P.s. as far as I'm aware, once removed from the campaign you still have access to say race, class features and any equipment the character currently has, but I believe spells and feats are removed, which would make it easy to re-activate the character if the content was purchased. (Maybe a bit harder for a wizards spell book)
I am pretty sure all feats stay. I think spells should probably stay too, although I cannot confirm that one.
I remember making a copy of the old Oath of Heroism UA for another forum member because it was archived and they could not access it anymore. I was not sure if he or she wanted anything else for the character, so I threw in every non UA feat into the copy and I remember reading they removed all of it.
But yeah, in regards to the OP, I do not think they did anything wrong since they bore the entire cost of the Legendary Bundle. While I am not sure I would delete all the offending characters, I would definitely kick all the offending players out and change the share link at the bare minimum. I personally do not mind it if players want to create characters temporarily in my campaign and then move them elsewhere, but I would not be happy if I just see a non-campaign character just parked there in my campaign for like forever. Like, I am fine with people eating in my car, but do not leave a mess behind for me to clean up.
I mean, you did the right thing. You gave them two weeks notice, they didn’t listen and they got mad at them being slighted over your generosity having limits.
Like you can take it a step further, you probably go to a game shop(a public space), where they barely buy anything except maybe a snack/drink or two, spend HOURS there, and then leave. The amount they contribute to that business is probably on the same level they contributed toward your financial facilitation of their roleplay experience. I understand wanting to get more people in the hobby but at the end, you paid for the ability to use that content. They are leeching off that generosity. FOH.
While I am not sure I would delete all the offending characters, I would definitely kick all the offending players out and change the share link at the bare minimum.
Well I don't think that's an option given it sounds like he still plays with these people, but yeah booting the characters then deleting them if they come back would be more reasonable.
As I see it the players are in the wrong, however the OP handled the situation rather badly given the other avenues they had available.
While I am not sure I would delete all the offending characters, I would definitely kick all the offending players out and change the share link at the bare minimum.
Well I don't think that's an option given it sounds like he still plays with these people, but yeah booting the characters then deleting them if they come back would be more reasonable.
As I see it the players are in the wrong, however the OP handled the situation rather badly given the other avenues they had available.
The owner of the content, gave two weeks for them to remedy the grievance. They chose not to remedy. They no longer have content.
I didn't see a clear answer here, but is there a limit on Characters in a campaign? I know there currently is a limit to 12 users (individual accounts) that are connected to a campaign, but haven't run into any limit on the number of characters a user can make in that campaign. I have one campaign for my local game store group that has 8 users and 24 characters. A couple folks have 4-5 characters "in the campaign". This hasn't seem to have limited other users from joining or making characters.
I had assumed users were limited to 12, but there was no limit on the number of characters. Is this incorrect?
This isn't to say the OP isn't justified. They own the content and can manage the content how they see fit. They identified concerns about the content and gave their players time to fix it. However, the concerns might be different if there's functionally no limit to the number of characters which can be connected to a campaign.
Even if there are infinite characters allowed for each player in a campaign, the players do not have the right to just abuse the kindness of the OP because "it's not technically prevented" by the website. As a DM, it is hard enough to keep track of what you do have in a campaign, let alone potentially dozens of characters who are not even in the campaign. Why should the DM have to scroll through a bunch of characters named "Ignore, using in another campaign" to get to the ones actually playing his game?
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'm just pointing out if the OP actually claimed the characters and deleted them
I don’t believe the The_Glimpse ever actually mentioned “deleting” those characters, just claiming them so that the player’s couldn’t.
Even if the OP did delete these characters, which they never said they did, I think they would be justified in that. The players are essentially borrowing the content. It still belongs to the OP and as such OP essentially owns the characters, especially since the only reason the players have those characters is because of the OP. I'm not saying that the player should have their characters deleted, nor am I saying that OP owns the IP for the characters (incase that was a concern for anyone) but I am saying that OP can do whatever they want with the characters because they enable the character creation anyway. I would also like to point out that it seemed like the players did this without permission.
