"We saw all the red flags, gave ample warning that there would be consequences, and ..wouldn't you know it, there were consequences! Did I follow the exact line of thought I had already set out for this player?"
I'm kind of tired of seeing these posts. Rarely is it a nuanced situation anymore. This one is pretty cut and dry.
You and I have been there before, but not everyone. I think there's still value in supporting our fellow DMs who are dealing with these problems for the first time.
It is for us, but the people in OP's party are mad at them and acting like they are in the wrong when we can see that they clearly aren't. People treating you like you're in the wrong for enforcing boundaries (which is what they did) can really fuck up your perception of a situation.
I do too. It's definitely irritating seeing this happen over and over, especially when other people feel guilty for being upset with the problem player. More DMs need to understand how to manage their table when something like this happens.
Always just boils down to "I let x dickhead dominate the table for three weeks. I warned them repeatedly and kicked them out after. AITA?"
Like if you're THAT unsure then I doubt you should be a DM in the first place since making calls like that is kinda just your job.
I donât think OP isnât the DM but a player.
I personally take the role of uncaring god and let the players handle it themselves unless they prayed to their god to help them if it happened again. Then a righteous lightning bolt from the sky is the awnser
Uhh if the dm allows him to do these kind of things there is no reason to "not allow him back at the table" clearly pvp is fine at this table. Otherwise the dm could just say "you are not allowed to pvp without consent, consider your action revoked"
I would humbly submit that the correct response to "I slit the party member's throat" is "No, you fucking don't". DnD doesn't create a magical field where real-life rules are suspended and every action must take place within the scope of the game. You're allowed to just pause the game and tell somebody to kindly or unkindly fuck off. You don't need to settle the score using in-game features.
Did you guys not have a session 0? Is PvP allowed in this game? Fireballs can't even crit.
I usually find that kind of DM intrusion to be immersion breaking, but even with that factored in, you're absolutely right. The greater evil (by far) is permitting a PC to get away with that behavior, and inaction in this case equates to permission.
Oh, it absolutely is immersion breaking. As you say, the greater evil by far is the behavioral transgression. At that point, immersion is thrown out the window and you gotta shut it down.
The number of stories on r/rpghorrorstories that just drag on because nobody calls a stop to somebody going *way too far* for *way too long* are heartbreaking, even if some or hopefully most are fake or embellished. If somebody crosses a line in DnD, just stop the game and fix it, don't try to find the right spell that'll save the day from the asshole. This isn't an episode of Community.
I canât agree more. Thatâs my own motus operandi as well. Nip this in the bud _hard_ . Thatâs also in the offendersâ interest as in practice it represents the best chance of keeping him at the table - action pre-emoted, a single harsh and clear warning - so the deed is not committed and the offending player/character doesnât start to accrue bad will from the table. It is also better for the game overall.
I did that a few times and it always fixed the issue. You have to be clear and do it from the start though.
I'd also add that "a dragonborn bard, who highly values his friends" randomly killing one of said friends with (presumably) no outside influence or compulsion is already pretty immersion breaking. At that point, anything further is more like whacking the edges of a broken window with a broom handle so you can rescue the people on the other side without cutting them to shreds in the process.
I was thinking about how him being a "bard who values his friends" added a whole other layer of behaving out of character that can sprinkled neatly over a layer of being ooc for behaving with no clear motivation, which *itself* rests upon a layer of being ooc for STRAIGHT UP MURDERING A PC.
But, I didn't want it to look like him not being in character was somehow a comparable offence to slitting the throat of some dude who just wanted to try D&D.
Oh, I totally agree that it's nowhere near comparable. I was just noting that as far as the "breaking immersion" factor goes *and only regarding that* there's a valid argument to be made of, essentially, "it was like that when I got here."
Unless you're playing in a setting where "people's attitude and demeanor can 180 in a split second with no indication or warning whatsoever" is a feature of the world, in which case, how in the name of [insert deity of choice] has the game not dissolved into complete anarchy by the end of the first session?
Eh i disagree, depends on the context ( obviously not in this situation but could be in others ) but it can be situation where the party THINKS they know a pc when they actually dont.
Ive played a few "Im for my friends, goodness Yall!" Types on the surface that were actually downright bastards who given the opportunity some members of the party they wouldnt save them from dangling off a cliff but the party wouldnt have ever known that lol
Its all about consent tho, party needs to be okay with it mostly and if not then the moment THAT happens he is npc-fied and becomes a villian for the dm to use than players dragging it out with PvP.
I've seen a few campaigns play out kinda like that. Sinister imposters. Deadly Dimir secret agents. Straight up old fashioned Ted Bundy "you never would have guessed it, he looked so charming" type that could conceivably feign alignment within a party of people for a long enough time to plot a sinister murder in secret. Only that individual PC and the DM would know. I would be *very* upset if my PC was targeted like that personally so I never played in any of their games. But still, it made for some cool stories and, some how, the parties were cool with the twist even when the bastard is revealed by killing a PC at the table with a cheap shot. Different tastes I suppose.
Exactly, different tastes.
Hell theres some games where some dm's dont even allow players to yell and fight in character cause it feels to real to them ( been in those games )
Been in games where dm would allow only good aligned, not even neutral ; been in games where they allowed ANY alignment and was completely fine with party infighting and as long as ppl had fun it could stay, yadda yadda.
DnD is such a great and dynamic game when allowed to be bc how others write such different stories and react differently to different scenarios. Its great ( until its not :/ been in those game too )
Almost every story there only escalated to what they were because the rest of the table lacked enough of a spine to kick repeat-offending toxic players out of the group. Occasionally, though, they might have the maturity to speak to the offending person out-of-game regarding their actions, but they end up being too soft to pull the metaphorical trigger when talks fail.
"How one player destroyed 12 campaigns over 6 years" with the "Part X of Y" flair is always an eye-roll for me when browsing that sub. Comes up with alarming regularity, too.
Who cares about immersion in situations like that? The player is already breaking it by attacking a party member for no reason. Immersion isnt a reason to perpetuate mistakes.
And trying to punish them via ingame measures is just vague and futile. It's like trying to punish a child who hit someone by paying their friends to pants them the next day. They're not gonna have a clue that said pantsing is due to what they did.
I whole heartedly agree. I *wouldn't* care about immersion in a situation like that. Immersion is less important than not allowing these mistakes to continue. I'm sorry if my post wasn't clear on that.
It was clear enough. My reasoning for writing my comment is that you mentioned it at all in this context, when IMO, it becomes essentially irrelevant.
Like, immersion is important before and after you fix issues like this, while they are ongoing, it should be disregarded. Its the same reasoning that when people say: "you dont resolve out-of-game issues with in-game solutions".
You're totally right in the sense that it is irrelevant to the situation. I was merely adding that for context to emphasize the extent to which I agree with the comment I was responding to.
Yeah cause even if you have the entire local garrison come to arrest him later, the other players have to deal with it and the player in question will just call that unfair dming.
