Players Watch PC DIE!! | D&D Reddit Stories
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 06. 2024
- This group definitely holds grudges!
Listen to us on Spotify ► open.spotify.com/show/008l0Lf...
0:00 Intro
0:54 My DM Hates it When I Take off my Shirt www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments...
4:38 We all Watched a PC Die / we_all_watched_a_pc_die
15:37 Outro
OSQ Dice! ► www.awesomedice.com/collectio...
Support the Channel! ► / oneshotquesters
SUBSCRIBE for all the Nat 20 luck ► / @oneshotquesters
📱 FOLLOW OSQ SOCIALS 📱
► beacons.ai/oneshotquesters
► / discord
🎥 EDITORS 🎥
► / @swordplaysorcery
📧 BUSINESS INQUIRY 📧
► business@osqtv.com
READING REDDIT STORIES, READING TTRPG HORROR STORIES, D&D REDDIT STORIES, DND REDDIT STORIES.
One Shot Questers is a comedic channel dedicated to tabletop role-playing games, encompassing a range of titles such as Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition (DnD 5e), Baldur's Gate 3 (BG3), Pathfinder (PF 1, PF 2), and DC20. Our content covers a variety of TTRPG topics, including news, class or character stereotypes, guides & how to’s on gameplay, rules, tips, tricks, and much more, all presented in a humorous and entertaining skit. For a quick taste of our most popular content, check out our short-form videos on platforms like TikTok, CZcams Shorts, and Instagram Reels.
Ranger should come back as the second rat kid, who is not only not attached to the party, but resentful of the favoritism shown to first fat kid, and then they have to deal with 2RK finding out they let their surrogate ranger die.
YES!
Story 2: The party members are being aholes here. Sure, he killed an npc, but he tried countless times to repent, even offering to adopt one of the kids he orphaned. Ranger has every right to be peeved and feel personally attacked
could been a character growth moment. going from chaotic neutral to Good. make a querst to get rat dad back. so many oportunities
@@markusnavergard2387 Indeed. This is exactly how a lot of Paladins can be born. Its a classic story. They just did not want to ever let it go.
I think the Ranger making the attack at that point in the encounter is actually an Evil act. That's what set everyone else off. This is all on the DM for not knowing how to handle the situation imho.
Second Story : For me, Ranger may had been a bit bad, but the whole party were shuch AHs. They all stated each session "My character hate your character", but once he was dead, they revealed their true feeling : "WE, the players, hated your character".
It's clear as day they waited for any opportunity for the Ranger to fumble so hard he died. They waited a specific instance where he would be alone and when not healing him would be justifiable, so that when ranger inevitably dies, they could pull a fast one on their player and not revivify him.
If you didn't like the character, and refuse to cooperate with him forward after the Rat Dad incident, talk to the player and try to find a solution. Because by the end of the day, you just pulled a "It's what my character would do" to justify an OOC feeling.
Also : I don't believe in OP's saint attitude about being neutral. I think he was as much of a jerk as the others but since he's the narrator, he tries to justify himself to have better conscious.
Yep, the OP wasn't being Neutral, he was being Complacent. Reaping the benefits of the rest of the Party, and the Ranger's generosity by accepting their gifts. Never doing anything to try and make the situation better for anyone and try to deescalate the tension between the Party and the Ranger so everyone could get along.
The were Complacent, allowing the party to hate one specific person, for 1 mistake, and eating up all the rewards from being on good terms with the party and acting like he's fine with the Ranger. Only to decide "Okay, I'm done tolerating you. You served your use, you no longer have any purpose to me. Bye" with the Ranger when it suited him.
@@duskgaming18 thats why neutrality isnt good being neutral is doing nothing going along to get along
@@duskgaming18 Indeed. If Alignment made sense they would have been an evil group lol.
Second Story: Yeah, this is just players being spiteful, the Ranger player has every right to feel personally attacked.
I learned that objetive of playing RPG was to have fun, so if one single player in ruining everyone's else fun, he should change.
@gable3D it seemed like they were trying to fix it. They should have given him a second chance
@@gable3D And what happens when the other players decide to screw over one player that tried to make things right?
Yeah, not letting him make up for his actions is pretty messed up, though, so was killing an NPC that was fairly passive at that moment, kind of a murder hobo action
@@homerman76 in character, he could have been out of earshot, could have misread this situation, which to me seems probable because if it wasn't, he wouldn't have been trying to make ammends.
Second story brought up a question:
Say you misread the room and made a decision that turned out against what the party wanted, is it OK to call a time out, clarify the situation, and possibly take back the offending decision?
If "misread the room" means that you thought the rest of the players (or their characters) would approve your actions and you were wrong, I'd generally be against taking the action back. You've made a decision based on what your character thinks and knows. You should deal with that, even if everyone else is against it.
We shouldn't forget that this is a game, so any conflict between characters should be kept within it and nobody should take in-game things personally. In-game drama between characters can be very interesting, so we should generally welcome disagreements as long as they're kept in character. If you misread your companion's intentions, your character may have also done that, and it can be very nice and dramatic to deal with the consequences of such a thing, including knowing you messed up, the guilt of acting against your friends desires and even distrust between characters.
Of course, you can always ask if you can take back an action, specially if you feel that is derailing the whole game or every other player is deeply upset with that, but I think it should be a last resort reserved only for very exceptional cases. I'm not completely against it, but I consider that in a game where you make decisions you should generally deal with the consequences of your decisions.
And just to clarify, if you misunderstood the situation, like thinking a magical alarm had been disabled when it wasn't, that's something you can take back. A lack of communication, be it from your DM not explaining properly or you misunderstanding him, should NEVER be a reason to "punish" a player for making a bad decision.
@@garethvila5108 I agree that it is a rare thing, but I do have ADHD, which comes with Masking and hyperfixation. Typically, these help me stay on track during a session, but on rare occasions with a bit of stress and a lot of moving parts, I might mistake which prince we were planning to take out, or misread the group's deception as sincereness.
I know that my character would be better at keeping those sorted out than me as a player, but I tend to get nervous about making those decisive moments in case my mind got jumbled.
If it is things like trusting the barkeep's recommendation of goblin ale, then I usually roll with it. But things like derailing the campaign by assassinating the wrong NPC....
@@garethvila5108 I mean, it also depends on circumstances. Some people, like those with autism, can have a really hard time understanding social cues like sarcasm and such, in that case it'd be a more helpful learning moment to point out what they missed and then decide if undoing the action is the right call. Another situation could be if the party was wanting to ally with the kingdom and you misunderstood and thought the plan was to off the king because of an off handed remark, now suddenly your misinterpretation is ruining it for everyone else. That all being said, the party realistically should stop things before the action is actually taken, like if you say "I want to stab the king," then obviously the group should vocalize objections rather than wait it out and only act after the consequences unfold, though sometimes the reality of the decision is a lot more subtle than others might pick up on
In my opinion, absolutely
Honestly, the problem doesn't sound like it was the Ranger.
He did ONE thing, shooting the Rat Dad
Which, while 100% uncalled for and out of line.
He spent the rest of the game trying to make up for it and they just refused to forgive him
The cultists, wasn't even a mistake. They thought they were cultists. So he shoots to take out a chunk of enemies before a fight. That's legit.
Ranger sounds like the only one that isn't the asshole in that situation. Offering items, giving out heals in combat, trying to make up for it.
But because of 1 choice, made in what was probably the first session where people are still figuring out characters. They all decided they hated his Ranger and refused to budgd for any reason
I feel bad for the ranger. That party was terrible, singling out one player because of one mistake. And then all these "good" characters raise one child, but neglect the other. So good... And if ranger tries to make amends by concerning themselves over the other child, the rest of the party decides to ruin those chances, for both ranger and that child, by telling the kid that ranger killed their dad. A-holes.