If the players really wanted to use the purchased content without purchasing it, they can always homebrew it or can do it manually via Wiki's and PDF's available online. Its not like they are being forced to purchase the stuff, though I would never recommend stealing content like that.
I'm just pointing out if the OP actually claimed the characters and deleted them
I don’t believe the The_Glimpse ever actually mentioned “deleting” those characters, just claiming them so that the player’s couldn’t.
Even if the OP did delete these characters, which they never said they did, I think they would be justified in that. The players are essentially borrowing the content. It still belongs to the OP and as such OP essentially owns the characters, especially since the only reason the players have those characters is because of the OP. I'm not saying that the player should have their characters deleted, nor am I saying that OP owns the IP for the characters (incase that was a concern for anyone) but I am saying that OP can do whatever they want with the characters because they enable the character creation anyway. I would also like to point out that it seemed like the players did this without permission.
If the players really wanted to use the purchased content without purchasing it, they can always homebrew it or can do it manually via Wiki's and PDF's available online. Its not like they are being forced to purchase the stuff, though I would never recommend stealing content like that.
I’m inclined to agree with you. I mean, they might have even just asked for permission. Or at the very least created their characters and then left the campaign with them to be at least discrete about it.
Just to clarify, I did Claim and Delete the characters because I had given them two weeks notice and two warning for them to remove them.
I should also add that these characters, with the exception of 1, were all level 1 and 2, and the one who was level 11 was the one named 'Ignore. For Another Campaign."
And as SpideyCloned pointed out, we do play at a game shop. I personally know everyone of these people. They were all guests at my wedding. I consider them friends. But when we play at the shop, to secure the room for the night, it's $5. Which is very reasonable. I'm also the one who pays that fee every week.
A couple of them do drop some money for Magic cards, which are usually immediately traded back in for store credit so they can get snacks.
But I also buy drinks and other games from the shop as well.
Not that I mind spending the money to support the shop or to a secure a safe place for us to play during this pandemic.
It's the abuse of my generosity and them not even caring enough to ask me if I was okay with them building characters for other campaigns using my resources that triggered this.
Even one of my players/ the other DM told me (and her boyfriend was one of the players doing this) that I should just cut content sharing off completely and if they wanted to start contributing, I could cut it back on, but even I find that a little extreme. Of course, she owns all the books physically.
I should also add that these characters, with the exception of 1, were all level 1 and 2, and the one who was level 11 was the one named 'Ignore. For Another Campaign."
Ok, in that case most of the characters at most would represent a few sessions and and I agree they should take it on the shoulder as a well deserved lesson in respecting the boundaries of other peoples generosity. The level 11 on the other hand could represent a significant amount of time in-game character development. To a certain extent they were asking for it, but perhaps deleting that one was a bit harsh and should have been removed instead. If this one was one of the salty players I'd handle it gently, you have been giving them a lot, so you certainly had a right to be angry about the situation, but I can see why they may think of it as an over-reaction. Whoever the other salty player was, I'd probably re-consider the friendship.
No one values something they get for free and these people seem like leeches. I think the first post is clear cut. The initial transgression could have been a misunderstanding but you said no and they continued to do it anyway. They can feel whatever they like but they don't have a right to make you feel bad about that. If they really thought their case was special they could have spoken with you - instead they just treated your desires as worthless and ignored them.
The main point I am writing about is the post of The_Glimpse immediately above. Might be hard to do and seem petty now but everyone should be sharing the cost of the room. $5 every six or so weeks is doable by essentially anyone. Until the pandemic hit we used to game at my place. Meant set up and clean up and since we play for long sessions (6-8 hours) some sort of meal. We had agreed to share (and while the meal can be expensive $100 for all of us - it is only once every 4-6 months; these people all have good jobs) but after a few sessions it was me, me and ... oh ... me! I was the DM so already in an authoritarian position so I just started naming people. Your turn now, etc. Everyone stepped up, they are decent people.
The fact that your guys buy other things (so clearly have coin to waste on non-essentials) but can't be bothered chipping in for the fixed expense of the room tells me they just don't value you as a person. Being an old friend doesn't make them a good friend. The cost is immaterial but if this is indicative of your whole relationship then the lack of respect is something I would be concerned about.
