I'm not either. I look at paladins and I want to like them...and just don't. *shrug*
That’s how I feel about Druids.
I dislike druids too. I love everything about them except shape shift, and that's a bit too core to the class to just ignore. I could probably play a dreams druid if I /had/ to but I'd rather play a cleric. There are so many classes that /nearly/ get there for me and just fall a little short. Most of them I could probably come up with something I'd play, such as a dreams druid. I think the only class that's not really my cup of tea that I'd generally just say, yeah not playing that is the monk. Most classes I can find redeeming value in that interests me. The monk has nothing at all that I like except as a 1 level dip to make a staff or spear queue on dex instead of str. I'd probably consider a monk1|rangerX, but a pure monk? zero interest.
You're doing great, man. Dming is tough, and it's not always easy to know what to say or do right in the moment. Way to look out for your player, and good luck working it all out!
Reminds me of an old saying my mother used to have when I was hanging around with one of the bad kids: "You are judged by the company you keep." Meaning if he's known to back-talk teachers and smash windows, even though I don't do that, I'll be thought of as a kid who back-talks and smashes windows. (Not that I listened, at the time,)
So... this Paladin and the rest of the party hung out with the murderer for a month? I say that comes out at trial, and they find themselves arrested as co-conspirators. Now they are in the position of having to also defend themselves against the sham trial. Might make them think a little harder about leaving someone to an unfair justice system, plus give them a reason to break out (and take their buddy with them).
Id lean into this. Why has the paladin (and others) all of a sudden decided a month is long enough to chop around with a murderer?
Rope them into it, maybe even have a witness that saw the others help the captured player do it [obviously lieing].
Might derail the main plot for a while, but that was a player choice [not a character choice] by deciding not to play a long a little with the DM. And could still turn out to be a fun sub plot.
One of the absent players has as part of the backstory, that he was responsible for killing Lord Nandar of Nightstone back in the day. To that end, I had his character picked up by mercenaries and delivered to a group of knights in the service of the surviving Nandars. I thought it'd be a quick, one-shot "follow the clues and go get yer buddy" scenario.
- i think this is the problem, don't have a missing player's character get kidnapped when they're not around.
One of the absent players has as part of the backstory, that he was responsible for killing Lord Nandar of Nightstone back in the day. To that end, I had his character picked up by mercenaries and delivered to a group of knights in the service of the surviving Nandars. I thought it'd be a quick, one-shot "follow the clues and go get yer buddy" scenario.
- i think this is the problem, don't have a missing player's character get kidnapped when they're not around.
I imagine that the DM realizes this was a mistake. It's an understandable one too; the player was out and he had to come up with something on the quick to explain it, then tried to run a side mission for the players who /could/ show up. It's easy to see how he came to the conclusion that this was an elegant solution to his problem. The only problem is, as a DM he didn't ask himself "what if the players fail to bite this hook". I highly doubt that he'll make the same mistake.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
i think this is the problem, don't have a missing player's character get kidnapped when they're not around.
It's really not a huge problem. Even Matt Mercer did this when 2 of his players were out for having a baby (Travis and Laura). He specifically planned the capture so there was an in-character reason to have the players and their characters be absent (and then the baby came a week early and they had to play the characters as NPCs for a week anyway). This is not a problem at all -- as long as you have set up the scenario so that the PCs will want to rescue the characters after they get kidnapped.
BTW, Mercer's players didn't really play along either, even though they knew the DM had kidnapped Jester and Fjord specifically because of the baby. They tried to ambush the captors the very next session and get their friends back. This was an entirely in character thing to do, but the whole time watching it as a player, I was shaking my head saying to myself, "Why are you guys doing this? You know Laura and Travis won't be back for a few weeks. Just do what the DM has set up and follow the captors at a distance to their stronghold!"
That actually led to the death of one of the other PCs and one of the biggest cluster-Fs of a plan I've seen on Critical Role (though I have only watched half of season 2, so I wouldn't put it past those players to have done something even crazier since). Literally all because the players refused to just go along with the DM's plan to capture the PCs so there would be an IC reason why they weren't there while the players were off having a baby. Honestly one of the stupidest things I've seen in all my years of RPGs.
I think the bottom line here is... you know the players are out. Of all the times to allow metagaming, this is one of them in which it should be not only allowed but expected and encouraged. The players are out, tweak your RP just a smidge to account for this. Or as crzyhawk keeps saying, accept the tickets and ride the railroad a little bit.
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.