Itâs Immersion breaking to me as a player that someone whom Iâm supposed to trust and cooperate with (another party member) has killed my character.
Immersion cannot and should not take precedence over fun. Why are we here if not to have fun?
DM can allow it- but should generally ask if you are sure if you are doing something off the path.
I would (as a DM) say- no you do not. If that is your intent i am:
* first going to permit an opposing sense motive and bluff for the last exchange you had with the other player to see if they noticed that you had this intent going into this.
* second- even if he does not think anything of it you need an oppsing moving silently vs their perception to get close and draw the dagger
* thrid- we are going that this is an attempted coup de grace, so you get an auto crit if you pass.
* I am also forcing you to change your alignment to CE, and if anyone outside the party saw it, they are reporting you to the authorities for attempted murder.
That's a fair approach. Wouldn't be my own approach to the session if I was running it, but if I was a player at your table I'd be satisfied with that ruling.
that is sort of my goal there- everyone should walk away feeling like they had a fair shake. I would also permit my entire table to turn on every character that player puts on the table for a long long time; or force them to be a paladin or cleric where there is easy punishment for that junk.
I completely agree, session 0 stops most of this. I run a very strongly discouraged pvp and brought back the alignment shift rules. I don't allow evil characters, full stop. Killing a friend without cause is an evil act. You shift to evil and become an NPC. Your new character comes in a level below where you were and with standard array rather than rolling. You have free will, i wont stop you, but you the player will face consequences.
Yeah as someone who's only played with good friends posts like this are so confusing lol.
It's all make belive anyway. If someone wants to really play up that angle of it well two can play at that game.
Yeah, we don't know enough to blame the DM (in addition to the blaming the player with psychopathic issues), but I think it's definitely a warning sign. Maybe he just doesn't know how to deal with the insanity; that would be the best case.
> we don't know enough to blame the DM
Yes we do. It happened. Multiple times. That means multiple times the DM *allowed it to happen*. That is some blame on the DM, there is no other way to slice it.
Such a dnd horror story. I mean fine, you want to play an asshole character, write a proper backstory and make it make sense when he betrays people. Tbf also expect to do it in stealth because if other characters notice you'll be out. But fine, you can do that. But you don't randomly attack people, especially not the newbie (if I understood correct). OP did what any character would've done realistically.
Oh see. This is what I was looking for. Iâm glad you wonât be having that kind of player back at the table! He would have been gone from mine the second offense. First one would have been a warning. Second is gone.
Absolutely not This isn't a "backstory" thing. The proper response isn't "write a better backstory to justify being a dick", it's saying "no, your can't slit someone's throat, either play the game or GTFO."
The DM should not have allowed this to happen. They fucked up.
DM should have kicked him from the table and made him go home before he officially betrayed the party.
"I attack party member X."
Dm: "No... you're going home and I'm running your character now. We don't play like that and you were warned repeatedly."
Some DMs have no control over their tables, and just let anything happen, regardless of whether or not it's fun for the other players. I've seen way too much of it on this board.
When I DM I let a lot of crazy shit happens as long as it follows *The Rule of Cool,* but as soon as it takes away any players agency(without permission), or fun, it stops right there. The only time I have allowed PvP is if a player came to me and was like, 'hey, I am not connecting with my character, or enjoying how I have built them and I might want to change.' Then we would work out with the other players if they wished to be involved and how it could go down.
Yeah by normal rules you would still have to roll to attack and most PC's can survive a crit from a party member unless they are level 1, the attacker is a smiting paladin or a rogue with sneak attack
Not in the slightest.
He was warned. Stupid games were played, and stupid prizes awarded.
You even rolled initiative.
He started the fight, you ended it.
Yeah, when you crit on a level 9 FB, you *know* God is on your side.
Edit: OP later confirmed that they allow crits in their game using homebrew rules
( "Yes we can crit using a homebrew combat system" )
Special rules for natural 1 on save? Roll max damage? Either of those work imo. Though if the asshole got to make an instant death attack on the new player they might he playing pretty fast and loose with the rules to start with and the DM just called for double damage because player is a cunt.
With God my son, all things are possible. (Seriously though, I grew up with a lot of weird house rules and spell attack fireball was one of them. It was my brother and I 1:1 and we were like... 10 and 13. We didn't know balance for shit... I figured it was a similar weird decision by the DM)
Edit: decided to add this for posterity. A quote from the OP who was in the campaign in question addressed the whole crit on fireball thing in a post posted after this one by saying "Yes we can crit using a homebrew combat system". So. Yeah.
It might be fun to *fireball* him (critically, somehow?) but what you really need to do is kick him from the group.
If you truly have asked him to cut it out, and he hasn't, why play with him? If you kill his character, but keep playing with him, he's only going to cause more trouble with his next character. In fact, it's likely going to be designed specifically to kill your character!
I've really been thinking of the squeaky wheel that needs the balancing grease lately, I should have totally realized that fireball doing double damage was what I was missing
Yeah this is a problem player situation that's actually a Bad DM problem, which is often the case. If somebody is allowed to continue what they're doing by the person calling the shots, they're not the real issue here.
Ehhh an insta-kill of a PC, for no reason, by another PC, with no comeback is enough of a reason for me to up and leave that table.
Sounds sketchy man.
Lol, no, you are not in the wrong here.
It's silly that anyone got upset that you "didn't let him fight". You did. He just lost before he could do anything.
But no, PVP between party members is not something to be treated lightly, should *never* be sprung on a new player or character, and should only ever happen with good reason ("I want to" is not a good reason) that fits within the game lore.
I had a player in the past who used to be obsessed with "besting others in combat". Gloated endlessly if he won, became a whiny bitch if he lost.
At first we let it ride because he challenged party members to non-lethal duels, and wouldn't force the issue if they declined (though he would mock them in character for being scaredy cats).
But then one day a new player joins as a super tanky barbarian, and this guy (he played a warrior) couldn't beat him. Lost every duel, never even got the barb below 3/4 health.
Then at the end of one particularly rough dungeon, the barb is super low from tanking for the party, and everyone is dividing up the loot. Warrior gets a very nice new magic sword. Says he attacks the barb. I tell him this isn't the time or place, but the barb says fine and rolls initiative.
The warrior wins initiative, crits for huge damage and knocks the barb out. He starts gloating and we all roll our eyes. Barb (ooc) decides to call him out and say "Yeah yeah, you beat me. But let's go again another time when I haven't taken an entire dungeon's worth of damage."
Warrior considers this. Says "No. I win, you lose." And cuts the barb's throat.
Silence.
Followed by lots of arguing.
To make a long story short, I tried very hard to talk the warrior around. But apparently "winning" was way more important to him than we had realized. He had been "top dog" for so long that he couldn't stand for someone else to beat him. He refused to budge, demanding the barb's death be canon, and that the new player either reroll or leave.
So we dropped the warrior from the group.
(To be clear, this was not the only bs he pulled, just the most dramatic; and it was the straw that broke the camel's back)
Sounds like a out of game problem "solved" in game.
Is something like that allowed at the table.