Again, I think _The Glimpse_ is fair in feeling taken advantage of. But the offense was one that _frustrated_ _The Glimpse_ in terms of either managing the game or just feeling walked over by their players and The Glimpse included the permanent sanction of deletion as a remedy. Players were mistakenly abusing the resource as a community space to aid their play elsewhere, and made work in the form of characters. To enforce their claim to the Campaign, The Glimpse destroyed that work. To use a Proprietor analogy, let's say the Glimpse owns an art studio and hosts a weekly painting party where members can use The Glimpse's great studio lighting and brushes and painting supplies and keep their paintings at The Glimpse's studio for storage and further work. Some of the attendees realize that The Glimpse keeps the studio space unlocked and the supplies available 24/7, so sneak in on their own time to create more artwork, which they leave laying around The Glimpse's studio. All this rogue artwork lying around bugs The Glimpse because they can't get any of their own work done, it gets in the way when they're setting up or documenting their art club, plus sees some of the stuff is being produced for a different studio show which doesn't even provide its artists the same quality of art supplies. So The Glimpse locks down the studio, and with notice, destroys the rogue art. Securing what was mistakenly thought of as free community space is one thing. Destroying others work ... I think reasonable people can disagree, and we're talking about work product that can be reconstructed if the player had access to comparable tools, but permanent effects complicate consequences to the group, as I suggested in my last post. It's a grey space, but I think when there's a conflict at the table the resolution should be communal rather than unilateral despite property rights for the sake of the game.
Another analogy, some dude basically keeps their dog in my yard, it practically lives their and I have to worry about walking through its waste, and barking when I'm trying to read etc. I set up a fence and make sure the dog can't come in, unless the owner asks if they can walk their dog in my yard (I dunno, my yard smells more interesting than the other yards because of the mad science lab I have buried under it). Or do I set up a fence around the dog in my yard, and then shoot the dog and tell the owner the dog shouldn't have been in my yard. And I warned them twice to get the dog off my yard, they may not have known I owned a gun.
Analogies are never perfect, I understand that. In the first instance they had the chance to remove "their" property. In Australia the law is that if something is on your land for 6 months and you make no impediment to the owner retrieving it - then it is yours. They had the chance to "remove" (backup, printout whatever) their property. By your analogy because they pay for the game room for a few hours a week they should be able to use it anytime they want. Pretty sure that would be classed as breaking and entering and theft even if nothing was materially taken.
The second - I wouldn't punish the dog, but after a few warnings I wouldn't feel too bad about calling the pound to pick it up. If the owner won't respect my wishes maybe they will respect a fine.
The difference here though is that these are supposed to be friends; Friends who ignore your wishes and then make you feel guilty when you stand up for yourself. That isn't the definition of friends that I use.
Australia sounds derived from common abandoned property proceedings, and law and moral and ethical and relationship thinking takes analogous instances to make utility rather than create a rule under the presumption that every situation is unique.
With both the gallery (where we're likely talking about community) and a yard (where we're talking about neighbors) we got social scenarios analogous with friendship, because the key thing is not necessarily "what was my injury" and "how do I enforce my boundary or maintain my resource" so much as "and what then?" Everyone validating the deletion as appropriate and within The Glimpse's rights is looking at the scenario from a purely transactional and limited transactional level. Offense made = this sanction, and we're done. That isn't the case, these friends still play together, and an injury has beget another injury (and everyone can rally the moral high horse cavalry and say "justified" but "justified" only means in this context "you can do that" it fits a logic, but I don't know, and I'm leaning to I don't think it's what _should_ have been done). The narrative at the table and the adjacent tables is now, two players were being jerks by taking liberties so the DM went administratively nuclear on the offending character sheets. That's a harder place to repair from than the non nuclear options, and I imagine people in the actual situation want the game to go on. But now you have friends or acquaintances who are sore with each other, and the probability is that the injury cycle will likely continue until someone takes the higher road.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Well my suggestion of "what then" would be to cut ties. If these people can't see an appreciate your side then they aren't worth worrying about. In this case Glimpse wasn't the DM but I don't see that matters too much.
