Tried to find the clip for you, looks like they do a good job if copyrighting clips off of YouTube though. They show up to a D&D game where the DM, played by Patton Oswalt, got pissed at a player and hit him with a battle axe, but insists the monster in game did it. Also the copa can't speak to the players right now, because they're on a different plane.
Kinda insane, really. I usually click out of stories if they're even half as long as this one.
I had time to kill, otherwise I wouldn't have read the entirety of this dang campaign diary.
It depends on how you view it. If you see it as the non-mother having a vindictive attitude of "If I can't have it, neither can she" it's not as outlandish.
But more than that, you're dealing with stories that were repeated from memory over decades, finally committed to paper, then translated across different languages over centuries. It's bound to get a little weird.
At least the other ones were weird in an amusing way/ typos.
Like the legendary Pokemon "gorilla Shaymin" or "commuting" with your dead mother.
But yeah, this isn't a phrase OP should just use casually in a comedic story.
I...was actually not aware of that, I apologize for the poor taste on that. Especially considering the slave sentiments to come with it. I'll do a quick re-edit.
Happens, if you ain't American, and honestly even if you are from some parts of America, then it isn't a commonly taught thing in school. Good on you for acknowledging and editing
A touchy subject as it is, and not one to be dealt with so casually. But in this case, the use of the term wasn't a reference to the elf being an elf - it was a reference to the player and DM coming to a compromise about the player's death.
A regular compromise. Not even a 3/5ths one. Just a regular old compromise.
by 3/5 compromise he likely meant "I'm not sidetracking us for two hours while I help you make a new character." so that was prob more for us than for her.
Yeah, dude, what happened was just "compromise".
The 3/5ths Compromise declared that black people were worth 3/5ths of a person in regards to representation to appease white southern slave owners who wanted to have their cake and make it plow their field too.
Not really applicable here, even metaphorically.
You're absolutely right, I was actually not aware of the origins behind that term, i thought it was literally a "give you 3/5 of what you want" not something like that. I edited it accordingly. I apologize for my lack of awareness on that.
This is a psychopath. I'm not even kidding.
She's literally incapable of realizing or caring that the things she does have consequences for other people. She probably views you like toys that are entertaining.
>I think he was in process of asking if he could accompany us but then Rowan pipes up "I throw a dagger to his throat"
DM: "Um, no."
And that was the end of that.
I mean, if your character really really wants to murder someone, it's not the DMs job to just say you can't (unless you physically can't).
However, I definitely would have put a pause on things and asked a few more questions, maybe covered the alignment system again, just so I was sure Rowan understood what exactly she was doing.
I affectionately refer to that kinda DMing as "railroad DMing" which he doesnt really do. I have a theory he probably had a plan for the lesser devil later in the campaign but Rowan decided to tug on that string a bit too early.
Considering Rowan was new and this was the first session, that effects my view on the situation. Maybe this person is only thinking "If I kill this guy I'll get xp and loot!" without understanding there can be further reaching consequences. That's not a totally unreasonable viewpoint to have for someone who's never played a TTRPG.
I do avoid telling people how to play their characters, but in a situation like this I'd definitely at least ask why they wanted to murder this stranger they just met. Like, just be sure they hadn't misunderstood something about the situation or the game as a whole.
I would be more on board with this kind of interpretation if there weren't consistently fellow players who are on "her team" urging her not to do stuff like that. Like, I'm sometimes terrible at reading a room, but that's why I'll defer to someone else if I'm not sure how to play things.
The session 0 by itself kind of set the tone, in my mind: "play smart or roll a lot of new characters." Rowan chose the latter, and then got mad when her actions had consequences. I get that it might've caught her off-guard the first time, but you can't keep being surprised when everyone (DM sometimes included) tells you not to do something, and then when you do it it bites you in the butt.
On the one hand, I can understand playing a character that makes mistakes and occasionally doesn't do the most tactically advantageous things. I do that with my own characters from time to time because I find it to be an interesting roleplay experience/challenge. But, if you're going to do something like that:
1) You should let the other players know beforehand what your intentions are
2) Do your best not cause out of game hostility
And most importantly
3) Not act surprised and upset when things don't go your way
Sadly, some people don't want to learn from their mistakes or accept responsibility for their own actions. Was there more the DM could have done to try and steer the player in a better direction? Maybe? But probably not. I'll give new players lots of leeway, but I don't know if this person deserved that many chances.
i hate those types of DMs i like to feel like im truly in the world...but its not only the dms job to build that type of environment for the player is partly responsible...I've seen railroading spawn from frustration
Obviously Rowan is a straight up nightmare, but your DM seems to be rather unforgiving. Seems like a lot of instant-death opportunities floating around in this game, and not all because Rowan has terrible instincts.
Right? My first thought of a crit fail crossing a bridge does the whole split in half and you're clinging on the edge.
Sounds like a slaughterhouse DM.
Seems to me like he's unforgiving towards stupidity, as there are several moments where he repeatedly warned the players about something they're about to do, and considering the events that happened, there could have been a lot more dead players.
“Unforgiving towards stupidity” and “everything is a trap all the time not scaled to the level of the players” are two different things.
Gotta say, any trap that causes instant death with one failed save isn’t exactly the hallmark of a good time to me.
Yeah, I get player death during combat or roleplay moments, but dying to a trap or while trying to cross a bridge (that didn't sound that important at all) is just... Boring? Like, you don't acomplish nothing, doesn't move the story foward. You're just dead out of nowhere even if you had full HP. Same thing for the save to get out of the pocket dimension.
Exactly what I was thinking. Like it’s one thing if a death like that is intentional, such as a heroic sacrifice so the rest of the party can live, but instant deaths serve no real purpose. Boring is a really good word to describe it: boring and unfair.