I've been in a few groups like that. People feeling uber cool because they play a character. And it's always the same excuse: it's just a game, bro! You shouldn't take it personal, bro! If you do, maybe this is not the game for you, bro! And you, trying to fit in, trying to stay in the game that you love, trying to work it out, tell yourself that you're okay with that, that it is indeed just a game and them taking away all of your enjoyment is just part of the game, which you love, so you must love this as well. And bit by bit the abuse grows.
That ranger player has every right to be angry. And that monk player should pop his own zits and grow the F up. Skid mark.
Also, wife was my favourite. ;-)
Except it wasn't really a mistake, he shot Rat Dad for no reason aside from "he could be a problem later," it was all intentional. Yeah it's messed up that the party ignored the Ranger's attempts to make amends, but he also established himself as a bit of a murder hobo and made trouble for the group in future interactions. The party was in the wrong, that much is true, but the Ranger wasn't exactly innocent either. The fact is that all parties involved should have tried to communicate more, instead the Ranger continued to treat the game like a solo activity and the rest of the group refused to let one grievance go. That all being said, it sounds like the Monk and Ranger were butting heads for more reasons than just the Rat Dad incident, so it's not wrong for the two of them to have continued to do so all the way through, sometimes two characters are just incompatible and will butt heads over just about everything, like Zoro and Sanji from One Piece (let's say Zoro killed some woman in front of Sanji at some point in order to really throw fuel into that fire,) at that point it's just how roleplaying your characters is going to go
I think you don't fully comprehend the meaning of the word "mistake". One can make a very conscious decision to do something, that later turns out to have been a mistake. One can even try to defend said mistake when confronted, especially when that confrontation is an aggressive one. Feedback with an aggressive tone will easily push someone into a position where one can only defend oneself. But seeing how ranger kept trying to make amends, I'm sure they considered it a mistake as well.
@@EelcoPeterzen The NPC had disengaged, the Ranger knew exactly what he was doing, we also don't know how sincere he was about making amends, he easily could have been making the motions to try and get back into the party's good graces while also having no regrets for his actions, even taking care of the neglected child is in the same strain of thought. If you read between the lines, this one incident is far from the only reason the group didn't like the ranger, otherwise you wouldn't have even the "neutral" player deciding "nah it's better for everyone he remains dead." The party handled things poorly, no doubt about that, but there's no doubt that the Ranger is also at fault, especially when you consider how most players tend to play a chaotic neutral "lone wolf" character.
That's a lot of assumptions you're making. I'm guessing that's projection from bad personal experiences, as the last sentence would suggest.
@@EelcoPeterzen maybe your biased from good exp we have to make assumptions or accept only a biased perspective and deny the other party even a hypothetical voice if we do the opposite all who post first are saints and all quiet are sinners
I heard the DM side of the first one. Conan the Barbarian themed scenario. All Barbarians, all chaos.
Same, but I don't remember where I heard the story.
@@sorrynotsorry8224 The channel ZacspeaksGiant. The video is about being shirtless.
@@henrywilson2136 Ahh, of course Zac shared that story.
The original dm side post is an April Fool's joke, the player side post is a joke post referencing the first, still funny thou
Funnily enough Conan is literally every class except barbarian - thief, assassin, battle master, gladiator, pirate, king
Real life rage, gotta take shirt off to let them know you're serious. Aint no real fight if your shirt is left on. My dude was in character 100%
All while shouting "GIBBY!!!"
That second story was just so freaking petty
Nothing matters but the Beef brigade.
Yeah, that whole Ranger hate story had me annoyed by the sheer lack of communication by everyone outside the game. This whole issue could have been avoided and a more fun story scenario could have been made if the players involved, especially the DM, had tried to talk out of the game and figure out a plan together so that there’s much to be enjoyed from the game.
I said it once, but everyone in these horror stories is allergic to the idea of just... talking.
I've experienced something similar before, so e people get way too into roleplay, take the game too seriously, get too into their and other characters. They lose sight of the fact they're adult/young adult people, playing an advanced game of make believe with other adults/young adults. It's fun to get really into character but people need to remember to keep their feet anchored to reality.
If these people had just taken themselves out of the scene, out of their characters and talked, some understanding could have been met. Even op was too fixated on the character and not really playing much mind to communicate with the actual player. I think hes a little delusional if he thinks the player is coming back after that. They ruined his roleplay experience in a ridiculously childish way and think him making a new character will erase that, like some weird stick and carrot training.
@@dalejhunter1 And unfortunately it is a fairly common issue for people to just assume that everyone gets their intentions and is on the same page, and then from there just assume that anybody that deviates from the plan was just bein a jerk
Straight up: If your party can't get along with one of the characters and you're not going to give him a chance at redemption, LET HIM REROLL. There is no point in doing what they did. This kind of negativity wouldn't fly in the real world, so absent any plot-related elements (like a geas or personal vendetta or something), it wouldn't fly in a constant life-or-death situation.
Let him reroll, make his character an NPC if he's willing (even a competitor perhaps), and move on.
it flys IRL all the time its called bullying and adults do it every day if anything this game was more fair than what bullying at work can look like where you have power over your victims income they have to show up if they have no options
@@smokedbeefandcheese4144 I am sorry if you were bullied and felt like you had nowhere else to go--I lived that as a child myself--but this is not that situation. Please do not try to normalize it or trivialize it by claiming nobody has the power to escape it.
Honestly the party is asshole most of all. Ranger tried his best to help out the party and honestly players need to understand that alignments are all bullshit and don't need to be adhered to. The DM failed the most allowing this to continue after inserting the emotional punishment of single ratdad. Out of the game setting, it is the DM's job to assist with the situation with how Wife said, redemption quest! Seriously, Wife is my favorite when reading the reddit stories. 😉😆
Definitely need to check in, maintain a safe space, and allow for your character as a player to give other characters grace and opportunity to move forward.
"alignments are all bullshit and don't need to be adhered to" I love when I see someone else that understands this. Alignments are fine as a guideline and can be helpful for new players that still need some help to know how their character would react to something. Other than that, they are mostly dumb and an inter-party conflict generator.
Out of all my DnD characters, I think I only ever wrote down the alignment of the first two characters I made because I still didn't know if it was important to the game. Turns out, after years of playing without ever specifying my character's alignment, that you basically don't need it if you know your character's morals and personality.
I've seen soooo many stories of conflict generated because "this character was chaotic neutral" or "that character had the opposite alignment than my character" that I would actually LOVE to see alignment disappear completely on the next edition.
Tbf, it seemed like the Ranger was kind of a problem character as well, like he was flipping back and forth between making amends and just going back to doing ridiculous things impulsively and with no attempts to communicate with the rest of the party. As Duke said, everybody was in the wrong in this story, even if some were a bit more in the wrong than others
@@homerman76 I have dm'd several murder hobo players In the past and usually something like ratdad is enough to correct the behavior, but sometimes people get stuck in this well chaotic neutral, so that's what my character would do.... Shrug? Kind of crap... As a DM this can get frustrating, but it also gives opportunity to really put the pressure on the player to find a way to make their character develop permanently rather than kind of just start working towards being more reasonable and then just dropping it because it's too complicated to do things a more methodical way.
To be honest though, I don't think that there was anything particularly wrong with firing on the what one would think are cultists about to summon a great beastie. Seems pretty logical and considering the past deeds of that character, seems like it would be reasonable to do. As a DM I probably would have done the same thing putting their deaths actually being the cause of it being summoned whereas trying to negotiate or investigate a little bit further might have revealed with a perception check or an insight check that they are frightened villagers who are chained or maybe an arcana check to show that they are being bound by magical shackles and silenced so they can't do anything but stand there. Menacingly.
