Considering the entire story that is "Do You Like A Mother Whose Normal Attack Is A Double Hit On All Targets?",a step-mom DnD animated series would be awesome.
@ I think it explains the one guy dramatically changing position out of nowhere and trying to get closer to the girl while the first guy gets angry at him for it.
@@Unknown-qj9sm I’d understand that if they weren’t in their 20’s. That’s like, 13yr old behaviour lol Idk why people always assume everyone gotta be so horny haha but tbf, the Community is down bad.
Sorcerer have six spells at level 1, when wizard have 7. At level 7-10 of course wizard would have more spells but on low levels sorcerer spell list not so small.
The person I feel the most for in that book burning story was the 4th party member: relegated so far to the sidelines on this group that we don't even get a class or pseudonym.
Or you know OP posted the part that was relevant to the argument and #4 didn't interfere with other people's agency at the table either way and therefore gets no mention for being well behaved and Fing normal.
@@janschievink1586 i don't know why you responded in an offended tone to this. They said they felt bad for the fourth party member so why are you responding like they insulted them? Did you misread the post?
@@spiderbug7615 There being conspiratorial when the post literally doesn't say anything about what the fourth party member was doing presuming #4 was getting sidelined in the campaign because they didn't do anything relevant to the incident is silly.
As someone that does theater, the last story just sounds like someone who knows how to act with someone who doesn't. For actors, it is easy to remove the situations from real life. Even the physical touch part. That's something that we do in improv or scenes. It comes with the territory. I think the step mom didn't see it as an issue because was used to being able to remove themselves from the given circumstances. Something OP wasn't able to do without theater training.
@@lordpepper6932 This reminds me of a bad take from Critcrab regarding a stolen healing item where like these two they decided on a villain of the story at the beginning of the story and ignore anything that say otherwise. They will ignore and downplay anything the person they don't deem the "villain" does while going after the "Villain" for any small thing or even for not doing stuff that the "Villain" even said they did in the story. The part that genuinly peeved me is them going whatever to the Wizard betraying the party and forcing them to make checks to convince them to stop fighting against them.
What in God's name is going on in that second story!? What in the hell. Spencer's idea of them both crushing on Jess makes a lot of sense though. I woulda never thought of that.
I am 110% on the side of the Magic hating Ranger. They had been willing to play with the guy who became a wizard so it's not like they were blocking them. They kept playing/parting with the wizard despite constantly using magic showing they were willing to rp this. They did not attack them when they became a wizard and destroyed there spell book, instead it was only after they had metaphorically been backed into a corner that they did so. They had sworn that if they cast a spell on them they would retaliate, then the wizard went out of their way to cast a spell on the Ranger. It could not be played of as a accident or that the wizard did not know what would happen. If it was me and after all that the DM turned around and said 'No you didn't' about burning the spell book I'd be PISSED. They let it reach that stage and only then stepped in to turn Ranger into a lier would suck. I like spellcasters so not really a shoe in this fight but I still stand with Ranger in this case.
Ngl, I went into mageslayer fully expecting them to be the AH, but I absolutely came around I don't like if they were specifically limiting other ppls class choices, but this felt more like they said "hey, this is my concept, will this bother anyone or should i switch?", then when Jess wanted to play sorc they took the reasonable route of "this could be the roleplay dynamic between us, would that work for you?" Even when Dave took a level in wizard, mage slayer was just like "remember i dont do well with arcanists" but they continued trying to make it work and just saying, keep that magic off me and youll be fine Burning the spellbook was probably too far, but after having another player explicitly breach consent by casting a spell, then continuing to escalate it from rp to fullblown pvp, i really cant feel bad for the guy who had to face consequences for pushing buttons repeatedly
Yeah the take on that one... rubbed me hella wrong. However you feel about the character concept itself, the OP didn't DO anything to Dave's character up until Dave quite literally assaulted OP. Unwanted touch is assault, just like unwanted magic (that you have REPEATEDLY SAID NOT TO FUCKING DO) is assault. You DO NOT do that shit to another player's character, especially when they both in and out of character have warned and asked you to not do that. After that, what happens to your character is the result of your stupid consequences. Would these people shitting on OP feel the same way if the OP was simply anti-rogue and someone who showed no interest in being a rogue suddenly dipped into it and started constantly stealing stuff, helping baddies steal stuff or trying to excuse the baddies stealing, and also 'jokingly' showing off the things they'd stolen right in front of them? AND OBVIOUSLY ONLY DOING THIS TO ANTAGONIZE THE OP, even when it is not anything their character had ever been interested in before and had no reason to be doing? And then to further antagonize the anti-rogue, they proceeded to repeatedly steal things FROM THEM? And after being told both in and out of character that if they ever dared steal from them again they'd beat the shit out of them they PROCEEDED TO STEAL FROM THEM AGAIN? Obviously you'd deserve the goddamn consequences at that point, so why is this any different just because it's "anti arcane magic"?
In the book burning thing, it was 80% Dave's fault IF the op was to be believed as is. It would be the equivalent of saying "Hey, I really don't like to be touched, so no handshakes or anything like that, cool?" and the party agreeing, only to have one of them that agreed point their finger super close to your face over and over saying "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!" and then getting offended when you essentially hit them for doing it over and over. A crybully, if you will.
Except the provocation was... Lemme check: Using magic to clean someone else's armour which then got the totally equivalent action of attacking the character. Then threatening to burn Dave's spellbook for... using any sort of magic on OP, helpful or not. Shocking Grasp is as much an offence as Healing Word or Haste. I'm not on Dave's side, he was petty af but OP was like "I don't like to be touched, so if you touch me then I will kill your dog".
@@mouthyschannel2474 1. They only burned the spellbook after the Wizard initiated PVP after the Ranger did the roleplay equivalent pf slapping the Wizard's hand away. They mentioned that the attack did no damage. 2. Shocking Grasp is in no way comparable to Haste or Healing Word, one does damage the other two heal or buff.
@@mouthyschannel2474 Here's the thing though: The character's anti-magic stance was noted before the campaign even started and everyone agreed to it and acknowledged an said it wouldn't be a problem. Dave comes in and *makes* it a problem. He suddenly takes an absurdist "Wizards can do nothing wrong" stance out of nowhere and takes a wizard class, even after being reminded about the other character in the party (And tried to bait out a fight in his reply as well.) Dave gets a verbal warning that if he casts magic on the magic-hater, he's gonna face some REAL bad consequences. Dave ignores *all of the above* and decides to poke the bear. The reaction might have been harsh, but if you're going to willfully ignore warning after warning after warning, then I'm not all that sympathetic when the consequence bus rolls into town. You may not agree with the proportionality of 'if you touch me I'll kll your dog'. But there were at least THREE different signs that TOLD everyone "If you touch me, I will kill your dog".
@@phazonmetroid1 Yea I don't really get why people are upset at OP when everyone was okay with his idea from the very start and everyone knew of it. I thought DnD is about freedom to make characters you want but suddenly mage hater is bad? And it's all on Dave for ignoring every warning throughout entire campaign just to spite OP.
Regarding the Dave magic hater story: My first impression was that this might have been a setting thing, since Jess' sorcerer also viewed her powers as a curse. I suspect that the setting was set up so that arcane magic is generally considered evil. With Jess willingly playing a sorcerer who is avoiding using her magic, it really seems like that was a core idea that was okay with the group. There's probably more missing context, but assuming everything at face value I would say that the orc player should have gotten with the other players and set up some kind of more believable in story reason for his character to start becoming a wizard and to roleplay that aspect of it harder rather than just seeming like they did it to spite Dave. Besides, losing a lvl1 spellbook at character lvl 5 is hardly a big deal
I also thought this. A lot of things like tribes that hate arcane magic, enemies that are all specifically spellcasters convincing them to join their side, and the choice to pick the mage slayer feat all seem like things specific to the setting. No hate at all to Jacob whatsoever, but they went into the story questioning the player as much as possible, to the point where basic stuff they say like “talk to the players about this” is just actually brought up later by the writer. It feels like they jump the gun on a lot of their criticisms. Even though they acknowledge that something they said is brought up, they make it about “hating Dave” rather than what might actually be happening.