That's a lesson learned from 30 years of playing. Sometimes an adventure telegraphs expected behaviors. Now, you can't always tell what you're supposed to do, but over time I've found that I have more fun, and everything flows better (leading to a better story) when you do as you're expected to do. When the game or even the session has obvious hints...just follow the breadcrumbs. Yes, you're being railroaded. Absolutely. But you don't have those awkward pauses where the DM has to scrap all their prep work and make up stuff on the fly. The DM has more fun because he's ready. I'm having more fun because I'm not waiting for the DM to come up with new material that's often janky and inconsistent...on the fly.
It's just more fun for everyone at the table when I bite obviously intentional hooks, and I view that as part of the social contract that goes with playing. We're all there to have fun, and it's MY JOB as a player to make sure that I do what I can to make sure the rest of the table has fun. There's enough room for things to go awry when I don't understand what I am expected to do for those memorable improvisation moments. There's no need for a player to be deliberately obtuse.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
it's MY JOB as a player to make sure that I do what I can to make sure the rest of the table has fun
I agree with this 100%. Actually, 1,000%.
Too many players think that it's the DM's job to make them all have fun and don't realize how much the fun of the table depends on everyone.
I also agree when the DM has made a storyline fairly obvious, as a matter of courtesy, a player should make every attempt to find a way to fit his or her character into that story, rather than fighting it tooth and nail because "it's what my character would do." Part of the player's job is to find a good RP reason to have their character go on the adventure the DM has prepared. Yes, some DMs are really good just completely winging it, but not every DM is. And contrary to what appears to be popular opinion in the modern D&D community, I do not think that it is the DM's job to fit your character into his or her adventure. It's the DM's job to put an adventure out there that, generically, a typical adventurer might be interested enough to go on, and then the players have to figure out their individual reasons for doing it. And "my character wouldn't go on the adventure the DM has planned" is not acceptable as an answer. Find a reason. The DM came up with all these adventure areas, monsters, music to set the mood, NPCs, shops, towns, maps. The least you can do as a player is find way to RP wanting to do it.
And especially in a case of unusual real-world circumstances like someone having a baby before the due date or someone being out sick, or what have you, if as a player you know the DM has gone out of his or her way to set up a special plot to account for this so that the game-play can proceed uninterrupted, it is on you as a player to go along with that. "But my character wouldn't do that," is unacceptable. Are you a roleplayer or not? Find a good RP reason why your character would go along with this. Again, that's your job, as a player.
I agree. The DM's role shouldn't be to punish players. Characters suffering the logical consequences of their actions yes, should happen, and is not a punishment. But punishing players -- the DM shouldn't have to be like the school principal keeping you after class. If you're doing that as DM, something is very wrong.
There's a part of me that would be quite tempted to have the paladin captured and charged with aiding and abetting a fugitive...since he adventured with the fugitive after all.
I really think this is the best idea offered over all. Guilty by Association, the whole party is now at risk and therefore, fully invested in the DM's plot. Not only is it in their best interest to prove themselves innocent as well as their companion, they also get a feeling for the unfairly accused aspect only one PC was initially subjected to.
i think this is the problem, don't have a missing player's character get kidnapped when they're not around.
It's really not a huge problem. Even Matt Mercer did this when 2 of his players were out for having a baby (Travis and Laura). He specifically planned the capture so there was an in-character reason to have the players and their characters be absent (and then the baby came a week early and they had to play the characters as NPCs for a week anyway). This is not a problem at all -- as long as you have set up the scenario so that the PCs will want to rescue the characters after they get kidnapped.
BTW, Mercer's players didn't really play along either, even though they knew the DM had kidnapped Jester and Fjord specifically because of the baby. They tried to ambush the captors the very next session and get their friends back. This was an entirely in character thing to do, but the whole time watching it as a player, I was shaking my head saying to myself, "Why are you guys doing this? You know Laura and Travis won't be back for a few weeks. Just do what the DM has set up and follow the captors at a distance to their stronghold!"
That actually led to the death of one of the other PCs and one of the biggest cluster-Fs of a plan I've seen on Critical Role (though I have only watched half of season 2, so I wouldn't put it past those players to have done something even crazier since). Literally all because the players refused to just go along with the DM's plan to capture the PCs so there would be an IC reason why they weren't there while the players were off having a baby. Honestly one of the stupidest things I've seen in all my years of RPGs.
I think the bottom line here is... you know the players are out. Of all the times to allow metagaming, this is one of them in which it should be not only allowed but expected and encouraged. The players are out, tweak your RP just a smidge to account for this. Or as crzyhawk keeps saying, accept the tickets and ride the railroad a little bit.
even though matt mercer did it .....it still sounds like a terrible idea after you explain it.
even though matt mercer did it .....it still sounds like a terrible idea after you explain it.