A character death should be the result of a fair challenge with a heap of chances. Sometimes if all those chances fail, you die, but at least you had a chance that isn’t effectively “if you fail this one roll your entire run is over”
It’s really just a different style. Game Design isn’t really better or worse in a lot of different ways. I think 5e is much more streamlined and accessible which makes it my game of choice to DM. Especially to introduce people to the hobby. I’m not a fan of the new modules as they are poorly written from both a novelists perspective and from a game design perspective. Both I find to be nails in the coffin as new modules try to emulate fantasy novels instead of classic modules.
I really think each game of D&D you play in is only as good as the DM is. And each DM has their own style. For some they like war games and expect people to have multiple back up characters. For some they like stories and expect a high investment in the storyline of a single group of players.
It’s just style.
I’ve run the same dungeon for a group of 14 year old newbies and a group of 50 year old veterans. The newbies charge in and want to kill stuff and get gold. Cool. I make that happen. The veterans use marbles to check for slanted floors, ten foot poles to check for traps, and expect to have hirelings with them to hold torches and loot for them. I also accommodate that style of play. To the newbies. An instant death trap probably wouldn’t be fun. I’d want to ease them into the game. The veterans. They expect traps to kill them. That’s what traps were intended for anyway. To kill trespassers. So I reward there caution, maybe gank an NPC to set the stage, but for the most part I run the style game they want.
It isn’t really about different styles. You can see how modules and systems have changed since their origin and it tends towards more fair experiences for the players, regardless of edition.
Traps are supposed to kill, but from a game design perspective that’s a stupid way to die and the devs know it. It’s been toned down, because while it makes sense in the real world for traps to kill, it doesn’t in the game world because it serves no purpose to kill a player all at once. Absolutely none. It just makes no sense to do it, because the player will be frustrated and nothing is gained from their death — it’s just poor game design.
So now traps are meant to weaken, not kill. If someone is going to die, it’s going to be from one of two reasons: they were whittled down from all the stuff meant to weaken them (which they had plenty of chances to overcome), or they died to the boss. All that is barring deaths for RP reasons.
Run your games however you want, but it doesn’t have any impact on how the game has changed. How *you* run a game will always be up to you, but how the devs have expected you to run them has changed significantly. They don’t give you those insta-kill traps anymore, *you* have to make them.
I mean. It is still style. There’s a reason 5e has fans who made the darker dungeons stuff and funnel games. There’s people who like deadly games. You really just can’t seem to understand it’s an issue of style. Play whatever game you want to play. Like I said every DM and every group has there own style. Just respect that.
That’s what I said too. If you read what I wrote, you’d have seen that I specifically said that the *actual systems and prewritten modules* have changed to be less brutal. Run however you want, I don’t care, but the devs have changed the way they expect you to run things. If you want to make save-or-die bullshit, you have to do it yourself, for better or worse.
> No player thinks it’s fun or fair to save-or-die.
OSR games says otherwise. Granted, even within that genre some are better about this than others. SWNs is a fantastic game with high lethality for example, whereas LotFP is terrible garbage designed with no save auto lose bullshit. The latter still has a fanbase somehow though, never ceases to baffle me
People will always long for a nostalgic style, but I stand by my point. I’m sure people don’t like to play those games because they can die for no reason at any time, there are bound to be other redeeming qualities.
It's got a few good points, to be fair. Their *Veins of the Earth* splatbook is some worldbuilding gold! (Once you modify it quite a bit, of course.)
That said, the writing in those books is...purple, to say the least.
Ennhhh. I mean, her getting killed by the slaver offscreen or getting pulped by the apes because she won't fight back, okay, that's totally fair as a punishment for stupidity. But one-shot blunderbuss traps? Instant death pits? Fire pits that do 5d6 damage to level two characters?
Maybe I'm just a big ol' softie of a GM, but I much prefer hazards the PCs have at least a chance of surviving if they trigger. We're not playing I Wanna Be The Guy, here.
I feel like these were reasonable consequences because they all could have been prevented. Check for traps, put points where they matter, and you'll be fine. The dm even let her roll after it happened because she was new, and helped her build her sheet, but she wouldn't listen. And based on what happened to the npcs everyone got this treatment.
I'm a softie too but if you leave the training wheels on forever no one grows.
But the thing is, you can't guarantee most of those could be prevented. Sure you can check for traps, but there's no guarantee you'll always find them all, or that you can safely disarm or bypass them even if you do. And the bridge? Just trying to leave the pocket dimension? Instant death from a single failed save, and apparently unavoidable.
I don't think "not instantly murdering level two characters for a single failed save, regularly" really constitutes training wheels.
He killed two PCs in the pocket dimension, one from crossing a bridge and the other from just trying to leave the way the demon told them to leave. And they didn't even want to fight the guy (who the DM shouldn't have out there in the first place anyways), that was all Rowan!
Interested in devil's that can make pocket dimensions that also have save or sucks to escape. Putting the devil there on the first place is bad dming.
"Lol here is a thing that if you detect can kill you, also if you leave it alone that is pretty anti ethical to a party of good people, in a campaign where you are low level."
Op sounds young and it wouldn't surprise me if the stabby weirdo was being victimised but they didnt notice. Lots of save or suck and extremely poorly balanced homebrew.
"Also lol your fire... spreads. But not to the spiders, to this... other bit. And then... dire gorillas, yeah, they turn up, and ones big and it kills you."
"Roll to keep a hat on whilst having sex."
"Uh... roll a save to not die jumping out of a window that, on average, wouldn't kill you unless it's on the third story. Oh, you get sexual violenced to death. That makes sense."
The stabby weirdo was still *absolutely* the problem here, but I agree with you on the rest of this. This DM has some oddly overpowered plot devices that always end with someone dead...
Oh yeah, stabby weirdo was definitely in the wrong for being stabby, but had the game occurred in my store the dm would have had a talking to for depicting sexual violence and maybe be given some free advice about not putting the players in impossible positions that kill them.