To be honest I probably wouldn't have had the fortitude to do what they did. I probably would have just fumed internally, but I don't think blaming the victim is the way to go. Despite the fact that certain works of the friends have been destroyed I don't see them as the victim in anyway shape or form.
A better analogy might be graffiti - someone owns that wall. If you paint on it without their permission I don't see that you have any moral or legal recourse to sue them or demand an apology if they paint over it. Even though you haven't taken anything from them (and you may even think you improved it!) you are not owed that. They are owed the right to be able to do whatever they want with their resources, even if you consider it a waste or harmless.
And yes, unsurprisingly I don't have a lot of friends.
So, I'm asking the community, would you have done what I did? Or just let it slide?
Just a reminder that the question was not " did I do the right thing" The questions was "would you have done the same thing." You, @MidnightPlat clearly would not have. I on the other hand, would have and have done something similar.
Let me relate this to the way I would have done, and have done in the past. To me, the conversation has just started. The players were not listening before so action had to be taken. Now that the players are aware that I am serious, we can have a respectable conversation. If they are disrespectful and they don't want to have that conversation about borrowing my stuff without permission, then we can have a completely different conversation about their continued inclusion in the game and if need be our friendship as a whole. If they do have the conversation then great! We together can work on getting them the appropriate recourses they need to be able to remake their characters together. Frankly, I would just like a bit of a heads up if someone is going to make a character in my game for another game or if they just want to mess around with stuff.
It sucks to "be the bad guy" but sometimes you have to put your foot down for people to understand how serious you are.
Well my suggestion of "what then" would be to cut ties. If these people can't see an appreciate your side then they aren't worth worrying about. In this case Glimpse wasn't the DM but I don't see that matters too much.
To be honest I probably wouldn't have had the fortitude to do what they did. I probably would have just fumed internally, but I don't think blaming the victim is the way to go. Despite the fact that certain works of the friends have been destroyed I don't see them as the victim in anyway shape or form.
A better analogy might be graffiti - someone owns that wall. If you paint on it without their permission I don't see that you have any moral or legal recourse to sue them or demand an apology if they paint over it. Even though you haven't taken anything from them (and you may even think you improved it!) you are not owed that. They are owed the right to be able to do whatever they want with their resources, even if you consider it a waste or harmless.
And yes, unsurprisingly I don't have a lot of friends.
Graffiti doesn't work at all as an analogy unless the wall is itself a space for the wall owner and the graffiti artists to congregate and pursue graphic design projects on the wall. It's an inadequate analogy.
And as for "cut ties" being the next step, that begs the question was the initial offense and the DMs remedy worth the dissolution or at least current complications of the group? If the OP was confident in the affirmative, probably wouldn't have come to this forum to air the issue. They clearly would rather be playing the game rather than playing damage control to the game that was presumably productive ... it's just as fun.
So, I'm asking the community, would you have done what I did? Or just let it slide?
Just a reminder that the question was not " did I do the right thing" The questions was "would you have done the same thing." You, @MidnightPlat clearly would not have. I on the other hand, would have and have done something similar.
Let me relate this to the way I would have done, and have done in the past. To me, the conversation has just started. The players were not listening before so action had to be taken. Now that the players are aware that I am serious, we can have a respectable conversation. If they are disrespectful and they don't want to have that conversation about borrowing my stuff without permission, then we can have a completely different conversation about their continued inclusion in the game and if need be our friendship as a whole. If they do have the conversation then great! We together can work on getting them the appropriate recourses they need to be able to remake their characters together. Frankly, I would just like a bit of a heads up if someone is going to make a character in my game for another game or if they just want to mess around with stuff.
It sucks to "be the bad guy" but sometimes you have to put your foot down for people to understand how serious you are.
First, I never took a position that there was "the right thing" in some sort of moral absolutism. I did say the OP came to have their actions validated, which is what someone agreeing with a course of action is doing. Also not the OP's handle on the situation led them to think the options were "nuke the characters" or "let it slide," when in fact and as discussed there was actually an array of options.