Anyway, I don't really think that this should have gone as far as it did and it is up to the DM to mediate these types of conflicts early on between characters and as wife said in the video, give them a story arc where they can find some permanent redemption rather than falling back into the same pattern of behavior of shooting from the hip and asking questions after everyone is dead
@@ariellaboy7982 I don't disagree that firing on the "cultists" would have seemed like a good idea in the moment, I just meant that they acted to do so with no regard for or attempt to communicate with the party just simply the classic "I didn't ask how big the room was, I said I cast fireball" scenario where rash action catches the rest of the party up in a lot more trouble than they should have had to deal with. If the party agreed to the action, then that's one thing, but acting without saying anything is no different than just pretending the campaign is a solo adventure since you're essentially saying only your opinion matters. In real life this can be fair since there are always times where you don't have time to think, just act, but, in DnD, those restraints don't really exist.
"Alignments don't need to be adhered"
Yep.. I did the same as a chaotic evil warlock in a mostly lawful good party. The reason my warlock didn't flat out betray the party is because the party kept them safe.
They didn't actively do crime or murder. If anything.. they were just scheming and plotting. They would protect the party since they had no reason to ditch them.
Throughout the campaign, my warlock did a lot of good (both accidentally and actively). Only since their main priority was to stay alive. Even uncovered an evil scheme in a capital city with their main interrest being: "Hey... I smell a poison on this corpse. I want to replicate it cause it felled a giant gryphon." To only get amazing wealth and rewards for uncovering the poisoning.
People loved my evil lil warlock, cause they were the brains of the party and the players knew my warlock wouldn't just ditch em outright, but would do things the party would disagree on sometimes. Then my warlock accidentally redeemed an undead cultist and making them a minion of theirs.
Then that minion somehow became a celestial due to some artifact on my warlock being able to grant that ascension... (They had sticky fingers)
At that point they went from Chaotic evil to Chaotic Neutral. Still power hungry as ever, but that evil side dulled with all the good they did and benefitting from it.
Then they absorbed a dracolich soul and fused with it.. and well.. that ended their campaign XD
The party should definitely have become neutral at least for how they treated the ranger. The ranger acted good and the party acted neutral or evil by deeming him irredeemable.
Story 2 - honestly I kinda like the sound of the ranger, the monk sounds like the problem
yeah they pretty much just bullied him and hid it in dnd
That last one hurt, I feel bad for the Ranger getting shat on by the party for ONE mistake, possibly 2 with the explosive arrow, but still.
I played a Tortle Barbarian/Artificer that was essentially the "Party's Grandfather", but the party HATED any attempt to try and guide or direct them cause they took it as my character "ordering them around".
It had gotten to the point where I tried making any suggestions, or I'd roll a Knowledge Check, succeed, and try to offer a plan with said information, but the party wanted nothing of it and would just do whatever they wanted. To which usually almost landing them TPKed. I pretty much stopped engaging with the group and let them do whatever, and they would get themselves nearly killed every time as they get pissy at me for doing nothing.
It lead to having a freaking "intervention" where I was the focus as the "problem". Though through the talks, I was able to get them to see my side, and I found ways to improve. The game sadly didnt continue and we all started a new campaign
I mean, to play devil's advocate, was it really a mistake when Rat Dad had disengaged from combat? That's like watching your party member get into a bar fight and then shooting the other guy once everything was said and done, it was just completely uncalled for and was most definitely intentional (I would agree the second was a mistake, though he probably should have discussed the decision with the party before just going ham with the explosives.) It also sounds like the Ranger was butting heads with at least the Monk on more things than just the one incident and playing the game in a way shows they feel like it's more of a solo campaign, so there definitely seemed to have been more to it than just those two incidents (even if they are what came up most.) Overall it's a circumstance where all parties share fault, especially since simple communication would have resolved most of it.
The Beef Brigade is a companion story to a story someone wrote from DM's POV for April Fools' day. Someone in comments to the original post "advised" the "DM" to take off their pants to assume the dominance 😂
I love this series so much! There are good lessons to be learned, sometimes it helps me to reflect on my own failures as a DM, but always fun.
That story reminds me of a campaign I listened to where they went to their character for help and ultimately one of the party kills them. Player took alot of grief from it from inside the party but also from comments. The reason he killed that person is because he felt like they weren't being helpful and was getting suspicious of it. About a year later it was revealed that npc was actually plotting against the party and the player actually saved everyone. The dm was about to have the npc betray them when the player took them out. He actually ended up saving the party.
At that point it's on the DM for letting the player take all the heat, rather than providing any hints at the betrayal at least out of game
@@homerman76 I wouldn't say OOC, but at least give them a clue the soonest possible in game. A note, a conversation or whatever.
You don't let something that could be so negatively influencial on the Party's internal relationships undone for a whole year.
DM was an AH definitely.
Second Story: The ranger made some bad decisions but the rest of the party are assholes.
The first story is amazing and I love it.
The second one I feel like the Ranger made one poor decision and was never given a fair chance after that. Also, it took a minute to realize the story was referring to Zinogre and Barroth, which are from Monster Hunter, which is such a fun side detail to include in a campaign story
Right? Now I want to check for any homebrew MH monster stat blocks. I wouldn't mind throwing something really cool like Zinogre at the party, or maybe something a little funny/troll like a Duramboros.
The moment I heard the name Barioth, I immediately thought, "Wait; isn't that from Monster Hunter? Did the DM homebrew Monster Hunter monsters into their DnD campaign?" I'm surprised at how immediately I recognized the name, as my first Monster Hunter game was Monster Hunter Rise.
That first story just makes me think of one of the campaigns I’m in where I play a chicken Bard/Sorcerer… Every time it’s my turn to talk or something, I just start making chicken noises while messaging the only person that’s meant to understand my character based on Language options XD
Second story sounds like the players were just being jerks. Like holding that long of a grudge for a single decision is just dumb, especially since he kept trying to make amends. People do stuff like that all the time for many reasons. Sometimes its roleplay, sometumes its misreading a situation, and sometimes its lack of communicqtion between PCs.
Like I have a character that is a Vengence Paladin (Chaotic Neutral as well) and I am role playing them as generally being a character that, due to the backstory of her being a cast out fallen valkyrie because she had to kill a sacred beast to saved innocents, she take matters into her own hands, a little disillusioned with the concept of lawful justice, and sticks to her new oath (No Mercy for the Wicked).
Cue the Goblin Incident, in which out party was confronting a "mom" with illusion magic on her, who had been missing for a while to the point where her son Willaim (the NPC we were helping at the time) had been alone for a while with a Displacer Beast (that wasnt there at the time) as his "brother" only to mysterious show back up while we are investigating their house. She is attempting to take Willaim and leave, and Willaim is describe by the DM as looking nervous/afraid. My paladin stops her from leaving by holding out her spear to block the door. The party tries to talk it out, the mom whistles, and we start to hear the sound of something charging from outside with people screaming. I, believing combat was inevitable (and also not knowing non-letgal damage existed and that you had to declare it), took the opportunity for a free attack, thinking that due to the illusion and most of us being lv 2 that she was a hag or something. So I Divine Smited my spear and swung, and took her head off in one attack because she ended up just being a goblin. Now, this caused a bit of shock among a few, not all, of the other players (with the DM laughing at the chaos about to happen), we go into combat (during which non-lethal was discovered and there was a bit of an "my bad" moment). Now after battle, one of the players checked to make sure Willaim was okay, noticing old bruises, implying some abuse by the mom. However, the players didn't decided to hold that against my character, one of them just had a brief, in-character role play moment with my character (also role playing) in which values were exchanged and backstory was hinted at, and we moved on.