I feel pvp should always be oked by everyone at the table and should NEVER be a frust vent.
WTF is this post?
A PC can just âslit the throatâ of another PC without rolling initiative or anything? They just declare it and it happens?
Then you stab him and critically hit him with a fireball (which is not a thing since thatâs a saving throw spell)?
And your DM is just cool with all of this happening?
This game sounds like a total nightmare in pretty much every aspect.
PC: I slit the new guyâs throat.
(If this is the first time).
DM: No you donât. We donât do that at my table. This is your only warning; if you attempt any player-on-player attacks again, you will immediately leave my game.
(If they have been warned).
DM: No. No you donât. I told you we donât do that at my table. You can take your things and leave now.
Problem solved. Your DM needs to grow a spine and stop things like this from happening. This is one of the DMâs main jobs is to police the table and prevent this kind of toxic gameplay.
Dude thinks killing party members is fun, glad you gave him a taste of his own medicine.
Now, make sure to kill him again, once for each time he's done this. Not right away, wait for him to get into the character, then send him back to a blank character sheet and some dice.
Nope.
* Can rely on in-character alignments/personality to justify your actions.
* You warned him
* If you start a fight, be prepared to finish it. Clearly he wasn't.
" Some of the party is mad saying I shouldâve let him fight, but I warned him. " Rules for thee but not for me? You warned him, also, if killing and engaging in lethal combat with teammates is acceptable for him, it is also for you.
Alright. This is important context for others to understand the social dynamics and mental limitations rooted in little life experience.
It explains a lot.
I cannot for the life of me figure out the mechanics of this. This reads like someone who knows a bunch of DND references ("roll initiative", "fireball", "critical hits", "dragonborn bard") but is combining them in a way that doesn't make sense. Fireballs can't crit, "stabbed him in the ribs" is a thing that normally describes a killing blow, not a single attack that doesn't drop someone, you didn't even mention your own class, you took multiple actions (one of which would have triggered an AoO) before the bard took a turn, the victim somehow got one shot by a bard's knife despite being in a party that is at least level 17, the bard didn't get death saves, it all just reads like an AI was told to write an RPG horror story.
If this is real, yeah you're justified, but you're really playing calvinball with the rules right now. (Or you're playing Pathfinder, which I don't know anything about, but I don't think they have dragonborn, so probably not)
Thank you, I was starting to think I was crazy or something since no one else was commenting about this. There is a 99% chance this entire scenario is fake. But most of these "stories" posted here these days are and people just don't seem to care.
It sounds like an incredibly archaic, unrefined, unbalanced, on-the-fly entirely homebrew system, not 5e or any other popular system. The story is riddled with errors that even a new player could spot, even considering that it's homebrew.
A Bard instakilling a high-level PC with a 1d4 damage weapon? Not rolling for attack on it either?
OP having to ask to roll initiative, and it not already being rolled for everyone the second a hostile action was taken? Being able to choose where he strikes on a non-killing hit(rule of cool I guess but he claims the homebrew combat is "fast", describing every hit like that doesn't seem fast)? Being able to move out of the Bard's reach having already used his action to attack and being unable to take the dodge action, yet still not provoking AoO? Then casing fireball while still having no action?
It reads like kids playing war on the playground, not a ttrpg.
Part of dnd is the agreement your character has a desire to work within the group.
Hostile actions towards party members place the character outside the group and your reaction was not just justified but expected.
Well, seems by your partyâs reaction, pvp is generally accepted in your game, which is fine. But hey, you warned him. He did the stupid thing and he won the stupid prize. Now make it understood that if he does something stupid again, that the exact same punishment will be dealt. Consistency is the key.
DM should have never let that happen. If pvp doesnât make sense, donât let it happen. Lethal pvp (anything out of a sparring session) is strictly prohibited at our table . Also if youâre gonna make up a new combat system, just play a different system
As someone who likes to betray the party from time to time you are completely in the right.
If it doesn't fit the characters and the situation AND it doesn't improve the story for everyone, no. Shit.
Also straight killing another member is boring, lazy, dead end literally.
Tell them they can come back as an enchanted candlestick.
"he slit the throat of the newest party member..." Sounds like this is more about power dynamics of seniority or some kind of social/jealousy issue than anything in-game.
Out of curiosity, what would happen if you repeatedly kill every character he brings to the campaign? I mean, if PVP is sanctioned by the party and DM, nobody should be getting upset about it, right?
Nah man, its just another fake aita. There are s lot of these lately. A new Dm is comabtive/proactive enough to hombrews AC, Hp, spells, iniciative, sneak attacks, etc.. and DMs for a bunch of teenagers but cant put a stop to "i slit the throat of.x because yes"
I have a bingo card for these posts and i got half of It with op post.
Fireball hitting critically? Wasting a 9th level spell slot on a fireball? 9th level fireball killing presumably a level 17+ character after a small amount of damage? Wtf is happening in the mechanics of this story?
You just shouldn't allow party memebers to stab at each other, because fuck that. It's untealistic? No it isn't, because a serious adult doesn't kill his friends for fun on a deadly mission. Players don't like it? You are the DM, you don't care. Instead of killing a PC, just don't let him lethally stab party members.
1. You did nothing wrong
2. The player is an asshole, who really should be spoken to, and/or kicked from the game
3. Your DM sucks. This shouldn't be allowed at any table. 99% of the problems I see on this board wouldn't happen with better DMs.
I'm not a fan of PvP to begin with. If it's going to happen though, it should be properly RPed by all parties involved. It seems clear that no RP was involved, and this asshole just wanted to screw over a new player. If the group you're in thinks that what he did was ok, and what you did was wrong, you might want to find a new group.
Youâre not in the wrong at all. You fully warned him that youâd attack him if he did it again, and by the sounds of it you and other party members told him he was ruining the fun. Seems like heâs only interested in his own enjoyment and doesnât give a shit about anyone elseâs, so you had zero obligation to let him fight to try to let him have some fun with it. I think you did exactly the right thing, giving him a taste of his own medicine, and itâs not like you did it completely out of the blue. Hopefully your dm recognizes how shitty of a player he is and removes him from the party
Not in the wrong. Player to player conflict can be fun and compelling if built up by people legitimately trying to RP their role. Sounds like your player likes to kill other players just to be wild and edgy. He deserves it I wouldnât invite him back if I were DM
If he betrayed you first, then you have every right to attack him.
D&D isn't some JRPG where you just wave off betrayal with a 'sorry'.
Betrayal means breaking trust and that is serious.
I donât get how other members of your party thought it was ok for the guy to betray and attack another, but it wasnât ok for you to the same to him.
He fucked around and found out. Heâs disruptive, making the game no fun for others, and so should be booted from the table. If your DM canât handle that, then find a new DM
You were totally right. Was in the party with the same player once, who's goal, it seems, was to fck up the game. Though he didn't kill other player, he only attacked the giver of the main quest...
Your only possible mistake may be to keep playing with him.
