So recently I joined a game of Waterdeep Dragonhiest, with around 7 other people. I've played with this group before and it wasnt the best, but it was still d&d, so I decided to join anyway.
For context, I was playing a Changeling Cleric of Trickery who had the charlatan background. He would often cheat at games, and try to sell others random crap, pretending that it was magical.
We had just started the game, and we found the tavern (don't really remember the name) that was a bit rickety and unstable. Stuff happened, and my character saw a group of people playing three dragon ante, so he decided to join in the game. So my plan was, to make it apparent that I had a ton of gold, but I would still lose the first few rounds to establish that I was awful at the game, and just games in general. Next I would convince them to swap to different game, and that I had a deck of cards on me (they were marked of course). Then I would proceed to cheat, and win a bunch of gold.
So of course, the first part of me loosing all the rounds went smoothly, but after that it went downhill. I started to try to convince them to change the game, but they immediately said no. The DM wouldn't allow me to roll for it, and they wouldn't offer brides either (which doesnt make sense if they were all betting anyway). I attempt to cast charm person (and this was partially my fault for not specifically specifying that I was attempting to do this stealthily) and immediately all four of the other people playing attacked me. Mind you, i didn't even get to cast my spell. Somehow all of these guys were perfectly prepared for me to cast the spell and start a fight faster then the flash. No initiative, no surprise round, he just rolled attacks and damage. While it may have been a surprise round, my character is very familiar with things going south, so he had a plan B and was compleatly prepared to run. 3 hit and dealt 13 damage (I'm still very low level) and nearly died. My character's plan B was to try to have them follow me when I run out, then I would invoke duplicity and have my real self change into a dwarf, while the duplicate ran away. If it didnt work, then shame. None if then followed and they just acted like nothing happened, while the rest of the party was banned from the tavern.
Another thing that pissed me off even more is that later in the session a player used charn person, and it worked without any problems, and it practically solved the entire encounter.
After that I wasnt too involved in the game, and hung around, waiting for the game to be over.
Whole of course this story was told with my own bias, I still feel very angry about the whole session in general. Am I wrong for feeling angry at the DM?
Well, first of all there's no such thing as stealthily casting a spell unless you use Subtle Spell.
But beyond that, casting a spell doesn't trigger an opportunity attack unless you've got the Mage Killer feat. Overall it does sound like the GM was not interested in letting you attempt what you wanted to. If you've had bad experiences with the group before, I recommend just not playing with them. Life's too short to waste it in a D&D game you're not enjoying.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Interesting story you got there. There was a bit of a bag call on the dm. For all the npcs knew you were casting create water to fill your mug. That's why we have dice rolls.
It could have been handled better.
A note for your character is if ever in that situation again excuse your character from the card game. Use the loo. Then when the npcs are not paying attention cast charm person out of ear shot and return to the game so the other npcs are not eyeing you so close. Least that's what my character would do.
Either way. I'd let it go and see what happens next session. If that stuff continues then find another group.
Sounds like the DM was railroading. I'm not going to go into what he did right or wrong, but there definitely things he could have done to improve the encounter, assuming what you've told us is accurate and has all pertinent details.
However, reading the story, what comes to mind is that this seems to be a recurring event, you trying to cheat your way to gold. Reading between the lines, that may be rubbing the DM up the wrong way with how you're proceeding with the story. Or perhaps he really wanted you to earn that gold by doing a quest, and by scamming NPCs you'll bypass that quest and waste his effort he put into creating it. Maybe it's a plot hook that you haven't fully uncovered yet. Have a (very non-confrontational) chat and figure out if you're doing something to cause this reaction.
Alternatively, you could just have a poor relationship with the DM and he is just trying to get rid of you. Is this kind of thing (being railroaded into confrontations that purely serve to thwart your agency or otherwise frustrate you) something that happens a lot to you and only you? If you can't resolve it, then perhaps it's best you go play with people that want to play with you.
Edited to correct some major problems with autocorrect.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
'No initiative, no surprise round, he just rolled attacks and damage.'
Without being in the game, my biggest takeaway is that there definitely should've been initiative. 6thLyranGuard and Beardsinger have the 'stealthy spell casting' ruling correct - however, as soon as the other gamblers knew something was up and they moved to attack you, that's an encounter and initiative should've been rolled.
The auto damage sounds like railroading. We're not talking about falling off a bridge whilst exploring and taking auto damage from a fall; these are living beings initiating some form of combat with the intent to harm/apprehend, therefore initiative rolls should've been called for.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
#Open D&D
Have the Physical Books? Confused as to why you're not allowed to redeem them for free on D&D Beyond? Questions answered here at the Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You FAQ
Looking to add mouse-over triggered tooltips to such things like magic items, monsters or combat actions? Then dash over to the How to Add Tooltips thread.
Not a great look for the DM, I think, but I'd try to refrain from looking at any situation as if there must be an a-hole involved and blame to be assigned. That isn't going to help anybody. Take your DM aside for a friendly chat, tell them how you feel about the last session, ask if there's some kind of disconnect and if so, how it can be solved. Focus on making the situation better, not on who made it worse.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
So I did realize that most of you are correct, that I cannot cast a spell quietly. I contacted my DM and told him about it, and how it made me unhappy but he basically just responded with "I'm the DM and it's my ruling so deal with it". Overall I believe I'm going to leave the game, cause I'm no longer having fun. The only reason I've stayed in other campaign was because the other players were excellent roleplayers and that's what made it fun.
First off, when some char tries to grab the spotlight like this, as a DM I would shut that down right quick. The answer from the NPC's would be "NO" when your char wanted to join their game. You said you joined the game "with 7 other people". That is a lot. What are these other players doing while you showboat? Sorry to burst your bubble, but no, other players do not usually enjoy watching some player go off on a solo tangent.