My case is that while the OPs feeling slighted, I would have thought further on the ramifications of my retaliation. It's simple risk or cost benefit analysis. Someone feels hosed, someone hoses back, now everyone's dripping wet and still holding hoses. Your trajectory outlines a "the conversation now starts." My point is the conversation should have been forced more as a conversation before the punitive action initiative, so to speak, was taken.
As for the notion that harsh sanctions teach a lesson, in the real world of harm reduction, that's almost anachronistic thinking. The literal bandwidth use was minimal, the actual affect on the game being played non existent, the DM just didn't like it (for fair reasons). The consequences now are players don't like the DM. In your view, the satisfaction of having shown someone one's authority in the situation is worth the evident consequences/impact upon player morale. I think you're seeing this as a grown up move, because in adult world bad actions can (and maybe should?) receive consequences. At the end of the day though this is more an iteration of "taking my ball and going home" than how mature and reasonable people deal with conflict.
I warned them to stop doing this two weeks before (literally, 14 days prior) on a media platform we all share and all have access to. My Discord channel, which again, they all can see and they all joined.
I then mentioned it again 6 days later in person to all of them as a group while we were physically together. At a game shop, which I paid, again, admission for all of us to be there to play. Just a mere $5 which is, really, nothing to me. (And no, I'm not rich or bragging. The group ranges from 19-49. They all have jobs or careers. No one is destitute. Any of them should be able to shell out $5 once a week if they were financially responsible.)
The final point being, which several people have missed and ignore, is that they were using a platform I pay for, to use the resources I paid for, to make characters for games that I neither ran as a DM, or played in as player and I shared content with, without asking me if I was okay with them doing that or even offering to offset the cost of DND Beyond for me personally.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am pretty sure all feats stay. I think spells should probably stay too, although I cannot confirm that one.
I remember making a copy of the old Oath of Heroism UA for another forum member because it was archived and they could not access it anymore. I was not sure if he or she wanted anything else for the character, so I threw in every non UA feat into the copy and I remember reading they removed all of it.
But yeah, in regards to the OP, I do not think they did anything wrong since they bore the entire cost of the Legendary Bundle. While I am not sure I would delete all the offending characters, I would definitely kick all the offending players out and change the share link at the bare minimum. I personally do not mind it if players want to create characters temporarily in my campaign and then move them elsewhere, but I would not be happy if I just see a non-campaign character just parked there in my campaign for like forever. Like, I am fine with people eating in my car, but do not leave a mess behind for me to clean up.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
I mean, you did the right thing. You gave them two weeks notice, they didn’t listen and they got mad at them being slighted over your generosity having limits.
Like you can take it a step further, you probably go to a game shop(a public space), where they barely buy anything except maybe a snack/drink or two, spend HOURS there, and then leave. The amount they contribute to that business is probably on the same level they contributed toward your financial facilitation of their roleplay experience. I understand wanting to get more people in the hobby but at the end, you paid for the ability to use that content. They are leeching off that generosity. FOH.
Well I don't think that's an option given it sounds like he still plays with these people, but yeah booting the characters then deleting them if they come back would be more reasonable.
As I see it the players are in the wrong, however the OP handled the situation rather badly given the other avenues they had available.
The owner of the content, gave two weeks for them to remedy the grievance. They chose not to remedy. They no longer have content.
Honestly, it was handled just fine.
I didn't see a clear answer here, but is there a limit on Characters in a campaign? I know there currently is a limit to 12 users (individual accounts) that are connected to a campaign, but haven't run into any limit on the number of characters a user can make in that campaign. I have one campaign for my local game store group that has 8 users and 24 characters. A couple folks have 4-5 characters "in the campaign". This hasn't seem to have limited other users from joining or making characters.
I had assumed users were limited to 12, but there was no limit on the number of characters. Is this incorrect?
This isn't to say the OP isn't justified. They own the content and can manage the content how they see fit. They identified concerns about the content and gave their players time to fix it. However, the concerns might be different if there's functionally no limit to the number of characters which can be connected to a campaign.