Some of that is the nature of reaction content; you want to give your gut reaction the moment you get it so that you're not sitting there quietly reviewing something to give a super correct and thought out response at the end... that's a different kind of video
Yeah that entire story Jacob seemed extremely baised against this guy's character for no reason? Like straight up dave does something really inconvienient for the party and its literally "whatever". Not to mention apparently dave openly explaining he hated mages to his entire party and them all not objecting wasn't ENOUGH clarification according to Jacob, and he needed to further elaborate on specific clauses like picking a mage class later down the line? Like screw off i main wizard/necromancy in like every dnd and I see nothing wrong with mageslayer, dave is just being a prick.
@@commiterror404irl5 It wasn't for no reason, like Jacob mentioned a lot of details about his character would otherwise traditionally be gigantic red flags in any more traditional campaign. And considering that it's an AITAH story on Reddit, people usually leave out small details and paint the scenario to make them look as great as possible to garner sympathy. Or it's entirely made up like a lot of the AITAH stories on Reddit are, and it's intentional to get people to argue about assumptions in the comments, Reddit has gotten pretty good at content farming over the years.
@@RutilusMonachus I mean sure but my issue is with his reaction regardless of the validity of this information, he said "whatever" to dave trying to talk with the evil necromancer they were fighting and wasting turns while nobody else was doing that, and I'm sure if mageslayer did this same thing against some anti-mage opponent Jacob would be on his case.
At the start of the story, the warrior character sounded like he'd be a problem player, but I was pleasantly surprised to find he played it well and reasonably respectfully. It would have been poor behavior on the player's part to attack the wizard or destroy his spellbook as soon as he multiclassed into wizard, but he didn’t. He set boundaries and said 'just don't cast spells on me!' A very modest request which the other player did not respect. When a prank was played on his character with magic, his reaction was violent, but the player used it as a character moment and did not inflict harm. It was a warning shot. So when the wizard full on attacked him with magic and said he did want to have pvp, I would not have had any problem with the warrior decapitating the wizard at the end of combat. Instead, he just burned his spellbook. Restrained and appropriate considering he'd already used that threat as part of his boundary-setting warning which the wizard had violated. Making a new spellbook would be time-consuming and expensive, but doesn’t permanently cut that player off from regaining access to those class features eventually. If anything, it'd be good lesson in not poking a sleeping bear by screwing around in ways that deliberately tick off other prople at the table. I give the warrior a thumbs up for his actions in this situation.
Yeah, the DM was making no real attempt at curbing the wizard's instigating behavior, even after the other players started complaining to him above table about it. OP had to do something with genuine consequences if he had any chance at getting the nagging to stop. Dude f'd around, and he found out. From an outside perspective, I actually think the fresh faced wizard having to grumpily replace his spellbook in a party that distrusts his new class is actually really good storytelling too - but the player instead resorts to whining.
Yep. Dave was a bully, fucked around and found out. He should have been booted from the group the moment he started trolling OP, in the first place. Jacob's take honestly pisses me the fuck off because it shows him to be a bully, just like Dave. He's piling on the _victim_ for a frankly well measured response. What a fucking douchebag he is.
One of my favorite characters that I played that is dangerously close to that trope of hating magic was a barbarian who didn't believe magic was real. It was really fun because I had to come up with excuses why all the casters in the party were actually just trying to trick me
@@BlakesGamez Did this once on a Marvel-Like game. My character was an detective that was sure that everything happening was some Conspiration Theory and everyone excpet him was brainwashed. ... having extreme luck on dices against super powers and only taking damage from guns surelly didnt help. The RNG Deities wanted the mf'er with his Tinfoil Hat.
I'm in a Vaesen campaign (magical creatures in 19th-century Sweden) and my character is basically this. He's an Irish businessman with a traumatic backstory related to the Vaesen so he chooses to believe they don't exist, and I get to come up with all sorts of wacky reasons why the very clearly supernatural things that happen actually aren't supernatural at all.
DAT MAGIC HAND JUST FLOATS WITH STRINGS!!! YOU JUST THREW A BURNING BOTTLE OF ALCOHOL AT THAT GUY, THAT'S NOT A FIREBALL... wait we did buy some Fireball whiskey, maybe it was a fireball
14:15 I disagree, the idea of a character who loathes magic due to his cultural upbringing is an unbelievable idea for a character. He had checked with everybody beforehand and they all said he was good. Dave knew what he was getting into and instigated it from the beginning.
Yeah, gotta say it was pretty telling that their opinion on that story was already set in stone when they went on a rant about this being a character that needs to be cleared with the group, then when they got two whole sentences into the story and it was shown that he *did* clear it, they tried to excuse it as “well technically they didn’t all say they were okay with it just that it didn’t matter to them!” and acting like burning the spellbook of the Fighter4/Wizard1 is somehow crippling to him.
Yeah, I agree. The trope of a character who loathes magic already existed in D&D itself - back in 3e, I remember a prestige class for barbarians where the whole idea was that they hated magic, were superstitious against it, and you couldn't allow yourself to have magic willingly cast on you. In fact, if I remember correctly, you got spell resistance against all magic and *couldn't* lower it for helpful magic. And it went so far as to the character not having magic items - they had to *destroy* magic items to gain their powers. And, of course, it hinders fun and interesting growth of the characters. Like you said, the player okayed the character concept with the group - if anyone was planning on playing a magic character, *that was the time to raise the issue*. Dave completely instigated *everything* in that story, just to get at OP, kept needling him. And like someone else said...losing your spellbook, especially in 5e, isn't that disastrous. And he was warned against it to begin with, with the exact threat of "If you cast magic on me, I'll destroy your spellbook". Cause and effect.
I clock Dave's type immediately. Granted we don't get his side of the story so there's a good chance I'm wrong, but I've been in a game w/that type of play. OP is at least looking for reasonable in-party tension & giving lots of warnings (tho there should've been OOC warnings and discussion too), but dave is only looking to be a Hero™ against something he IRL thinks is deplorable, instead of considering the other player at the table. I was in a game where me & the only other player were both paranoid & picked a fight w/someone who we were wrongfully fearful of, next session 2 new players showed up, saw us attacking the guard, and immediately attacked us. We let it happen for a while but didn't want to die (or kill them), so OOC we stopped the fight & said we should stop. They cried "IT'S WHAT MY CHARACTER WOULD DO!1!1!!!!" so we were like, ok, let's find a way for the fight to be _interrupted_ long enough for us to talk, but they whined & refused & said our characters HAD to die for doing something ~unforgivable~. That's Dave's type. he doesn't want the party to have fun, he just wants to lord over his Moral Righteousness over another pc he's deemed bigoted w/out caring about the player behind it. OP should have stopped & talked OOC, made sure he knew the spellbook threat was Real, discussed being uncomfortable w/his behavior, and worked out a solution. But tbh there's ways to save a spellbook. if the 4th player was so mad their character could've done something to get it out. the DM could've had it rain. they could've made a quest out of getting a replacement. but there's nothing that can save that petty pushing another player into a corner like that. IC problems (spellbook) are easily solved w/imagination & creativity; the spellbook isn't REAL. the players are, so OOC pettiness is the worse problem, hands down.
it sounds like there was OOC discussion and not just from OP but from the entire party on multiple occasions, unless im misinterpretation what was said.
@@outcastedOpal what I mean is before it becomes a serious problem, pulling the guy aside and saying "Hey, this is making me really uncomfortable. let's discuss what we want to have happen in this game and plan how we should handle our respective characters."
@@Pinkstarclan yeah i got the impression thats what happened no? asside from him clearing his character concept in session 0, the whole part talked to him about siding with evil wizards, Op talked to him about how its totally fine that hes a wizard now but to remember not to push boundaries, and even when the characters started pvp, it seemed that he told the party that he didnt want pvp to happen until Dave sorta pressured him into it.