Well you have 3 options if 3 of your 7 players are going to be away for an extended period of time:
Option 1: Stop playing the campaign at all until they come back. Option 1(a) - don't play at all. Option 1(b) - play some one-shots or a different RPG.
Option 2:: Continue playing like nothing happened, and let someone else control their PCs.
Option 3: Do something in character to explain (IC) why the characters are missing, and then bring them back when the players return.
None of these options are ideal and none is objectively better than the others. It all depends on what your group likes. For Critical Role, they have a show to put on. Not playing for a couple of months was not a viable option. And although the players may not have minded playing Ashley's character, the one who usually did (Travis) was one of the others who would be out. Asking 4 players to play 3 other PCs now means all but one of them is playing 2 characters which would have cramped the style of any group but especially the theatrics of Critical Role, which relies on the voice acting (e.g., Sam doing Nott and Yasha at the same time and switching accents between the 2 characters -- this would have no doubt been possible but frustrating to him). Given the options, 3 made the most sense for their group.
And there's nothing wrong with it... but knowing that the DM has chosen that option (and the group has, presumably, agreed to it), then it's a bad player move to refuse to let yourself be led by the RP into what the DM is trying to do.
in the future, if someone is going to miss 1 or 2 sessions and you can play without them...suggestions:
1. have a dumb sidequest that's simple like: wild sheep chase by winghorn
2. have a small session on RP focused stuff...maybe the town they're in has a festival and you can do skill challenges in the festival ( roll a wheel of cheese or a dunk tank or something)... and get prizes
3. battle arena....have a traveler come by and they play a game of battling monsters against each other for money and prestige, this can be in their heads using cards...a la pokemon but use monster stats or maybe it's through illusion magic
I think the things to be aware of...
1. playing a PC when they're not there...it's always sensitive.
2. taking agency away from a PC when they're not there
3. having important plot points happen without that PC
even though matt mercer did it .....it still sounds like a terrible idea after you explain it.
Well you have 3 options if 3 of your 7 players are going to be away for an extended period of time:
Option 1: Stop playing the campaign at all until they come back. Option 1(a) - don't play at all. Option 1(b) - play some one-shots or a different RPG.
Option 2:: Continue playing like nothing happened, and let someone else control their PCs.
Option 3: Do something in character to explain (IC) why the characters are missing, and then bring them back when the players return.
None of these options are ideal and none is objectively better than the others. It all depends on what your group likes. For Critical Role, they have a show to put on. Not playing for a couple of months was not a viable option. And although the players may not have minded playing Ashley's character, the one who usually did (Travis) was one of the others who would be out. Asking 4 players to play 3 other PCs now means all but one of them is playing 2 characters which would have cramped the style of any group but especially the theatrics of Critical Role, which relies on the voice acting (e.g., Sam doing Nott and Yasha at the same time and switching accents between the 2 characters -- this would have no doubt been possible but frustrating to him). Given the options, 3 made the most sense for their group.
And there's nothing wrong with it... but knowing that the DM has chosen that option (and the group has, presumably, agreed to it), then it's a bad player move to refuse to let yourself be led by the RP into what the DM is trying to do.
oh i'm not saying option 3 is bad. in fact i think it's the best option.
the bad thing is kidnapping the PC's. why? it takes some agency away and also creates an unfair railroad of the plot for no reason.
just as you explain that they were kidnapped...you can easily explain perhaps they had something else to do, they got a letter from their family etc..personal business they have to attend to...thats it and continue on or make some short sessions without them. maybe they travel to a different plane and they were always meant to come back. you can RP out a single session with the missing player and figure out what they did while they were gone. the key is to try not to put the onus of saving the missing PC on the other players. it just seems to have so much potential to go wrong. and takes away the agency of the missing player because now they can do nothing to help their team.
It won't go wrong if everyone just engages their brain and the knowledge that Travis and Laura are going to be away for 2 months so maybe we should just wait to rescue their PCs until they are ready to come back, instead of IMMEDIATELY!
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.
It won't go wrong if everyone just engages their brain and the knowledge that Travis and Laura are going to be away for 2 months so maybe we should just wait to rescue their PCs until they are ready to come back, instead of IMMEDIATELY!
Yes, it’s called player buy-in. It’s been going on since the very first group of “strangers” met at an inn and, despite having no reason to just made friends anyway before going off to rescue the first blacksmith’s daughter. The players have some obligation to “play along” for the sake of the entire group’s enjoyment of the game, and that includes the DM’s.
Paladins are easy to manipulate- fir lack of a better word- if you think they’re not abiding their alignment or oath. Just have their deity or a representative of their deity appear to them and voice their displeasure.