I will have my Scout Rogue peel off from the main group quite often to SCOUT. The DM narrates to the group what my char saw, and then I return to the group and say "I narrate what the DM said my char saw", and that is it. I spend a grand total of 2 seconds saying that sentence. The rest is key information for the group, if they listened to the DM as he narrated.
What you have done brings nothing to the table overall. It is selfish, and maybe the DM was sending you a not so subtle message in-game.
While I appreciate your opinion, this took a total of 3 minutes to complete, and a few of the other characters were using spells to try to help me out, from afar. I do not appreciate stealing the spotlight, amd I can assure you everything everyone else did was much longer what I did.
Another thing that I would like to mention, is that certain players having the spotlight isn't always bad, to an extent. I am a DM myself, and ik it's always good to give your players the spotlight, so long as you dont keep the spotlight on one person. If I have a very skilled cheater, and its ine of the main parts of my character, of course I'm going to cheat. If you have a scout, your going to scout. As a DM you shouldn't just shut people down, if they want to do something that highlights there characters. Let them do it. And as long as you make sure, others have opportunities to make their character be in the spotlight.
One thing your DM did wrong was to allow them all to attack first. The surprised condition does not happen when someone simply decides to attack first. It happens when you're completely unaware of the enemy's presence before they decide to attack. There is no surprise without Stealth, and there's no Stealth when sitting across the table from someone.
The ruling on Charm Person is fair. It might be unfair that the ruling was inconsistently applied to the other player, but it may be the situation was different. Casting Charm Person on someone across a crowded room is very different from casting Charm Person on someone sitting at a table with you.
First off, when some char tries to grab the spotlight like this, as a DM I would shut that down right quick.
That's a DM's prerogative, but that's not what happened here. If a DM has an issue with something a player does, some passive-aggressive reaction towards their character is silly and uncalled for.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I will echo 6thLyranGuard and recommend not playing with that group. As commonly said, no D&D is better than bad D&D. If you are not having fun and it is making you upset, it is bad D&D.
It does not really matter who is right or wrong if you do not gel with the people in the first place.
Yea, I don't think playing at a table where you have a beef with the DM is a very good idea. It should be about adventures and having fun, and if the two of you have negative feeling towards eachother it'll just end badly.
I'm curious though, do you know the DM outside the game? Is he a stranger? It sounds like there's a lack of mutual friendship going on here, which makes him more likely to be kinda dismissive towards you.
This is why I think you should try to play with people with whom you are friendly.. That way everyone involved wants to make eachother happy.
If the DM says the NPCs don't want to switch game nor let you make any skill checks to convince them, it's his perogative.
There's no such thing as surprise round though. When the you evoked intentions of casting a spell, initiative should have been rolled and proceed in combat round, turn by turn, for actions resolution.
Casting any spell at a gambling table is an invitation for violence, gamblers are naturally suspicious of cheaters. Furthermore, charm person is a single target spell that would trigger the rest of a group. It's also poor taste to think your character is going to take the tables attention for a petty con. Who else was playing? what were they doing? How did you include them? Why were you doing it?
Your character choice isn't an invitation to attempt to windfall on fortune, there's no point in trying to beat the DM, any plan you have should always be an invitation to entertain the table, following the principal of mutual self benefit, if your spending the tables time trying to enrich your character... that's selfish, if you haven't found a way to entertain your table with it, you deserved to fail. The fact that the DM wasn't talented enough to play it off, or didn't have the patience for your diversion, or even ruled wrong is all actually rather moot, unless your patronizing the table with interesting gameplay, you basically asked to fail.
The DM doesn't owe you a persuasion roll for your attempt, he could have let you finish the spell, you pretty much guarenteed you'd fail by yourself, and the same outcome should have occurred.
Here's an actually interesting trickery domain story from a friend, the Cleric and another player, maybe a Trickster, harvested urine from the latrine, they used Purify Food and Drink to clean the water, than Prestidigitaion to make it taste like wine, than sold it to the townsfolk for a competitive price, basically printing money. This please their god, entertained the table, and made money.
Your real problem here is that your thinking about yourself and what your owed, you might have a bad DM, but coming here and giving one side of a story to strangers doesn't prove anything about them. I can gather more from your own confession though that your not recognizing the deeper value of RPing. You can contribute to the entertainment of your table even as a player. Everyone comes to D&D for entertainment, if your fixated with your characters success, your only going to have a good time when the DM says you succeed. If your engaging the identity of your character in whichever outcome occurs, your now, actually, role playing. This is why I mostly grant inspiration to players who embrace their failures and engage in roleplay when their character is unsuccessful. If your gonna disconnect and lose interest every time the fallible human trying to entertain a group makes a mistake, or doesn't patronize your fascination, and come here and whine to a bunch of second hand opinions, I'd be glad that you left before I remove you from the group.
Your DM might not have been open to switching games because maybe the book detailed how this game worked and they didn't want to come up with a new game on the spot.
If I were the DM at that point, upon hearing your plan, I might even have just said that outright. "Hey, sorry, it details this game in the adventure and idk how any other games would work." That could've cleared everything up.
Did you share your plan with the DM beforehand, or were you playing close to the chest so the DM couldn't "mess it up"? I know people who do that and, especially with less experienced DM's, it always bites the player in the ass. Communicate with your DM.
Whole of course this story was told with my own bias, I still feel very angry about the whole session in general. Am I wrong for feeling angry at the DM?
So first and foremost, and I think a lot of threads miss the mark here since everyone dogpiles instantly on the thread poster. Are you in the wrong for feeling angry? No. You are entitled to your feelings, period.