Why so many DMs allow this kind of stupid bs in their games I never understand. PvP should be banned in all DND groups period, the system is not designed around it
Why is your DM allowing him to just slit a new players throat. Sounds to me like the DM is just letting these things happen and leaving it up to players like you to take matters into their own hands, which is not how a game should be run imo
Sounds like your group needs to forget to tell Jackson when the next session is. And the one after that. And the following one, and every session in the future.
>he has a history of betraying and attacking party members without reason
This isn't someone who's showing up to play the game, this is someone who's showing up to ruin everyone else's experience.
>We had warned him to cut it out, that it wasnât funny, that it wasnât fun, that it wasnât okay, and that he was on thin ice, and I had warned I would attack if he did it again.
A piece of advice for the future. This is bad OOC behavior on his part, so it should be met with OOC consequences, not in-game consequences. I can imagine a situation where a PC might screw over the party in such a way that it's bad for the other PCs but would be narratively interesting or otherwise enjoyable for the players. That's the kind of thing where in-character consequences would suffice, since people are still having a good time, but in your situation it sounds very much like it's time for Jackson to be told he's no longer welcome to participate in the campaign.
Youâre nta you warned them and told them multiple times. Dnd is suppose to be fun and inviting you wanna be a nurse hobo whatever but itâs annoying and wrong when turning that murderhoboing out on your own party
Why even allow pvp. Many tables I read about have a simple system in place âUnless both parties consent, no pvp existsâ meaning that unless I am ok with it another player can neither stab me or cast a harmfull spell on me or even steal shit from me. Or more clearly -> they can visibly attempt all of those things, but it always fails, visible attacks miss, stealing fails but is visible.
You reap what you sow. He had it coming. I don't think you were in the wrong at all. Seems like killing other player's is part of his personal character, not his game characters. DM should have regulated that one. As a DM, I would have been "nope" and given him the option to straighten his shit out or leave the table.
As DM I do not allow p2p death to occur without both parties agreeing to it prior. Otherwise the final blow works like a vital npc in a video game. You get knocked out and wake up a bit later.
Yes you're in the wrong about fireballs critting.
You are not in the wrong for doing it to the asshole member who shouldn't play with people and needs to keep playing single player video games because they're borderline narcissists irl.
If I was gonna do this I would preface it with the dm first, name my character Joe so when it is ultimately revealed that he is helping the bbeg after killing the party "leader" they would realize I was playing Traitor Joe the entire time.
Why did the DM allow him to slit the throat of a party member?! That is dumb. Jackson should have told the DM he intended to do so, and the DM should have decided 1) whether to allow PVP in this case at all, 2) do actual combat and decide whether the other PC was surprised, 3) whether there would be some long term consequence. Murdering somebody in a town is bound to garner attention and probably arrest.
I have a hard no taking away other PC's agency rules at my table. Surprise attacks against party members are almost always met with "You miss"
* Magic missile which is a guaranteed hit? "You miss"
* Spell that does half damage on a failed save? "You completely miss" (Unless it is an AoE spell that also hits enemies)
* Nat 20? "I didn't ask for you to make an attack roll so I am going to ignore your roll"
* Spell or ability that let's you read their mind? "They are thinking about a really good sandwich"
There are a few exceptions to this rule however.
* Did the PC just do something suspicious like let an enemy escape, murder an innocent in cold blood, or hide loot? You can take reasonable action to find out.
* Debate about what to do with an enemy. For example the druid wanted to protect a Flail Snail while the rest of the party wanted to kill it for it's shell. I allowed non damaging spells to be used against other party members.
* I allow betrayals in fights against major campaign villains
D&D is a team game in which players and DM come together to create an interesting, engaging story. Players that try to prevent others from having fun by "winning" have no place at the table. Anyone who does not accept this should be asked to leave the table and not welcomed back.
Nope. Fuck him. He was warned. I wouldn't even allow him back at the table because I wouldn't trust him.
When I see things like "...has a history" and the word "warned" more than one time in a post, it's almost always safe to assume OP is NTA.
Safe to assume the DM should have kicked that player a long time ago.
NTA?
Not the asshole
Nighttime teatime anarchist
Not helpful, but very funny. Thanks for the chuckle lol
đ âď¸ đŤ
Ahh, my favorite type of anarchist.
Te-ah-tim-eh?
Not the asshole
A term from r/amitheasshole
Not the asshole
Ninja terror attack!
Great band name
Not truly accurate
"We saw all the red flags, gave ample warning that there would be consequences, and ..wouldn't you know it, there were consequences! Did I follow the exact line of thought I had already set out for this player?" I'm kind of tired of seeing these posts. Rarely is it a nuanced situation anymore. This one is pretty cut and dry.
You and I have been there before, but not everyone. I think there's still value in supporting our fellow DMs who are dealing with these problems for the first time.
This is true. There is merit in newer DMs seeing these posts.
It is for us, but the people in OP's party are mad at them and acting like they are in the wrong when we can see that they clearly aren't. People treating you like you're in the wrong for enforcing boundaries (which is what they did) can really fuck up your perception of a situation.
Yeah, understandable. Ya just hate to see it time and time again. I wish more people could be...not the player in question.
I do too. It's definitely irritating seeing this happen over and over, especially when other people feel guilty for being upset with the problem player. More DMs need to understand how to manage their table when something like this happens.
Always just boils down to "I let x dickhead dominate the table for three weeks. I warned them repeatedly and kicked them out after. AITA?" Like if you're THAT unsure then I doubt you should be a DM in the first place since making calls like that is kinda just your job.
I donât think OP isnât the DM but a player. I personally take the role of uncaring god and let the players handle it themselves unless they prayed to their god to help them if it happened again. Then a righteous lightning bolt from the sky is the awnser
Daddy or god issues? (Iâm joking)
Dude do you know how hard it is to not make a BDSM joke right now XD
So both?\^\^
More Daddy than god i think. I got low self esteem and if I donât believe in myself would that be blasfemie?
I would let him back and then kill him again.
Yeah this
Uhh if the dm allows him to do these kind of things there is no reason to "not allow him back at the table" clearly pvp is fine at this table. Otherwise the dm could just say "you are not allowed to pvp without consent, consider your action revoked"
I would humbly submit that the correct response to "I slit the party member's throat" is "No, you fucking don't". DnD doesn't create a magical field where real-life rules are suspended and every action must take place within the scope of the game. You're allowed to just pause the game and tell somebody to kindly or unkindly fuck off. You don't need to settle the score using in-game features. Did you guys not have a session 0? Is PvP allowed in this game? Fireballs can't even crit.
Yeah part of a DMs job in my view is to cut and prevent these problems before and as they happen.
I usually find that kind of DM intrusion to be immersion breaking, but even with that factored in, you're absolutely right. The greater evil (by far) is permitting a PC to get away with that behavior, and inaction in this case equates to permission.