There was another Hobgoblin incident later where we helping an NPC deal with some unruling goblins and we had made it to three hobgolbins in charge. The NPC drank a potion to make himself braver at the start of succession before embarking on this mission but there were some clear side effects of him becoming a lot more aggressive. So when "negotiations" started to look like they were failing due to him getting more aggressive and taunting the hobgolbins (who were established to be jerks to the other goblins by the way), me and another PC decided to get suprise attacks (and because we though it would look cool), by throwing my spear and his spell past the NPCs head at the head hobgoblins. We both missed but we ended up winning the fight with no deaths and started a goblion revolution against the hobs and the DM confirmed it was almost impossible to avoid combat there so it all worked out. No players held any grudges.
So yeah, if they held a grudge for that long, they are just beings jerks at that point.
One of my groups once had a character that just didnt fit the party of other characters, which happens. It wasnt anything specific he'd done, just a different look on things than most of the other characters, which grinded more than we as players would've liked.
So what did we do?
Not kill the PC, thats for sure.
We just had a conversation with the whole group, came to an understanding and compromise and the player of the PC that didnt really fit the party just made another character. We didnt hate the player orr the first character, so we went for the best other option of just changing character. Easy.
Everyone's the asshole in that last story, this couldve been prevented instead of it festering and ending up how it did.
Isn't the first story the successor to another story you two read from last time? It was from the DM's perspective.
If you are actually a neutral good character, and most lawful good except perhaps a paladin, I think failing to forgive a repenting character violates your alignment.
I remember first hearing about the beef brigde from the DM's side
Shouldn't the wife of Duke be "Duchess?"
Story 2: The rest of the party are the assholes. They are the definition of toxic players. Just from the story a lot of what the OP said can be pushed aside as trying to save their own face. They tried to portray themselves in a way where they were some "neutral party of peace" but then ignored this happening week after week and didn't speak up about it. At the end of the day, these are not people that you want to play TTRPGs with and I hope Ranger finds a better group.
The group from the second story kinda sounds like they were being jerks for no reason. Yeah, the Ranger may have killed an NPC he shouldn't have, and may have started the incident with a monster... but is it THAT bad? Doesn't sound like he did anything else that was bad enough to even be mentioned, so we should assume those two incidents are the only things they did have against him.
Apart from those two incidents, the Ranger was like "okay, let me be helpful to make ammends" and actually helped the party, and it sounds like he did help a bunch of times, even when the party wasn't receptive and still hated him. He even took care of one of the two kids while the whole group was basically ignoring him just because they preferred the other one. At that point, he sounds more like the best character of the group. He may occasionaly mess up, but he tries to compensate his errors, and it sounds like he's compensating more than he should.
Either the original poster explained everything very poorly, or they are the assholes and the Ranger's player has every right to be mad at them. If the poster itself acted as a neutral party on this conflict, he may be less asshole-y than his other friends, but even then, watching how someone is ostracised for two errors even when they're compensating as much as they can... that's not being neutral, that's ignoring the conflict to an extreme that is almost as bad as what the other players were doing.
Sounds like he was at least butting heads with the Monk regularly. There's also the issue that the three incidents in question all indicate that the character had a tendency to just do things without asking the group first, as if the player was playing more of a solo campaign than a group one; shooting the NPC for basically no reason; immediately aiming to blast the "cultists," which would guarantee the party will get dragged into combat even without knowing about the thing that would get summoned by attacking the group; and deciding to 1v1 the Boriath because... reasons... Overall the Ranger seemed to be a bit of a problem character too.
@@homerman76 It seems that the issues were centered around 3 things : He played a CN character (which is often label for "Murder Hobbo") ; He was a lonewolf who acted on his own without consulting the party ; and lastly, it might be implied he was a bit of a power gamer who used a lot of Homebrew stuff to give himself the advantage over the rest of the party.
@@Juju2927 Exactly, a lot of stuff on the surface might say that everyone was just holding a grudge, but a lot of the information we get about this character outside of the incidents seems to indicate that there's more to the story than the party simply holding onto a grudge, like if his attempts at making peace weren't very sincere
@homerman76 Not asking the group first is basically the norm, even if some people want to believe it's not. A big part of TTRPGs is taking decisions on what your character does, and these decisions aren't always discussed with the group. Sometimes you'll discuss with everyone what you're going to do, sometimes you'll take a decision just based on what your character would do, and sometimes you'll just act quickly and won't be able to discuss things. That's normal. And, as such, there will be times where you make a decision and it backfires. Again, completely normal.
Rewatch the whole thing paying attention at what happens more than what OP says. At the end, the only true "bad" thing the Ranger did was the first murder. It reached a point that makes me doubt if there's more to that and OP didn't tell us, because the whole time he's the one doing good things.
Even attacking the cultists wasn't a bad call. Or are you telling me that, when you're rushing to stop a ritual that is about to be complete and find a hundred cultists, you're going to ask them politely to stop? Blasting them was a completely reasonable thing to do when he didn't know those weren't true cultists, blaming him for that is basically blaming him for not knowing the future. Completely unfair.
And the 1v1 fight? He may have been overconfident, but it's not a reason to let him die and call it "karmic justice". He was pretty close to winning, and he knew he could be resurrected if he failed, so I'm not even sure if we can call him overconfident. Sounds like he did know what he was doing. The only reason that went south so hard is because the party refused to help and OP refused to resurrect him for no reason. Will you really tell me he's the one to blame here?
I'm sorry, but no, if you ignore that every other player is claiming he's irredeemable, the Ranger is far from being a problem player. The group decided he was irredeemable after his first and only bad act, and even though he did good things over and over again they just were jerks about it.
If i had to stop a cult from finishing a ritual i would let my party get into position and then ready their actions, maybe gain a surprise round. What i wouldnt do is be dumb and just fire off a shot to alert the hoard while party doesnt even have time to draw their weapons.
Barb gotta barb moment
So glad you guys are able to do this again! Not only are the stories often funny, but it’s so fun listening to Duke and Wife together. Wishing you guys a wonderful time as you learn to balance work, life, and a new baby! 😊
The Wife was my favourite when it came to reading all those horror stories.
THE BEEF BRIGADE 💪💪💪💪💪💪💪💪💪
Sounds !Ike the players not the Ranger were the real tools. The rangers character was willing to grow and learn while the rest were unwilling to help their characters grow. One character was willing to develop beyond good and bad while the others were stagnant in development.
If you view someone as irredeemable because of one mistake, even after they clearly act in a way that shows they're trying to change and make up for that mistake, then proceed to stand idly by while watching said person die, you are NOT good-aligned. A true good character would encourage redemption; they can still be suspicious of intentions and keep an eye on them, but to deny the opportunity to redeem themselves and let them die by refusing to fight alongside them? No, as GM I'd rule that your alignment shifts to neutral for being a self-righteous prick who doesn't really care about the lives of your comrades unless they share the same view as you.
The second story clicked once I realized it was Monster Hunter.
We need more Monster Hunter DnD campaigns bro
2:19 "... have to communicate that..."
Hmm, in this case, I don't totally agree. Spontaneity is a valuable and valid element of role playing. Now, if someone is uncomfortable with what's happening, then you do need to be willing to communicate and either reach an accommodation or agree that it's just not a good match for that DM to play with this group if the comfort zones are that different. But _have to_ communicate in advance that when you get into your Barbarian emotional outburst mode you might just get the urge to pull your shirt off (in a group of masculine guys)... no, I don't think that's completely necessary to do in advance.
Love that this series is back
I think it would have funny if while the guy was grabbing the rangers stuff (assuming the scroll or whatever to revive him only needs part of his body) secretly cut off his finger or something and revive him later once again depending on specifics of the scroll
Plot twist, the GM of the first story is a man, his players are all-female party.
Love you guys!!!
HEK YEAAAAAAA NOW I HAVE SOMETHING TO LISTEN TO WHILE I PRETEND TO DO SOMETHING AT WORK!!!!!!! I love it that you do this every few days now. : )
Happy 800k!