Now, let's talk about the things you posted. Charm Person, the way it works is that it has verbal and somatic components. So an incantation and some form of hand gestures. You were playing a game of Three Dragon Ante at a table of people up close, you came up, established you were rich and then started losing immediately. Now the other players at the table are interested, but within the context of the game the other NPCs are actively paying attention to you. Casting a spell during a game with no provocation or announcement can be perceived as a hostile action. They might not know what spell it was, but all of the sudden the "mark" is casting magic? I can totally agree with the DM here on them turning agressive.
In terms of them just getting to roll attacks, I wouldn't have done that. It's initiative time, but not just hey they get free attacks.
None if then followed and they just acted like nothing happened, while the rest of the party was banned from the tavern.
This is the thing that most people in the thread have an issue with, in a nutshell. You were playing a game that is for everyone and you were doing things by yourself that would have huge implications not just for that session, but for the rest of the game. Dragon Heist is centered in Waterdeep. Not being able to go to a local tavern and being branded as ruffians has wide reaching social implications for how other NPCs will react to you. This paragraph is written with the context given in the original post, not the follow up replies.
Now taking into account the follow up replies, if other players were casting spells from afar, honestly it makes the situation with the NPCs more valid. They could have noticed it already but not acting/reacting and then when you did it so blatantly in their face they had readied actions to fire off at you, the mark.
You talk about not stealing the spotlight and how others were allowing you to do that, but that wasn't in the original post. Context is important, and honestly on these forums I see it far too often where everyone is going to say OP was wrong because in the vast majority of "AM I WRONG" threads, the instant reaction is to go yes. Group/Social/Table dynamics are different now, and it changes the context of the original story because now its more of a cohesive party, but your original post reads "Well, I wanted to do what I wanted to do and the implication was the party was going to get banned for my actions.", and now the gutcheck of THESE forums is to blame you.
I don't blame you, you were asking for legit criticism and to see the same three things in this thread of "Maybe you shouldn't play with that group, OP IS WRONG, WILD ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT OP AS A PERSON", and that's just disheartening.
Food for final thought is to have a conversation with the DM from a group perspective about how certain interactions would go. Prose some hypotheticals to the DM about situations to gauge what their response would be, that way you know for future how certain things will play out. Knowing those things will change how you as a player interact with their world, but more importantly it won't put you/character/party in a potentially antagonistic situation like this where I think the DM was just trying to adjudicate in the heat of the moment, and in their head it makes total sense, but maybe they didn't have the immediate tools to elucidate that decision.
First off, when some char tries to grab the spotlight like this, as a DM I would shut that down right quick. The answer from the NPC's would be "NO" when your char wanted to join their game. You said you joined the game "with 7 other people". That is a lot. What are these other players doing while you showboat? Sorry to burst your bubble, but no, other players do not usually enjoy watching some player go off on a solo tangent.
Every character should get some spotlight for a little while. It's remarkably uninteresting if all characters are somehow some borg-like hive-mind entity with no individuality. In every game I've played each character has their own something, a moment where they can do their own thing, just a little bit. This wasn't some big long escapade - it's a quick and simple thing while they rested in a tavern. This is absolutely the perfect time to have each player choose if they want their characters to do something on their own. In these situations the DM just goes through them in turn. It's a few minutes, tops, per player. Some might even join in (which is what ended up happening).
What you have done brings nothing to the table overall. It is selfish, and maybe the DM was sending you a not so subtle message in-game.
You don't get to decide if this brought something to the table or not. This wasn't your game. Personally, I like when players take these little moments, even as a player it's interesting to see what they do, brings some immersion and roleplay. Maybe it is something my character could react to - but even if not, I can be entertained passively for a few minutes. Or if it isn't too interesting for me, I could think about what my own character would like to do in this moment of respite.
And since it seems the other players were interested in this and were even joining in a few times -- clearly the OP brought something to the table they all enjoyed.
As for the DM sending a message - doesn't have to be a dick about it. It's Players First, Characters Second. If the DM needed the character to stop these little antics, then the DM can just grow up and talk to the player like a person. "Hey, OP, I know you like these cons and stuff, but can you do them less or stop as I'm finding it very disruptive and difficult. Thank you." -- and done. No harm, no foul, no mess and no drama. Simple, easy, sweet. It is part of the DM's job to communicate with the players. Using DM fiat to screw somebody over in-game passive-aggressively is not good. It's meant to be fun. Just talk to the player.
Casting any spell at a gambling table is an invitation for violence, gamblers are naturally suspicious of cheaters
It would be reasonable for hostility and accusation. Not reasonable for instant-murder-attempt. Even less reasonable for a DM to ignore the rules and just have the character be nearly killed without any chance of defence or anything.
It's also poor taste to think your character is going to take the tables attention for a petty con. Who else was playing? what were they doing? How did you include them? Why were you doing it?
Again, characters are not hive-mind shells. Everyone has their own individual character, characters that will do their own things from time to time during rests, downtime, and when not actually out adventuring. It helps the roleplay and immersion, it brings life to a character and makes them more than a bunch of numbers on a sheet. The OP made a charlatan, a trickster, and the DM approved this. It's a couple minutes for the character to be themselves and since the group sometimes even joins in - all's gravy then. Everyone has fun. How is everyone having fun "poor taste"?
Your character choice isn't an invitation to attempt to windfall on fortune, there's no point in trying to beat the DM, any plan you have should always be an invitation to entertain the table, following the principal of mutual self benefit, if your spending the tables time trying to enrich your character... that's selfish,
Windfall on fortune? Beat the DM? What the fluff are you on about? It's a few coins in a card game, they're not robbing a bank. The OP made a character who likes to do these little cons. The DM accepted. The other players agreed and sometimes join in. Is it selfish if a thief pickpockets? Is it selfish if the bard takes the stage for a song? Is it selfish when the barbarian goes fight in the arena? Is it selfish if the wizard goes to the library? Is it selfish if the cleric goes to the local shrine?
No.