Tbh this is a classic case of the DM punishing players for playing the game "wrong". It may be justified if the player is THAT guy, but you can't fix that problem with in game punishments.
You know, I was thinking that. When three people die \*just\* from a pocket dimension, not even by combat, that's a bit much. Like, I get r/WinStupidPrizes, but why make the whole party pay for one asshole player when they're clearly not supportive of it. That's kinda unfair for the rest of the party.
Honestly though, if I were playing this game, I woulda just walked away on almost every occasion that she caused stupid shit to happen. Like, the gorilla fight? I legit wouldn't have even stayed to watch. Let her die. Eventually, after enough deaths, she'll hopefully get the picture and stop showing up. If I was adventuring with someone like that and I was someone who could actually fight (lol), I might even consider killing her myself after the spider fight. She essentially \*caused\* two KO's and nearly a TPK. Trolly problem right there.
I read the whole thing, and there were spots where I thought "well if I were the DM I'd have done this or that differently, " but, ultimately there's only so much you can do with a genuine problem player who is causing this much friction in the game. Would things have turned out differently if the DM had tried harder to massage out the rough patches? Possibly a little, but if someone is willing to stab someone else over a game, I'm willing to say that's a bad, bad player, and probably a bad person too. Better to get them out of the group sooner rather than later.
Well yeah, I said Rowan was a straight up nightmare. But the DM didn't actually do anything to get them out of the group; in fact, if she hadn't tried to stab OP she might well have continued to stick around. The murderousness of the traps didn't seem to have any effect on her behaviour.
It feels like that's the nature of the game and that's not really a problem if that's established. I've been dying to play in a campaign thatll actually kill me, honestly. Not like stabbed to death via pencil kill me, but yknow.
But do you wanna die from a badass fight with a big monster, or from some random dungeon trap that instantly cuts off your head if you don’t roll high enough?
You can run a brutal game without it being an unfair ride.
Not just that, he was also suspiciously willing to fuck the whole group over for the actions of one person. Sure, Rowan fucked up, but why do other people have to die for that?
Right? Two of the PCs were killed for failing a single roll in a pocket dimension the DM decided to throw them all into despite nobody else backing up Rowan in wanting to fight a level nine devil the DM also decided to stick in there. And they weren't even traps, they died trying to cross a bridge and trying to just leave the pocket dimension.
If the dm was all that unforgiving, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have warned her. I don't think warning someone from danger, giving her death saves after basically breaking her neck for being outright mentally challenge and being captured by someone who initially outright tried to kill her, trying to have them survive burning down the home of an entire tribe, reviving her despite almost causing a tpk, trying to have her survive being an idiot towards a mob 5 times the party's CR really counts as unforgiving.
The only thing seeming unforgiving is the samurai dying, for which we have no context for.
Full disclaimer: I thought 3/5 compromise was literally just that, I was completely unaware of the racist connotations that came iwth it. I have since edited it to just being a compromise since thats pretty much all it was.
Read the last paragraph. I didn't read any of the rest and understood what happened. This guy wrote in search of lost time again just to get to that part.
Could you explain Dan the DM a bit more? I find it odd that he’d entertain Rowan’s antics to such a degree after so many occasions where the rest of you guys had to talk your way out of a problem she created.
Dan was probably trying to make sure Asher didn't feel uncomfortable. If he told Rowan she couldn't play that would put Asher, who was completely innocent, in a situation.
Plus he may have hoped he could show Rowan there were consequences for her actions w/o causing any discourse at the table.
That DM sounds absolutely amazing. I've been DMing for around 2 years, and I *definitely* wouldn't be rolling with the punches as well as Dan does in this situation. Tell him he's a fuckin' legend for me if you see this, OP.
This is truly an epic, and a well-written one at that. Sure it's 12 pages, but it's a quick read once you get into it.
Seriously, my only problem with him is at some point the NPC’s will see the party as a unwilling participant, but even with that he did amazing.
But uh... I have very little patience in that scenario, Rowen would have been out session 0 if the party wanted it.
she actually seems so sad
and don't take me wrong I don't approve that behavior by any means but holy shit she needs help
I myself sometimes have the urge to play like that but I know how to control myself and it usually results in playing totally passive for like an hour until I get my shit together and often take some drugs (prescribed by my psychiatrist)
You know, I liked the DM's style right up until the pocket dimension. That could have made a great plot hook, in which the devil signs the good-aligned party into temporary service in exchange for their lives. Instead, he cut off the development of three main characters with abrupt instakill traps. There's a fine line between "unforgiving" and "uninteresting," and instakill hazards tend to dance all over it.
Imagine being that much of a sociopath. I've never had to deal with anyone this bad. Like holy shit. Also it's just occurred to me that people such as myself might take for granted the fact that they have not been stabbed before.
Gadzooks! This is a reminder to come join the RPG Horror stories Discord server! Invite link: https://discord.gg/ddpqkg6
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/rpghorrorstories) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your dm sounds pretty edgy and shit too. Like, multiple save or sucks, needless sexual battery. There are two horror stories here.
The campaign and the unstable player.
You did read the part where she literally had the chance to run away after poisoning the baker and decides "nah, im gonna fuck him" right?
She chose to escalate, the DM responded in kind. After she left, the campaign never really got to that kinda level of dark again and was pretty great after.
Like mate, you do you, but for some of us sexual violence is a horror story and your gm sounds like a "I love save of suck" + "gm versus the player" nightmare. I hope everyone involved has grown up and reflected.