For the second story, if I was the DM id bring the dead character back later as the main big evil, and the reason he is evil is because they let him die
The second story mentioned Monsters from Monster hunter. Seems OSQ has never played Monster Hunter before. But just for clarification if you see those names again its
Bear e ith. The other one is pronounced as Z in no gr.
Love you guys reading these!! Hope u bring back reading wholesome/funny too!!
General rule of thumb: One or more players should NEVER be having fun at the expense of another player's fun. We all make mistakes, by that I mean doing something another player or more don't like. You change, be better, and make amends. All 3 parties in this are in the wrong, but all for different reasons. The main group of players, for refusing to let the ranger be redeemed and ganging up on them in their hatred of their "character". I'm sorry, but they obviously decided together that they didn't like the character anymore and by their own words "slap away any hand extended to them". They claimed they liked playing with the player but only hated the character in an attempt to make themselves feel like they weren't in the wrong (which they totally were)
The DM, for further allowing this rift to form, and promoting this rift by the imbalanced items and scenarios. They consistently encouraged this division.
The ranger, but not for his initial action despite popular vote. Everyone does one thing at least at some point that ticks other players off. They are in the wrong for not communicating better with the other players moving forward (assuming he did not, it's possible he did and they refused, in which case he is clear).
This all could have been avoided if better communication and expectations had been identified after the initial problem. But the literal worst case scenario happens when everyone gangs up against a single individual. What about a single problem player? That's as simple as communicating with them asking them to change how they play a little, and if the behavior continues to let them know that it's making everyone at the table uncomfortable and it needs to stop or their group can't continue, then letting natural consequences flow based on the response. But in 9/10 cases I have seen, if you're all ganging up on one person, you likely are in the wrong. Don't cover your conscience by claiming you like playing with them, just not their character. Be honest, since you obviously didn't like all of those many sessions playing with them. In general, just communicate.
Okay thanks for another one of these videos it was great
10:51 ...Wait; a Barioth is a creature from Monster Hunter, and I checked an alphabetized list of monsters in DnD and didn't see a Barioth in the list. Did the DM homebrew creatures from Monster Hunter into their campaign?
Prefacing with: just read the title, havent watched this one yet, but had a somewhat similar event in one of my games. Parties Wild Magic Sorcerer Wild magic summoned a Unicorn near the end of a combat who asked everyone telepathically if they thought they were evil. Our Neutral Evil Rogue (the rest of us were good, good and chaotic neutral) who we didnt know in character was evil starts getting mauled to death by this Unicorn. This creature, way stronger than our level 3 party was clearly a holy creature that the rest of us respected and half of us tried once or twice to slow down, but not really stop as it slaughtered our party member.
I refuse to play with characters who use wild magic. Imagine if the fighter or barbarian had a wild fighting style and occasionally just stabbed a party member instantly killing them. No one would want to play with those melee characters. That is what it is like playing with a wild mage.
Wild mages cause way too many problems and require a DM who constantly cheats to save the party from the mess the wild mage causes. Wild mages should be reworked to be less destructive to the campaign.
Story 2: Yeah, that's the end of me at that table. Feels incredibly personal. I could not help the party and still get hate. I'd have left much sooner.
2nd Story: As one that always finds themselves to be the DM, I am not gonna say what the players did was right at all. At the same time the DM deserves some blame too.
The DM decided to introduce the players to the 2 rat kids to make the Rangers actions even worse to the party.
The DM is running homebrew they created obviously using creatures from Monster Hunter. They created a scenario that set everyone up for failure. It’s like putting a mouse trap down and blaming only the mouse for getting hungry and not blaming the person who setup the mouse trap.
My brother was in one game with a kender. The whole party smiled and waved good bye as they traded the PC to cannibals in exchange for safe passage.
What the actual hell?!
@@spikem5950 the kender was being played as such an insufferable anus that the party was more than ready to be rid of the character when an opportunity presented itself.
The player didn't mind either and was the one who told me about it as a funny story.
A) Added the podcast to Spotify (love this so why not add it on the go without CZcams playing in the back ground). B) Wife's story: short and funny Dukes story: long and full of things to think about
I've never seen a party from hell post from the party's POV holy shit
ranger deserve better
Conjecture on the second story- the party might have been upset/didn’t let it go because they felt the ranger never “got punished”
(I’m guessing the ranger was mechanically stronger than the rest of the party).
The OP made it sound like the ranger was more than pulling their weight despite the party trying to put him in a bad spot…. So I’m guessing that the character was well built and powerful… If the party was trying to “get back at him” and all of their attempts failed then maybe that is part of why they hated him.
To add to your point, it's also possible that the Ranger never seemed sincere about wanting to make up for his actions, like if he didn't feel like he actually did any wrong and just wanted to move on from the incident, (something that could be seen with him trying to essentially buy back their affections.) It also sounded like the Ranger was the type to just do things without talking to the party first and liked to act on their own, so the Ranger didn't really do himself any favors in that way. Ultimately another story about why communicating with your party to resolve disputes is really important.
I don't know, I feel like the rest of the party (including OP) are the jerks in the second story. And bullies. OP even said several times that the Ranger tried to redeem himself on multiple occasions. It sounds like Monk had a personal grudge and the rest of the party went all mob mentality against the Ranger. If OP wanted to stay neutral, then like...he's not helping anything. Take one side or the other (which it sounds like he eventually did, I guess). All I know is, if I were in Ranger's place, I wouldn't be returning to that group. Say what you will, but the whole, "We love playing with you, but hated your character" thing is SO not cool. Like, they made no attempt at all of letting the character have any form of DEVELOPMENT (which is the entire point of storytelling with characters). I'd feel personally attacked, too.
I agree that Ranger maybe should have read the room, but like...one mistake does not an asshole make.
Also, what was with the thing about the group raising the rat children, but neglecting only one of them? What was the point of a "good" party doing that...? These people just sound insufferable, honestly.
I was baffled that the dm let that happen in the second one or hes bad at reading the room
As a DM I’ll always let my players do what they want if it makes sense for their characters.
Ultimately though the DM has the ultimate power. The DM decides the outcomes of a players actions. They decide what happens on the spot or leave it up to the dice.
It was the DM that decided let’s introduce little rat kids after the ranger killed an NPC to make their actions worse. Lets make one of the rat kids have no reaction to their sibling getting pampered by half the party while they’re sole caretaker (Ranger) is left for dead by monk. I don’t condone what the players did but the DM 100% is to be blamed too.
People forget that it's entirely possible to despise a character but be totally fine with the player. I had characters like that over my thirty years as a gamer. I've had players love me but want to stab my PC in the eyeball ala Astarion in BG3 against that Gur.
Hey Duke! It's Nathan from the Scarborough Fair. Josiah and I were wondering how many people ended up recognizing you. Were you and your friends able to keep track?
It was cool seeing you and your family. I hope you all had a fantastic time at the fair!
Good work with your videos man! They are quite enjoyable. 😉
This second story maybe needs more context, but seriously, the party is the asshole in this. Letting a PC die willingly is, uh, not a good move. This just sounds like pointless grudges and petty moves, and the monk definitely acted like an asshole. Were they an asshole, well, I don't know them personally, so I don't know. But they *acted* like one this specific time (again, with a grain of salt, we don't have context).
However, the ONE culprit is the DM. Letting all of that unfold with no damage control or intervention is way too passive. The DM could've made that instantly better at the first sign, trying to figure the situation out with communication. And I'm gonna add, I'm pretty sure the players themselves aren't complete assholes IMHO, because this could've led to actual real-life drama pointlessly. I'm even gonna deduce that the players must be at least marginally chill in a way, and simply misguided by a DM who didn't understand that "letting your players have freedom" is not the same as "just letting your players go wild and never mediate/anticipate anything". In an alternate universe, this very same story could've been an absolutely terrifying D&D horror story.