Even if there are infinite characters allowed for each player in a campaign, the players do not have the right to just abuse the kindness of the OP because "it's not technically prevented" by the website. As a DM, it is hard enough to keep track of what you do have in a campaign, let alone potentially dozens of characters who are not even in the campaign. Why should the DM have to scroll through a bunch of characters named "Ignore, using in another campaign" to get to the ones actually playing his game?
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.
99
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I don’t believe the The_Glimpse ever actually mentioned “deleting” those characters, just claiming them so that the player’s couldn’t.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Even if the OP did delete these characters, which they never said they did, I think they would be justified in that. The players are essentially borrowing the content. It still belongs to the OP and as such OP essentially owns the characters, especially since the only reason the players have those characters is because of the OP. I'm not saying that the player should have their characters deleted, nor am I saying that OP owns the IP for the characters (incase that was a concern for anyone) but I am saying that OP can do whatever they want with the characters because they enable the character creation anyway. I would also like to point out that it seemed like the players did this without permission.
If the players really wanted to use the purchased content without purchasing it, they can always homebrew it or can do it manually via Wiki's and PDF's available online. Its not like they are being forced to purchase the stuff, though I would never recommend stealing content like that.
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
I’m inclined to agree with you. I mean, they might have even just asked for permission. Or at the very least created their characters and then left the campaign with them to be at least discrete about it.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Just to clarify, I did Claim and Delete the characters because I had given them two weeks notice and two warning for them to remove them.
I should also add that these characters, with the exception of 1, were all level 1 and 2, and the one who was level 11 was the one named 'Ignore. For Another Campaign."
And as SpideyCloned pointed out, we do play at a game shop. I personally know everyone of these people. They were all guests at my wedding. I consider them friends. But when we play at the shop, to secure the room for the night, it's $5. Which is very reasonable. I'm also the one who pays that fee every week.
A couple of them do drop some money for Magic cards, which are usually immediately traded back in for store credit so they can get snacks.
But I also buy drinks and other games from the shop as well.
Not that I mind spending the money to support the shop or to a secure a safe place for us to play during this pandemic.
It's the abuse of my generosity and them not even caring enough to ask me if I was okay with them building characters for other campaigns using my resources that triggered this.
Even one of my players/ the other DM told me (and her boyfriend was one of the players doing this) that I should just cut content sharing off completely and if they wanted to start contributing, I could cut it back on, but even I find that a little extreme. Of course, she owns all the books physically.
Ok, in that case most of the characters at most would represent a few sessions and and I agree they should take it on the shoulder as a well deserved lesson in respecting the boundaries of other peoples generosity.
The level 11 on the other hand could represent a significant amount of time in-game character development. To a certain extent they were asking for it, but perhaps deleting that one was a bit harsh and should have been removed instead.
If this one was one of the salty players I'd handle it gently, you have been giving them a lot, so you certainly had a right to be angry about the situation, but I can see why they may think of it as an over-reaction.
Whoever the other salty player was, I'd probably re-consider the friendship.
No one values something they get for free and these people seem like leeches. I think the first post is clear cut. The initial transgression could have been a misunderstanding but you said no and they continued to do it anyway. They can feel whatever they like but they don't have a right to make you feel bad about that. If they really thought their case was special they could have spoken with you - instead they just treated your desires as worthless and ignored them.
The main point I am writing about is the post of The_Glimpse immediately above. Might be hard to do and seem petty now but everyone should be sharing the cost of the room. $5 every six or so weeks is doable by essentially anyone. Until the pandemic hit we used to game at my place. Meant set up and clean up and since we play for long sessions (6-8 hours) some sort of meal. We had agreed to share (and while the meal can be expensive $100 for all of us - it is only once every 4-6 months; these people all have good jobs) but after a few sessions it was me, me and ... oh ... me! I was the DM so already in an authoritarian position so I just started naming people. Your turn now, etc. Everyone stepped up, they are decent people.
The fact that your guys buy other things (so clearly have coin to waste on non-essentials) but can't be bothered chipping in for the fixed expense of the room tells me they just don't value you as a person. Being an old friend doesn't make them a good friend. The cost is immaterial but if this is indicative of your whole relationship then the lack of respect is something I would be concerned about.