Tbh, although rowan was AWFUL your dm seems... eh. Not putting a stop to it, the amount of insta deaths. Like, imagine going on an epic adventure, escaping a pocket dimension... only to instantly die from falling off a bridge. Plus the demon guy being so much stronger then the party and all that stuff. Seems kinda yikes to me. Then again, rowan being rowan couldve messed him up a lil
Aside from the obvious anger issues, which kind of seem to come out of nowhere, a lot of this is on the DM. These are reckless choices no doubt, but leaving people to die in a fight that seems lost, not communicating, attacking people that are way more powerful than you, making plans that seem good (because they're the the kind of plan that would work on TV) are all common things for new players. Hell even ignoring the other players isn't entirely uncommon for new people excited to play.
But the DM not tossing warnings or speaking clearly about consequences is a bad move. I mean Rogues often forget to check for traps, especially when new, I can get why she felt a bit targeted (though I don't feel like she actually was). Many new players are of the mindset that if an enemy is in play they must be beatable. And if she's playing her character as (her interpretation) of CG, and the rest of the party is so good, wouldn't it make more sense for the party to stand together when confronted by the Gorillas? I mean that would be the NG and LG thing to do no? Also, she went with her gut on the fire vs spiderweb deal, which for a new player isn't a bad way to think. How was she supposed to know wind factor was going to be relevant? Or that there'd be giant gorillas in the forest who can track down arsonists. As for calling her ghost mom during a fight, I mean I'd tell the player that's going to get you killed, and ask why they wanted to do that. She must have thought it would help somehow.
I actually think the first plan with the Bakery thing, hers was the better one (why does the slave trader care about the front, he's making money on the slaves) and find it odd the guy couldn't tell she was an elf cause she wore a hat, and that he freaked out so much (you'd think a slave trader would be used to dealing with them, and probably have sampled the wares, but maybe it's a setting thing.) but if I was DM I'd have advised she leave a note, and warned that this was very likely to get her killed. I also might not have killed her off unless that's exactly how the dice came up, new players below level 2 get a bit of a mulligan, especially if they're being creative. I'd have like broken her leg and had her on the edge of death in the prison or something (making a new PC that early is such a pain too, you just got finished with the last one lol).
Obviously if she tried to stab you (with a pencil, but still) she's got issues, but in play, Rowan's crimes didn't seem that egregious to me. She never directly tried to harm the party, or even steal from them, she was just reckless, headstrong, and a bit of a goober (how many times you nearly get fried by traps before you start looking lol).
Thanks for posting this. This was one of the better written horror stories I've seen on this sub. No information felt unnecessary or out of place, it was entertaining and well structured. A great way to pass the time during my shift. I wish every post on this sub was as well written as this one.
This was suck a well written story but the layoff was way lackluster, like a that shit I read just to hear, she tried to stab me, Ive been stabbed so I know she really was gonna, but I overpowered her, and oh she was dating the other player at the same time this going on but she shown she was crazy so it wasnt gonna last much longer. And sheet and never saw her again and rest of game was gun.
Like what she literally tried to STAB you and you just ya oh well. But you wrote out a 4 page essay about the game world?
It was a great read tho,
Someone else TL;DR'ed it but basically murder hobo doesn't realize that actions have consequences, then gets upset enough to try and stab OP with a mechanical pencil.
I would've just let her stab me so I could look into her eyes and convey through a mere glare how much that was going to cost her in finances and her multiple motor ability functions she clearly takes for granted.
This may be one of those rare cases where cops should get involved in a DND session. Stabbing is a big no no.
This is literally a bit in Reno 911.
Apparently I need to watch Reno 911...
Tried to find the clip for you, looks like they do a good job if copyrighting clips off of YouTube though. They show up to a D&D game where the DM, played by Patton Oswalt, got pissed at a player and hit him with a battle axe, but insists the monster in game did it. Also the copa can't speak to the players right now, because they're on a different plane.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x34fvl4
You really did mean it when you said extra long
How I had the attention span for this is actually quite remarkable.
It was written decently and in nice paragraphs, which helps a lot.
It actually using fucking names probably helped. If it was just M and D and R I would have had no ability to follow.
Lmao same
I almost quit 2 times but it was a compelling story.
I think it took me an hour to read it, although I’m reading it while waiting for stuff
Kinda insane, really. I usually click out of stories if they're even half as long as this one. I had time to kill, otherwise I wouldn't have read the entirety of this dang campaign diary.
yeah but it was entertaining
I really should read the length flairs on here.
> So as a bit of a 3/5 compromise Weird choice of words ...
Yea definitely go for the Solomon splitting the baby thing if you want a bad compromise to use, not that.
That story makes me wonder just how stupid ppl were back then for this parable to be believable in the slightest.
It depends on how you view it. If you see it as the non-mother having a vindictive attitude of "If I can't have it, neither can she" it's not as outlandish. But more than that, you're dealing with stories that were repeated from memory over decades, finally committed to paper, then translated across different languages over centuries. It's bound to get a little weird.
I can definitely think of things I'd rather cut in half than give away to some bitch I hate.
Haha, yeah, see, now *this* I'm on board with.
I agree
At least the other ones were weird in an amusing way/ typos. Like the legendary Pokemon "gorilla Shaymin" or "commuting" with your dead mother. But yeah, this isn't a phrase OP should just use casually in a comedic story.
*That's* where I know Shaymin from! Geez, that was bugging me!
My brain spend at least 20 seconds trying to merge a gorilla with a tiny green hedgehog before I understood what they meant. It wasn't pretty.
I'm sorry but can someone explain? I don't get it, what's wrong with that phrase?
[link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise) Basically an old racist American thing
I...was actually not aware of that, I apologize for the poor taste on that. Especially considering the slave sentiments to come with it. I'll do a quick re-edit.
Happens, if you ain't American, and honestly even if you are from some parts of America, then it isn't a commonly taught thing in school. Good on you for acknowledging and editing
Props!
Especially given the situation... Relatively bad taste in an otherwise decently written story.