And excuse me, but although I don't know what level they started, how did they get up to level friggin' 9 without the DM trying to fix this issue. I'm not gonna say the players being spiteful is not their fault at all, but whatever happens at the table of a DM is also partly the fault of the DM if they just let stuff happen without even batting an eye. I see at least several ways this could've been fixed in 5 to 10 minutes, no more.
Also, think about it: the NPC the DM conveniently puts in a quiproquo with the party actually ends up being a poor, single dad with a sob story and 2 kids? This is way too convenient. The DM just cooked this up to make the characters feel bad and he potentially created this situation out of thin air. We need more context, again, but this could be a self-sabotage from the DM. Also, he's put around a 100 people that looked like cultists trying to invoke a deity and OH, it just turned out to be civilians. This DM sounds like he has played Spec Ops: the Line once and now all of his games are just baits to try and make the PCs feel bad. And remember the party was OK with killing the son of an evil dude when actually he was good himself, except for the ranger. What the actual heck is up with this DM's campaign?
Tbf about watching the player die, he is the one who decided to 1v1 the Barrioth, he was kind of asking for it at that point, though the "neutral" player just taking his stuff and not reviving him when he had items to do so was pretty cold. I definitely don't disagree though that the DM seemed to have made stuff on the fly to make certain things continue forward and then laid blame on the Ranger, though the Ranger acting without any communication with the party during the first two incidents was kind of on him, he kind of took the "lone wolf" angle a bit too seriously.
On the one hand, it is similar. On the other hand, poking someone with my finger is similar to stabbing them with a knife. Going Hulkomania is not the same as whipping it out. They are not remotely the same.
Man I dunno that last story.... both sides are a problem but the group is definitely far more at fault than the ranger.
I've been reading this video's comments, and there's something that I want to talk about. Obviously, it's about the second story, and how some people are assuming parts of it. And this is going to be long, but I want to put my thoughts somewhere.
Let's be clear: apart from what OP says, we don't know anything else. We're just watching the thing unfold from their perspective and we only see whatever they consider relevant enough to talk about. We can assume other things, but we shouldn't trust those assumptions since we don't know if those are true or not.
That being said, the problem I see here quite a lot is people assuming the Ranger was a murder hobo, made more problems we haven't been told about or that they may have been insincere on their attempts to make ammends. Why do I say this is a "problem"? Well, there's a bunch of things here that are worthy mentioning.
First, as I already said, we shouldn't trust our own assumptions, only whatever we do know for sure. OP didn't mention anything on those lines, so we shouldn't judge the Ranger on the basis of "who knows what else they did" or "his attempts to make ammends may have been insincere", because that's not what we're told.
And this brings me to the second problem: those assumptions are only made on the basis that there must have been a reason why the party hated Ranger so much. We can prove this by looking at the claims that have been made about the Ranger to try and say that either the party wasn't that bad or that, at least, the Ranger may also be a problem player. So let's take a look at those claims:
"The Ranger may have done oher bad things" - As far as we know, the only truly bad thing Ranger did was shoot at the rat dad. The incident with the cultists is, at most, a mistake, since they didn't know those weren't real cultists. That's it, we aren't told that they messed with the group, that they mistreated any other NPC, that they got in trouble... If those things happened enough to validate the group's hate, wouldn't you think there would be at least a mention about that? You know, like how we're told multiple times that the Ranger tried to make ammends, even knowing they did so by healing the party and providing resources. Doesn't sound like they did much wrong if you only mention three incindents and the rest of the actions you mention are good acts.
"The Ranger may have been a murder-hobo" - As far as we know, the only character they killed for no good reason was the rat dad. Again, we aren't told they were a mudrer-hobo, we aren't even told that they had to be stopped from killing NPCs. The only two things we can point out to try and tell if they were a murder-hobo or not are the cultist incident, the duel with the Monk and the fight with the Son. On the cultist incident, while they shot without warning, they were under the assumption those hundred cultists were performing a ritual they wanted to stop. Attacking them first and fast when the ritual may end at any moment is not even a bad call, and the fact that those cultists turned out to be civilians was discovered later, so it's not like the Ranger killed civilians willingly. On the duel with the Monk, even though it was supposed to be a duel to the death, the Ranger decided to forgive the Monk and let them live. And on the fight with the Son he was the one that decided not to kill him and, instead, turn him into an ally. As far as we know, the rest of the group is far more murder-hobo-y than him, with the Monk trying to slove their differences through a duel to the death and the rest of the group fighting to the death with the Son. Why is the Ranger the one that's being called "murder-hobo"? Just because they made one mistake and killed an innocent? Again, people are assuming they were a murder-hobo because that would explain why they did shot the rat dad and why the group hated them so much, but as far as we know that's not the case.
"The ranger's attempts at making ammends may have been insincere" - That's flat out false. The only basis for this is that, if he did sound sincere, there would be no reason why the group didn't accept it. But that's the thing: you can't "sound insincere" when you're proving that is true. Here, the Ranger did not just say they wanted to make ammends or that they were sorry, they actively showed repentance and acted accordingly. They tried to raise the kid the rest of the party was neglecting out of regret from killing their father. They healed anyone who needed it, even resurrecting multiple times the Monk that hated him so much. They provided items and other resources to the group. They are DIRECTLY ACTING to make ammends, showing that they are indeed trying to do good things. If the group didn't accept those, there's no way it's because "it sounds insincere", because you can resurrect someone that hates you insincerely.
And the third problem, is that those assumptions come from us only being told one point of view. In this case, OP was allegedly an impartial figure, but their actions show they were on the group's side more than the Ranger's. While they aren't directly involved in ostracising the Ranger, they are not helping them being accepted or confronting the group about why don't they accept his attempts to make ammends. They even imply that the Ranger did something wrong with the cultist incident, while on that story the only jerk is the Monk that challenges them to a duel to the death even though they would be dead if it wasn't for Ranger's resurrections.
OP isn't truly "impartial", only uninvolved. They let the thing go and did nothing to solve the problem, but in the end they agree with the group. We're told multiple times "the group hated the Ranger", "everyone hated the Ranger", "the group said the Ranger was irredeemable"... and yet not even once we're told why. Well, yes, we're told that they mention the rat dad as the reason to hate Ranger, and later they add the cultist incident even though the Ranger did nothing wrong there. If they can't even mention one other thing the Ranger truly did wrong, maybe the problem isn't the Ranger? But OP never questions the party, they just accept that hate and, in the end, they side with it. Because, let's not forget that, in the Ranger's last fight, the Monk may have refused to fight and call the Ranger's death "karma", but OP didn't jump in either. And the one that took the resurrection scroll and didn't use on Ranger wasn't the Monk, it was OP.
And that's the thing: most people are assuming we aren't told other things Ranger did wrong because, otherwise, the group wouldn't have a reason to hate him, and since they did hate him and we're told the story as if the group was the "victim" that had to deal with the "troublesome Ranger", people are assuming there must be other reasons for this hate. But that's not what the story is saying. What OP describes is a Ranger that wants to repent from that one accident, that provides for the group even though they hate them, a character that can forgive the Monk and spare their life even after a duel to the death that was completely irrational, one that is hated for a single bad deed by a group that doesn't hesitate to unfairly use a mistake the Ranger made just to justify their hate. All that we're told, without the "filter" of OP's subjectivity, is that Ranger messed up once and the group never forgave them.
Honestly, if anything, I would be willing to believe that Ranger had some logic for that first incident. We aren't told why did they do that, and it kinda sounds like the group didn't even ask them, so maybe they did have a reason, even if they were wrong. The Ranger's other actions don't quite match someone that would just kill an NPC for no reason, so I struggle to understand how that first incident could have happened. This, however, is my own assumption, and as I've stated through this unnecessarily long text we shouldn't trust it. Maybe OP just shot that character for no good reason and given the backlash of the party then they decided to turn into a better character. Who knows?