If you feel the rp was right, then I definitely wouldn’t railroad a pc into a death sentence. Have a guard be a spy for rival faction and leave the cell door unlocked- they could even provide some piece of evidence proofing the PCs innocence.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm also meh about druids. I should like them, they're super cool, but just... eh.
"Ignorance is bliss, and you look absolutely miserable."
I could play a Circle of Stars: https://ddb.ac/characters/27251348/iQI2b9.
I’m not a huge fan of Barbarians either though.
I actually like the Monk a lot, it’s the subclasses that I find a little meh.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
You're doing great, man. Dming is tough, and it's not always easy to know what to say or do right in the moment. Way to look out for your player, and good luck working it all out!
Id lean into this. Why has the paladin (and others) all of a sudden decided a month is long enough to chop around with a murderer?
Rope them into it, maybe even have a witness that saw the others help the captured player do it [obviously lieing].
Might derail the main plot for a while, but that was a player choice [not a character choice] by deciding not to play a long a little with the DM. And could still turn out to be a fun sub plot.
All posts come with the caveat that I don't know what I'm talking about.
- i think this is the problem, don't have a missing player's character get kidnapped when they're not around.
I imagine that the DM realizes this was a mistake. It's an understandable one too; the player was out and he had to come up with something on the quick to explain it, then tried to run a side mission for the players who /could/ show up. It's easy to see how he came to the conclusion that this was an elegant solution to his problem. The only problem is, as a DM he didn't ask himself "what if the players fail to bite this hook". I highly doubt that he'll make the same mistake.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
It's really not a huge problem. Even Matt Mercer did this when 2 of his players were out for having a baby (Travis and Laura). He specifically planned the capture so there was an in-character reason to have the players and their characters be absent (and then the baby came a week early and they had to play the characters as NPCs for a week anyway). This is not a problem at all -- as long as you have set up the scenario so that the PCs will want to rescue the characters after they get kidnapped.
BTW, Mercer's players didn't really play along either, even though they knew the DM had kidnapped Jester and Fjord specifically because of the baby. They tried to ambush the captors the very next session and get their friends back. This was an entirely in character thing to do, but the whole time watching it as a player, I was shaking my head saying to myself, "Why are you guys doing this? You know Laura and Travis won't be back for a few weeks. Just do what the DM has set up and follow the captors at a distance to their stronghold!"
That actually led to the death of one of the other PCs and one of the biggest cluster-Fs of a plan I've seen on Critical Role (though I have only watched half of season 2, so I wouldn't put it past those players to have done something even crazier since). Literally all because the players refused to just go along with the DM's plan to capture the PCs so there would be an IC reason why they weren't there while the players were off having a baby. Honestly one of the stupidest things I've seen in all my years of RPGs.
I think the bottom line here is... you know the players are out. Of all the times to allow metagaming, this is one of them in which it should be not only allowed but expected and encouraged. The players are out, tweak your RP just a smidge to account for this. Or as crzyhawk keeps saying, accept the tickets and ride the railroad a little bit.
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.
That's a lesson learned from 30 years of playing. Sometimes an adventure telegraphs expected behaviors. Now, you can't always tell what you're supposed to do, but over time I've found that I have more fun, and everything flows better (leading to a better story) when you do as you're expected to do. When the game or even the session has obvious hints...just follow the breadcrumbs. Yes, you're being railroaded. Absolutely. But you don't have those awkward pauses where the DM has to scrap all their prep work and make up stuff on the fly. The DM has more fun because he's ready. I'm having more fun because I'm not waiting for the DM to come up with new material that's often janky and inconsistent...on the fly.
It's just more fun for everyone at the table when I bite obviously intentional hooks, and I view that as part of the social contract that goes with playing. We're all there to have fun, and it's MY JOB as a player to make sure that I do what I can to make sure the rest of the table has fun. There's enough room for things to go awry when I don't understand what I am expected to do for those memorable improvisation moments. There's no need for a player to be deliberately obtuse.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I agree with this 100%. Actually, 1,000%.
Too many players think that it's the DM's job to make them all have fun and don't realize how much the fun of the table depends on everyone.
