The question the player should state, not ask for, in open, just at the beginning of the next session is "You know, I have decided to take a similar boon as your wife and "will fix" my ability z, that is at an 8, as I took that in my backstory as super low, but it was implicit, not explicit. I will be making that 8 a 16." Then have each and every other player at the table do it.
Now, that will blow up the game, but it why play in a game where there is such open favouritism? What happens if the DM rolls a 20 on some attack against the wife, or the wife rolls badly on some key savings throw? Or does the DM make sure the monsters avoid attacks against her?
Perhaps something like the Bard's player explaining, e.g., "My Bard is more persuasive than your Monk, yes, but they also can't take a hit nearly as well, and can't hit even half as hard, either. I made my Bard weak there so they could be more persuasive,"
Unfortunately, we've tried this approach. She's just not open to the idea of "give-and-take" for example, She could build out the PERFECT range rogue build that maximizes sneak attack from a distance without getting hurt, and she would STILL complain that she "doesn't have much to do in melee"
Or she would want to build a support cleric (healer) and then complain that her "weapon attacks weren't the best"
I strongly doubt her decision was based on her disliking her monks original build, but rather she doesn't want to be BAD in anything. (or rather, she wants to be GOOD at EVERYTHING)
Also worth noting, I don't think I've ever seen her fail a skill check. Or any other d20 roll where the DM sets the DC. Even with a 7 the DM will say something along the lines of "Well it wasn't a really hard check anyway..." and describe the success. Meanwhile the bard tried convincing an NPC who had no connections anywhere else, had a really good relationship with the party, AND had a stake in the quest, to come along with us on our ship (not even as a party member, just as a crewmember) and the DM told the bard that their 24 persuasion check "awwwww just missed it"
Unfortunately this post really and truly is just me venting because this incident is really just a symptom of a much larger problem with her competitiveness and I KNOW that because she has him CONVINCED that she's always right, bringing this up will just make HIM mad as he will immediately take his side. So I think the only solution is to say "Oh well, at least he isn't actively NERFING our characters. If she needs to be the best in order to keep the game going, screw it. It doesn't ruin the game necessarily, just annoying lol"
The question the player should state, not ask for, in open, just at the beginning of the next session is "You know, I have decided to take a similar boon as your wife and "will fix" my ability z, that is at an 8, as I took that in my backstory as super low, but it was implicit, not explicit. I will be making that 8 a 16." Then have each and every other player at the table do it.
Now, that will blow up the game, but it why play in a game where there is such open favouritism? What happens if the DM rolls a 20 on some attack against the wife, or the wife rolls badly on some key savings throw? Or does the DM make sure the monsters avoid attacks against her?
That is beyond extreme for the situation. That's literally the mic drop leaving the group. This sounds like a first significant issue in a game with friends, needs discussion well before ultimatums putting the dm on the spot.
The question the player should state, not ask for, in open, just at the beginning of the next session is "You know, I have decided to take a similar boon as your wife and "will fix" my ability z, that is at an 8, as I took that in my backstory as super low, but it was implicit, not explicit. I will be making that 8 a 16." Then have each and every other player at the table do it.
Now, that will blow up the game, but it why play in a game where there is such open favouritism? What happens if the DM rolls a 20 on some attack against the wife, or the wife rolls badly on some key savings throw? Or does the DM make sure the monsters avoid attacks against her?
That is beyond extreme for the situation. That's literally the mic drop leaving the group. This sounds like a first significant issue in a game with friends, needs discussion well before ultimatums putting the dm on the spot.
Read the post just above mine by Le Battery, then get back to me.
I don't know that you can fix this. I suspect talking will not work, because of this...
I would pretty much expect a "I know, I'm really sorry, but she was making my life a misery at home, what else could I do?" or something similar.
I completely agree, that is going to be the answer.
D&D is not the place for competitive behavior, but you have a case in which the DM's wife is the one being competitive. He's not going to be able to take it away now that he gave it to her. The DM's only possible solution here is to give everyone else +4 in 2 stats if they want, or raise everyone's 2 lowest stats to 12, or something. This will OP the party but, IMO, the DM deserves to deal with an OP party because of what he has done.
That probably won't fix the problem though, because if she is that competitive, then she will want even more points because she wants to be BETTER than you guys. I don't see any way to solve this. The normal means of solution, having the DM deal with the player, are not going to work with the wrong sort of husband/wife dynamic. Which it sounds like you have here.