In any case, please, don't just go around judging someone through assumptions. As far as we know, there's no much reason to think Ranger was a problem player in any way. If the group's behavior doesn't make sense unless you assume Ranger was worse than we're told, then maybe it's just that the group was filled with shitty people. Occam's Razor, people: the simplest answer is the most probable one.
I also want to point out some things about OP's last actions. I put this as a separate comment because it's not really relevant for the other part, but still worth mentioning.
After the barioth kills the Ranger, the ranger is still confident because they know there's a resurrection scroll on their back, so as long as their friends kill the monster they can resurrect him. Now, OP decides his character feels regret and wants revenge. They kill the creature... and don't revive the Ranger? Wow, what a LOT of regret that is, am I right? I haven't seen someone regret something more in their life! It's the most regretful action ever made! What, did you expect them to do everything possible to make ammends? Hell no, in this group we don't believe in making ammends! If you do that, you better expect to be ostracised and called irredeemably evil! And why would you resurrect Ranger? That wouldn't show regret in any way, it's far better to let the Ranger die! Because OP regretted not seeing the creature's corpse, not the Ranger's death. At least, that's what their actions show.
Now, bitching aside, that's why on the other comment I say OP is not impartial. In that moment, an impartial character that regrets letting the Ranger die would indeed resurrect the Ranger, even if that angers the party, because they wouldn't worry about the party's opinion. That's what being impartial is, showing no preference towards any given side. In this case, they actively decided not to help the Ranger and get rid of it, because that's what the group wanted. They regretted letting the Ranger die, but they still wanted to please the party, so OP chose a "middle point" that doesn't anger the party, but lets them feel less regret. Win-win, right? Well, except for the Ranger, but who cares about that, OP already sided with those who hated him!
Something else worth mentioning is his final statement. "I plan on making this a huge step for my character to break the Oath of Neutrality and finally start being more proactive, to never let this happen again, maybe even take the reigns as an official leader of the party". I call that bullsh*t.
I'm sorry, but let me be harsh here: OP already broke their Oath of Neutrality when they let the Ranger die, and doubled down on that oath breaking when they decided not to resurrect the Ranger. I can't say if they're going to be more proactive, but through what we've seen in this story I struggle to believe they are going to do so. They've been the most passive character in the conflict, calling themselves "neutral" just because they didn't even want to take a side. It's hard to imagine they are going to make such a turn.
And becoming "an official leader of the party"? Dude, you already have one: it's the Monk. The Monk was the first one that decided they hated the Ranger, and the group followed them. Nobody sided with the Ranger, and even OP just decided not to actively hate on them, never even once confronting the group's irrational hate. When the Monk challenged the Ranger to a duel to the death nobody stopped them, if Ranger had lost I'm pretty sure everyone would have just watched as Monk did kill the Ranger. And on the last fight, yeah, the Monk decided to not go into the fight, calling the Ranger's death "karma"... and everyone aggreed. Again, even OP, who was willing to help, decided not to do so after the Monk showed no interest on that. You only need to look how OP writes to see Monk is the leader. Who else is in the group? I don't know. It's like the group is just Ranger, OP and Monk. Every time the group is talked about, the Monk is the only one that stands out. Even at the end, when OP lets Ranger die, they say "the Monk breathes a sigh of relief". Not even a mention of the rest of the group. Dude, you only care about what the Monk thinks! They are already the leader here!
And "never let this happen again"? Never let what happen? Never let a character your group irrationally hates to live that long? Never let someone who is trying to ammend his past deeds continue with the group that calls them irredeemable for no reason? Because if you mean "never let the group ostracise a character again" you're doing it wrong. You could resurrect Ranger and confront the group now about ostracising them this time, you don't need to "never let this happen again".
And you better not mean "never let another party member to die again" or anything like that, because that would really make me want to punch you.
You can actually resurrect the Ranger and actively try to solve the problem this time. There's no point in not doing so and claiming that you'll "never let this happen again", because you're already letting it happen now. If you want to be a leader, resurrect the Ranger, expose how they're trying to make ammends and the party is just being a b*tch about it, and directly confront the so-called "good" Monk that wanted to kill the Ranger and let them die. See what I mean? You won't do that, because you're already sided with the group, and the group's leader is the Monk. It's far more convenient for you to let the Ranger die, make the Monk happy and claim that next time you'll solve the problem that you could be solving now.
Amy? Her first name is Wife!
I can't wait to tell the Barbarian in my group that he will have to take his shirt off in order to rage, lol.
To me the second story, definitely feels like the DM should have stepped up and said something to everyone. That situation is completely avoidable. On all sides, if you just communicate with one another in an effective manner than you can continue the narrative in a healthy way. No one looks good in this situation, but i would want my DM to communicate with us if this kind of stuff was happening.
The whole second story is really confusing to me, and either all the players and their characters eat, sleep and breathe pure spite, or there was more going on. I could see maybe one character being flawed and never forgiving, but a whole table (including narrator's paladin) seems really extreme. Honestly, if I was Ranger, I'd reroll lawful evil and show them what true misery a good party can face, and just not take stupid duels against Monster Hunter enemies so they are never rid of me.
Ranger did nothing wrong
I've heard the first story from the DMs perspective.
For the first story, I think it depends on the reasons you are doing such things. If you're doing it because the group has fun being that into the role-playing and it's just fun for everyone, that's fine, though expecting that everyone should just accept that is a bit problematic, especially if it's the DM saying they're not comfortable with it. That all being said, there are definitely some out there that are just using "role-playing" as an excuse to be able to do things that fall outside of social norms or to get back at someone in the group, and that's not ok if the group isn't ok with what you're doing
The Second Storry has Monster Hunter Monster. The worldsetting would be interristing to know.
I believe I have heard the first one (or some extremely similar story) from the DM perspective. They were extremely uncomfortable and tried countless times to talk to players, but were just laughed at. If it's true (I hope it's just somebody's running joke), players sound like kind of a jerks
First story...wow. On the one hand, that's hilarious; on the other hand, as a bi guy, now I kinda wanna join the game just to see this firsthand. XD But yeah, that poor dm. Sounds like an awesome party in general, though.
Nemo-hose
".. doing a voice or dressing up" well dressing down is what happened ironically that's how to dress up a barbarian so....
So D&D meets Monster Hunter in the second story?
I mean technically y'all are professional ttrpgs, so this is professional advice.
Playing a sater and want to get into character? Buy some of those costume seder leg prosthetic stilt things, and walk around with backwards knees
Wife was fave
Such a shame story 2 had so much drama since they had the cool premise of getting to battle Monster Hunter monsters.
the player with the ranger needs new friends, especially cut ties with the monk player. that just feels off.
the neutral player was also an asshole and a hypocrite.
If one player does something that the party hated and doesn’t allow any form redemption of that character, then it’s time to scrap that character and make another one that doesn’t conflict with the rest of the party. No sense of keeping the character in the party that everyone but the player that’s playing the character hates. Most especially when there’s one person keeping the story going. The DM should at least done that much to prevent the outcome.
I do not know how an entire party treating ranger like that for months (or longer...) could claim to be good. Redemption is a core part for being good. They were AH's and used the "thats what my character would do" crap excuse to justify it. News flash, if your characters hated his character so much as to wish death then you would not adventure with him for months!!!
Apparently story 2 was cowrote by the ranger....I doubt that personally but that's what the op of the story claims. If so I suspect it's massively edited still.
Okay so the 2nd Story, I feel like the Ranger Player isn't an issue at all.
Let's be honest, we've all killed an NPC we probably shouldn't have, and we've all started unnecessary combat due to the details we were given. In the latter situation, Ranger killed what he thought was more of the same enemies the party had been fighting the entire time, cause everyone was dressed like those enemies, in cloak and hoods and crap. Can you blame him for accidentally starting the incident when the DM clearly described the situation as "It appears there are more of these enemies, doing a ritual", any PC could've started killing, and someone likely would've.