Again, I think _The Glimpse_ is fair in feeling taken advantage of. But the offense was one that _frustrated_ _The Glimpse_ in terms of either managing the game or just feeling walked over by their players and The Glimpse included the permanent sanction of deletion as a remedy. Players were mistakenly abusing the resource as a community space to aid their play elsewhere, and made work in the form of characters. To enforce their claim to the Campaign, The Glimpse destroyed that work. To use a Proprietor analogy, let's say the Glimpse owns an art studio and hosts a weekly painting party where members can use The Glimpse's great studio lighting and brushes and painting supplies and keep their paintings at The Glimpse's studio for storage and further work. Some of the attendees realize that The Glimpse keeps the studio space unlocked and the supplies available 24/7, so sneak in on their own time to create more artwork, which they leave laying around The Glimpse's studio. All this rogue artwork lying around bugs The Glimpse because they can't get any of their own work done, it gets in the way when they're setting up or documenting their art club, plus sees some of the stuff is being produced for a different studio show which doesn't even provide its artists the same quality of art supplies. So The Glimpse locks down the studio, and with notice, destroys the rogue art. Securing what was mistakenly thought of as free community space is one thing. Destroying others work ... I think reasonable people can disagree, and we're talking about work product that can be reconstructed if the player had access to comparable tools, but permanent effects complicate consequences to the group, as I suggested in my last post. It's a grey space, but I think when there's a conflict at the table the resolution should be communal rather than unilateral despite property rights for the sake of the game.
Another analogy, some dude basically keeps their dog in my yard, it practically lives their and I have to worry about walking through its waste, and barking when I'm trying to read etc. I set up a fence and make sure the dog can't come in, unless the owner asks if they can walk their dog in my yard (I dunno, my yard smells more interesting than the other yards because of the mad science lab I have buried under it). Or do I set up a fence around the dog in my yard, and then shoot the dog and tell the owner the dog shouldn't have been in my yard. And I warned them twice to get the dog off my yard, they may not have known I owned a gun.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Analogies are never perfect, I understand that. In the first instance they had the chance to remove "their" property. In Australia the law is that if something is on your land for 6 months and you make no impediment to the owner retrieving it - then it is yours. They had the chance to "remove" (backup, printout whatever) their property. By your analogy because they pay for the game room for a few hours a week they should be able to use it anytime they want. Pretty sure that would be classed as breaking and entering and theft even if nothing was materially taken.
The second - I wouldn't punish the dog, but after a few warnings I wouldn't feel too bad about calling the pound to pick it up. If the owner won't respect my wishes maybe they will respect a fine.
The difference here though is that these are supposed to be friends; Friends who ignore your wishes and then make you feel guilty when you stand up for yourself. That isn't the definition of friends that I use.
Australia sounds derived from common abandoned property proceedings, and law and moral and ethical and relationship thinking takes analogous instances to make utility rather than create a rule under the presumption that every situation is unique.
With both the gallery (where we're likely talking about community) and a yard (where we're talking about neighbors) we got social scenarios analogous with friendship, because the key thing is not necessarily "what was my injury" and "how do I enforce my boundary or maintain my resource" so much as "and what then?" Everyone validating the deletion as appropriate and within The Glimpse's rights is looking at the scenario from a purely transactional and limited transactional level. Offense made = this sanction, and we're done. That isn't the case, these friends still play together, and an injury has beget another injury (and everyone can rally the moral high horse cavalry and say "justified" but "justified" only means in this context "you can do that" it fits a logic, but I don't know, and I'm leaning to I don't think it's what _should_ have been done). The narrative at the table and the adjacent tables is now, two players were being jerks by taking liberties so the DM went administratively nuclear on the offending character sheets. That's a harder place to repair from than the non nuclear options, and I imagine people in the actual situation want the game to go on. But now you have friends or acquaintances who are sore with each other, and the probability is that the injury cycle will likely continue until someone takes the higher road.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Well my suggestion of "what then" would be to cut ties. If these people can't see an appreciate your side then they aren't worth worrying about. In this case Glimpse wasn't the DM but I don't see that matters too much.