I'm afraid your choices are very limited. You can either, (a) accept it and keep playing, and just make your peace with the unfairness, or (b) leave the group. If you want to make sure you don't damage your friendship, you will have to be coy about why you are leaving or maybe even outright lie -- if you say "I am leaving the game because you are giving unfair special treatment to your wife," you can expect your friendship to be over. So you'll need to be vague about it, "I'm just not enjoying D&D right now in my life" or something, or even outright lie and say you can't make it on game night anymore.
I wish I had a better solution for you but I do not.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
This sounds like a first significant issue in a game with friends, needs discussion well before ultimatums putting the dm on the spot.
Oh, this is clearly not the first significant issue. It's just the straw that broke the dragon's back.
This is a very painful situation. Outside of D&D, the OP is good friends with these people. But inside the game, they are engaging in very destructive table behaviors.
Again, you either have to just resign yourself to put up with this, or leave the group. Me... I'd probably leave. But I say that, having put up with stuff like this when I was younger for years, because leaving can often destroy the whole friendship. Easy to say, VERY hard to do.
OP, remember what Matt Coleville always says, though: No D&D is better than bad D&D.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
The question the player should state, not ask for, in open, just at the beginning of the next session is "You know, I have decided to take a similar boon as your wife and "will fix" my ability z, that is at an 8, as I took that in my backstory as super low, but it was implicit, not explicit. I will be making that 8 a 16." Then have each and every other player at the table do it.
Now, that will blow up the game, but it why play in a game where there is such open favouritism? What happens if the DM rolls a 20 on some attack against the wife, or the wife rolls badly on some key savings throw? Or does the DM make sure the monsters avoid attacks against her?
That is beyond extreme for the situation. That's literally the mic drop leaving the group. This sounds like a first significant issue in a game with friends, needs discussion well before ultimatums putting the dm on the spot.
Read the post just above mine by Le Battery, then get back to me.
Just saw the post above mine (must have posted while I was writing) it's probably time for them to walk, although I still say handle it privately rather than make it blow up at the table.
Another option would be to make the suggestion that the current GM take a break so that another player can have the opportunity to try running a game for a bit.
Another option would be to make the suggestion that the current GM take a break so that another player can have the opportunity to try running a game for a bit.
This might possibly work... but probably not. You could try it. Nothing to lose.
The reason I say probably not is, the wife is now spoiled by the husband's tolerance of her muchkinism. She will expect other DMs to be similarly tolerant. Either the new one will be, and your problem continues, or won't be, and the wife will almost certainly become unhappy, possibly to the point of either quitting, or threatening, or throwing an adult tantrum. Again, I've seen it before. Not with a married couple... But in my old Champions group, the GMs were me, Tolerant Guy, and Cheater Guy. Cheater Guy rarely GMed, and was terrible at it, but mostly played, and cheated with his Endurance and his Stun and other such things (made up characters that were not game-legal in our campaign, etc.). Tolerant Guy put up with it, and because there were 2 of them, when I objected to things they would out-vote me. Then Great GM Guy started playing with us and offered to GM, and refused to tolerate Cheater Guy's nonsense. What happened? Cheater Guy left.
You can't fix problems like this at the table very easily, because the wife's issue is one that, quite frankly, probably requires professional counseling, which the people at your table are not qualified to provide. In-game or even at-table solutions do not work to solve personality defects in another human being.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I still think that, if this is a really close friend, it's worth discussing with him in private, away from the rest of the group or his wife. My closest friends would always respect that, as long as the discussions were kept respectful and tactful. He is likely to be understanding and sympathetic, even if he doesn't think he can do anything. However, between you it may be possible to puzzle out a solution.
At the moment, it sounds to me like there is a very slim window when it may be possible to do something constructive. You've not been combative, you can approach things calmly and even sympathetically. You've not take detailed transcripts and written a thesis on why his wife should be booted out of the game. I really think that you have a slim but significant chance to improve things for your friend, yourself, the group, and maybe even his wife.
I still think that, if this is a really close friend, it's worth discussing with him in private, away from the rest of the group or his wife. My closest friends would always respect that, as long as the discussions were kept respectful and tactful. He is likely to be understanding and sympathetic, even if he doesn't think he can do anything.
I mean.. maybe. The rare experiences I have had with this, the person always sides with their spouse over their friend. Even if they think the friend is right, they have to live with the spouse, the spouse is the mother or father of their children, and the spouse, of course, possesses way more ability to make their life miserable than the friend does.