The Ranger's only crimes were killing 1 NPC, and accidentally starting combat due to party's lack of knowledge on the situation. Everyone else are assholes cause like "I saved you from death...like 30 times..." "I still f@cking hate you."
If the Ranger was doing crap every session, I could see the hate...but those were the only 2 crimes we were told...every other time he was helping the party...
Second story:
the party kinda sucks. Yes the Ranger killed an innocent NPC and did start a fight by trying to kill who what thought was a room full of the main antagonists, but they continuously tried to make up for it. Whether it was an in character choice or one the actual person felt bad for doing idk. But the Ranger tried many things to make up for it. Trying to adopt one of the kids, gifts to the party, healing the party, reviving the party (they would be dead if he chose not to), sparing the Monk after being challenged to a duel to the death, sparing a person and recruiting them instead of killing them. Yet none of that is good enough to make up for the murder of 1 NPC and starting a fight? Don’t get me wrong it’s one thing if he was irredeemable at first, but after all that I think you can say he redeemed himself. I get why the player feels like it’s a personal attack, after they made 2 main mistakes they then tried so many things to make up for it but it was never enough according to the party. The Ranger could have let the monk die instead of reviving them or could have killed them in the duel but they didn’t, yet the 1 time he dies, nobody does anything. After everything he did for them. It would be like making a mistake at your job, trying to make up for it by working harder and improving the company and making them money, and then they fire you anyways for that mistake you made. Yeah the player was a bit smug when they knew they could be revived with a scroll, they also embraced the line wolf stuff more by trying to solo monsters and just be better than everyone else. But that was partially due to the party ostracizing them for killing the NPC, and them never accepting anything when they would try to make up for their mistake. I see why the player took it as something against them because it’s hard not to feel like the other players might be against you when they exclude you within the game and refuse to allow you to try and change
Dang, that last story was really good. Also really solid advice guys. :D
more Norway
In the 2nd story, the players weren't roleplaying their characters. They were playing their opinions instead of their characters opinions. Bad job by the DM too. It's easy enough to branch new things to settle chaos. Where was the Cleric in all of this is what I want to know. A Cleric should have been able to redeem the Ranger or you're playing it wrong.
I'm going to take an unpopular stance and say that I think that second story isn't as cut and dry as it seems to be.
The person telling the story seems to be propping himself up as a neutral party; That, to me, says we're missing context.
A few things that make me think this was worse than what was said:
1.) We never actually get any in-character interaction quotes. It's all paraphrased. This makes me wonder if the ranger wasn't just kind of an a-hole, in terms of personality. Given the description of 'lone adventurer' type, I could easily see this being how he comes across to others.
2.) There's mention of the character using house-ruled items and abilities to accomplish tasks he really should not be able to do. This makes me think that some aspect of the character was a bit OP, potentially pushing it into Mary-sue territory. Those characters just aren't fun to play with, in general, especially when them being better than everyone else is one of their defining character traits. Comes off as pompous.
3.) Given the mention house-ruled items and abilities-and the DM's part in this never being mentioned-I can only assume part of the reason the party didn't like the character had to do with favoritism. In fact, there's a strong possibility that the party actually doesn't like this person in general, and them claiming they do at the end is just their way of making piece with a well-liked DM who wants to include a friend who doesn't mesh well with the rest of the group.
Just my way of reading things. In my experience, it's not easy to get an entire party upset at someone over a single action, even if it is a big deal. That usually requires constant issues occurring repeatedly.
Okay as far as the rangers concerned did that party not realize that the reason the GM was allowing these things was because the party was acting like crap. The player acted within the realms of the character. If they wanted the character out of the party then they should have said so. Instead they acted like pendulent children all the while making mistakes themselves. At the end of the day this is supposed to be a game amongst friends and they chose the opportunity to bully someone and be jerks . Let's not pretend if you've played d&d more than once you haven't murder hoboed yourself
I actually haven't "murder hoboed" (it's just not my cup of tea, I have no fun with it), but yeah this is definitely on the party. Ranger tried to make it up, you know like.... oh, what's the word? Character development? gosh in my DnD game? Absolutely not, how dare you even insinuate that! Nobody ever changes for the better after all. No, but seriously, if they were so annoyed at Ranger maybe opening their mouths and talking would have been better.
As a play I would have quite that group the moment I realised nobody was mature enough to tell me their grievance (instead taking it out on me in game), and as GM I would have nipped that behaviour the buttocks the moment I got wind of it. Nobody goes comes out of this story smelling like roses (tho some get of better than others), but darn they need to work on their communication skills!
Idk, it seemed like the Ranger had his fair share of issues too; butting heads with the monk; acting without talking to the party; trying to one up everyone in combat. It seems likely that they were likely to run into issues even without the baggage from the Rat Dad incident. As Duke said, nobody walked away form that story looking good, they all handled things poorly
That first story: Ladies and gentlemen...D&D with the...
Actually, pick one: Rippin' Friends, Chippendales, WWE...
Second story: Ranger...find a new group. Preferably one that wants you to play.
Tbf, the Ranger was also part of the problem; he acted without talking with the party twice; murdered an innocent NPC for really no good reason; min-maxed to be the one that dominates at combat; and decided to challenge something that was theoretically a lot more powerful than him to a 1v1, leaving the party to actually have not much more to do than just watch cause that's how a 1v1 works (he honestly kind of asked for it when he died to the Barrioth.)
@@homerman76 …while trying to make amends on multiple occasions to correct some of his actions. Yeah, you’re not wrong, but still…
@@homerman76 Even the OP admitted that the only reason Ranger became a min-maxer was because the rest of the group shut down all his attempts to role-play and thus being good at combat was all he had left.
If I was in the Rangers group play in I would have done something even worse than what the ranger did my character would have been completely evil and would have done absolutely nothing having a ritual ready to freaking Unleashed to turn every single person in the world completely evil will the sacrifice of the Ranger or one of the group members if the others actually let that person die and stay dead just to make them pay for being such assholes to this guy.😂lol.
2nd story players were assholes, good character should believe in redemption and forgiveness, they didnt and active jerks when he actively tried to do better
With the first story, the "bad" part of it is trying to shame the DM as being a buzzkill. If the DM was fine and it was one of the players, the player could just walk off. Because they're the DM, they're now trapped in an uncomfortable situation because if they leave, the game ends, and they probably care too much about the group to just end it there.
so, first story... as a DM I don't see an issue if all of the players do it... though if an enemy hits on a crit someone's getting a pink belly. As to the second one... so many things. As a player I would've said something when he killed the rat guy, probably out of character, maybe in, as a DM I would've asked his intentions the moment I saw a CN alignment
Yeah, the fact that nobody pulled the classic "Are you sure about that?" question is pretty crazy, kind of furthers the idea that they suck at communicating 😅
@@homerman76 I say that to my players all the time :)
If that happened to me, they would learn what happens when a pissed off artificer player gets creative. Kaboom!
Second story had one positive. They had a dislike towards the CHARACTER not the player. Sometimes these stories don't make that clear.
Yeah, it's always good when the players can make the two things distinct. I had one campaign where I'm fairly certain I got a bit of both, where one player hated just my character and then the DM hated my character and seemed to extend that to me (he seemed to have it out for me and tended to act like I was just some problem player, though me and the other players were never sure about what I did to earn his ire.)
Wow, I legit did something like that in my last session with the shirt thing. I received a sword that shines dim light in a 15 feet radius. It was a greatsword that we took from a crypt. It also came without a sheath. We had to be stealthy, but the light was giving away our position. So, we came up with the idea that I had to have my barbarian rip his shirt off to cover the light. And that happened last Sunday as of writing this comment. DM found it hilarious as did all the other players.