They're characters. Not robots. They will all have their own thing. WHen not on adventure why not do your own thing for a bit? Everyone at the table gets to do this. In 20 years of playing TTRPGS (not just D&D) never had a game where this wasn't done. This is normal, common and part of every game. A few minutes here and there to make your character seem more like a character is pretty standard for most TTRPGs that have narrative elements.
Do you take a party vote everytime you want to do something?
P: "I want to get a drink, I go to the bar and flag the bartender down." DM: Did the whole party vote for this action to be done? P: "No" DM: Then you are unable to interact with the bartender. Don't be so ******* selfish."
Nah, That's just hostile. If somebody wants to just play cards in a tavern, let them play. It's a small interaction. A couple mins. Loosen up, like, yeah?
The fact that the DM wasn't talented enough to play it off, or didn't have the patience for your diversion, or even ruled wrong is all actually rather moot, unless your patronizing the table with interesting gameplay, you basically asked to fail.
By the fluffy gods your post confuses me. The table were entertained by this, only the DM wasn't The DM knew this would be a thing- OP made a con artist, DM approves the character - why would they be upset about the con artist they approved .. being a con artist. . They were in a tavern resting not a mission. If the DM was unhappy about the con artist being a con artist, he could just y'know talk to the player.
"What, your con artist tried to do a con? NANI?! DIE DIE DIE!!!11!!"
Yeah, no. Unless the DM is a child this is not acceptable. The OP used his character correctly and it was something that brought fun for himself and the other players. He should not be punished like that.
The DM doesn't owe you a persuasion roll for your attempt, he could have let you finish the spell, you pretty much guarenteed you'd fail by yourself, and the same outcome should have occurred.
So, if somebody in real life cheated in cards for a little money, maybe $100 or something, they deserve to have multiple people instantly try to murder them? Are you psychotic or something? At worst it would be a couple mere punches, some harsh words and thrown out. Even less if they failed. And to throw in some mysterious godforce making you unable to react or do anything to save yourself?
Nobody, not even the OP, is saying they should have succeeded. They're saying the DM was extreme in the reaction and they'd be 100% perfectly accurate. Even if this was an hour (instead of a couple of minutes) and was just for the OP (even though the whole group, sans DM, actually enjoy the cons) and was the hundredth con (even though they only recently started and there's been only a few at most) -- it does not excuse the DM's dickery. If the DM was frustrated, they could turn to the player (who was just playing a character the DM approved of) and speak to them like a normal person.
Your real problem here is that your thinking about yourself and what your owed,
You don't get to decide what the OP was or was not thinking. Their story and follow-ups hold absolutely zero indication of feeling like being owed anything. They made a con-artist character and in a moment off adventure, they played a con - something that up until this point was given the OK, and something the other players joined in on. This is just a player playing a character.
you might have a bad DM, but coming here and giving one side of a story to strangers doesn't prove anything about them.
People come on here to share stories and experiences. Sometimes to vent. And the OP even recognises his perspective may be biased and seeks clarification. This happens all the time. They're not trying to get hate to the DM. They sought advise on if it was them, the DM or what to do. They've received advice, listened to it and following their DM's lack of care, seems to have made the decision to leave the group.
Nothing about this is "hey XYZ was a dick, plz agree" or anything. They explained the situation, including their own faults, and sought advice. I don't think your response - which seems to have missed A LOT of what has been said - is appropriate. You're saying the OP came on her to "prove" something about the DM but they're not doing this at all.
If your engaging the identity of your character in whichever outcome occurs, your now, actually, role playing.
And now you're contradicting yourself. The character's identity is that of a con artist and so will want to play little cons and cheats here and there. The DM approved the character. The other players found these enjoyable. The OP made an attempt and it failed - which is fine. That's not the problem.
The problem is that the DM made it an automatic fail with severe, unrealistic consequences that the player was not allowed to react to. Just simply "nope, and now they all try to kill you." That is the part the OP is unhappy with.
I really hope this is just you not understanding things and misreading. Because your responses don't make sense, seem to miss the point entirely, miss a lot of information, and seem extremely hostile. What the fluff?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
We had just started the game, and we found the tavern (don't really remember the name) that was a bit rickety and unstable. Stuff happened, and my character saw a group of people playing three dragon ante, so he decided to join in the game. So my plan was, to make it apparent that I had a ton of gold, but I would still lose the first few rounds to establish that I was awful at the game, and just games in general. Next I would convince them to swap to different game, and that I had a deck of cards on me (they were marked of course). Then I would proceed to cheat, and win a bunch of gold.
This is a bit of a tangent, but for future reference -- this is an incredibly poorly thought-out con. When you're hustling people, the point of losing at a game early is to disguise how good you actually are at it. You're also giving the other players a lot of incentive to keep playing three-dragon ante by doing that -- they're up and you're down, so why would they want to start playing something else? Losing and then trying to switch the game basically means you threw all that money away on the early hands for no reason, since you'd just have to re-establish your apparent skill at the new game.
Here's a better idea: sleight of hand/magic the deck to cause maximum chaos. You should be neither significantly up nor down; in fact, just fold early for the most part. Don't try to sell the idea that you're an easy mark splashing around coin, but instead an easy-to-read mook who isn't getting cards and is getting frustrated (if you have a fat stack in front of you that all came out of your own pocket, it will speak for itself). Try to create hands that wind up being absolute stack-wreckers for some other poor shmuck, where they have the second-best possible hand but show down against the best possible hand. Do that kind of thing a few more times, not every hand but with alarming frequency, and switching around who wins the huge pot and who loses, in order to get everyone else at the table feeling very uneasy about the wild swings in "fortune" that are going around. Slip yourself in as a big loser once in the mix, to help sell the idea you could pack it in and leave at any moment. Then, when you give voice to those concerns about the swings ("wow, I didn't know three-dragon ante could get this crazy... maybe we should play something else?") and the sharks at the table are both worried about their own stack getting chopped down by a bad beat and also seeing your coin get up and leave the table before they can win it, you might have better luck of convincing everyone it's a good idea to switch games.