OP, you know your friend better than we do. It's a risk... only you know how much of one.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
And again, this thread was mostly a vent of frustration... The favoritism goes even beyond giving her 4 ASI's at once into less mechanical stuff.
Her character is literally the main character in the story. Every time some backstory relevance appears for another character, hers is somehow tied in and more important. For example, our Bard is a Changling who made this really cool backstory where she fell in love at a young age with a really ambitious man who eventually became a powerful wizard who only used her for her talents and when she ceased being of use to him, he attempted to kill her and now she's in hiding from this horrible relationship and the spy network they formed together. We met an agent of this Wizard Ex and did he try to further the Bard's story? No, he asked her to send data and spy on the Monk (wife) because she was key to some scheme.
My fighter Boris, an ex soldier who lost his wife and kid because of consequences he brought upon himself for his violent youth and has since become more of a pacifist to atone had a run in with his dead wife's brother who blames Boris for his sister dying. Did this become a moment of Boris development? No because this guy was only here to deliver the Monk's secret brother and further the story that they were both lab experiments.
Our Artificer, the second son of a family whose first born is the equivalent of a general for their nation. He's always lived in his brother's (who is terrible) shadow and has strived to make him self better. We had an antagonistic run-in with his brother and the brother did more talking about the importance of Monk than he did even look at artificer
CURRENTLY we're going to a massive prison to break out My fighter (Boris) while I'm playing a backup Character. And SOMEHOW this prison is just a front for the Monk's father doing experiments and now we have to attack the prison for her backstory reasons
So its FAR more than just "a +1 instead of -1" Or minor mechanical favoritism.
Plus, As I said earlier, I don't think I've EVER seen her fail a skill check... even with small single digit rolls, the DM stretches to make them succeed.
You need to stop playing with this group, if the favoritism is this bad. The DM is not going to change, and it is ruining your own enjoyment of the game. To quote Matt Coleville for the umpteenth time on this forum, "No D&D is preferable to bad D&D." My advice is to quit the group. Yes, it'll be hard, but that's what I'd do. If you do so, you will need to decide how up-front you are going to be about why you are quitting. If you tell the truth, odds are you will jeopardize your friendship with these people. If it were my group, and I was having to leave because a good friend was an awful GM, well... I'm a little ashamed to admit that I would probably just lie and say "I can't commit to this session every week anymore and I don't want to drag down the group." Because I'd want to try and keep them as friends outside the game. Unless you don't, in which case I'd say, have at it.
But I also want to say something else, which is not 100% on topic but because you bring up all the backgrounds... It sounds like maybe all of you made backgrounds that were too involved for a D&D campaign. You are seeing why right now -- because to develop one player's BG, the other BGs have to be sidelined. You start doing whole adventurers about the character's BGs. Well, maybe that is what the table wants, but it sounds like you really don't. BG-heavy campaigns are going to put individual characters into the spotlight sometimes for months at a time (session after session) while sidelining the other characters.
My feeling on this is you need just enough to start with as a background -- a reason why the character chose to take up this class/profession, and why this character is an adventurer. That's it. Any more than that is unnecessary and is going to force the DM to start doing stuff like this. Now your DM is doing it in the extreme and overly favoring his wife, which is bad. But surely the same feelings would have been present in the wife and the artificer's player and any other players you have at the table, if the same sort of focus had been put onto you.
As players, the temptation is always to make the sort of background one would make for a protagonist in a novel or a movie, but in D&D, which is a co-op game played by a group, your character is not the protagonist. We see how unpleasant this is taken to the extreme with the wife as a protagonist. And that's why for a background, it's usually best if one does not make up a character who could be a protagonist in a novel.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
You need to stop playing with this group, if the favoritism is this bad. The DM is not going to change, and it is ruining your own enjoyment of the game. To quote Matt Coleville for the umpteenth time on this forum, "No D&D is preferable to bad D&D." My advice is to quit the group. Yes, it'll be hard, but that's what I'd do. If you do so, you will need to decide how up-front you are going to be about why you are quitting. If you tell the truth, odds are you will jeopardize your friendship with these people. If it were my group, and I was having to leave because a good friend was an awful GM, well... I'm a little ashamed to admit that I would probably just lie and say "I can't commit to this session every week anymore and I don't want to drag down the group." Because I'd want to try and keep them as friends outside the game. Unless you don't, in which case I'd say, have at it.
