP. Probably more to that story than we are hearing.

[@GreaterGrievobeast55]

Now hold on! Those dice at the beginning look real pretty, but wouldn't all those Carvings effect the weight and how they'd roll?? YIRBEL LIVES! Wh-if it was just flavor text why did he let the narrator play all that out?? Insane...

[@sertaki]

First DM should play solo games.

[@pinkliongaming8769]

"So they kicked me out of the group, said they would never play with me again and decided that they won instead of me"

[@tea-sus8722]

0:47 so... loaded dice?

[@TheZMage]

Yeah, but apparently easy to identify loaded dice

[@schwarzerritter5724]

Who needs loaded dice when you have the technique down? Just use hard to read dice, like white paint on clear, and pick them up before anyone has seen them.

[@LeMayJoseph]

That first DM was a trash DM. I’d have lauded the player and asked the others what kind of heroes they are if they think letting innocent people die in a fire is just fine, if you can do something about it

[@telecleez]

About the first story. You are playing and R.P.G. the 'R.P.' part of that means ROLL PLAYING so it's always gonna be about what your character would do...NOT you. It kind'a pisses me off when people (especially DM's) forget about that part of D&D that's why you choose your characters alinement not your alinement, and frankly if you play outside of "What your character would do" that just kind of ruins it for the RP part. If you don't really want RP in your RPG then go play an MMO online. P.S. And yes that was a bad DM.

[@shadenox8164]

I think you mean role. Also I think you're a little confused, complaining about people using "its what my character would do" is because generally when its used its being used to justify making a character that's downright disruptive, you know like the chaotic evils who must always do the evil thing even if its obviously detrimental to everyone, or the classic lawful stupid paladin. I don't think the DM was against role playing itself, probably just had to deal with that nonsense too much. The problem here is the DM was too bullheaded to realise this was a legitimate use of that excuse.

[@Lillyluri]

I heard the second story before. I think the dm should have stood up for her more. After all, he had kept the same secret from the group. Turning on the player means creating a scapegoat to blame for hurt feelings. I do understand that in-game betrayal can hurt out of game. It very much can. But this is hardly a malicious type - i even fail to see it as betrayal, even if the characters in-game would see it differently, as they don't get to hear the reasoning. Anyway - unjust however you look at it.

[@Plexiux]

Way to turn a really cool moment into something terrible.

[@Kiwipai]

The first DM doesn't even understand the reasons why "it's what my character would do" is generally bad. If he had anything between his ears, he'd realize that everything RP related would be considered an IWMCWD moment by his erroneous interpretation of what an IWMCWD moment is. Him instantly kicking you confirms that he can only think in absolutes, I'd say the OP was lucky that the crazy behavior came out so early.

[@alexanderjamesaustin]

"That was just for ambiance, not part of the encounter" how is the player meant to know that?? Unless you are on the hardest possable railroad everything is part of the encounter

[@RavenCoyote]

that first scenario the PC shoulf have gotten inspiration or action points or extra xp

[@sertaki]

counterpoint: that first DM should not be DM.

[@kainecrimm7048]

I can't find the stories on Reddit 😭

[@StellarTempest]

The first dungeon master digs his own grave. "ItsWMCWD" is the excuse usually used by people who don't take the fantasy seriously. They're just here to kill NPCs and take their loot and don't care if the other players or DM are having fun. But the DM doesn't take the game seriously either "Flavor and Ambience, not part of the encounter", "I had to do something because you fled the combat..." What sort of player do you expect a DM like that to attract? We saw how he treated the good one.

[@masonwheeler6536]

The so-called "my guy syndrome" is total nonsense; just watch _Critical Role_ campaign 1. Grog was hands-down the most entertaining character in there, and anyone who tells you otherwise is simply lying through their teeth. And just look at how Travis played him. Grog was the dumbest of dumb muscle, half the time he didn't understand what was going on around him, and _Travis never went out of character._ If there was something stupid that's what Grog would have done in a situation, well, that's what Grog did, frequently kicking off some new consequences for him and/or the rest of the party to deal with. And it completely made the campaign! If Matt or one of the players had been all, "no, Travis, no doing stupid stuff because 'it's what my _character_ would do!'" the story wouldn't have been half as fun. Anyone who tries to tell you to go out of character simply doesn't understand roleplaying. This of course should not be an excuse to ruin the game for everyone. The reason this never happened in all of Grog's shenanigans is because the character Travis made was one that, for all his idiocy, had a heart of gold. He loved the rest of the party and was devotedly loyal to them. _He didn't make a character that would do things that screwed them over._ When people create toxic characters and then "do what their character would do," the problem isn't that they're staying in character; it's that they're a bad player that created a toxic character.