The moment you pull out your own deck you're probably screwed though. That's just incredibly amateurish. I mean, put yourself in their shoes -- some guy you've never seen before sits down at the table and after a few minutes tries to convince you to switch to his own game, with his own deck that he just happens to have on him? I don't know about you, but I'd probably tell him to (ahem) go play solitaire.
That's really the biggest flaw here. Nothing about your con took the thoughts and motivations of the other players at the table into consideration at all. It doesn't matter if they were NPCs -- your scheme only works if they just blindly go along with your every move, and you gave the DM no reason to have them behave that way (until you tried your desperation charm spell, but at that point it was far too late). The best cons make the mark think they're the smart one -- your plan only works if your marks are all dumber than a bag of warhammers, and even then it's 50/50.
I'd say your trickery god would be very disappointed in you for the whole clumsy enterprise. Unless you got thrown out of the tavern and landed in some street muck, cuz most trickery gods are suckers for slapstick.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So recently I joined a game of Waterdeep Dragonhiest, with around 7 other people. I've played with this group before and it wasnt the best, but it was still d&d, so I decided to join anyway.
For context, I was playing a Changeling Cleric of Trickery who had the charlatan background. He would often cheat at games, and try to sell others random crap, pretending that it was magical.
We had just started the game, and we found the tavern (don't really remember the name) that was a bit rickety and unstable. Stuff happened, and my character saw a group of people playing three dragon ante, so he decided to join in the game. So my plan was, to make it apparent that I had a ton of gold, but I would still lose the first few rounds to establish that I was awful at the game, and just games in general. Next I would convince them to swap to different game, and that I had a deck of cards on me (they were marked of course). Then I would proceed to cheat, and win a bunch of gold.
So of course, the first part of me loosing all the rounds went smoothly, but after that it went downhill. I started to try to convince them to change the game, but they immediately said no. The DM wouldn't allow me to roll for it, and they wouldn't offer brides either (which doesnt make sense if they were all betting anyway). I attempt to cast charm person (and this was partially my fault for not specifically specifying that I was attempting to do this stealthily) and immediately all four of the other people playing attacked me. Mind you, i didn't even get to cast my spell. Somehow all of these guys were perfectly prepared for me to cast the spell and start a fight faster then the flash. No initiative, no surprise round, he just rolled attacks and damage. While it may have been a surprise round, my character is very familiar with things going south, so he had a plan B and was compleatly prepared to run. 3 hit and dealt 13 damage (I'm still very low level) and nearly died. My character's plan B was to try to have them follow me when I run out, then I would invoke duplicity and have my real self change into a dwarf, while the duplicate ran away. If it didnt work, then shame. None if then followed and they just acted like nothing happened, while the rest of the party was banned from the tavern.
Another thing that pissed me off even more is that later in the session a player used charn person, and it worked without any problems, and it practically solved the entire encounter.
After that I wasnt too involved in the game, and hung around, waiting for the game to be over.
Whole of course this story was told with my own bias, I still feel very angry about the whole session in general. Am I wrong for feeling angry at the DM?
Well, first of all there's no such thing as stealthily casting a spell unless you use Subtle Spell.
But beyond that, casting a spell doesn't trigger an opportunity attack unless you've got the Mage Killer feat. Overall it does sound like the GM was not interested in letting you attempt what you wanted to. If you've had bad experiences with the group before, I recommend just not playing with them. Life's too short to waste it in a D&D game you're not enjoying.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Interesting story you got there. There was a bit of a bag call on the dm. For all the npcs knew you were casting create water to fill your mug. That's why we have dice rolls.
It could have been handled better.
A note for your character is if ever in that situation again excuse your character from the card game. Use the loo. Then when the npcs are not paying attention cast charm person out of ear shot and return to the game so the other npcs are not eyeing you so close. Least that's what my character would do.
Either way. I'd let it go and see what happens next session. If that stuff continues then find another group.
Edits. I need glasses.
I don't think the DM handled this well.
I wonder what your personal relationship with the DM is.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
Sounds like the DM was railroading. I'm not going to go into what he did right or wrong, but there definitely things he could have done to improve the encounter, assuming what you've told us is accurate and has all pertinent details.
However, reading the story, what comes to mind is that this seems to be a recurring event, you trying to cheat your way to gold. Reading between the lines, that may be rubbing the DM up the wrong way with how you're proceeding with the story. Or perhaps he really wanted you to earn that gold by doing a quest, and by scamming NPCs you'll bypass that quest and waste his effort he put into creating it. Maybe it's a plot hook that you haven't fully uncovered yet. Have a (very non-confrontational) chat and figure out if you're doing something to cause this reaction.
Alternatively, you could just have a poor relationship with the DM and he is just trying to get rid of you. Is this kind of thing (being railroaded into confrontations that purely serve to thwart your agency or otherwise frustrate you) something that happens a lot to you and only you? If you can't resolve it, then perhaps it's best you go play with people that want to play with you.
Edited to correct some major problems with autocorrect.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I don’t think anyone here has any right to judge the DM. We have a single and openly biased view. DM’s game - DM’s rules.
Most importantly charm person doesn’t work like that. You can’t cast it stealthily without using subtle spell, or a similar ability.
'No initiative, no surprise round, he just rolled attacks and damage.'
Without being in the game, my biggest takeaway is that there definitely should've been initiative. 6thLyranGuard and Beardsinger have the 'stealthy spell casting' ruling correct - however, as soon as the other gamblers knew something was up and they moved to attack you, that's an encounter and initiative should've been rolled.