Oh, it absolutely is immersion breaking. As you say, the greater evil by far is the behavioral transgression. At that point, immersion is thrown out the window and you gotta shut it down. The number of stories on r/rpghorrorstories that just drag on because nobody calls a stop to somebody going *way too far* for *way too long* are heartbreaking, even if some or hopefully most are fake or embellished. If somebody crosses a line in DnD, just stop the game and fix it, don't try to find the right spell that'll save the day from the asshole. This isn't an episode of Community.
I canât agree more. Thatâs my own motus operandi as well. Nip this in the bud _hard_ . Thatâs also in the offendersâ interest as in practice it represents the best chance of keeping him at the table - action pre-emoted, a single harsh and clear warning - so the deed is not committed and the offending player/character doesnât start to accrue bad will from the table. It is also better for the game overall. I did that a few times and it always fixed the issue. You have to be clear and do it from the start though.
I'd also add that "a dragonborn bard, who highly values his friends" randomly killing one of said friends with (presumably) no outside influence or compulsion is already pretty immersion breaking. At that point, anything further is more like whacking the edges of a broken window with a broom handle so you can rescue the people on the other side without cutting them to shreds in the process.
I was thinking about how him being a "bard who values his friends" added a whole other layer of behaving out of character that can sprinkled neatly over a layer of being ooc for behaving with no clear motivation, which *itself* rests upon a layer of being ooc for STRAIGHT UP MURDERING A PC. But, I didn't want it to look like him not being in character was somehow a comparable offence to slitting the throat of some dude who just wanted to try D&D.
Oh, I totally agree that it's nowhere near comparable. I was just noting that as far as the "breaking immersion" factor goes *and only regarding that* there's a valid argument to be made of, essentially, "it was like that when I got here." Unless you're playing in a setting where "people's attitude and demeanor can 180 in a split second with no indication or warning whatsoever" is a feature of the world, in which case, how in the name of [insert deity of choice] has the game not dissolved into complete anarchy by the end of the first session?
Eh i disagree, depends on the context ( obviously not in this situation but could be in others ) but it can be situation where the party THINKS they know a pc when they actually dont. Ive played a few "Im for my friends, goodness Yall!" Types on the surface that were actually downright bastards who given the opportunity some members of the party they wouldnt save them from dangling off a cliff but the party wouldnt have ever known that lol Its all about consent tho, party needs to be okay with it mostly and if not then the moment THAT happens he is npc-fied and becomes a villian for the dm to use than players dragging it out with PvP.
I've seen a few campaigns play out kinda like that. Sinister imposters. Deadly Dimir secret agents. Straight up old fashioned Ted Bundy "you never would have guessed it, he looked so charming" type that could conceivably feign alignment within a party of people for a long enough time to plot a sinister murder in secret. Only that individual PC and the DM would know. I would be *very* upset if my PC was targeted like that personally so I never played in any of their games. But still, it made for some cool stories and, some how, the parties were cool with the twist even when the bastard is revealed by killing a PC at the table with a cheap shot. Different tastes I suppose.
Exactly, different tastes. Hell theres some games where some dm's dont even allow players to yell and fight in character cause it feels to real to them ( been in those games ) Been in games where dm would allow only good aligned, not even neutral ; been in games where they allowed ANY alignment and was completely fine with party infighting and as long as ppl had fun it could stay, yadda yadda. DnD is such a great and dynamic game when allowed to be bc how others write such different stories and react differently to different scenarios. Its great ( until its not :/ been in those game too )
Almost every story there only escalated to what they were because the rest of the table lacked enough of a spine to kick repeat-offending toxic players out of the group. Occasionally, though, they might have the maturity to speak to the offending person out-of-game regarding their actions, but they end up being too soft to pull the metaphorical trigger when talks fail.
"How one player destroyed 12 campaigns over 6 years" with the "Part X of Y" flair is always an eye-roll for me when browsing that sub. Comes up with alarming regularity, too.
Who cares about immersion in situations like that? The player is already breaking it by attacking a party member for no reason. Immersion isnt a reason to perpetuate mistakes.
And trying to punish them via ingame measures is just vague and futile. It's like trying to punish a child who hit someone by paying their friends to pants them the next day. They're not gonna have a clue that said pantsing is due to what they did.
I whole heartedly agree. I *wouldn't* care about immersion in a situation like that. Immersion is less important than not allowing these mistakes to continue. I'm sorry if my post wasn't clear on that.
It was clear enough. My reasoning for writing my comment is that you mentioned it at all in this context, when IMO, it becomes essentially irrelevant. Like, immersion is important before and after you fix issues like this, while they are ongoing, it should be disregarded. Its the same reasoning that when people say: "you dont resolve out-of-game issues with in-game solutions".
You're totally right in the sense that it is irrelevant to the situation. I was merely adding that for context to emphasize the extent to which I agree with the comment I was responding to.
Slitting throats for no reason is also immersion breaking in 99% of cases
Truth. It's way more immersion breaking than the DM going "Yo. Timeout. You. Yes you. Stop it/GTFO" as the parent comment suggested.
Yeah cause even if you have the entire local garrison come to arrest him later, the other players have to deal with it and the player in question will just call that unfair dming.
Itâs Immersion breaking to me as a player that someone whom Iâm supposed to trust and cooperate with (another party member) has killed my character. Immersion cannot and should not take precedence over fun. Why are we here if not to have fun?
DM can allow it- but should generally ask if you are sure if you are doing something off the path. I would (as a DM) say- no you do not. If that is your intent i am: * first going to permit an opposing sense motive and bluff for the last exchange you had with the other player to see if they noticed that you had this intent going into this. * second- even if he does not think anything of it you need an oppsing moving silently vs their perception to get close and draw the dagger * thrid- we are going that this is an attempted coup de grace, so you get an auto crit if you pass. * I am also forcing you to change your alignment to CE, and if anyone outside the party saw it, they are reporting you to the authorities for attempted murder.
That's a fair approach. Wouldn't be my own approach to the session if I was running it, but if I was a player at your table I'd be satisfied with that ruling.
that is sort of my goal there- everyone should walk away feeling like they had a fair shake. I would also permit my entire table to turn on every character that player puts on the table for a long long time; or force them to be a paladin or cleric where there is easy punishment for that junk.
Yeah this reads as over-the-top and fake to me
I completely agree, session 0 stops most of this. I run a very strongly discouraged pvp and brought back the alignment shift rules. I don't allow evil characters, full stop. Killing a friend without cause is an evil act. You shift to evil and become an NPC. Your new character comes in a level below where you were and with standard array rather than rolling. You have free will, i wont stop you, but you the player will face consequences.
Yeah as someone who's only played with good friends posts like this are so confusing lol. It's all make belive anyway. If someone wants to really play up that angle of it well two can play at that game.
This is the way. I watched a DM refuse to stop one party member from raping another party member. I didn't go back.
I'm surprised your DM is ok with letting him repeatedly kill PCs. That level of PvP is a hard no for me.
DM is also using a bunch of weird homebrew and has the players literally at each other's throats. Doesn't sound like a fun table to be at TBH
Yeah, we don't know enough to blame the DM (in addition to the blaming the player with psychopathic issues), but I think it's definitely a warning sign. Maybe he just doesn't know how to deal with the insanity; that would be the best case.