@@outcastedOpal it didn't read to me like they talked past the intro until the problem happened, but I suppose that's the downside of these AITA posts: only 1 side of the story, always leaving out details & letting a lot be inferred
Like this was just how it worked when I was in theatre. We're all actors, we're all comfortable with each other, we do all kinds of stuff. We understand not to take things too far, but, other peoples' boundaries are WAY different than ours. So, that's a really interesting story, and puts things into perspective for me!
Yeah, the way she didn't realize why the guy was uncomfortable until he points it out is gold. Like, for her she is just "doing what her character would do", and she even made her character completely based on what she knew of the game based on a campaign she saw, so it's not like she created a flirty character because she loves it, but because that was her information on how the game plays out. It is just so funny watching the guy get extremely uncomfortable because Alice was immersing herself completely and he wasn't. Like, if you create a character that loves to flirt and they get deeply inspired by someone else, it is a classic trope that they will start learning "true love", so she was playing this out. It makes so much sense, but also sounds deeply embarrassing for someone who can't dissociate from the character too much like the guy.
@@TunaHorns The way you phrase it makes it sound like it's his fault. It's only normal to have a harder time fully immersing when you're in an awkward situation. It's not as simple as him not dissociating enough.
Regarding the Mage-slayer story: Generally, "I hate arcane magic" is going to be a problematic personality trait for most tables, but this table appears to have been willing to test it out. "I mistrust arcane magic" is a lot easier to work with, and could easily be what mageslayer meant, but we can't know for certain. But Dave? Dave took actions specifically to be annoying. Abstaining from combat against a random wizard because "They're smarter than me" is immensely flimsy - especially if there is not extreme amoral lust for power in the character, there's no reason to betray the party for a stranger - and blocks party cohesion. Moreover, taking a late level in Wizard like that is transparently motivated by a desire to stir shit. Which was made evident when he non-consensually cast Prestidigitation. Jumping straight to a violent outburst without one final warning isn't a decision I like, though. Nor is destroying the spellbook. OP ought not have done either of those things. But really it was up to them to (say it with me now) communicate with one another. Like. Who woulda guessed.
I agree, except on the last bits. Damage wasn't dealt, that *was* the final warning, and Dave decided to keep anyways and is the one that started the actual PvP(I've done that before as well, where my character threatened another's briefly, and I've had it done to my characters before too, each situation never went farther than that, but it also didn't include any OOC reasoning or pestering). OP may have been a little childish occasionally, but it doesn't seem like they forced the personality trait on anyone, they asked about it above table, and everyone didn't have a problem with it until Dave started acting up randomly. I agree that burning the book was petty AF, but, I'm also petty AF, I probably would've done the same. Doesn't make it right, but, dude also kinda had it coming when Dave was blatantly trying to stir shit
@@xpandorasboxx Whether or not damage was dealt isn't exactly my point. Moreso that leveraging a feat to perform an attack - even with the caveat it will be a damageless attack - is going to come off as "asshole behaviour", at least some of the time. Its not the biggest problem, as it didn't do anything but express OP's character's anger. But it does come across as adversarial, and isn't a decision *I* would make. I absolutely agree Dave had the spellbook burning coming, though. On an emotional level, 100% deserved. But having characters be mechanically hurt in that way is also pretty rough.
@@smefgrimstae7845The deciding factor for me is that he was warned that his spellbook would be burned if he cast a spell on the dude, and then escalated it to a duel.
considering the sorceror seemed to be his best friend i have no issue with "I hate arcane magic" because it never crossed over into "I hate arcane mages" until dave intentionally tried to make that happen.
Taking Mageslayer OP's story at face value, they had a character concept, they checked with the group, no one disagreed about it and the one sorcerer said it would work out well with their character concept, and the antagonistic player was purely toxic and combative the entire time. Unless there's a ton of missing context, OP does not seem like the asshole. But agreed, they shouldn't play together. They clearly don't like each other, otherwise they'd just talk about it.
Definitely seems like an ESH, but yeah, at face value, it seems like Dave was specifically trying to get under OP’s skin and was shocked when OP followed through
The biggest offense is Dave being upset. I personally love creating characters that can rub other PCs the wrong way because of their strong opinions. When you take on that role as an aggravator for a group, it can really spice up roleplay but you can't get upset when things don't play out in your favor. It's the position you've put yourself in to roll a boulder uphill, against the grain, and if you can't handle the boulder rolling back down with grace then you shouldn't have started rolling it up in the first place.
I actually think that what Spencer said may be kinda accurate. At least partially. OP may not have had a crush on the sorcerer, just liked the character connection, but fuckin Dave may have been jealous of that connection, whether above table or between characters, and was clearly seeking group focus with the combat interruptions prior. Like, thats one thing that I actually think was the DM's fault here, that should have been talked out above table. Playing dumb in every encounter and trusting obvious badguys all the time cause lulzrandum is disruptive and dumb. Whether this is just how the guy plays, or because they were jealous of the attention OP had from the start and just kept escalating? Who knows. Could be either honestly. But I agree, unless there is loads of missing context(there oculd be, OP *could* be a dick and be misrepresenting things), Dave is 100% at fault and OP is justified in burning the spellbook. It was a direct clarified threat and Dave had every opportunity to back down after the first exchange. DM also should have stepped in here, pvp over clear out of table pettiness is stupid, but regardless Dave is definitely an instigator.
Playing devil's advocate for OP in the second story: I feel like it'd be pretty hard to have a character arc about learning to accept magic when between the only two magic users in the party one thinks it's a curse and the other is being openly antagonistic and unhelpful.
@themenagerie5247 Is that official, or buried in a UA somewhere? "If a character's arc isn't resolved by the time they reach level 5, that arc can never be resolved, and the character must leave the party and retire from adventuring, as their personal growth is now a Lost Cause (tm)."
12:25 i think the Dave player is in the wrong. The guy seems like a "it's just a prank bro" type dude who likes to push buttons. He keeps pushing, until someone pushes back, then gets all offended when someone follows through on a warning they gave him. Yeah, mechanically it was kinda crippling, but story-wise, OPs character sounds like they'd do that. They warned everyone ahead of time, everyone was chill with it, then Dave started to be a douche. Idk, maybe he did have a crush on jess, and was low key jealous OP had all these rp interactions with her. Or had some weird vendetta against OP, idk, idk these people. Either way, the dm should have probably stepped in early like Spencer said and made sure everyone was doing all of this sincerely and didn't have issues with what's been going on above table. So, no, OP is not the asshole. Imo
In our Strength of Thousands game, my friend rolled up with a Matanji Orc (known to hunt demons and demon worshippers). Hearing this, I pitched. Beykar Tiefling (known to worship "demons" (actually devils)). Its been fun being snarky and learning to cooperate in character, but outside of some occasional AoE damage, we've never hurt or worked against each other. The story with the burned spellbook could have been such a fun arc for both characters, but they squandered it, imo.
The post is probably biased for sure, but yeah, if I was at a table with opposed/frictional character concepts like that I'd be checking in after every session to make sure things are going well. Character friction can be great if it's two players agreeing to put their Dudes in Situations but it sounds like this was intended specifically to tweak noses across the table.
@@stargateproductions is it common that people make worlds that dislike magic? I thought it'd be pretty rare tbh (an avid dnd lurker but not player lol)
11:21 I love this. Love the RP. (I usually don't allow pvp; haven't allowed it yet) I think as far as pvp goes, this isn't too bad. Especially at such a low wizard level, they probably lost only a couple spells at most. Dave is 100% in the wrong, the writer is 20% in the wrong.