But I also want to say something else, which is not 100% on topic but because you bring up all the backgrounds... It sounds like maybe all of you made backgrounds that were too involved for a D&D campaign. You are seeing why right now -- because to develop one player's BG, the other BGs have to be sidelined. You start doing whole adventurers about the character's BGs. Well, maybe that is what the table wants, but it sounds like you really don't. BG-heavy campaigns are going to put individual characters into the spotlight sometimes for months at a time (session after session) while sidelining the other characters.
My feeling on this is you need just enough to start with as a background -- a reason why the character chose to take up this class/profession, and why this character is an adventurer. That's it. Any more than that is unnecessary and is going to force the DM to start doing stuff like this. Now your DM is doing it in the extreme and overly favoring his wife, which is bad. But surely the same feelings would have been present in the wife and the artificer's player and any other players you have at the table, if the same sort of focus had been put onto you.
As players, the temptation is always to make the sort of background one would make for a protagonist in a novel or a movie, but in D&D, which is a co-op game played by a group, your character is not the protagonist. We see how unpleasant this is taken to the extreme with the wife as a protagonist. And that's why for a background, it's usually best if one does not make up a character who could be a protagonist in a novel.
That's the thing though. In our group we are ENCOURAGED to make complex stories. This is a group of about 7 people and we play 2 different campaigns on alternating saturdays. One is the topic of this post, and the other is one that I DM. We are ALL the only DnD group we've ALL ever had so our entire context of DnD is based on what we've done. We were also all friends BEFORE DnD. We are currently on my 3rd campaign (levels 1-12 for the first, 1-20 for the second, currently at 4) and his 2nd (1-17 for the first currently at 11) So Needless to say, I've played A LOT with this same group.
Part of what we all agree on as "our type of fun" is having a "main story" with individual "character stories" scattered within (think like a Bioware game if you've ever played one). Both Me AND this DM actively encourage backstories containing future plot hooks, potential obstacles, BBEGS etc... Because we (me and this DM) both enjoy working a story around the characters.
The issue is really just in THIS particular campaign he's made his wife front and center. Backing out of it isn't an option because If I were to back out of his, they'd prolly back out of mine, and the weekly DnD would be gone and I don't have another friend group lol
The reason I keep bringing up that this is a venting thread is because I already KNOW my solution is just gonna be to suck it up! This isn't "Ruining my fun" we still have a blast and laugh the whole time we play. This is more like an annoyance... often times myself (and other players) find ourselves thinking "of coooooourse Monk was the key the whole time, who else?" or something along those lines. But our main reason for playing is to hang out and have a good time so as long as that keeps happening I'm not gonna risk friendship over bias in a game lol
Ok. More or less unfair, but... if the DM's your friend, just press him for amends when his wife isn't in game.
He shouldn't have let her go with max-mins of 8 on CHA and INT... which are negative adjustments/penalties every time she opened her mouth. He must have gotten a lot of grief along the lines of:
wife: "Why are you always rolling reaction and intelligence checks? You don't do that with other party members!"
DM (husband): "Because your character has a below average INT and CHA... & you're not supposed to KNOW I'm even doing it!"
Wife: "minus 1 isn't THAT below average... men are just intimidated by a woman who can kick ass."
Mr. DM: "..it's an ability check on a d20, it doesn't have anything to do with you being a woman! "
Wife: "<skeptical snort> right.... way to Mansplain."
Mr. DM <pleading> : "Your character is a FAILED experiment! The Bride of Frankenstein isn't supposed to be Smart & Pretty!"
Mrs. DM: "So it's ok for a female Monk to kick ass, but the ENTIRE DnD Universe is SO insecure that they have negative reactions? And I'm not brain damaged, I must be DUMB!"
"Mr. DM: "Not YOU, personally. Your character! You're supposed to role-play that background! If you'd ..."
"Mrs. Dm: "...Oh, now you're insulting my character, as well as my intelligence and looks! How about if I tell the party how you like me to roll-play when you aren't the DM?"
"Mr. Dm: "Oh, sweet jesus! I'm never going to win this argument, am I?"
"Mrs. Dm: "nope. Not until you fix my Monks flaws to make her at least average."
"Mr. Dm: "You know how patently unfair that is to everyone else right?"
Mrs. Dm: "You're not MARRIED to them! They don't <explicit marital content> or let you <more explicit content> with your <ibid>!"
lolol. Instead of being angry, you should let his wife make all the Party Treasure rolls.