The auto damage sounds like railroading. We're not talking about falling off a bridge whilst exploring and taking auto damage from a fall; these are living beings initiating some form of combat with the intent to harm/apprehend, therefore initiative rolls should've been called for.
#Open D&D
Have the Physical Books? Confused as to why you're not allowed to redeem them for free on D&D Beyond? Questions answered here at the Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You FAQ
Looking to add mouse-over triggered tooltips to such things like magic items, monsters or combat actions? Then dash over to the How to Add Tooltips thread.
Not a great look for the DM, I think, but I'd try to refrain from looking at any situation as if there must be an a-hole involved and blame to be assigned. That isn't going to help anybody. Take your DM aside for a friendly chat, tell them how you feel about the last session, ask if there's some kind of disconnect and if so, how it can be solved. Focus on making the situation better, not on who made it worse.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
So I did realize that most of you are correct, that I cannot cast a spell quietly. I contacted my DM and told him about it, and how it made me unhappy but he basically just responded with "I'm the DM and it's my ruling so deal with it". Overall I believe I'm going to leave the game, cause I'm no longer having fun. The only reason I've stayed in other campaign was because the other players were excellent roleplayers and that's what made it fun.
While I appreciate your opinion, this took a total of 3 minutes to complete, and a few of the other characters were using spells to try to help me out, from afar. I do not appreciate stealing the spotlight, amd I can assure you everything everyone else did was much longer what I did.
Another thing that I would like to mention, is that certain players having the spotlight isn't always bad, to an extent. I am a DM myself, and ik it's always good to give your players the spotlight, so long as you dont keep the spotlight on one person. If I have a very skilled cheater, and its ine of the main parts of my character, of course I'm going to cheat. If you have a scout, your going to scout. As a DM you shouldn't just shut people down, if they want to do something that highlights there characters. Let them do it. And as long as you make sure, others have opportunities to make their character be in the spotlight.
One thing your DM did wrong was to allow them all to attack first. The surprised condition does not happen when someone simply decides to attack first. It happens when you're completely unaware of the enemy's presence before they decide to attack. There is no surprise without Stealth, and there's no Stealth when sitting across the table from someone.
The ruling on Charm Person is fair. It might be unfair that the ruling was inconsistently applied to the other player, but it may be the situation was different. Casting Charm Person on someone across a crowded room is very different from casting Charm Person on someone sitting at a table with you.
You messed around and found out.
That's a DM's prerogative, but that's not what happened here. If a DM has an issue with something a player does, some passive-aggressive reaction towards their character is silly and uncalled for.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I will echo 6thLyranGuard and recommend not playing with that group. As commonly said, no D&D is better than bad D&D. If you are not having fun and it is making you upset, it is bad D&D.
It does not really matter who is right or wrong if you do not gel with the people in the first place.
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 >
Yea, I don't think playing at a table where you have a beef with the DM is a very good idea. It should be about adventures and having fun, and if the two of you have negative feeling towards eachother it'll just end badly.
I'm curious though, do you know the DM outside the game? Is he a stranger? It sounds like there's a lack of mutual friendship going on here, which makes him more likely to be kinda dismissive towards you.
This is why I think you should try to play with people with whom you are friendly.. That way everyone involved wants to make eachother happy.
If the DM says the NPCs don't want to switch game nor let you make any skill checks to convince them, it's his perogative.
There's no such thing as surprise round though. When the you evoked intentions of casting a spell, initiative should have been rolled and proceed in combat round, turn by turn, for actions resolution.
Casting any spell at a gambling table is an invitation for violence, gamblers are naturally suspicious of cheaters. Furthermore, charm person is a single target spell that would trigger the rest of a group. It's also poor taste to think your character is going to take the tables attention for a petty con. Who else was playing? what were they doing? How did you include them? Why were you doing it?
Your character choice isn't an invitation to attempt to windfall on fortune, there's no point in trying to beat the DM, any plan you have should always be an invitation to entertain the table, following the principal of mutual self benefit, if your spending the tables time trying to enrich your character... that's selfish, if you haven't found a way to entertain your table with it, you deserved to fail. The fact that the DM wasn't talented enough to play it off, or didn't have the patience for your diversion, or even ruled wrong is all actually rather moot, unless your patronizing the table with interesting gameplay, you basically asked to fail.
The DM doesn't owe you a persuasion roll for your attempt, he could have let you finish the spell, you pretty much guarenteed you'd fail by yourself, and the same outcome should have occurred.
Here's an actually interesting trickery domain story from a friend, the Cleric and another player, maybe a Trickster, harvested urine from the latrine, they used Purify Food and Drink to clean the water, than Prestidigitaion to make it taste like wine, than sold it to the townsfolk for a competitive price, basically printing money. This please their god, entertained the table, and made money.
Your real problem here is that your thinking about yourself and what your owed, you might have a bad DM, but coming here and giving one side of a story to strangers doesn't prove anything about them. I can gather more from your own confession though that your not recognizing the deeper value of RPing. You can contribute to the entertainment of your table even as a player. Everyone comes to D&D for entertainment, if your fixated with your characters success, your only going to have a good time when the DM says you succeed. If your engaging the identity of your character in whichever outcome occurs, your now, actually, role playing. This is why I mostly grant inspiration to players who embrace their failures and engage in roleplay when their character is unsuccessful. If your gonna disconnect and lose interest every time the fallible human trying to entertain a group makes a mistake, or doesn't patronize your fascination, and come here and whine to a bunch of second hand opinions, I'd be glad that you left before I remove you from the group.
Your DM might not have been open to switching games because maybe the book detailed how this game worked and they didn't want to come up with a new game on the spot.
If I were the DM at that point, upon hearing your plan, I might even have just said that outright. "Hey, sorry, it details this game in the adventure and idk how any other games would work." That could've cleared everything up.