That stepmom story was the best TTRPG Reddit story I have ever heard 😆 If I was one of dude’s friend in that campaign, I would (jokingly) give him shit about his hot stepmom until the end of time 😂🤣😂🤣 ~_~
As someone who DM's a family campaign (my parents, my sister, and her husband, we started in the first year of COVID as a way to stay in touch), I have (at multiple points) ended up flirting with all of my family members in some capacity, and that changes you. I didn't steer them into it, they all took it there on their own, but that doesn't make it any easier XD
Jacob, I have to disagree with you on Mageslayer being in the wrong at all. He asked the table and it was all established in the Session 0. If everyone agrees to the concepts at a Session 0 with one player actively liking the concept, and a player suddenly changes their mind and is antagonistic, it's not the Mageslayer who's in the wrong. NuWizard should have discussed the multiclass and how to proceed with the arc and trust magic rather than randomly turn antagonistic and butt in where he never was before. NuWizard had several warnings of what would happen, and could have even made an in character apology to Mageslayer, but instead he initiated PvP long after being told "Cast spells on me and I'll burn your book." NuWizard should have apologized, and offered his book as a peace offering, with Mageslayer setting his grudge aside for his companion. Of course, buildup beforehand would have needed to be different, but still.
Honestly, Dave is way more in the wrong in the spellbook burning post than OP. Obviously neither are entirely justified, but setting aside character choices, it really feels like Dave was doing it all just to get on OP's nerves? Like, OP's character idea was problematic, but he expressly went out of his way before the game started to ensure that it wouldn't be a problem for anyone at the table. The issue was arcane magic, and the only person playing an arcane caster had a viewpoint that aligned with his in a way that made for a compelling dynamic. Nobody else planned on playing one, so the issue would only be relegated to OP's characters having a heavy distrust of certain NPCs - which isn't a gamebreaking issue. And then, after OP cleared this with the rest of the group, Dave decides to make his character multi-class into Wizard and use spells in suspiciously high frequency, even down to having his character be so lax with it as to break another characters' boundaries in terms of magic. The whole thing, including his attempted dynamic with Jess, feels really forced - especially if Jess was having as many problems with it as OP, and from the sounds of it she was. It feels like Dave wanted to retroactively change his character to be OP's character's foil without clearing that with the rest of the group, and couldn't pick up the hint that it was a bit forced and a lot more antagonistic - both in and out of character - than it probably seemed.
Intentionally and openly doing something that violates boundaries, that were explicitly established and weren't outlandish, is too much. At most I could tell OP "dude, probably don't make a character that full of hate" but to Dave it's just "aight, go fuck right off"
@@stevefilms1997 If you start making it about the validity of the post rather than its content you've lost the plot you might as well conclude the whole thing's fiction designed to rile you up and not interact with it at all.
@@EnraiChannel as its written the writer is 100% in the right and dave is 100% in the wrong obviously we dont know all sides, but considering the 2/3 of the other people sided with the guy doing the book burning, including the DM, while the 1/3 people who didnt, didnt because they just thought it was harsh, im VERY inclined to believe the writer is at least mostly truthful
2nd player was 100% in the right he only went an "anti mage" guy with the express permission of everyone at the table, dave only went a mage AFTER allowing the anti mage guy to be a thing, and went a mage knowing the anti mage guy would be against that dave in character tried to antagonise the anti mage guy, got warned in character (and out of character) about how the anti mage guy would react, and still provoked it pvp between players is 100% a thing that can and should be allowed if everyone is ok with it, just blindly saying "pvp should be allowed" is just daft if the players are cool with it so dave, allowed an anti wizard character, then having allowed this, and knowing it exists rolled a wizard (he could easily have said beforehand "i will want to multiclass later so please dont") dave then deliberatly in character provoked the anti wizard guy, then got warned in character and out of character about how the anti wizard guy would react, and still chose to act in the way he did he engaged in pvp of his own volition, activly instigating it of his own choice, knowing that the other character would react in a certain way, and having previously given permision for that character to exist the writer is 100% fine, he did nothing wrong also jacobs absolute aversion to pvp is just....weird if both players are ok with it, why as the DM do you want to stop it? you are just preventing them from roleplaying and playing their characters, you are railroading if you are so utterly against pvp that you never want it to happen (despite it being a perfectly valid tool within a roleplaying game) then you dont put your foot down when its about to happen, you put your foot down when people are making characters that might clash OP asked for permision, and was given it by everyone at the table, dave after the fact chose to multiclass into wizard knowing ops character, if you are so against pvp its not op who was making the antagonistic character here, it was dave, because "the party hates magic" was already established at the point he CHOSE to make a wizard also the attitude that you ARENT ALLOWED to make a character who dislikes magic, and if you do you HAVE to make your character grow to like it, is just WILD to me thats absurd DM railroading and character control and the arguement that "magic is all over the place, you cant dislike/distrust it" is just dumb at best, guns in the real world are all over the place, you still have plenty of people who hate guns and think they should be illegal, the idea that someone thinks magic is bad in a setting with lots of magic isnt just perfectly ok, it activly makes sense you have a VERY very weird take on that story and tbh, based on your attitude towards it, you really sound like a bad dm
First story Ranger sought the party's approval first, and everyone was okay with it. It even sparked an interesting RP with the Sorcerer. That is totally a fine way to play DnD. The Fighter siding with wizards they're already in combat with and saying his character would do it because he's dumb (when stat-wise, he's way above average intelligence and even average wisdom, which was the point of telling us that) yet then also becomes a Wizard (well gosh, I thought he was dumb? Yet he's been apparently training to be a Wizard this whole time?) was trolling him. He was also warned ahead of time not to cast spells on the Ranger and what the Ranger would do in response if he violated that, which he then proceeded to do anyway. He absolutely got what he deserved. Also, of course the mage hating Ranger took Mage-Slayer, why wouldn't he?
Yeah, I don't know why they made fun of OP mentioning Dave's character's stats. Dave was making his character do things that hindered and harmed the party and defended it by saying it's what his character would do because is character his dumb while his character has average wisdom and exceptional intelligence.
@@AAAAAA-613 I think it's because OP came off as fairly incessant about a character trait that has the potential to be annoying and controlling throughout the post, so the stat mention came across as a red flag. I personally felt more on OP's side after finishing the story. Also after that point Dave really showed how much of a asshole he was.
@@DrgnDrake Yeah, Dave was definitely the issue. OP was reasonable at every step and warned Dave of the consequences of casting on him well in advance. Dave chose to cast on him, he has no right to be upset that OP followed through on his warning. That's fair and consistent RP. Dave was just trying to be an ass to be annoying.
@@FromMan2Monkey-nb5fq mentioning that a character is smart when the player is saying they are dumb isnt a red flag its just showing that the player isnt playing the character
So much this, and I'm surprised they didn't pick up on it. The story poster checked with the group and they said it was ok (this is even kind of mocked in the video as people only saying they're not going to play a wizard/sorcerer.) They get good RP out of it. Then another player decides he is suddenly going to start having a trait that antagonizes the poster (with no mention of out of character conversation about it.) Said fighter then does several things to antagonize said poster. Poster gives a warning. Fighter/Wizard after getting the warning antagonizes him again. Player responds with an attack but does no damage as a warning (this would normally be called good RP.) Fighter/Wizard then starts a fight by actually attempting to do damage. Like there could be more to this story, but as it is written it's pretty clear that the poster is not in the wrong. Someone deliberately adjusted their character - without group conversation - to antagonize members of the group, repeatedly antagonized a character, and then got upset when their actions had consequences. At my table? Spellbook stays destroyed, and you're on notice to stop antagonizing other players and provoking PVP if you're going to whine when there are consequences. Or do we really think the fighter/wizard was just going to leave the magic hating person who is trying to help the sorcerer cure their magic unconscious?
The magic hating guy didn't try to PvP Dave when Dave became a Wizard or when Dave would constantly use magic to annoy his character. Even though his character hated wizards he found a way to still adventure with one. All he wanted was for him not to cast any magic on him, which Dave couldn't be bothered to respected and so cast a completely meaningless cleaning spell on him for no good reason. It seems like Dave just thought it was fun to constantly undermine the guy and antagonize him at every opportunity. Dave was clearly being the problem player. Dave even used the "its what my character would do" defense to justify why he was doing shitty stuff to the party. I wouldn't have even let him take any levels in being a Wizard because he said his character was not smart and that he wouldn't be playing a wizard. I might have let Dave be some other type of caster but certainly not the one that is literally based on being intelligent and definitely not after Dave used being dumb as a defense for his previous actions.