To be honest I probably wouldn't have had the fortitude to do what they did. I probably would have just fumed internally, but I don't think blaming the victim is the way to go. Despite the fact that certain works of the friends have been destroyed I don't see them as the victim in anyway shape or form.
A better analogy might be graffiti - someone owns that wall. If you paint on it without their permission I don't see that you have any moral or legal recourse to sue them or demand an apology if they paint over it. Even though you haven't taken anything from them (and you may even think you improved it!) you are not owed that. They are owed the right to be able to do whatever they want with their resources, even if you consider it a waste or harmless.
And yes, unsurprisingly I don't have a lot of friends.
Just a reminder that the question was not " did I do the right thing" The questions was "would you have done the same thing." You, @MidnightPlat clearly would not have. I on the other hand, would have and have done something similar.
Let me relate this to the way I would have done, and have done in the past. To me, the conversation has just started. The players were not listening before so action had to be taken. Now that the players are aware that I am serious, we can have a respectable conversation. If they are disrespectful and they don't want to have that conversation about borrowing my stuff without permission, then we can have a completely different conversation about their continued inclusion in the game and if need be our friendship as a whole. If they do have the conversation then great! We together can work on getting them the appropriate recourses they need to be able to remake their characters together. Frankly, I would just like a bit of a heads up if someone is going to make a character in my game for another game or if they just want to mess around with stuff.
It sucks to "be the bad guy" but sometimes you have to put your foot down for people to understand how serious you are.
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
Graffiti doesn't work at all as an analogy unless the wall is itself a space for the wall owner and the graffiti artists to congregate and pursue graphic design projects on the wall. It's an inadequate analogy.
And as for "cut ties" being the next step, that begs the question was the initial offense and the DMs remedy worth the dissolution or at least current complications of the group? If the OP was confident in the affirmative, probably wouldn't have come to this forum to air the issue. They clearly would rather be playing the game rather than playing damage control to the game that was presumably productive ... it's just as fun.
First, I never took a position that there was "the right thing" in some sort of moral absolutism. I did say the OP came to have their actions validated, which is what someone agreeing with a course of action is doing. Also not the OP's handle on the situation led them to think the options were "nuke the characters" or "let it slide," when in fact and as discussed there was actually an array of options.
My case is that while the OPs feeling slighted, I would have thought further on the ramifications of my retaliation. It's simple risk or cost benefit analysis. Someone feels hosed, someone hoses back, now everyone's dripping wet and still holding hoses. Your trajectory outlines a "the conversation now starts." My point is the conversation should have been forced more as a conversation before the punitive action initiative, so to speak, was taken.
As for the notion that harsh sanctions teach a lesson, in the real world of harm reduction, that's almost anachronistic thinking. The literal bandwidth use was minimal, the actual affect on the game being played non existent, the DM just didn't like it (for fair reasons). The consequences now are players don't like the DM. In your view, the satisfaction of having shown someone one's authority in the situation is worth the evident consequences/impact upon player morale. I think you're seeing this as a grown up move, because in adult world bad actions can (and maybe should?) receive consequences. At the end of the day though this is more an iteration of "taking my ball and going home" than how mature and reasonable people deal with conflict.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
But I didn't take my ball and go home.
I warned them to stop doing this two weeks before (literally, 14 days prior) on a media platform we all share and all have access to. My Discord channel, which again, they all can see and they all joined.
I then mentioned it again 6 days later in person to all of them as a group while we were physically together. At a game shop, which I paid, again, admission for all of us to be there to play. Just a mere $5 which is, really, nothing to me. (And no, I'm not rich or bragging. The group ranges from 19-49. They all have jobs or careers. No one is destitute. Any of them should be able to shell out $5 once a week if they were financially responsible.)
The final point being, which several people have missed and ignore, is that they were using a platform I pay for, to use the resources I paid for, to make characters for games that I neither ran as a DM, or played in as player and I shared content with, without asking me if I was okay with them doing that or even offering to offset the cost of DND Beyond for me personally.