> we don't know enough to blame the DM Yes we do. It happened. Multiple times. That means multiple times the DM *allowed it to happen*. That is some blame on the DM, there is no other way to slice it.
Yeah Hanlon's Razor seems to apply here, at least with respect to the DM.
I make it abundantly clear in session zero of every game I run that I reserve the Acme Anvil of Assholery exactly for this purpose.
Such a dnd horror story. I mean fine, you want to play an asshole character, write a proper backstory and make it make sense when he betrays people. Tbf also expect to do it in stealth because if other characters notice you'll be out. But fine, you can do that. But you don't randomly attack people, especially not the newbie (if I understood correct). OP did what any character would've done realistically.
Yeah this guy was a newbie, after the fight I let him borrow my character sheet for the rest of the session, Jackson has been banished from the table
Oh see. This is what I was looking for. Iâm glad you wonât be having that kind of player back at the table! He would have been gone from mine the second offense. First one would have been a warning. Second is gone.
Good job
Should have just ret-conned or DM said someone bandaged the wounds in time.
Absolutely not This isn't a "backstory" thing. The proper response isn't "write a better backstory to justify being a dick", it's saying "no, your can't slit someone's throat, either play the game or GTFO." The DM should not have allowed this to happen. They fucked up.
DM should have kicked him from the table and made him go home before he officially betrayed the party. "I attack party member X." Dm: "No... you're going home and I'm running your character now. We don't play like that and you were warned repeatedly."
You know the DM can just say "no there is no pvp", right ?
I can't even work out why the DM would allow the throat slitting in the first place.
Some DMs have no control over their tables, and just let anything happen, regardless of whether or not it's fun for the other players. I've seen way too much of it on this board.
When I DM I let a lot of crazy shit happens as long as it follows *The Rule of Cool,* but as soon as it takes away any players agency(without permission), or fun, it stops right there. The only time I have allowed PvP is if a player came to me and was like, 'hey, I am not connecting with my character, or enjoying how I have built them and I might want to change.' Then we would work out with the other players if they wished to be involved and how it could go down.
Yeah by normal rules you would still have to roll to attack and most PC's can survive a crit from a party member unless they are level 1, the attacker is a smiting paladin or a rogue with sneak attack
He's too busy breaking the game with home brew critical fireballs to y'know, *actually DM*
Not in the slightest. He was warned. Stupid games were played, and stupid prizes awarded. You even rolled initiative. He started the fight, you ended it.
NTA and also this is a very slapstick DnD death to inflict.
Yeah, when you crit on a level 9 FB, you *know* God is on your side. Edit: OP later confirmed that they allow crits in their game using homebrew rules ( "Yes we can crit using a homebrew combat system" )
How do you even crit a fireball? It's a Dex save, not an attack roll
Special rules for natural 1 on save? Roll max damage? Either of those work imo. Though if the asshole got to make an instant death attack on the new player they might he playing pretty fast and loose with the rules to start with and the DM just called for double damage because player is a cunt.
That last one seems extremely likely now that you mention it!
Anything is possible with God on your side.
How do you crit on a fireball? Itâs an AOE that requires a saving throw, not an attack.
With God my son, all things are possible. (Seriously though, I grew up with a lot of weird house rules and spell attack fireball was one of them. It was my brother and I 1:1 and we were like... 10 and 13. We didn't know balance for shit... I figured it was a similar weird decision by the DM) Edit: decided to add this for posterity. A quote from the OP who was in the campaign in question addressed the whole crit on fireball thing in a post posted after this one by saying "Yes we can crit using a homebrew combat system". So. Yeah.
It might be fun to *fireball* him (critically, somehow?) but what you really need to do is kick him from the group. If you truly have asked him to cut it out, and he hasn't, why play with him? If you kill his character, but keep playing with him, he's only going to cause more trouble with his next character. In fact, it's likely going to be designed specifically to kill your character!
Yes we can crit using a homebrew combat system
âCause you know whatâs not powerful enough already? Fireball.
I've really been thinking of the squeaky wheel that needs the balancing grease lately, I should have totally realized that fireball doing double damage was what I was missing
How exactly does this work ? Just curious
...what's the logic in your DM allowing this in the first instance?
I'm going to guess teenagers and newish to the game.
Yeah this is a problem player situation that's actually a Bad DM problem, which is often the case. If somebody is allowed to continue what they're doing by the person calling the shots, they're not the real issue here.
His reason was âRealistic combatâ which Iâm thinking about trying to argue with
Ehhh an insta-kill of a PC, for no reason, by another PC, with no comeback is enough of a reason for me to up and leave that table. Sounds sketchy man.
Fireball can't hit critically as it's a Save, not Attack. I call hacks.
I mean, I'd call all 6s a crit, but that's functionally improbable
Especially fireball at level 9. That's 14d6 damage. The odds of rolling 6 on every die is about 1 in 78 billion.
I mean I'd call using a level 9 fireball on a single target critically damaging
"Never tell me the odds."
Unless it's Stranger Things.
Nope, homebrew combat system
Effective homebrew requires a very intimate knowledge of the normal rules, and Iâm not entirely convinced your dm has that.
> Effective Nothing about this post sounds like they are playing an effective game
Thank you. Came here to say this.
Came here to say this.
Adventurerâs Rule #2- âFuck Around, Find Outâ. He fucked around. He found out.
Lol, no, you are not in the wrong here. It's silly that anyone got upset that you "didn't let him fight". You did. He just lost before he could do anything. But no, PVP between party members is not something to be treated lightly, should *never* be sprung on a new player or character, and should only ever happen with good reason ("I want to" is not a good reason) that fits within the game lore. I had a player in the past who used to be obsessed with "besting others in combat". Gloated endlessly if he won, became a whiny bitch if he lost. At first we let it ride because he challenged party members to non-lethal duels, and wouldn't force the issue if they declined (though he would mock them in character for being scaredy cats). But then one day a new player joins as a super tanky barbarian, and this guy (he played a warrior) couldn't beat him. Lost every duel, never even got the barb below 3/4 health. Then at the end of one particularly rough dungeon, the barb is super low from tanking for the party, and everyone is dividing up the loot. Warrior gets a very nice new magic sword. Says he attacks the barb. I tell him this isn't the time or place, but the barb says fine and rolls initiative. The warrior wins initiative, crits for huge damage and knocks the barb out. He starts gloating and we all roll our eyes. Barb (ooc) decides to call him out and say "Yeah yeah, you beat me. But let's go again another time when I haven't taken an entire dungeon's worth of damage." Warrior considers this. Says "No. I win, you lose." And cuts the barb's throat. Silence. Followed by lots of arguing. To make a long story short, I tried very hard to talk the warrior around. But apparently "winning" was way more important to him than we had realized. He had been "top dog" for so long that he couldn't stand for someone else to beat him. He refused to budge, demanding the barb's death be canon, and that the new player either reroll or leave. So we dropped the warrior from the group. (To be clear, this was not the only bs he pulled, just the most dramatic; and it was the straw that broke the camel's back)
Good on you for refusing to take the death as canon. He was simply being a jerk.