"Now that's your Monk isn't stupid and ugly anymore, you should wear sexier armor!"
"She doesn't wear armor, so I vote we get her totally seductive, revealing outfits. It only makes sense that your character would go through the old: "I used to be an ugly duckling, but now I'm a Swanmay!" phase."
"What are you suggesting, that my Monk break-bad and start pole dancing?"
"Nothing so lurid... just Fan Service, you know!?"
"The female barbarian has a lower CHA than you, and she's always offering to sleep with NPCs!" etc. "Like Sandra Bullock in Ms. Congeniality!" "Yeah!" "Miss New Jersey!" "I'm sure your husband... er, I mean the DM will allow some sexy cosplay bonuses if it means he gets to see the real thing!" "It'd be like, 'she's a Victoria Secret model, but also can knock you out like an MMA Queen!" lol. If you can't beat 'em, exploit the piss out of them to make the game more amusing!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Desitutus ventis, remos adhibe” When the Winds fail you, row.
The reason I keep bringing up that this is a venting thread is because I already KNOW my solution is just gonna be to suck it up! This isn't "Ruining my fun" we still have a blast and laugh the whole time we play. This is more like an annoyance
OK then. No advice needed. Nothing to see here. Move along....
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Playing devils advocate regarding the DM's handling of the backstories, perhaps they have an amazing plan to entwine everyone's backstories into one mixed-up mess, where the characters come to realise that they have been linked by fate since before even they met? That's why the stories seem to be revolving around the monk; it's not (entirely) favoritism, it's the DM trying to give the players a big reveal and that massive dose of endorphins that comes from the act of figuring out how it all links together.
Perhaps step back from the events you've gone through in this group and look at them with the characters detached from who's playing them - perhaps the DM is knee deep in what he thought was an amazing plot, and is having to see the table attribute every story linking to the monk as "oh, it's his wife again, how about that" instead of "Wait, you know him? He's my evil brother! How do you know him?".
I imaging that if I were trying to weave an intricate storyline that linked all the characters backstories, I would feel somewhat bad if everyone just kept attributing it to me trying to show favoritism for my partner. I have in fact got a storyline link planned for my current campaign, which also links one players backstory to that of my partner, so I hope that the other players don't think I'm giving her the spotlight. Though that said, it's more of her past coming to haunt her than it being all about her.
Just a thought. Looking back, could this be what's going on with the backstories?
The question the player should state, not ask for, in open, just at the beginning of the next session is "You know, I have decided to take a similar boon as your wife and "will fix" my ability z, that is at an 8, as I took that in my backstory as super low, but it was implicit, not explicit. I will be making that 8 a 16." Then have each and every other player at the table do it.
Now, that will blow up the game, but it why play in a game where there is such open favouritism? What happens if the DM rolls a 20 on some attack against the wife, or the wife rolls badly on some key savings throw? Or does the DM make sure the monsters avoid attacks against her?
Unfortunately, we've tried this approach. She's just not open to the idea of "give-and-take" for example, She could build out the PERFECT range rogue build that maximizes sneak attack from a distance without getting hurt, and she would STILL complain that she "doesn't have much to do in melee"
Or she would want to build a support cleric (healer) and then complain that her "weapon attacks weren't the best"
I strongly doubt her decision was based on her disliking her monks original build, but rather she doesn't want to be BAD in anything. (or rather, she wants to be GOOD at EVERYTHING)
Also worth noting, I don't think I've ever seen her fail a skill check. Or any other d20 roll where the DM sets the DC. Even with a 7 the DM will say something along the lines of "Well it wasn't a really hard check anyway..." and describe the success. Meanwhile the bard tried convincing an NPC who had no connections anywhere else, had a really good relationship with the party, AND had a stake in the quest, to come along with us on our ship (not even as a party member, just as a crewmember) and the DM told the bard that their 24 persuasion check "awwwww just missed it"
Unfortunately this post really and truly is just me venting because this incident is really just a symptom of a much larger problem with her competitiveness and I KNOW that because she has him CONVINCED that she's always right, bringing this up will just make HIM mad as he will immediately take his side. So I think the only solution is to say "Oh well, at least he isn't actively NERFING our characters. If she needs to be the best in order to keep the game going, screw it. It doesn't ruin the game necessarily, just annoying lol"
That is beyond extreme for the situation. That's literally the mic drop leaving the group. This sounds like a first significant issue in a game with friends, needs discussion well before ultimatums putting the dm on the spot.