[@shadenox8164]

Right, but "its what my character would do" is often the excuse used by people who made that character. Its definitely a thing, the problem is the DM was too stupid to see the difference.

[@justingarrett1675]

Psychosocial Baby: Slipknot and Bieber

[@NoahFan114]

eff both these DMs & parties -__-

[@thechaosman638]

Thr first Dm doesn't like great characters cause thst is a great character moment. Sometimes "thats what my character would do" is a good reason. I've had a lot of evil characters or true netural characters depending on how you see it. That it became boring. Having a heroic character like that would bw great.

[@Keiji555]

Story 1: The player would be considered a hero. A DM needs to be flexible, and that would have an effect on what happens. Ambiance or no, the player was essentially useless in combat, so instead of taking too much time, and whatnot, he decided to focus on saving civilians. "In character EXP" would be rewarded. Story 2: That DM is spineless. It was an ego thing, because they didn't beat it to the ground, and they were sore losers. A new character doesn't mean the player is going to RP the same way, and it will be the same character. The DM should have stuck his ground, and told them what happened happened, and to suck it up. If they really wanted to retcon the situation, I'd retcon the battle, at its OG standard, and out of spite, I might increase the danger rating. I don't advocate for DM sadism, but that's a situation where I would support PKing from the part of the DM. Hell, I'd create a TPK situation. What the OP did was the most interesting part. Like I said, the DM needs to grow a pair, and tell them that it's set in stone. Hell, if they really wanted to retcon the events without the combat, I'd say that the party failed, and all died because no one knew of a way to destroy the threat. So you got an AH DM and a spineless DM. Outvoted my ass.

[@taygallant932]

The first dm was a real jerk he has no business running a campaign as for the second story i dont think the player did anything wrong especially inlight of the dms support the dm should have stood by the player and stood up to the party those players were all being toxic AF

[@jeffdrake5881]

Both stories were covered in Crispy's, but they're pretty spectacular examples of bad DMing and horrible fellow players. But those dice! What in the nine hells? I love the "let your players roll with the weighted dice when they do something good," schtick. Like... right, people are going to buy those dice to reward other players. Yup, that's all they'll ever be used for. And AR-15s are only used for hunting coyotes and keeping livestock safe. The story dice are at least an interesting idea. Would be interested if I didn't already suspect they didn't roll for crap. Can't imagine why I wouldn't have confidence that one set of specialty dice might not roll right when another set is deliberately advertised to not roll right.

[@dravenbladesong1]

Stay away from toxic gamers, lest Ye become one

[@pauliepizzo8633]

First of all screw the first story dm for being a jerk to the op and second screw the others players of the second story for boots op for their bs reason

[@TRPWiz]

Ok, so they didn't like that the player's character 'turned to the dark side' at the end of the campaign...and might be a 'problem' in a future campaign. So, they don't like cool twists in stories that keep you on your toes? Better avoide Star Wars V then... If a group did that to my character, I'd be glad to leave them to their own narrow devices.

[@fallenknighttyler8695]

First DM was a jerk, also what was with the attitude from the other players if OP was basically combat ineffective during the entire fight it shouldn't have mattered if you went to save some people that was technically still in the fighting area

[@ryudragon7]

Man, these stories make me irrationally mad. Like, the DM in the first story could have said, "As you approach the burning structure, it collapses and you no longer hear the family inside" or something to end the players attempts to actually be in character. Especially if the battle was going the way O.P. said it was. Better yet, they could have grown a brain and a spine by getting the other players to lay off and give the Dragonborn a reward/plothook for saving the family. Story 2. Are the players that ignorant that they can't separate character from reality? That is called bleed and is a big no-no. Sure your characters could be pissed. You, in real life should suck it up and accept it is a fantasy tabletop game. The DM was spineless for retconning the whole thing just because he didn't want to lose his playgroup of jackasses.

[@darko-man8549]

How else are you supposed to role play if not as your character? There is a difference between justifying being an asshole with your character and role playing.

[@morecringe89]

Ah, the title does not disappoint. It is not that I am acting like a weirdo, it is the DM that does not know how Roleplay works...HAHHAHAHHA

[@TheZMage]

Two stories about terrible GMs and terrible groups

[@edwardcalvo4047]

I actually feel bad for the DM of the second story, based on how OP worded I feel like the DM's relationship was really unhealthy and possibly abusive. Them just voting to retain the campaign means they would probably just do that no matter what the ending was if they didn't like it.