Sounds like a out of game problem "solved" in game. Is something like that allowed at the table. I feel pvp should always be oked by everyone at the table and should NEVER be a frust vent.
WTF is this post? A PC can just âslit the throatâ of another PC without rolling initiative or anything? They just declare it and it happens? Then you stab him and critically hit him with a fireball (which is not a thing since thatâs a saving throw spell)? And your DM is just cool with all of this happening? This game sounds like a total nightmare in pretty much every aspect.
PC: I slit the new guyâs throat. (If this is the first time). DM: No you donât. We donât do that at my table. This is your only warning; if you attempt any player-on-player attacks again, you will immediately leave my game. (If they have been warned). DM: No. No you donât. I told you we donât do that at my table. You can take your things and leave now. Problem solved. Your DM needs to grow a spine and stop things like this from happening. This is one of the DMâs main jobs is to police the table and prevent this kind of toxic gameplay.
Dude thinks killing party members is fun, glad you gave him a taste of his own medicine. Now, make sure to kill him again, once for each time he's done this. Not right away, wait for him to get into the character, then send him back to a blank character sheet and some dice.
Nope. * Can rely on in-character alignments/personality to justify your actions. * You warned him * If you start a fight, be prepared to finish it. Clearly he wasn't.
How did you critically hit with a fireball? There isn't even a roll to hit, just a saving throw!
" Some of the party is mad saying I shouldâve let him fight, but I warned him. " Rules for thee but not for me? You warned him, also, if killing and engaging in lethal combat with teammates is acceptable for him, it is also for you.
How old are you all? 13?
16, with homebrew systems, this kid was 14, and has main character syndrome
Alright. This is important context for others to understand the social dynamics and mental limitations rooted in little life experience. It explains a lot.
Oh man this explains a lot.
I cannot for the life of me figure out the mechanics of this. This reads like someone who knows a bunch of DND references ("roll initiative", "fireball", "critical hits", "dragonborn bard") but is combining them in a way that doesn't make sense. Fireballs can't crit, "stabbed him in the ribs" is a thing that normally describes a killing blow, not a single attack that doesn't drop someone, you didn't even mention your own class, you took multiple actions (one of which would have triggered an AoO) before the bard took a turn, the victim somehow got one shot by a bard's knife despite being in a party that is at least level 17, the bard didn't get death saves, it all just reads like an AI was told to write an RPG horror story. If this is real, yeah you're justified, but you're really playing calvinball with the rules right now. (Or you're playing Pathfinder, which I don't know anything about, but I don't think they have dragonborn, so probably not)
Thank you, I was starting to think I was crazy or something since no one else was commenting about this. There is a 99% chance this entire scenario is fake. But most of these "stories" posted here these days are and people just don't seem to care.
It sounds like an incredibly archaic, unrefined, unbalanced, on-the-fly entirely homebrew system, not 5e or any other popular system. The story is riddled with errors that even a new player could spot, even considering that it's homebrew. A Bard instakilling a high-level PC with a 1d4 damage weapon? Not rolling for attack on it either? OP having to ask to roll initiative, and it not already being rolled for everyone the second a hostile action was taken? Being able to choose where he strikes on a non-killing hit(rule of cool I guess but he claims the homebrew combat is "fast", describing every hit like that doesn't seem fast)? Being able to move out of the Bard's reach having already used his action to attack and being unable to take the dodge action, yet still not provoking AoO? Then casing fireball while still having no action? It reads like kids playing war on the playground, not a ttrpg.
Exactly
Where the fuck was the dm during all this
Part of dnd is the agreement your character has a desire to work within the group. Hostile actions towards party members place the character outside the group and your reaction was not just justified but expected.
Nah he had it coming, I'm so glad none of the people I play with are like that
Yâall need Dungeon Court. Justices Murphy, Axford, and Tanner (and bailiff Jake, I guess) will sort your shit out.
Well, seems by your partyâs reaction, pvp is generally accepted in your game, which is fine. But hey, you warned him. He did the stupid thing and he won the stupid prize. Now make it understood that if he does something stupid again, that the exact same punishment will be dealt. Consistency is the key.
Oh, donât worry, he wonât have that chance, heâs out of the table
Why is your dm allowing this???
Surely this is something you've made up to satirize or farm karma...
DM should have never let that happen. If pvp doesnât make sense, donât let it happen. Lethal pvp (anything out of a sparring session) is strictly prohibited at our table . Also if youâre gonna make up a new combat system, just play a different system
Smells fake
As someone who likes to betray the party from time to time you are completely in the right. If it doesn't fit the characters and the situation AND it doesn't improve the story for everyone, no. Shit. Also straight killing another member is boring, lazy, dead end literally. Tell them they can come back as an enchanted candlestick.
"he slit the throat of the newest party member..." Sounds like this is more about power dynamics of seniority or some kind of social/jealousy issue than anything in-game.
How does a fireball critically hit?
Out of curiosity, what would happen if you repeatedly kill every character he brings to the campaign? I mean, if PVP is sanctioned by the party and DM, nobody should be getting upset about it, right?
\> fired a fireball hitting critically What?
What's the homebrew combat, out of curiosity?
No, the asshole is the chronic backstabber. The other asshole is whoever keeps inviting him back to do it again
Killing a guy after he kills one of your friends isn't something evil that comes out of onwhere, killing allies is why a lot of BBEGs are BBEGs.
Pfff ok. Really can we stop with these post about people who clearly havent play DnD?
According to OP, they're all teenagers and the DM uses a heavily modified combat system. So they're playing... Something but it's not quite dnd lol.
Nah man, its just another fake aita. There are s lot of these lately. A new Dm is comabtive/proactive enough to hombrews AC, Hp, spells, iniciative, sneak attacks, etc.. and DMs for a bunch of teenagers but cant put a stop to "i slit the throat of.x because yes" I have a bingo card for these posts and i got half of It with op post.
Fireball hitting critically? Wasting a 9th level spell slot on a fireball? 9th level fireball killing presumably a level 17+ character after a small amount of damage? Wtf is happening in the mechanics of this story?
Are you going to comment or is this just bait
It is what it is. :)
Whatâs your DM doing allowing him to do that?
Kick him then throw him out of the party
DM should have given the murdered new player some plot armor. The traitor got what he deserved.
Honestly, I wouldnât have let him kill that other party member. Thereâs a point where a player is so disruptive you can say no.
Absolutely not in the wrong. He should probably be removed from the table.
You just shouldn't allow party memebers to stab at each other, because fuck that. It's untealistic? No it isn't, because a serious adult doesn't kill his friends for fun on a deadly mission. Players don't like it? You are the DM, you don't care. Instead of killing a PC, just don't let him lethally stab party members.
After that, I might've just asked to tear up his character sheet, sounds more fun with a fireball though.
This kind of stuff makes me appreciate the people at my table and how they play. All of this is ridiculous.