Read the post just above mine by Le Battery, then get back to me.
I don't know that you can fix this. I suspect talking will not work, because of this...
I completely agree, that is going to be the answer.
D&D is not the place for competitive behavior, but you have a case in which the DM's wife is the one being competitive. He's not going to be able to take it away now that he gave it to her. The DM's only possible solution here is to give everyone else +4 in 2 stats if they want, or raise everyone's 2 lowest stats to 12, or something. This will OP the party but, IMO, the DM deserves to deal with an OP party because of what he has done.
That probably won't fix the problem though, because if she is that competitive, then she will want even more points because she wants to be BETTER than you guys. I don't see any way to solve this. The normal means of solution, having the DM deal with the player, are not going to work with the wrong sort of husband/wife dynamic. Which it sounds like you have here.
I'm afraid your choices are very limited. You can either, (a) accept it and keep playing, and just make your peace with the unfairness, or (b) leave the group. If you want to make sure you don't damage your friendship, you will have to be coy about why you are leaving or maybe even outright lie -- if you say "I am leaving the game because you are giving unfair special treatment to your wife," you can expect your friendship to be over. So you'll need to be vague about it, "I'm just not enjoying D&D right now in my life" or something, or even outright lie and say you can't make it on game night anymore.
I wish I had a better solution for you but I do not.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Oh, this is clearly not the first significant issue. It's just the straw that broke the dragon's back.
This is a very painful situation. Outside of D&D, the OP is good friends with these people. But inside the game, they are engaging in very destructive table behaviors.
Again, you either have to just resign yourself to put up with this, or leave the group. Me... I'd probably leave. But I say that, having put up with stuff like this when I was younger for years, because leaving can often destroy the whole friendship. Easy to say, VERY hard to do.
OP, remember what Matt Coleville always says, though: No D&D is better than bad D&D.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Just saw the post above mine (must have posted while I was writing) it's probably time for them to walk, although I still say handle it privately rather than make it blow up at the table.
Another option would be to make the suggestion that the current GM take a break so that another player can have the opportunity to try running a game for a bit.
This might possibly work... but probably not. You could try it. Nothing to lose.
The reason I say probably not is, the wife is now spoiled by the husband's tolerance of her muchkinism. She will expect other DMs to be similarly tolerant. Either the new one will be, and your problem continues, or won't be, and the wife will almost certainly become unhappy, possibly to the point of either quitting, or threatening, or throwing an adult tantrum. Again, I've seen it before. Not with a married couple... But in my old Champions group, the GMs were me, Tolerant Guy, and Cheater Guy. Cheater Guy rarely GMed, and was terrible at it, but mostly played, and cheated with his Endurance and his Stun and other such things (made up characters that were not game-legal in our campaign, etc.). Tolerant Guy put up with it, and because there were 2 of them, when I objected to things they would out-vote me. Then Great GM Guy started playing with us and offered to GM, and refused to tolerate Cheater Guy's nonsense. What happened? Cheater Guy left.
You can't fix problems like this at the table very easily, because the wife's issue is one that, quite frankly, probably requires professional counseling, which the people at your table are not qualified to provide. In-game or even at-table solutions do not work to solve personality defects in another human being.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I still think that, if this is a really close friend, it's worth discussing with him in private, away from the rest of the group or his wife. My closest friends would always respect that, as long as the discussions were kept respectful and tactful. He is likely to be understanding and sympathetic, even if he doesn't think he can do anything. However, between you it may be possible to puzzle out a solution.
At the moment, it sounds to me like there is a very slim window when it may be possible to do something constructive. You've not been combative, you can approach things calmly and even sympathetically. You've not take detailed transcripts and written a thesis on why his wife should be booted out of the game. I really think that you have a slim but significant chance to improve things for your friend, yourself, the group, and maybe even his wife.
I mean.. maybe. The rare experiences I have had with this, the person always sides with their spouse over their friend. Even if they think the friend is right, they have to live with the spouse, the spouse is the mother or father of their children, and the spouse, of course, possesses way more ability to make their life miserable than the friend does.
OP, you know your friend better than we do. It's a risk... only you know how much of one.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
And again, this thread was mostly a vent of frustration... The favoritism goes even beyond giving her 4 ASI's at once into less mechanical stuff.