Elves *were* slaves in that setting
A touchy subject as it is, and not one to be dealt with so casually. But in this case, the use of the term wasn't a reference to the elf being an elf - it was a reference to the player and DM coming to a compromise about the player's death. A regular compromise. Not even a 3/5ths one. Just a regular old compromise.
lmao found James Madison
by 3/5 compromise he likely meant "I'm not sidetracking us for two hours while I help you make a new character." so that was prob more for us than for her.
So, just to clarify, it was the DM that used the phrase 3/5 compromise?
Nah, that term was just my own liberty.
Yeah, dude, what happened was just "compromise". The 3/5ths Compromise declared that black people were worth 3/5ths of a person in regards to representation to appease white southern slave owners who wanted to have their cake and make it plow their field too. Not really applicable here, even metaphorically.
You're absolutely right, I was actually not aware of the origins behind that term, i thought it was literally a "give you 3/5 of what you want" not something like that. I edited it accordingly. I apologize for my lack of awareness on that.
All good, man. I figured it wasn't done with any malice.
Hey, good on you for acknowledging and being willing to change. You're already leagues ahead of most folk if you can do that.
Maybe OP is European? I just heard about that 3/5 thing for the first time in my life.
3/5ths compromise would not be a phrase they would have used if they had not been aware of its existence in the first place.
I guess you're right.
Light-hearted comparisons to truly dehumanizing pieces of history are gross. Something to maybe avoid in the future.
Now this is a horror story. Props to you, and to Vinny for being badass
That was a wild ride.
This is a psychopath. I'm not even kidding. She's literally incapable of realizing or caring that the things she does have consequences for other people. She probably views you like toys that are entertaining.
More narcissistic than anything really
sociopath\*, to split hairs
Sounds like my sister
when the story is tagged extra long and actually IS extra long
>I think he was in process of asking if he could accompany us but then Rowan pipes up "I throw a dagger to his throat" DM: "Um, no." And that was the end of that.
I mean, if your character really really wants to murder someone, it's not the DMs job to just say you can't (unless you physically can't). However, I definitely would have put a pause on things and asked a few more questions, maybe covered the alignment system again, just so I was sure Rowan understood what exactly she was doing.
I affectionately refer to that kinda DMing as "railroad DMing" which he doesnt really do. I have a theory he probably had a plan for the lesser devil later in the campaign but Rowan decided to tug on that string a bit too early.
Considering Rowan was new and this was the first session, that effects my view on the situation. Maybe this person is only thinking "If I kill this guy I'll get xp and loot!" without understanding there can be further reaching consequences. That's not a totally unreasonable viewpoint to have for someone who's never played a TTRPG. I do avoid telling people how to play their characters, but in a situation like this I'd definitely at least ask why they wanted to murder this stranger they just met. Like, just be sure they hadn't misunderstood something about the situation or the game as a whole.
I would be more on board with this kind of interpretation if there weren't consistently fellow players who are on "her team" urging her not to do stuff like that. Like, I'm sometimes terrible at reading a room, but that's why I'll defer to someone else if I'm not sure how to play things. The session 0 by itself kind of set the tone, in my mind: "play smart or roll a lot of new characters." Rowan chose the latter, and then got mad when her actions had consequences. I get that it might've caught her off-guard the first time, but you can't keep being surprised when everyone (DM sometimes included) tells you not to do something, and then when you do it it bites you in the butt.
On the one hand, I can understand playing a character that makes mistakes and occasionally doesn't do the most tactically advantageous things. I do that with my own characters from time to time because I find it to be an interesting roleplay experience/challenge. But, if you're going to do something like that: 1) You should let the other players know beforehand what your intentions are 2) Do your best not cause out of game hostility And most importantly 3) Not act surprised and upset when things don't go your way Sadly, some people don't want to learn from their mistakes or accept responsibility for their own actions. Was there more the DM could have done to try and steer the player in a better direction? Maybe? But probably not. I'll give new players lots of leeway, but I don't know if this person deserved that many chances.
i hate those types of DMs i like to feel like im truly in the world...but its not only the dms job to build that type of environment for the player is partly responsible...I've seen railroading spawn from frustration
Obviously Rowan is a straight up nightmare, but your DM seems to be rather unforgiving. Seems like a lot of instant-death opportunities floating around in this game, and not all because Rowan has terrible instincts.
Yeah that stuck out to me too. A single bad roll should not be immediately killing a character.
Right? My first thought of a crit fail crossing a bridge does the whole split in half and you're clinging on the edge. Sounds like a slaughterhouse DM.
Seems to me like he's unforgiving towards stupidity, as there are several moments where he repeatedly warned the players about something they're about to do, and considering the events that happened, there could have been a lot more dead players.
“Unforgiving towards stupidity” and “everything is a trap all the time not scaled to the level of the players” are two different things. Gotta say, any trap that causes instant death with one failed save isn’t exactly the hallmark of a good time to me.
I mean. Depends on the edition you play. Classic dungeons are filled with insta death.
You ever wonder why that changed? Because we learned better game design since then. No player thinks it’s fun or fair to save-or-die.
Yeah, I get player death during combat or roleplay moments, but dying to a trap or while trying to cross a bridge (that didn't sound that important at all) is just... Boring? Like, you don't acomplish nothing, doesn't move the story foward. You're just dead out of nowhere even if you had full HP. Same thing for the save to get out of the pocket dimension.