Yeah if I had been the DM then I would have made Dave stick to the "my character is dumb" and not allow a multiclass into a caster class until Dave did something in-game to increase his intelligence. However as DM I would not have let the player pull the "my character is dumb" card to begin with in the scenario outlined in the story and would have out of character told them to stop being disruptive to the rest of the party. There are ways people can play a character that may not be aligned with the rest of the party but you have to be careful how you go about it. Dave just seemed to want to cause pain.
Yeah it's hard but sometimes you really should do it anyways. Also I had this bit about adult pants that was supposed to descend into a gag about the pants not always being pants and stuff, I lost the plot.
@@janschievink1586 I mean yes, it's beneficial to do. It's just not something that's as easy as 'gawd, just DO it, if I was in that group I would be the gigachad and say 'NO STOP IT' and then everyone would clap'
@@sephy26946 I mean it's not even the best option every time sometimes it gets you nowhere anyways and sometimes the whole situation is such a lost cause it's not even worth trying it's the right option when it's the right option. Maybe I've just lost my patience for struggling through bad situations or tolerating bad people as I've gotten old. Anyways I hope you can manage it when you should.
normally i get my reddit stories from smosh and they always say something along the lines of, well your kinda an asshole for not confronting the guy who everyone agrees is in the wrong. an i always feel guilty when they say stuff like that because its terrifying and not all of us have a fight response to perceived danger.
For the “I hate arcane magic” I had a similar thing with the game I’m currently working on starting up. One of my players wanted to stick with an idea of being against revival magic and wanting to stop it happening. I worked with him to make a backstory as to why, and then dial it back to instead being distrustful. It’s an Eberron game so we had the decision that in his past, he revived someone, the wrong soul came to their body, and it was a malicious one. My biggest thing is if this thing will fuck over the party, no. So instead we had it shift to distrusting, or he’s basically “if we are reviving this dude, we need to do every single step possible to make sure it goes right and then he’s keeping his eyes on that person to make sure it’s really them.” It added depth but won’t keep someone permanently dead if they got downed. So I’m excited to see how it goes, I trust the player to not be a dick, or at least if I tell him to stop he will listen.
I actually don't agree with you. Not all D&D is Forgotten Realms (or even 5E) where everyone and their mother can cast magic. You can 100% make the character who hates magic for whatever reason work, even if there's a magic user in the group and never ever change his views. It's those players pettiness that made this thing go wrong.
Even then they don't HATE magic its more so untrusted as I DM a lot of low magic sure people distrust magic but not many out right hate it as it exists it just is rare.
There are plenty of cultures even within the Forgotten Realms that distrust arcane magic. It's a perfectly valid way to roleplay, because there are real cultures with those same opinions (against occult topics, or even modern technology), which should be given the humanity and introspection they deserve.
In my campaign the wizard distrusted sorcerers because they weren't trained in how to control their magic, but through interacting with the party sorcerer and several evil wizards over the course of the campaign, he realized that it's not about where your magic comes from, it's about what you do with it. It was some nice character growth that didn't involve PVP or kneecapping another player's character
To be fair I think you would be tempted to do so if a sorcerer kept prodding you and when you decided to take a pure roleplay swipe at them that does no damage after they did something your characters said not to do to them, and the sorcerer decided to initiate combat. You would make do the threat you said you would do. Besides while not great losing a spellbook at level one is something that can be worked past, it won't be easy but it not completely crippling and serves as consequences for pushing somebody's clearly labeled boundaries. Heck the DM could give them a spellbook next session to give them the problems with not having a spellbook while not mechanically kneecapping them for long.
Burning the spell book. To be clear it never should have been allowed to get to that point in the first place. It's like watching a steam roller come at you slowly and not moving lol. The stepmom story. yes that is exactly how real friends would be toward the guy. Giving him crap and teasing him lol. As for the flirting, yeah AWKWARD lol. She was certainly all in on the theater aspect. I am super glad it ended well with her being willing to dial it back in and not ACTUALLY trying to hook up with players etc.
I actually disagree regarding mage hating characters being bad. It seems like op was open and even welcoming opportunities to rp with other mage characters, but dave was being actively antagonistic towards them and was trying their best to make op upset. An irl example would be: if you are for example racist, and someone from that race keeps antagonizing you, you arent gonna go: i see the error of my ways now and will stop being racist. But if you have someone from that race be nice to you or just treat you like someone who is just misguided/misinformed you are more likely to change your perspective. Im sure that if dave didn’t act so antagonistic and obnoxious op would be open to having a reform arc for their character
I'm not a DnD player myself so I don't know how big of a deal losing a spellbook is (or can be), but as a man of my word, I would feel dishonest not to act according to my previously made threat once the conditions are met in spades. I might still help repairing the damage done afterwards, though, as an act of good will.
It costs like ~100 gold and a day of scribing to replace a level 1 spellbook. It's not a "permanent crippling" of the character in any way. I completely agree.
I always find these kinda vids amusing in the idea that the game where you're told to "play what you want to play" always ends up with "oh but you can't play that".
It's "Play what you want to play - but don't mess up _other_ people's play." The second half of that sentence is just as important as the first. TTRPGs are a _group_ activity. If you don't play well with others, go write fiction.
The thing I think a lot of people are missing about the AITA story is that everything was fine until Dave started making weird and disruptive decisions like antagonizing other party members, siding with evil wizards who were actively attacking them, and lying about his stats to brush off why his character was doing these things. I can't say if Dave's reasoning for those decisions might have been at all justified, as we don't know what he was thinking since OP either also didn't know, or didn't include that information, but at the end of the day, one player was being a nuisance, and the other retaliated only after his warnings to knock it off were ignored multiple times.
OP was playing a character. He asked everyone, they all said it was fine. The magic user was fine, nobody else was being a magic user nor had any intention to dual class into magic. OP and the sorcerer was doing serious RP, fully engaged. Then Dave decided to start trolling. When trying to convince the sorcerer to start spell blasting didn't work, he took wizard just to take spammable cantrips to egg on OP for literally no reason. OP was being Extremely nice and tolerant and reminded him that it would cause issues and Dave did it anyways. He told Dave to never cast magic on him, and Dave did it. No real reason. Just to clean dirt. When OP's character did a warning swipe ((Let's be real, that was being tolerant, his character would have tried to go for the neck)) Dave used SHOCKING GRASP on him. The only thing burning the spell book did was disable Dave's trolling mechanism. Unless Dave wanted to re-roll a new character (He should have, OP broke RP by not killing him at that point IMHO) the DM could have taken away the wizard lvl 1 to make him a lvl 5 fighter and continue on and just try to lightly retcon the trolling. I personally would quit that table if Dave wasn't removed and he wasn't planning to start playing in a way that wasn't trolling everyone else. If I'm putting that amount of effort into a campaign just for someone to try and target me and sabotage the campaign just for lulz, there's no way I would continue on. I don't know if you were just playing it up for the camera or not, but I've never seen you go so strange as to say "They should have asked", immediately read "They asked", and then act like he did something wrong by asking. As if "It doesn't bother me, I'm not playing anything that would conflict" is somehow an invalid horrible answer that should be scoffed at and have OP abandon all of his plans for receiving that explanation. You didn't see anything wrong with Dave trying to get the entire party killed fighting the Necromancer, and instead focused on OP pointing out that Dave's reasoning was "My character is really stupid" and yet has 15 intelligence and 10 wisdom. As if OP was being some kind of way by knowing that. No, his character is not stupid. If you want to play a stupid character, don't put a high stat into the "brain" category. He claims that "He likes wizards because wizards smart so follow the wizard" goes to the point of immediately enlisting with any necromancer that asks. And yet he takes lvl 1 wizard and acts like he's the smartest man alive. He was trying to coach the Sorcerer on what to do with their SORCERER, (NOT WIZARD) powers... By the way, who takes 15 int as a stupid fighter? Dave was clearly planning this entire thing from the start. "You can be DISTRUSTFUL of magic but not hate magic" Example: "A Wizard killed my whole family while I was a kid". . . .What? Where does the slope of this reasoning end? Your Paladin isn't allowed to hate Necromancy? Your Ranger isn't allowed to hate poachers? Your Cleric isn't allowed to hate Rogues and Thieves? Rogues and Thieves aren't allowed to hate the hoity toity rich Lawfuls? Lawful Good characters aren't allowed to hate chaotic evil? I could go on - why are characters not allowed to hate something when it's agreed on by all players and DM? I'm sorry for this giant ass post but my man I feel like you've given my brain a swirly.
nah. OP let dave work him into a shoot. it's very clear that dave's actions were either to deliberately piss off OP or OP just assumed they were deliberate and dave was really just stupid/trying to be funny.