Her character is literally the main character in the story. Every time some backstory relevance appears for another character, hers is somehow tied in and more important. For example, our Bard is a Changling who made this really cool backstory where she fell in love at a young age with a really ambitious man who eventually became a powerful wizard who only used her for her talents and when she ceased being of use to him, he attempted to kill her and now she's in hiding from this horrible relationship and the spy network they formed together. We met an agent of this Wizard Ex and did he try to further the Bard's story? No, he asked her to send data and spy on the Monk (wife) because she was key to some scheme.
My fighter Boris, an ex soldier who lost his wife and kid because of consequences he brought upon himself for his violent youth and has since become more of a pacifist to atone had a run in with his dead wife's brother who blames Boris for his sister dying. Did this become a moment of Boris development? No because this guy was only here to deliver the Monk's secret brother and further the story that they were both lab experiments.
Our Artificer, the second son of a family whose first born is the equivalent of a general for their nation. He's always lived in his brother's (who is terrible) shadow and has strived to make him self better. We had an antagonistic run-in with his brother and the brother did more talking about the importance of Monk than he did even look at artificer
CURRENTLY we're going to a massive prison to break out My fighter (Boris) while I'm playing a backup Character. And SOMEHOW this prison is just a front for the Monk's father doing experiments and now we have to attack the prison for her backstory reasons
So its FAR more than just "a +1 instead of -1" Or minor mechanical favoritism.
Plus, As I said earlier, I don't think I've EVER seen her fail a skill check... even with small single digit rolls, the DM stretches to make them succeed.
You need to stop playing with this group, if the favoritism is this bad. The DM is not going to change, and it is ruining your own enjoyment of the game. To quote Matt Coleville for the umpteenth time on this forum, "No D&D is preferable to bad D&D." My advice is to quit the group. Yes, it'll be hard, but that's what I'd do. If you do so, you will need to decide how up-front you are going to be about why you are quitting. If you tell the truth, odds are you will jeopardize your friendship with these people. If it were my group, and I was having to leave because a good friend was an awful GM, well... I'm a little ashamed to admit that I would probably just lie and say "I can't commit to this session every week anymore and I don't want to drag down the group." Because I'd want to try and keep them as friends outside the game. Unless you don't, in which case I'd say, have at it.
But I also want to say something else, which is not 100% on topic but because you bring up all the backgrounds... It sounds like maybe all of you made backgrounds that were too involved for a D&D campaign. You are seeing why right now -- because to develop one player's BG, the other BGs have to be sidelined. You start doing whole adventurers about the character's BGs. Well, maybe that is what the table wants, but it sounds like you really don't. BG-heavy campaigns are going to put individual characters into the spotlight sometimes for months at a time (session after session) while sidelining the other characters.
My feeling on this is you need just enough to start with as a background -- a reason why the character chose to take up this class/profession, and why this character is an adventurer. That's it. Any more than that is unnecessary and is going to force the DM to start doing stuff like this. Now your DM is doing it in the extreme and overly favoring his wife, which is bad. But surely the same feelings would have been present in the wife and the artificer's player and any other players you have at the table, if the same sort of focus had been put onto you.
As players, the temptation is always to make the sort of background one would make for a protagonist in a novel or a movie, but in D&D, which is a co-op game played by a group, your character is not the protagonist. We see how unpleasant this is taken to the extreme with the wife as a protagonist. And that's why for a background, it's usually best if one does not make up a character who could be a protagonist in a novel.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
You seem to be well into have a quiet talk with the dm, and probably bow out as gracefully as you can to enjoy other hobbies with your friend.
That's the thing though. In our group we are ENCOURAGED to make complex stories. This is a group of about 7 people and we play 2 different campaigns on alternating saturdays. One is the topic of this post, and the other is one that I DM. We are ALL the only DnD group we've ALL ever had so our entire context of DnD is based on what we've done. We were also all friends BEFORE DnD. We are currently on my 3rd campaign (levels 1-12 for the first, 1-20 for the second, currently at 4) and his 2nd (1-17 for the first currently at 11) So Needless to say, I've played A LOT with this same group.
Part of what we all agree on as "our type of fun" is having a "main story" with individual "character stories" scattered within (think like a Bioware game if you've ever played one). Both Me AND this DM actively encourage backstories containing future plot hooks, potential obstacles, BBEGS etc... Because we (me and this DM) both enjoy working a story around the characters.