Did you share your plan with the DM beforehand, or were you playing close to the chest so the DM couldn't "mess it up"? I know people who do that and, especially with less experienced DM's, it always bites the player in the ass. Communicate with your DM.
So first and foremost, and I think a lot of threads miss the mark here since everyone dogpiles instantly on the thread poster. Are you in the wrong for feeling angry? No. You are entitled to your feelings, period.
Now, let's talk about the things you posted. Charm Person, the way it works is that it has verbal and somatic components. So an incantation and some form of hand gestures. You were playing a game of Three Dragon Ante at a table of people up close, you came up, established you were rich and then started losing immediately. Now the other players at the table are interested, but within the context of the game the other NPCs are actively paying attention to you. Casting a spell during a game with no provocation or announcement can be perceived as a hostile action. They might not know what spell it was, but all of the sudden the "mark" is casting magic? I can totally agree with the DM here on them turning agressive.
In terms of them just getting to roll attacks, I wouldn't have done that. It's initiative time, but not just hey they get free attacks.
This is the thing that most people in the thread have an issue with, in a nutshell. You were playing a game that is for everyone and you were doing things by yourself that would have huge implications not just for that session, but for the rest of the game. Dragon Heist is centered in Waterdeep. Not being able to go to a local tavern and being branded as ruffians has wide reaching social implications for how other NPCs will react to you. This paragraph is written with the context given in the original post, not the follow up replies.
Now taking into account the follow up replies, if other players were casting spells from afar, honestly it makes the situation with the NPCs more valid. They could have noticed it already but not acting/reacting and then when you did it so blatantly in their face they had readied actions to fire off at you, the mark.
You talk about not stealing the spotlight and how others were allowing you to do that, but that wasn't in the original post. Context is important, and honestly on these forums I see it far too often where everyone is going to say OP was wrong because in the vast majority of "AM I WRONG" threads, the instant reaction is to go yes. Group/Social/Table dynamics are different now, and it changes the context of the original story because now its more of a cohesive party, but your original post reads "Well, I wanted to do what I wanted to do and the implication was the party was going to get banned for my actions.", and now the gutcheck of THESE forums is to blame you.
I don't blame you, you were asking for legit criticism and to see the same three things in this thread of "Maybe you shouldn't play with that group, OP IS WRONG, WILD ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT OP AS A PERSON", and that's just disheartening.
Food for final thought is to have a conversation with the DM from a group perspective about how certain interactions would go. Prose some hypotheticals to the DM about situations to gauge what their response would be, that way you know for future how certain things will play out. Knowing those things will change how you as a player interact with their world, but more importantly it won't put you/character/party in a potentially antagonistic situation like this where I think the DM was just trying to adjudicate in the heat of the moment, and in their head it makes total sense, but maybe they didn't have the immediate tools to elucidate that decision.
I really hope that's a typo. 🤔
Every character should get some spotlight for a little while. It's remarkably uninteresting if all characters are somehow some borg-like hive-mind entity with no individuality. In every game I've played each character has their own something, a moment where they can do their own thing, just a little bit. This wasn't some big long escapade - it's a quick and simple thing while they rested in a tavern. This is absolutely the perfect time to have each player choose if they want their characters to do something on their own. In these situations the DM just goes through them in turn. It's a few minutes, tops, per player. Some might even join in (which is what ended up happening).
You don't get to decide if this brought something to the table or not. This wasn't your game. Personally, I like when players take these little moments, even as a player it's interesting to see what they do, brings some immersion and roleplay. Maybe it is something my character could react to - but even if not, I can be entertained passively for a few minutes. Or if it isn't too interesting for me, I could think about what my own character would like to do in this moment of respite.
And since it seems the other players were interested in this and were even joining in a few times -- clearly the OP brought something to the table they all enjoyed.
As for the DM sending a message - doesn't have to be a dick about it. It's Players First, Characters Second. If the DM needed the character to stop these little antics, then the DM can just grow up and talk to the player like a person. "Hey, OP, I know you like these cons and stuff, but can you do them less or stop as I'm finding it very disruptive and difficult. Thank you." -- and done. No harm, no foul, no mess and no drama. Simple, easy, sweet. It is part of the DM's job to communicate with the players. Using DM fiat to screw somebody over in-game passive-aggressively is not good. It's meant to be fun. Just talk to the player.
It would be reasonable for hostility and accusation. Not reasonable for instant-murder-attempt. Even less reasonable for a DM to ignore the rules and just have the character be nearly killed without any chance of defence or anything.
Again, characters are not hive-mind shells. Everyone has their own individual character, characters that will do their own things from time to time during rests, downtime, and when not actually out adventuring. It helps the roleplay and immersion, it brings life to a character and makes them more than a bunch of numbers on a sheet. The OP made a charlatan, a trickster, and the DM approved this. It's a couple minutes for the character to be themselves and since the group sometimes even joins in - all's gravy then. Everyone has fun. How is everyone having fun "poor taste"?
Windfall on fortune? Beat the DM? What the fluff are you on about? It's a few coins in a card game, they're not robbing a bank. The OP made a character who likes to do these little cons. The DM accepted. The other players agreed and sometimes join in. Is it selfish if a thief pickpockets? Is it selfish if the bard takes the stage for a song? Is it selfish when the barbarian goes fight in the arena? Is it selfish if the wizard goes to the library? Is it selfish if the cleric goes to the local shrine?
No.
They're characters. Not robots. They will all have their own thing. WHen not on adventure why not do your own thing for a bit? Everyone at the table gets to do this. In 20 years of playing TTRPGS (not just D&D) never had a game where this wasn't done. This is normal, common and part of every game. A few minutes here and there to make your character seem more like a character is pretty standard for most TTRPGs that have narrative elements.
Do you take a party vote everytime you want to do something?
P: "I want to get a drink, I go to the bar and flag the bartender down."