You're right tbh. People really need to learn the phrase "play stupid games win stupid prizes". Dude was warned multiple times in multiple different ways and he can always get the spellbook back. Maybe now he'll actually listen to other players boundaries and stop poking the bear now that he knows he'll actually face meaningful consequences.
@@xsoultillerx, and it's also really clear that OP gave Dave multiple warnings and told him exactly what he would do if Dave continued, and then simply followed through with that. It honestly does not matter at all whether Dave was acting like that deliberately or if he was just acting like an idiot; actions have consequences, and that's apparently a lesson Dace still needs to learn.
@@keppakappa5033 if dave was being deliberate then he was never going to learn that lesson because he got what he wanted to out of it, a chance to make OP "look bad".
the fact that he had 5 levels in ranger implies that he took the mage slayer feat long before dave took a level in mage, he checked with everyone in the group if they were fine with his character concept(and everyone was), dave was the only one being childish about the whole thing, heck if he wanted to play an arcane caster he should have just picked eldritch knight as a subclass instead of randomly deciding to take a level in wizard for no good reason
"For no good reason" is a key phrase here. We're given so few hints as to why Dave would go from a perfectly normal player in the first few sessions to so obviously wanting to frustrate OP specifically that it feels like OP is leaving something important out of the story.
@@softreyna I mean... wouldnt call a player that constantly betrays their own party and force them to lose actions mid battle to "convince" him with actual diplomacy rolls a "perfect normal player", but... If anything, the whole story seems like it could've been a good time but this kind of "I'll do dumb things because that's what my character would do" from Dave is the problem since the start.
@@albertonishiyama1980 Well, yeah, that's not the part where he's a perfectly normal player. The story says something like "for the first few sessions everything went great" and that's what I meant
@@softreyna - Some malicious troublemakers _do_ play cool for a while, to scope things out and see what they think they can get away with. Then they start pushing boundaries, until they find which ones give them the reactions they crave.
I played a Barb/Druid that was distrustful of non-druidic magics, to the degree that he wouldn't even let a non Druid heal him for fear of "their kind of magic". His backstory was that he was a hermit, abandoned after a battle at a young age. He was a barbarian but came to adore nature as a result of being surrounded by it all the time, so his journey starts because he wants to be a druid. Because he is a hermit, he was also generally inept at socialization and generally kept to himself. This meant that I could RP a character who didn't necessarily trust mages and magic but who wasn't just a bigot all the time. Because he didn't really mix with anyone, he didn't come off as particularly rude to any group or person. And the biggest thing I would say to take from this is that you should only roleplay elements that might be a detriment to YOU, never something that could negatively influence the party or anyone else individually. It even set up a cool character moment where deep in the campaign, my barb had to accept healing from a non Druid because the party was almost finished, so you get this cool set piece of the barb accepting the heal, finishing the threat, and saving the party. He's realized there's something greater than fear and mistrust and it became a huge development milestone
Magic hater story, Dave was warned. Several times. I would allow this and side with OP. Plus, losing a lv1 spellbook when you already have several levels in a martial is not a big deal.
agreed. i think as a whole, OP took his character's magic hatred too far (like Jacob said, your character shouldn't stifle the others), but losing the spellbook was absolutely on Dave
If he wants to continue in the group he should apologize and agree to redcon the book burning. The discussion about how justified it is is just realy childish, both need to make a step towards each other.
Dave is 100% in the right and OP is wrong. OP is over role-playing to the point of being stupid and Dave is right to fuck with him, which he probably wasn't. OP is just assuming Dave is doing this to screw with him.
In the second story, assuming he is being honest, the guy was petty, but the orc wizard was so much worse. The DM should have stopped it ages ago and told the orc to stop being a dick. OP seemed to check all teh boxes for playing contentious characters and no one said anything, and one character was even into it.
It’s either fiction or this 36 year old dude has a gigantic crush on his step mother by the way he wrote about her, and I want to continue living in the world where it’s fiction
13:10 I will allow pvp to happen at my tables given all problems are in character. If two people start pvp and they clearly have beef I stop it. IF the action had been done without the pettiness I’d have allowed it. It takes time but you can remake a spell book and from strictly a in character perspective. “Hey don’t use magic on me” *Uses magic on him* “I warned you” is completely justified.
I think a good rule of thumb is if both sides are okay with either outcome then PVP is fine. If one player is going to be upset if the other player wins then it's a lose lose situation and should be talked out OOC.
The second story. It's also a matter of consent. Op told the new wizard dont cast magic on me and the wizard ignored that. That alone is not okay. Nvm him multiclassing just to piss Op off.
6:36 exactly what I was thinking. In the ad&d unearthed arcana, the barbarian class had a built-in fear of magic that the character would grow to overcome with level ups. I always loved that about the class. If I remember correctly, the earlier levels couldn't even use potions. There was a magic user in the group which by the end of the campaign who he had grown to be friends with.
Im glad Alice and him worked it out 😂 i was getting concerned there for a minute, lol. It actually reminded me of what happened to our group. Not exactly the same, but brought it back to the front of my memories. Friend invites someone to our group, and that person winds up going with out the DM. Which wouldn't have been much of an issue if they weren't already in a multiple year relationship with one of the other players👀... oof that was something 😅
14:10 I actually disagree with this. There is this game called Arcanum: of Steamworks and Magick Obscura where technology and magick are at complete odds with each other to the point where they can cause serious reactions when mixed. Obviously, there are characters who hate you if you are a technologist, and there are characters who hate you if you a magick user. There is a way to make it work where you hate magic in a world full of magic. It just requires the DM to craft the world with that in mind
@@MiroredImageIt still stands for DND, if your DM is running a low-magic setting it could definitely work, but you have to communicate with your DM and have a good understanding of the world. Just comes down to communication, like everything else in DND
12:29 So, the ranger did nothing wrong... Provoking another player's character to a fight by spamming mage hand, prestidigitation and whatnot isn't a way to convince a mage-hating person that magic is good. I believe it could have been achieved via role-playing dialogues between the sorcerer and the ranger, but definitely not an orc fighter who gets 1 level of Wizardry out of nowhere and starts pissing ranger out. He even violated his warnings. Dumbass got what he asked for and then started crying over his little spellbook. Ranger McGuire: cute spellbook. did your husband give it to you? The guy's character idea was actually pretty good, it's a shame that sometimes you get idiots playing with you.
Surprisingly, totally on board with burning the spell book. Wild amounts of warning given. OP's character's hatred of magic clearly wasn't problematic with the sorcerer for the first 4 levels, so honestly I struggle to see them as the problem.
@@ProudPlatypus If that story is real. I would honestly believe the DM was actually sick of "Dave" and allowed for the book burning because of that. Comes across as a spiteful DM thing to do.
Ok honestly that first story sounds like a blast, I'd welcome that kind of roleplay at any table of mine, granted the players all had as much fun playing this as I'd have watching it (clearly in this case they didn't, given the story exists at all, but you get my point). At my tables I allow pvp under the condition that everyone is on the same page and sometimes I'll even double check to make sure they're both cool with it, if someone instigates pvp. It rarely happens but I've seen it done very well. It's great as long as no one is being practically subjected to it. But I'm on OPs side, if you instigate PVP, same with instigating anything in ttrpgs, you accept any consequences that come from that. He fucked around, he found out. He even warned him, which means this player knew that magically attacking OP carried that threat, and he did it anyway.