[@libertariandragon9142]

​@@edwardcalvo4047 Agreed. While that DM certainly wasn't innocent in that situation the players are clearly far too controlling with far too much power over the campaign. As for the op in the story, I don't know the exact context so I'll just say that until they elaborate further that I'll assume that the other players where just being salty.

[@Michaeljack81sk]

1st story: In that situation OP should not have "held back tears" but ripped the DM a new one, that guy was an asshole! 2nd story: OP had a bit of Main Character Syndrome (albeit well-intentioned) and the DM enabled it and then acted like a craven coward. The best solution would have been for OP to discuss the possibility with the other players OOC and be ready to drop the idea if they were as hostile to it as expected. Second best would have been for the DM to own up to his mistake but call out the players for overreacting instead of throwing OP under the bus

[@Keiji555]

2nd story: I know with all my past groups there was an understanding that individual players might do 1-on-1 sessions for just this kind of thing, and that at least one other player must know that there was such a session, or the DM would announce that something happened, but he's not telling anyone what happened. These are a couple of DMs who say that consequences are there for a reason. Some players whose characters ended up as victims of actions, when they were told of planned consequences of their actions, when it comes to such situations would say "Yeah, of course. That's RPing." In fact, I had one situation where one player, in a villains campaign, after his character betrayed the rest of the group, we got excited, then our villains turned around and played a major Reverse UNO card on his character, starting an entire superhero civil war over outing this character, that no one knew was the BBEG. They team outted him, and made him look completely loopy with altering computer recordings within the villain lair, because no one knew what he truly looked like. With all the results of the group's actions, he was so impressed, that he wanted the chance to play a campaign during the civil war, but we couldn't due to RL situations. Another player (Who was also a DM) participated in a campaign that was the first time I DMed, and because of actions made, (They swiped gang weapons that would have given the police evidence that large illegal weapons, think weapons Islamic terrorists like to have, so they could properly convince the upper ranks that they need to properly prepare for a superhuman war within the city.) and when told a few months later, the DM didn't blink and told me "That's how it's done. We made an in character choice, without considering the long term consequences of our actions, and we'll have to suffer because of that. That's what it means to be a DM."

[@A-Rather-Dubious-Character]

The second story was just unnecessarily meanspirited. I get the party feeling like they were bettayed, but to basically shove OP oit completely to the point of retconning the end of the campaign? Either OP lied their ass off or those people really hated OP.

[@thenerdbeast7375]

Remember: NO DND IS BETTER THAN BAD DND

[@dr.robotnik3684]

Don't play with people you don't know, people are douche nuggets, play with friends.

[@FatedGamer]

Ya the first dm I'd just flip off and say "why are we playing a role playing game if I can't play my role" Second story people aren't going to agree but that is entirely OPs fault and getting kicked might not be deserved but you did mess up. It wasn't just the characters who didn't like the idea it was the players themselves. Everyone has to enjoy the game and of you hurt the majority of the players fun then you aren't fit for the group.

[@timtauber5557]

The first scenario was botched by a bad D.M. No excuse for his actions. The second scenario was just a group of horrible players that just don’t understand roleplaying. The D.M. Was just gutless. Both were horrible experiences that should never have happened.

[@LH0KY]

The second story seems like they made a good impactful character that left them upset outside of the game as well, to be removed from multiple groups for in game decisions seems a bit much si I’d imagine there was plenty of other reasons as well.

[@FedericoVetencourt]

First horror story was something of true nightmare, second one though I can see many issues that could have been solved by everyone talking it out, I understand that maybe the party didn't like what they felt was a Deus Ex Machina to save them, maybe this group really enjoys winning or lossing on their own terms or these type of decisions being made with everyone knowing, but I still think they didn't handle it correctly

[@brandondoane332]

Things like this are exactly why I don't play dnd anymore. It's just not worth it.

[@KnicKnac]

Heard both these stories before. Both shows terrible DM attitudes

[@TheLoyalOfficer]

You apparently are really good at pissing people off with all these stories...

[@therealsteve7653]

#1

[@smashbrandiscootch719]

Those story dice are the worst rpg accessory I've ever seen lmfao

[@Grayald]

Totally. It's sad seeing All this garbage being pushed by people that think they're some huge production that needs a sponsor to talk into a microphone for 10 minutes.

[@SirMandokarla]

I'm kind of concerned about the second story being edited to make the person look better. There's a tiny reference to their wizard getting to solve things the others can't, and it's mentioned that their character isn't the same religion (and maybe not alignment) as the others, and he didn't trust any of the other players (not characters) to get in on the plan. Those are all hints that there was more going on. GM favouritism feels likely there, as well as friction with the rest of the team. I'm wondering if it was just the last straw that got them kicked out.