The issue is really just in THIS particular campaign he's made his wife front and center. Backing out of it isn't an option because If I were to back out of his, they'd prolly back out of mine, and the weekly DnD would be gone and I don't have another friend group lol
The reason I keep bringing up that this is a venting thread is because I already KNOW my solution is just gonna be to suck it up! This isn't "Ruining my fun" we still have a blast and laugh the whole time we play. This is more like an annoyance... often times myself (and other players) find ourselves thinking "of coooooourse Monk was the key the whole time, who else?" or something along those lines. But our main reason for playing is to hang out and have a good time so as long as that keeps happening I'm not gonna risk friendship over bias in a game lol
Ok. More or less unfair, but... if the DM's your friend, just press him for amends when his wife isn't in game.
He shouldn't have let her go with max-mins of 8 on CHA and INT... which are negative adjustments/penalties every time she opened her mouth. He must have gotten a lot of grief along the lines of:
wife: "Why are you always rolling reaction and intelligence checks? You don't do that with other party members!"
DM (husband): "Because your character has a below average INT and CHA... & you're not supposed to KNOW I'm even doing it!"
Wife: "minus 1 isn't THAT below average... men are just intimidated by a woman who can kick ass."
Mr. DM: "..it's an ability check on a d20, it doesn't have anything to do with you being a woman! "
Wife: "<skeptical snort> right.... way to Mansplain."
Mr. DM <pleading> : "Your character is a FAILED experiment! The Bride of Frankenstein isn't supposed to be Smart & Pretty!"
Mrs. DM: "So it's ok for a female Monk to kick ass, but the ENTIRE DnD Universe is SO insecure that they have negative reactions? And I'm not brain damaged, I must be DUMB!"
"Mr. DM: "Not YOU, personally. Your character! You're supposed to role-play that background! If you'd ..."
"Mrs. Dm: "...Oh, now you're insulting my character, as well as my intelligence and looks! How about if I tell the party how you like me to roll-play when you aren't the DM?"
"Mr. Dm: "Oh, sweet jesus! I'm never going to win this argument, am I?"
"Mrs. Dm: "nope. Not until you fix my Monks flaws to make her at least average."
"Mr. Dm: "You know how patently unfair that is to everyone else right?"
Mrs. Dm: "You're not MARRIED to them! They don't <explicit marital content> or let you <more explicit content> with your <ibid>!"
lolol. Instead of being angry, you should let his wife make all the Party Treasure rolls.
"Now that's your Monk isn't stupid and ugly anymore, you should wear sexier armor!"
"She doesn't wear armor, so I vote we get her totally seductive, revealing outfits. It only makes sense that your character would go through the old: "I used to be an ugly duckling, but now I'm a Swanmay!" phase."
"What are you suggesting, that my Monk break-bad and start pole dancing?"
"Nothing so lurid... just Fan Service, you know!?"
"The female barbarian has a lower CHA than you, and she's always offering to sleep with NPCs!" etc. "Like Sandra Bullock in Ms. Congeniality!" "Yeah!" "Miss New Jersey!" "I'm sure your husband... er, I mean the DM will allow some sexy cosplay bonuses if it means he gets to see the real thing!" "It'd be like, 'she's a Victoria Secret model, but also can knock you out like an MMA Queen!" lol. If you can't beat 'em, exploit the piss out of them to make the game more amusing!
“Desitutus ventis, remos adhibe”
When the Winds fail you, row.
OK then. No advice needed. Nothing to see here. Move along....
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Playing devils advocate regarding the DM's handling of the backstories, perhaps they have an amazing plan to entwine everyone's backstories into one mixed-up mess, where the characters come to realise that they have been linked by fate since before even they met? That's why the stories seem to be revolving around the monk; it's not (entirely) favoritism, it's the DM trying to give the players a big reveal and that massive dose of endorphins that comes from the act of figuring out how it all links together.
Perhaps step back from the events you've gone through in this group and look at them with the characters detached from who's playing them - perhaps the DM is knee deep in what he thought was an amazing plot, and is having to see the table attribute every story linking to the monk as "oh, it's his wife again, how about that" instead of "Wait, you know him? He's my evil brother! How do you know him?".
I imaging that if I were trying to weave an intricate storyline that linked all the characters backstories, I would feel somewhat bad if everyone just kept attributing it to me trying to show favoritism for my partner. I have in fact got a storyline link planned for my current campaign, which also links one players backstory to that of my partner, so I hope that the other players don't think I'm giving her the spotlight. Though that said, it's more of her past coming to haunt her than it being all about her.
Just a thought. Looking back, could this be what's going on with the backstories?
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!