I agree with the guy who burned the spellbook. I think he can make that character work, and it sounded like he had growth planned, but the other dude is an absolute theater kid about it and ruining potential growth. I probably wouldn't have burned the book, but I would have checked him above the table. And PF2e is such a slog.
Nah, dude, spellbook immolator is 100% in the right. If the DM wasn't gonna intervene with Dave's OBVIOUS attempts to provoke the guy, then he absolutely needed to be taught a lesson from another player. He was warned that his spellbook would get burned and he completely disregarded the warning. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Yeah, it would have been a great chance for "Dave" to have a character growth moment, which could then lead to OP eventually getting past his own issues with magic when he sees Dave become more responsible with magic.
OP, don't think we didn't notice this wasn't you. But for the record, if someone says "If you keep using magic around me, I'm gonna make all your levels in this class null & void" then the last thing I'm taking it is seriously, because that's insane to do. Even for someone like me who was kinda on OP's side, as soon as they said they were gonna burn the spellbook, they became the bad guy immediately.
@@mouthyschannel2474 That is absolutely NOT what the spellbook burner said. He wasn't cool with the magic use, but he said don't cast spells ON ME or I will burn the book. Then Dave went out of his way to do just that. He got what was coming to him as far as I'm concerned. Like I said, play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Also I have no idea what "don't think we didn't notice this wasn't you" means. That's like a triple negative my guy.
Dave was warned ahead of time of the consequences, and chose to commit the act anyway. Right down to the threat of burning the spellbook. He did everything he was warned not to do, and the warning was fulfilled.
Yeah... a bit of a messy situation since both played by the rules established and were open about their character natures etc....maybe there could be a plot hook about them trying to reach out for eachother to make the group stronger or something? Maybe involving them finding a new spell book if feasible. Somehow I feel like the players aren't down for it though....
Yeah I think he should stick with the burning of the book because it’s cool and was warned. I think the dm should give Dave the level back to re- spec into a different class But I feel this might continue to fuel a pvp rivalry that could take over the campaign or get toxic
Maybe have him take the level in fighter again and change his subclass to Eldritch Knight? He gets so mad his magic becomes somewhat innate@@DoABarrelRol1l
1) Your character, in a game, should never limit what other people can do with theirs. "Sorry, no one can play a bard, because music sends my character into a blood rage, due to my designed background - an orc bard, 'Taylorc Swift' robbed my family and murdered them!" 2) "Dave" was 100% trying to provoke the other player, by provoking that player's character in game. I wouldn't be surprised if the player "Dave" had a crush on the girl playing the sorcerer, that the other guy was interacting with and building a closer bond in game with... Dave, trying to piss him off quite openly, screams 'jealous and petty'. The GM should never allow a character that imposes limits on other people.... if limits are to be imposed, it should be the GM that is imposing them, and it should be a part of the campaign affecting everyone equally. (Like the world I made that had a historical reason why there were no Halflings.- their disappearance was tied into the overarching story that would evolve) Also, a GM seeing this type of toxic interaction between players, and not recognizing it, or not caring, is not doing his job as a GM.
I used to rock the long hair myself and cutting it short like you did after years of that long hair, not many things feel as good as that. Personally, I won't ever be going back to long hair again. Lookin good my dude!
I actually know a weird thing similar to story 2. Knew a guy who had a Warhammer 40K DM who was constantly nitpicking people on lore. However, the DM encouraged everyone to play different races at the start. So players would try to work together, and the DM would get upset
Hell nah, ranger homie warned him to not cast a single spell on him again or he would burn his spell book, dave did and suffered the forseen consequence. Thats his problem
4:00 I'm in a game right now that I absolutely love. I admit, there are sessions where I do literally nothing. I joined the campaign like over half-way through, so some of the story and systems are still lost on me. There are sessions where I make maybe one roll, or barely RP, but FOR ME it's fine. The DM is really engaged and we're all friends, so it's just a nice time.
I respect players like you so goddamn much thank you for having fun just being there. I also feel obligated to say, please do discuss with your DM if you feel like you want to take a more active role in sessions cause you deserve it!
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
Get some cool art with Displate here: displate.com/xptolvl3 (discount is automatically applied at the checkout) or use my code: XP for a discount!
new cut has you lookin like bling bling boy
No thanks man, displate hires AI "artists" for a lot of their stuff, so I'm definitely good without one.
Jaob you look so muh bttr with th hair ut, sorry som of th kys on my kyboar ar brokn, hop its not too har to unrstan
Good look on the haircut, Jacob!
For a great horror movie. Check out Smile.
Or some urban legend based japanese ones.
The last story is such an anime premise
"My Pirate Stepmom Flirted With Me in Another World!?"
🥇
This stepmom is also 3 years older than him 🤔🤔🤔
I'd watch this
Considering the entire story that is "Do You Like A Mother Whose Normal Attack Is A Double Hit On All Targets?",a step-mom DnD animated series would be awesome.
Right to the watchlist
Spencer’s call on them crushing on the girl seems like a great read.
100% - Didn't see that at all, until she said so - now it's obvious lol
It's entirely possible even the players themselves (nor the DM) didn't see that.
I think that’s just collective ptsd lol.
I didn’t get that read, not every situation with 2 guys and 1 girl is a love triangle.
@ I think it explains the one guy dramatically changing position out of nowhere and trying to get closer to the girl while the first guy gets angry at him for it.
@@Unknown-qj9sm I’d understand that if they weren’t in their 20’s.
That’s like, 13yr old behaviour lol
Idk why people always assume everyone gotta be so horny haha but tbf, the Community is down bad.
"What are you doing step-pirate?" that fkn cracked me up
Help! I'm stuck in this Mimic!
ah, I've seen this plot before
Bah dum dum Tsh dudum Tshhh
@@battery2720One Shot Questers made that same joke about Strahd
Fuckin right? I laughed so hard I started crying lmao
"They have a crush on Jess."
The face Jacob made. The sudden realization. Suddenly everything is clear.
Level 1 wizard to presumably level 5 sorcerer: “hey baby’s how about I teach you a thing or two about magic 😉”
BG3 Gale-ass thing to say lol
Sorcerer have six spells at level 1, when wizard have 7. At level 7-10 of course wizard would have more spells but on low levels sorcerer spell list not so small.
@@_rpaqp_ wow u really did not get the point
@@_rpaqp_ This is what happens when you're too desperate to try and show off to the point you have no idea what the conversation is about
@@toolittletoolate they raise a valid point lmao, stfu
The person I feel the most for in that book burning story was the 4th party member: relegated so far to the sidelines on this group that we don't even get a class or pseudonym.
He's just a side character in the "Naruto-Sasuke" rivalry relationship of ranger and fighter.
Or you know OP posted the part that was relevant to the argument and #4 didn't interfere with other people's agency at the table either way and therefore gets no mention for being well behaved and Fing normal.
@@janschievink1586 i don't know why you responded in an offended tone to this. They said they felt bad for the fourth party member so why are you responding like they insulted them? Did you misread the post?
@@spiderbug7615 There being conspiratorial when the post literally doesn't say anything about what the fourth party member was doing presuming #4 was getting sidelined in the campaign because they didn't do anything relevant to the incident is silly.
@@janschievink1586 bro the funny part is you're projecting onto an unnamed stranger just as much as the others are
Dave sounds like he got an itch to be a troll, and decided to full send it halfway into the campaign 😂😂😂
No wonder they were all into the step-mom, she’s basically the same age as them
yeah I'm shocked that wasn't brought up, he calls her his stepmum but she could just as easily be his sister or schoolfriend!