DM: Did the whole party vote for this action to be done?
P: "No"
DM: Then you are unable to interact with the bartender. Don't be so ******* selfish."
Nah, That's just hostile. If somebody wants to just play cards in a tavern, let them play. It's a small interaction. A couple mins. Loosen up, like, yeah?
But the table were entertained by it. Only the DM wasn't, evidently.
By the fluffy gods your post confuses me. The table were entertained by this, only the DM wasn't The DM knew this would be a thing- OP made a con artist, DM approves the character - why would they be upset about the con artist they approved .. being a con artist. . They were in a tavern resting not a mission. If the DM was unhappy about the con artist being a con artist, he could just y'know talk to the player.
"What, your con artist tried to do a con? NANI?! DIE DIE DIE!!!11!!"
Yeah, no. Unless the DM is a child this is not acceptable. The OP used his character correctly and it was something that brought fun for himself and the other players. He should not be punished like that.
So, if somebody in real life cheated in cards for a little money, maybe $100 or something, they deserve to have multiple people instantly try to murder them? Are you psychotic or something? At worst it would be a couple mere punches, some harsh words and thrown out. Even less if they failed. And to throw in some mysterious godforce making you unable to react or do anything to save yourself?
Nobody, not even the OP, is saying they should have succeeded. They're saying the DM was extreme in the reaction and they'd be 100% perfectly accurate. Even if this was an hour (instead of a couple of minutes) and was just for the OP (even though the whole group, sans DM, actually enjoy the cons) and was the hundredth con (even though they only recently started and there's been only a few at most) -- it does not excuse the DM's dickery. If the DM was frustrated, they could turn to the player (who was just playing a character the DM approved of) and speak to them like a normal person.
You don't get to decide what the OP was or was not thinking. Their story and follow-ups hold absolutely zero indication of feeling like being owed anything. They made a con-artist character and in a moment off adventure, they played a con - something that up until this point was given the OK, and something the other players joined in on. This is just a player playing a character.
People come on here to share stories and experiences. Sometimes to vent. And the OP even recognises his perspective may be biased and seeks clarification. This happens all the time. They're not trying to get hate to the DM. They sought advise on if it was them, the DM or what to do. They've received advice, listened to it and following their DM's lack of care, seems to have made the decision to leave the group.
Nothing about this is "hey XYZ was a dick, plz agree" or anything. They explained the situation, including their own faults, and sought advice. I don't think your response - which seems to have missed A LOT of what has been said - is appropriate. You're saying the OP came on her to "prove" something about the DM but they're not doing this at all.
And now you're the deciding factor on what is "the deeper value of RPing", are you? We're in disagreement here. Big time.
Your post reeks of gatekeeping "you don't RP the same way as me, so you suck" nonsense.
Which he did successfully, since the other players had fun as well.
And now you're contradicting yourself. The character's identity is that of a con artist and so will want to play little cons and cheats here and there. The DM approved the character. The other players found these enjoyable. The OP made an attempt and it failed - which is fine. That's not the problem.
The problem is that the DM made it an automatic fail with severe, unrealistic consequences that the player was not allowed to react to. Just simply "nope, and now they all try to kill you." That is the part the OP is unhappy with.
I really hope this is just you not understanding things and misreading. Because your responses don't make sense, seem to miss the point entirely, miss a lot of information, and seem extremely hostile. What the fluff?
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
This is a bit of a tangent, but for future reference -- this is an incredibly poorly thought-out con. When you're hustling people, the point of losing at a game early is to disguise how good you actually are at it. You're also giving the other players a lot of incentive to keep playing three-dragon ante by doing that -- they're up and you're down, so why would they want to start playing something else? Losing and then trying to switch the game basically means you threw all that money away on the early hands for no reason, since you'd just have to re-establish your apparent skill at the new game.
Here's a better idea: sleight of hand/magic the deck to cause maximum chaos. You should be neither significantly up nor down; in fact, just fold early for the most part. Don't try to sell the idea that you're an easy mark splashing around coin, but instead an easy-to-read mook who isn't getting cards and is getting frustrated (if you have a fat stack in front of you that all came out of your own pocket, it will speak for itself). Try to create hands that wind up being absolute stack-wreckers for some other poor shmuck, where they have the second-best possible hand but show down against the best possible hand. Do that kind of thing a few more times, not every hand but with alarming frequency, and switching around who wins the huge pot and who loses, in order to get everyone else at the table feeling very uneasy about the wild swings in "fortune" that are going around. Slip yourself in as a big loser once in the mix, to help sell the idea you could pack it in and leave at any moment. Then, when you give voice to those concerns about the swings ("wow, I didn't know three-dragon ante could get this crazy... maybe we should play something else?") and the sharks at the table are both worried about their own stack getting chopped down by a bad beat and also seeing your coin get up and leave the table before they can win it, you might have better luck of convincing everyone it's a good idea to switch games.
The moment you pull out your own deck you're probably screwed though. That's just incredibly amateurish. I mean, put yourself in their shoes -- some guy you've never seen before sits down at the table and after a few minutes tries to convince you to switch to his own game, with his own deck that he just happens to have on him? I don't know about you, but I'd probably tell him to (ahem) go play solitaire.
That's really the biggest flaw here. Nothing about your con took the thoughts and motivations of the other players at the table into consideration at all. It doesn't matter if they were NPCs -- your scheme only works if they just blindly go along with your every move, and you gave the DM no reason to have them behave that way (until you tried your desperation charm spell, but at that point it was far too late). The best cons make the mark think they're the smart one -- your plan only works if your marks are all dumber than a bag of warhammers, and even then it's 50/50.
I'd say your trickery god would be very disappointed in you for the whole clumsy enterprise. Unless you got thrown out of the tavern and landed in some street muck, cuz most trickery gods are suckers for slapstick.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)