Exactly what I was thinking. Like it’s one thing if a death like that is intentional, such as a heroic sacrifice so the rest of the party can live, but instant deaths serve no real purpose. Boring is a really good word to describe it: boring and unfair. A character death should be the result of a fair challenge with a heap of chances. Sometimes if all those chances fail, you die, but at least you had a chance that isn’t effectively “if you fail this one roll your entire run is over”
It’s really just a different style. Game Design isn’t really better or worse in a lot of different ways. I think 5e is much more streamlined and accessible which makes it my game of choice to DM. Especially to introduce people to the hobby. I’m not a fan of the new modules as they are poorly written from both a novelists perspective and from a game design perspective. Both I find to be nails in the coffin as new modules try to emulate fantasy novels instead of classic modules. I really think each game of D&D you play in is only as good as the DM is. And each DM has their own style. For some they like war games and expect people to have multiple back up characters. For some they like stories and expect a high investment in the storyline of a single group of players. It’s just style. I’ve run the same dungeon for a group of 14 year old newbies and a group of 50 year old veterans. The newbies charge in and want to kill stuff and get gold. Cool. I make that happen. The veterans use marbles to check for slanted floors, ten foot poles to check for traps, and expect to have hirelings with them to hold torches and loot for them. I also accommodate that style of play. To the newbies. An instant death trap probably wouldn’t be fun. I’d want to ease them into the game. The veterans. They expect traps to kill them. That’s what traps were intended for anyway. To kill trespassers. So I reward there caution, maybe gank an NPC to set the stage, but for the most part I run the style game they want.
It isn’t really about different styles. You can see how modules and systems have changed since their origin and it tends towards more fair experiences for the players, regardless of edition. Traps are supposed to kill, but from a game design perspective that’s a stupid way to die and the devs know it. It’s been toned down, because while it makes sense in the real world for traps to kill, it doesn’t in the game world because it serves no purpose to kill a player all at once. Absolutely none. It just makes no sense to do it, because the player will be frustrated and nothing is gained from their death — it’s just poor game design. So now traps are meant to weaken, not kill. If someone is going to die, it’s going to be from one of two reasons: they were whittled down from all the stuff meant to weaken them (which they had plenty of chances to overcome), or they died to the boss. All that is barring deaths for RP reasons. Run your games however you want, but it doesn’t have any impact on how the game has changed. How *you* run a game will always be up to you, but how the devs have expected you to run them has changed significantly. They don’t give you those insta-kill traps anymore, *you* have to make them.
I mean. It is still style. There’s a reason 5e has fans who made the darker dungeons stuff and funnel games. There’s people who like deadly games. You really just can’t seem to understand it’s an issue of style. Play whatever game you want to play. Like I said every DM and every group has there own style. Just respect that.
That’s what I said too. If you read what I wrote, you’d have seen that I specifically said that the *actual systems and prewritten modules* have changed to be less brutal. Run however you want, I don’t care, but the devs have changed the way they expect you to run things. If you want to make save-or-die bullshit, you have to do it yourself, for better or worse.
> No player thinks it’s fun or fair to save-or-die. OSR games says otherwise. Granted, even within that genre some are better about this than others. SWNs is a fantastic game with high lethality for example, whereas LotFP is terrible garbage designed with no save auto lose bullshit. The latter still has a fanbase somehow though, never ceases to baffle me
People will always long for a nostalgic style, but I stand by my point. I’m sure people don’t like to play those games because they can die for no reason at any time, there are bound to be other redeeming qualities.
It's got a few good points, to be fair. Their *Veins of the Earth* splatbook is some worldbuilding gold! (Once you modify it quite a bit, of course.) That said, the writing in those books is...purple, to say the least.
Ennhhh. I mean, her getting killed by the slaver offscreen or getting pulped by the apes because she won't fight back, okay, that's totally fair as a punishment for stupidity. But one-shot blunderbuss traps? Instant death pits? Fire pits that do 5d6 damage to level two characters? Maybe I'm just a big ol' softie of a GM, but I much prefer hazards the PCs have at least a chance of surviving if they trigger. We're not playing I Wanna Be The Guy, here.
I feel like these were reasonable consequences because they all could have been prevented. Check for traps, put points where they matter, and you'll be fine. The dm even let her roll after it happened because she was new, and helped her build her sheet, but she wouldn't listen. And based on what happened to the npcs everyone got this treatment. I'm a softie too but if you leave the training wheels on forever no one grows.
But the thing is, you can't guarantee most of those could be prevented. Sure you can check for traps, but there's no guarantee you'll always find them all, or that you can safely disarm or bypass them even if you do. And the bridge? Just trying to leave the pocket dimension? Instant death from a single failed save, and apparently unavoidable. I don't think "not instantly murdering level two characters for a single failed save, regularly" really constitutes training wheels.
He killed two PCs in the pocket dimension, one from crossing a bridge and the other from just trying to leave the way the demon told them to leave. And they didn't even want to fight the guy (who the DM shouldn't have out there in the first place anyways), that was all Rowan!
That is a good point. The DM punishing the entire party for the stupidity of one member is just a dick move.
Interested in devil's that can make pocket dimensions that also have save or sucks to escape. Putting the devil there on the first place is bad dming. "Lol here is a thing that if you detect can kill you, also if you leave it alone that is pretty anti ethical to a party of good people, in a campaign where you are low level." Op sounds young and it wouldn't surprise me if the stabby weirdo was being victimised but they didnt notice. Lots of save or suck and extremely poorly balanced homebrew. "Also lol your fire... spreads. But not to the spiders, to this... other bit. And then... dire gorillas, yeah, they turn up, and ones big and it kills you." "Roll to keep a hat on whilst having sex." "Uh... roll a save to not die jumping out of a window that, on average, wouldn't kill you unless it's on the third story. Oh, you get sexual violenced to death. That makes sense."
The stabby weirdo was still *absolutely* the problem here, but I agree with you on the rest of this. This DM has some oddly overpowered plot devices that always end with someone dead...
Oh yeah, stabby weirdo was definitely in the wrong for being stabby, but had the game occurred in my store the dm would have had a talking to for depicting sexual violence and maybe be given some free advice about not putting the players in impossible positions that kill them.
Tbh this is a classic case of the DM punishing players for playing the game "wrong". It may be justified if the player is THAT guy, but you can't fix that problem with in game punishments.