I also agree when the DM has made a storyline fairly obvious, as a matter of courtesy, a player should make every attempt to find a way to fit his or her character into that story, rather than fighting it tooth and nail because "it's what my character would do." Part of the player's job is to find a good RP reason to have their character go on the adventure the DM has prepared. Yes, some DMs are really good just completely winging it, but not every DM is. And contrary to what appears to be popular opinion in the modern D&D community, I do not think that it is the DM's job to fit your character into his or her adventure. It's the DM's job to put an adventure out there that, generically, a typical adventurer might be interested enough to go on, and then the players have to figure out their individual reasons for doing it. And "my character wouldn't go on the adventure the DM has planned" is not acceptable as an answer. Find a reason. The DM came up with all these adventure areas, monsters, music to set the mood, NPCs, shops, towns, maps. The least you can do as a player is find way to RP wanting to do it.
And especially in a case of unusual real-world circumstances like someone having a baby before the due date or someone being out sick, or what have you, if as a player you know the DM has gone out of his or her way to set up a special plot to account for this so that the game-play can proceed uninterrupted, it is on you as a player to go along with that. "But my character wouldn't do that," is unacceptable. Are you a roleplayer or not? Find a good RP reason why your character would go along with this. Again, that's your job, as a player.
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 really think this is the best idea offered over all. Guilty by Association, the whole party is now at risk and therefore, fully invested in the DM's plot. Not only is it in their best interest to prove themselves innocent as well as their companion, they also get a feeling for the unfairly accused aspect only one PC was initially subjected to.
even though matt mercer did it .....it still sounds like a terrible idea after you explain it.
Well you have 3 options if 3 of your 7 players are going to be away for an extended period of time:
Option 1: Stop playing the campaign at all until they come back. Option 1(a) - don't play at all. Option 1(b) - play some one-shots or a different RPG.
Option 2:: Continue playing like nothing happened, and let someone else control their PCs.
Option 3: Do something in character to explain (IC) why the characters are missing, and then bring them back when the players return.
None of these options are ideal and none is objectively better than the others. It all depends on what your group likes. For Critical Role, they have a show to put on. Not playing for a couple of months was not a viable option. And although the players may not have minded playing Ashley's character, the one who usually did (Travis) was one of the others who would be out. Asking 4 players to play 3 other PCs now means all but one of them is playing 2 characters which would have cramped the style of any group but especially the theatrics of Critical Role, which relies on the voice acting (e.g., Sam doing Nott and Yasha at the same time and switching accents between the 2 characters -- this would have no doubt been possible but frustrating to him). Given the options, 3 made the most sense for their group.
And there's nothing wrong with it... but knowing that the DM has chosen that option (and the group has, presumably, agreed to it), then it's a bad player move to refuse to let yourself be led by the RP into what the DM is trying to do.
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.
in the future, if someone is going to miss 1 or 2 sessions and you can play without them...suggestions:
1. have a dumb sidequest that's simple like: wild sheep chase by winghorn
2. have a small session on RP focused stuff...maybe the town they're in has a festival and you can do skill challenges in the festival ( roll a wheel of cheese or a dunk tank or something)... and get prizes
3. battle arena....have a traveler come by and they play a game of battling monsters against each other for money and prestige, this can be in their heads using cards...a la pokemon but use monster stats or maybe it's through illusion magic
I think the things to be aware of...
1. playing a PC when they're not there...it's always sensitive.
2. taking agency away from a PC when they're not there
3. having important plot points happen without that PC
etc...
oh i'm not saying option 3 is bad. in fact i think it's the best option.
the bad thing is kidnapping the PC's. why? it takes some agency away and also creates an unfair railroad of the plot for no reason.
just as you explain that they were kidnapped...you can easily explain perhaps they had something else to do, they got a letter from their family etc..personal business they have to attend to...thats it and continue on or make some short sessions without them. maybe they travel to a different plane and they were always meant to come back. you can RP out a single session with the missing player and figure out what they did while they were gone. the key is to try not to put the onus of saving the missing PC on the other players. it just seems to have so much potential to go wrong. and takes away the agency of the missing player because now they can do nothing to help their team.
*clarity
It won't go wrong if everyone just engages their brain and the knowledge that Travis and Laura are going to be away for 2 months so maybe we should just wait to rescue their PCs until they are ready to come back, instead of IMMEDIATELY!
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.
Yes, it’s called player buy-in. It’s been going on since the very first group of “strangers” met at an inn and, despite having no reason to just made friends anyway before going off to rescue the first blacksmith’s daughter. The players have some obligation to “play along” for the sake of the entire group’s enjoyment of the game, and that includes the DM’s.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Paladins are easy to manipulate- fir lack of a better word- if you think they’re not abiding their alignment or oath. Just have their deity or a representative of their deity appear to them and voice their displeasure.
If you feel the rp was right, then I definitely wouldn’t railroad a pc into a death sentence. Have a guard be a spy for rival faction and leave the cell door unlocked- they could even provide some piece of evidence proofing the PCs innocence.