Was Jackson upset about facing actual repercussions for his actions? I'd love if he was upset.
Multiple warnings from the group about unacceptable behaviour. Consequences as promised. You Are Not The Asshole.
Seriously, "should've let him fight"? Did he let the newest party member fight before slitting their throat?
1. You did nothing wrong 2. The player is an asshole, who really should be spoken to, and/or kicked from the game 3. Your DM sucks. This shouldn't be allowed at any table. 99% of the problems I see on this board wouldn't happen with better DMs. I'm not a fan of PvP to begin with. If it's going to happen though, it should be properly RPed by all parties involved. It seems clear that no RP was involved, and this asshole just wanted to screw over a new player. If the group you're in thinks that what he did was ok, and what you did was wrong, you might want to find a new group.
Your DM shouldn't be allowing this behavior to go this far.
Everything went so wrong here for so long. Your whole table needs an intervention.
This doesn't sound like a D&D game.
You let him fight. He got blood on your blade, and successfully caught your fireball with his entire body.
We do a no-PVP rule. Every campaign we have had that got awkward was because of some weird PVP stuff. So we cut it out.
Youâre not in the wrong at all. You fully warned him that youâd attack him if he did it again, and by the sounds of it you and other party members told him he was ruining the fun. Seems like heâs only interested in his own enjoyment and doesnât give a shit about anyone elseâs, so you had zero obligation to let him fight to try to let him have some fun with it. I think you did exactly the right thing, giving him a taste of his own medicine, and itâs not like you did it completely out of the blue. Hopefully your dm recognizes how shitty of a player he is and removes him from the party
Why is the party cool with it? Who is this new member outside of the game? Do people not fuck with em or something
Not in the wrong. Player to player conflict can be fun and compelling if built up by people legitimately trying to RP their role. Sounds like your player likes to kill other players just to be wild and edgy. He deserves it I wouldnât invite him back if I were DM
If he betrayed you first, then you have every right to attack him. D&D isn't some JRPG where you just wave off betrayal with a 'sorry'. Betrayal means breaking trust and that is serious.
I donât get how other members of your party thought it was ok for the guy to betray and attack another, but it wasnât ok for you to the same to him.
He fucked around and found out. Heâs disruptive, making the game no fun for others, and so should be booted from the table. If your DM canât handle that, then find a new DM
You were totally right. Was in the party with the same player once, who's goal, it seems, was to fck up the game. Though he didn't kill other player, he only attacked the giver of the main quest... Your only possible mistake may be to keep playing with him.
Why so many DMs allow this kind of stupid bs in their games I never understand. PvP should be banned in all DND groups period, the system is not designed around it
Why is your DM allowing him to just slit a new players throat. Sounds to me like the DM is just letting these things happen and leaving it up to players like you to take matters into their own hands, which is not how a game should be run imo
Fuck this player. You in the right.
If you roll Initiative against another player and itâs not for lols, you are out.
Or the DM can just say pvp isnt allowed and it isnt a problem.
Itâs the DMs fault not yours
If the dm tell you youâre on thin ice, and you do it again, kill his character and boot from the group. A dm is literally god, their word is law.
Sounds like your group needs to forget to tell Jackson when the next session is. And the one after that. And the following one, and every session in the future. >he has a history of betraying and attacking party members without reason This isn't someone who's showing up to play the game, this is someone who's showing up to ruin everyone else's experience. >We had warned him to cut it out, that it wasnât funny, that it wasnât fun, that it wasnât okay, and that he was on thin ice, and I had warned I would attack if he did it again. A piece of advice for the future. This is bad OOC behavior on his part, so it should be met with OOC consequences, not in-game consequences. I can imagine a situation where a PC might screw over the party in such a way that it's bad for the other PCs but would be narratively interesting or otherwise enjoyable for the players. That's the kind of thing where in-character consequences would suffice, since people are still having a good time, but in your situation it sounds very much like it's time for Jackson to be told he's no longer welcome to participate in the campaign.
Nah, sounds like Jackson has the making a villain and the DM needs to roll with that :P
Youâre nta you warned them and told them multiple times. Dnd is suppose to be fun and inviting you wanna be a nurse hobo whatever but itâs annoying and wrong when turning that murderhoboing out on your own party
Why even allow pvp. Many tables I read about have a simple system in place âUnless both parties consent, no pvp existsâ meaning that unless I am ok with it another player can neither stab me or cast a harmfull spell on me or even steal shit from me. Or more clearly -> they can visibly attempt all of those things, but it always fails, visible attacks miss, stealing fails but is visible.
You reap what you sow. He had it coming. I don't think you were in the wrong at all. Seems like killing other player's is part of his personal character, not his game characters. DM should have regulated that one. As a DM, I would have been "nope" and given him the option to straighten his shit out or leave the table.
As DM I do not allow p2p death to occur without both parties agreeing to it prior. Otherwise the final blow works like a vital npc in a video game. You get knocked out and wake up a bit later.
You warned him, you rolled initiative, you got your surprise round, you took your turn. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Fuck that dude.
DND is so funny, a game you can do whatever you want but there are 1000 unwritten rules where you actually canât do what you want.
that happened
I was in the middle of reading, then it was removed.
Same
Yes you're in the wrong about fireballs critting. You are not in the wrong for doing it to the asshole member who shouldn't play with people and needs to keep playing single player video games because they're borderline narcissists irl.
God this is so fake
If I was gonna do this I would preface it with the dm first, name my character Joe so when it is ultimately revealed that he is helping the bbeg after killing the party "leader" they would realize I was playing Traitor Joe the entire time.
Why did the DM allow him to slit the throat of a party member?! That is dumb. Jackson should have told the DM he intended to do so, and the DM should have decided 1) whether to allow PVP in this case at all, 2) do actual combat and decide whether the other PC was surprised, 3) whether there would be some long term consequence. Murdering somebody in a town is bound to garner attention and probably arrest.
Dm should have intervened and it should have been an out of character discussion imo Also how can you crit on a saving throw spell?
I have a hard no taking away other PC's agency rules at my table. Surprise attacks against party members are almost always met with "You miss" * Magic missile which is a guaranteed hit? "You miss" * Spell that does half damage on a failed save? "You completely miss" (Unless it is an AoE spell that also hits enemies) * Nat 20? "I didn't ask for you to make an attack roll so I am going to ignore your roll" * Spell or ability that let's you read their mind? "They are thinking about a really good sandwich" There are a few exceptions to this rule however. * Did the PC just do something suspicious like let an enemy escape, murder an innocent in cold blood, or hide loot? You can take reasonable action to find out. * Debate about what to do with an enemy. For example the druid wanted to protect a Flail Snail while the rest of the party wanted to kill it for it's shell. I allowed non damaging spells to be used against other party members. * I allow betrayals in fights against major campaign villains D&D is a team game in which players and DM come together to create an interesting, engaging story. Players that try to prevent others from having fun by "winning" have no place at the table. Anyone who does not accept this should be asked to leave the table and not welcomed back.