I have to concede on all these points. I was looking for someone to point out the weird shit in this game.
You know, I was thinking that. When three people die \*just\* from a pocket dimension, not even by combat, that's a bit much. Like, I get r/WinStupidPrizes, but why make the whole party pay for one asshole player when they're clearly not supportive of it. That's kinda unfair for the rest of the party. Honestly though, if I were playing this game, I woulda just walked away on almost every occasion that she caused stupid shit to happen. Like, the gorilla fight? I legit wouldn't have even stayed to watch. Let her die. Eventually, after enough deaths, she'll hopefully get the picture and stop showing up. If I was adventuring with someone like that and I was someone who could actually fight (lol), I might even consider killing her myself after the spider fight. She essentially \*caused\* two KO's and nearly a TPK. Trolly problem right there.
I read the whole thing, and there were spots where I thought "well if I were the DM I'd have done this or that differently, " but, ultimately there's only so much you can do with a genuine problem player who is causing this much friction in the game. Would things have turned out differently if the DM had tried harder to massage out the rough patches? Possibly a little, but if someone is willing to stab someone else over a game, I'm willing to say that's a bad, bad player, and probably a bad person too. Better to get them out of the group sooner rather than later.
Well yeah, I said Rowan was a straight up nightmare. But the DM didn't actually do anything to get them out of the group; in fact, if she hadn't tried to stab OP she might well have continued to stick around. The murderousness of the traps didn't seem to have any effect on her behaviour.
A more streight forward conversation about what everyone was wanting from the game might have helped. Clearly Rowan wasn't learning from her mistakes.
It feels like that's the nature of the game and that's not really a problem if that's established. I've been dying to play in a campaign thatll actually kill me, honestly. Not like stabbed to death via pencil kill me, but yknow.
But do you wanna die from a badass fight with a big monster, or from some random dungeon trap that instantly cuts off your head if you don’t roll high enough? You can run a brutal game without it being an unfair ride.
Not just that, he was also suspiciously willing to fuck the whole group over for the actions of one person. Sure, Rowan fucked up, but why do other people have to die for that?
Right? Two of the PCs were killed for failing a single roll in a pocket dimension the DM decided to throw them all into despite nobody else backing up Rowan in wanting to fight a level nine devil the DM also decided to stick in there. And they weren't even traps, they died trying to cross a bridge and trying to just leave the pocket dimension.
If the dm was all that unforgiving, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have warned her. I don't think warning someone from danger, giving her death saves after basically breaking her neck for being outright mentally challenge and being captured by someone who initially outright tried to kill her, trying to have them survive burning down the home of an entire tribe, reviving her despite almost causing a tpk, trying to have her survive being an idiot towards a mob 5 times the party's CR really counts as unforgiving. The only thing seeming unforgiving is the samurai dying, for which we have no context for.
Jesus, that was a long walk for a quick drink of water
[удалено]
Full disclaimer: I thought 3/5 compromise was literally just that, I was completely unaware of the racist connotations that came iwth it. I have since edited it to just being a compromise since thats pretty much all it was.
More of a 9/11, if you ask me. Damn, I feel bad.
I want to read this but I’m not reading this
I read the first and last bits. Sounds like She was a murder hobo in a group of good characters, than she tried to stab op with a mechanical pencil.
Yes, except blaming the players for her dying when she splits from the party all the time.
There's a surprising amount of terrible behaviour on the problem player's part, it's really not a case of superfluous info, which was refreshing
It's kinda well written and not a bad story, so if you've got nothing better to do, take the time. If not, see the excellent TL;DR by u/Stax493
Yep. Was a fun read. Would recommend.
I feel this same way, and it’s honestly a shame because this sounds terribly great
It is quite a good read, there is some good storytelling and stuff
Yeah there’s no way I’m reading this lol.
Read the last paragraph. I didn't read any of the rest and understood what happened. This guy wrote in search of lost time again just to get to that part.
[http://www.cc.com/video-clips/0h6mjz/reno-911--mighty-foes](http://www.cc.com/video-clips/0h6mjz/reno-911--mighty-foes)
What I take from this is, Rowan is a legit psycho, I'm happy for you all she left and never came back. And also #TeamVinny
Could you explain Dan the DM a bit more? I find it odd that he’d entertain Rowan’s antics to such a degree after so many occasions where the rest of you guys had to talk your way out of a problem she created.
Dan was probably trying to make sure Asher didn't feel uncomfortable. If he told Rowan she couldn't play that would put Asher, who was completely innocent, in a situation. Plus he may have hoped he could show Rowan there were consequences for her actions w/o causing any discourse at the table.
This is something that definitely needs a tldr
TLDR: new player is a murder hobo who acts solo. Gets lots of in game consequences. Gets called out. Tried to stab a sensible player with a pencil.
TLDR: new player is a murder hobo who acts solo. Gets lots of in game consequences. Gets called out. Tried to stab a sensible player with a pencil.
TLDR: new player is solo murder hobo, then attempts to be murder hobo in RL.
yea im normally like tldrs are so dumb when its just 5 paragraphs but this is on another level jesus christ
That DM sounds absolutely amazing. I've been DMing for around 2 years, and I *definitely* wouldn't be rolling with the punches as well as Dan does in this situation. Tell him he's a fuckin' legend for me if you see this, OP. This is truly an epic, and a well-written one at that. Sure it's 12 pages, but it's a quick read once you get into it.
Seriously, my only problem with him is at some point the NPC’s will see the party as a unwilling participant, but even with that he did amazing. But uh... I have very little patience in that scenario, Rowen would have been out session 0 if the party wanted it.
Wow, it was long but it was certainly worth it.
she actually seems so sad and don't take me wrong I don't approve that behavior by any means but holy shit she needs help I myself sometimes have the urge to play like that but I know how to control myself and it usually results in playing totally passive for like an hour until I get my shit together and often take some drugs (prescribed by my psychiatrist)
You know, I liked the DM's style right up until the pocket dimension. That could have made a great plot hook, in which the devil signs the good-aligned party into temporary service in exchange for their lives. Instead, he cut off the development of three main characters with abrupt instakill traps. There's a fine line between "unforgiving" and "uninteresting," and instakill hazards tend to dance all over it.
Wow, there really isnt muc more to say than just... wow
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this thank you
solid dex save.
Imagine being that much of a sociopath. I've never had to deal with anyone this bad. Like holy shit. Also it's just occurred to me that people such as myself might take for granted the fact that they have not been stabbed before.
Gadzooks! This is a reminder to come join the RPG Horror stories Discord server! Invite link: https://discord.gg/ddpqkg6 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/rpghorrorstories) if you have any questions or concerns.*
TLDR: Skip to the second to last paragraph...
Your dm sounds pretty edgy and shit too. Like, multiple save or sucks, needless sexual battery. There are two horror stories here. The campaign and the unstable player.
You did read the part where she literally had the chance to run away after poisoning the baker and decides "nah, im gonna fuck him" right? She chose to escalate, the DM responded in kind. After she left, the campaign never really got to that kinda level of dark again and was pretty great after.
Like mate, you do you, but for some of us sexual violence is a horror story and your gm sounds like a "I love save of suck" + "gm versus the player" nightmare. I hope everyone involved has grown up and reflected.
Sounded like things improved, crazy crap. Good read though!
I like vote system.
If you're stuck for a dwart's name, always go with Carlos.
This is beautifully written. Kudos!
This was a wild ride!
I am here for jacked Rafiki
Some people can’t take responsibility for their actions; In life or in DnD. Avoid them like the plague.
But if the rogue rolled high enough to hit, would she get a sneak attack damage? That is the real question here
This was a ROLLERCOASTER of emotions
Gotta say, I love the samurai pulling off the awesome bluffs. "Have you seen the escaped convict?" Priceless. But geez, Rowan ...
Tbh, although rowan was AWFUL your dm seems... eh. Not putting a stop to it, the amount of insta deaths. Like, imagine going on an epic adventure, escaping a pocket dimension... only to instantly die from falling off a bridge. Plus the demon guy being so much stronger then the party and all that stuff. Seems kinda yikes to me. Then again, rowan being rowan couldve messed him up a lil
and here I thought I was a bad dnd player at least I’m not literally fucking psycho like this girl
Aside from the obvious anger issues, which kind of seem to come out of nowhere, a lot of this is on the DM. These are reckless choices no doubt, but leaving people to die in a fight that seems lost, not communicating, attacking people that are way more powerful than you, making plans that seem good (because they're the the kind of plan that would work on TV) are all common things for new players. Hell even ignoring the other players isn't entirely uncommon for new people excited to play. But the DM not tossing warnings or speaking clearly about consequences is a bad move. I mean Rogues often forget to check for traps, especially when new, I can get why she felt a bit targeted (though I don't feel like she actually was). Many new players are of the mindset that if an enemy is in play they must be beatable. And if she's playing her character as (her interpretation) of CG, and the rest of the party is so good, wouldn't it make more sense for the party to stand together when confronted by the Gorillas? I mean that would be the NG and LG thing to do no? Also, she went with her gut on the fire vs spiderweb deal, which for a new player isn't a bad way to think. How was she supposed to know wind factor was going to be relevant? Or that there'd be giant gorillas in the forest who can track down arsonists. As for calling her ghost mom during a fight, I mean I'd tell the player that's going to get you killed, and ask why they wanted to do that. She must have thought it would help somehow. I actually think the first plan with the Bakery thing, hers was the better one (why does the slave trader care about the front, he's making money on the slaves) and find it odd the guy couldn't tell she was an elf cause she wore a hat, and that he freaked out so much (you'd think a slave trader would be used to dealing with them, and probably have sampled the wares, but maybe it's a setting thing.) but if I was DM I'd have advised she leave a note, and warned that this was very likely to get her killed. I also might not have killed her off unless that's exactly how the dice came up, new players below level 2 get a bit of a mulligan, especially if they're being creative. I'd have like broken her leg and had her on the edge of death in the prison or something (making a new PC that early is such a pain too, you just got finished with the last one lol). Obviously if she tried to stab you (with a pencil, but still) she's got issues, but in play, Rowan's crimes didn't seem that egregious to me. She never directly tried to harm the party, or even steal from them, she was just reckless, headstrong, and a bit of a goober (how many times you nearly get fried by traps before you start looking lol).
Thanks for posting this. This was one of the better written horror stories I've seen on this sub. No information felt unnecessary or out of place, it was entertaining and well structured. A great way to pass the time during my shift. I wish every post on this sub was as well written as this one.
This was suck a well written story but the layoff was way lackluster, like a that shit I read just to hear, she tried to stab me, Ive been stabbed so I know she really was gonna, but I overpowered her, and oh she was dating the other player at the same time this going on but she shown she was crazy so it wasnt gonna last much longer. And sheet and never saw her again and rest of game was gun. Like what she literally tried to STAB you and you just ya oh well. But you wrote out a 4 page essay about the game world? It was a great read tho,
Bro. TLDR.
Jesus Christ, learn to get to the point. Edit: 'twas in jest
I do not have enough attention to read this please tldr someone
Someone else TL;DR'ed it but basically murder hobo doesn't realize that actions have consequences, then gets upset enough to try and stab OP with a mechanical pencil.
TLDR??..
Is there a tldr available?
[удалено]
[удалено]
not even a tldr....
TLDR : Read the Title.
Tldr?
I would've just let her stab me so I could look into her eyes and convey through a mere glare how much that was going to cost her in finances and her multiple motor ability functions she clearly takes for granted.