Yeah, there's like what, 4-year difference between the OP and the 'step-mom'? wtf
Bill & Ted, Missy vibes 😂
Bro got tha Future Trunks hair cut, Jacob is now The Drink
a beverage of sorts?
when he was the kid, they called him the juice box
They looked at his liquidity and at his rizz
Does that make the Wizard the Cup?
a beverage of sorts
As someone that does theater, the last story just sounds like someone who knows how to act with someone who doesn't. For actors, it is easy to remove the situations from real life. Even the physical touch part. That's something that we do in improv or scenes. It comes with the territory. I think the step mom didn't see it as an issue because was used to being able to remove themselves from the given circumstances. Something OP wasn't able to do without theater training.
HAIR JUMPSCARE
jumpsc hair
AH
@@LogCabinMusiclmao
They call him the drink
A hairscare?!?!
14:28
It didn’t hinder the game at all until Dave decided to antagonize OP.
Yeah somehow they both miss that cause "muh muh...muh magic"
@@lordpepper6932 This reminds me of a bad take from Critcrab regarding a stolen healing item where like these two they decided on a villain of the story at the beginning of the story and ignore anything that say otherwise.
They will ignore and downplay anything the person they don't deem the "villain" does while going after the "Villain" for any small thing or even for not doing stuff that the "Villain" even said they did in the story.
The part that genuinly peeved me is them going whatever to the Wizard betraying the party and forcing them to make checks to convince them to stop fighting against them.
What in God's name is going on in that second story!? What in the hell. Spencer's idea of them both crushing on Jess makes a lot of sense though. I woulda never thought of that.
Love Jacob's expression when she mentioned that.
it makes so much sense, especially if these are high school aged kids or something
I had a look at the thread because it really did sound like petty teenagers, and...
"I'm 19, Jess and Dave are both 22.
We're all just friends."
@@Tachii31 Yep, that all checks out then.
I assumed that was the case for the Fighter but I wasn't sure about the Ranger.
I am 110% on the side of the Magic hating Ranger.
They had been willing to play with the guy who became a wizard so it's not like they were blocking them. They kept playing/parting with the wizard despite constantly using magic showing they were willing to rp this.
They did not attack them when they became a wizard and destroyed there spell book, instead it was only after they had metaphorically been backed into a corner that they did so. They had sworn that if they cast a spell on them they would retaliate, then the wizard went out of their way to cast a spell on the Ranger. It could not be played of as a accident or that the wizard did not know what would happen.
If it was me and after all that the DM turned around and said 'No you didn't' about burning the spell book I'd be PISSED. They let it reach that stage and only then stepped in to turn Ranger into a lier would suck.
I like spellcasters so not really a shoe in this fight but I still stand with Ranger in this case.
God, the step mum story... I want the ground to swallow me and it didn't even happen to me!
I got the ick when he was the same age as his step mom. And then it got worse.
tbf I suspect it didn't happen to anyone
I would die 😭
Ngl, I went into mageslayer fully expecting them to be the AH, but I absolutely came around
I don't like if they were specifically limiting other ppls class choices, but this felt more like they said "hey, this is my concept, will this bother anyone or should i switch?", then when Jess wanted to play sorc they took the reasonable route of "this could be the roleplay dynamic between us, would that work for you?"
Even when Dave took a level in wizard, mage slayer was just like "remember i dont do well with arcanists" but they continued trying to make it work and just saying, keep that magic off me and youll be fine
Burning the spellbook was probably too far, but after having another player explicitly breach consent by casting a spell, then continuing to escalate it from rp to fullblown pvp, i really cant feel bad for the guy who had to face consequences for pushing buttons repeatedly
Yeah the take on that one... rubbed me hella wrong. However you feel about the character concept itself, the OP didn't DO anything to Dave's character up until Dave quite literally assaulted OP. Unwanted touch is assault, just like unwanted magic (that you have REPEATEDLY SAID NOT TO FUCKING DO) is assault. You DO NOT do that shit to another player's character, especially when they both in and out of character have warned and asked you to not do that. After that, what happens to your character is the result of your stupid consequences.
Would these people shitting on OP feel the same way if the OP was simply anti-rogue and someone who showed no interest in being a rogue suddenly dipped into it and started constantly stealing stuff, helping baddies steal stuff or trying to excuse the baddies stealing, and also 'jokingly' showing off the things they'd stolen right in front of them? AND OBVIOUSLY ONLY DOING THIS TO ANTAGONIZE THE OP, even when it is not anything their character had ever been interested in before and had no reason to be doing? And then to further antagonize the anti-rogue, they proceeded to repeatedly steal things FROM THEM? And after being told both in and out of character that if they ever dared steal from them again they'd beat the shit out of them they PROCEEDED TO STEAL FROM THEM AGAIN? Obviously you'd deserve the goddamn consequences at that point, so why is this any different just because it's "anti arcane magic"?
Short Hair Jacob and Long Hair Spencer is the spookiest thing today
It's like Freaky Friday......but on a Thursday 😂
ZOMG - you're right - 100% reversal complete!
In the book burning thing, it was 80% Dave's fault IF the op was to be believed as is. It would be the equivalent of saying "Hey, I really don't like to be touched, so no handshakes or anything like that, cool?" and the party agreeing, only to have one of them that agreed point their finger super close to your face over and over saying "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!" and then getting offended when you essentially hit them for doing it over and over. A crybully, if you will.
Except the provocation was... Lemme check: Using magic to clean someone else's armour which then got the totally equivalent action of attacking the character. Then threatening to burn Dave's spellbook for... using any sort of magic on OP, helpful or not. Shocking Grasp is as much an offence as Healing Word or Haste.
I'm not on Dave's side, he was petty af but OP was like "I don't like to be touched, so if you touch me then I will kill your dog".
@@mouthyschannel2474 1. They only burned the spellbook after the Wizard initiated PVP after the Ranger did the roleplay equivalent pf slapping the Wizard's hand away. They mentioned that the attack did no damage.
2. Shocking Grasp is in no way comparable to Haste or Healing Word, one does damage the other two heal or buff.
Exactly. Dave came in not liking op for some reason irl and decided to be an instigator in a game to roleplay irl conflict
@@mouthyschannel2474 Here's the thing though: The character's anti-magic stance was noted before the campaign even started and everyone agreed to it and acknowledged an said it wouldn't be a problem.
Dave comes in and *makes* it a problem. He suddenly takes an absurdist "Wizards can do nothing wrong" stance out of nowhere and takes a wizard class, even after being reminded about the other character in the party (And tried to bait out a fight in his reply as well.)
Dave gets a verbal warning that if he casts magic on the magic-hater, he's gonna face some REAL bad consequences.
Dave ignores *all of the above* and decides to poke the bear. The reaction might have been harsh, but if you're going to willfully ignore warning after warning after warning, then I'm not all that sympathetic when the consequence bus rolls into town. You may not agree with the proportionality of 'if you touch me I'll kll your dog'. But there were at least THREE different signs that TOLD everyone "If you touch me, I will kill your dog".
@@phazonmetroid1 Yea I don't really get why people are upset at OP when everyone was okay with his idea from the very start and everyone knew of it. I thought DnD is about freedom to make characters you want but suddenly mage hater is bad?
And it's all on Dave for ignoring every warning throughout entire campaign just to spite OP.
Regarding the Dave magic hater story: My first impression was that this might have been a setting thing, since Jess' sorcerer also viewed her powers as a curse. I suspect that the setting was set up so that arcane magic is generally considered evil. With Jess willingly playing a sorcerer who is avoiding using her magic, it really seems like that was a core idea that was okay with the group.
There's probably more missing context, but assuming everything at face value I would say that the orc player should have gotten with the other players and set up some kind of more believable in story reason for his character to start becoming a wizard and to roleplay that aspect of it harder rather than just seeming like they did it to spite Dave.
Besides, losing a lvl1 spellbook at character lvl 5 is hardly a big deal
I also thought this. A lot of things like tribes that hate arcane magic, enemies that are all specifically spellcasters convincing them to join their side, and the choice to pick the mage slayer feat all seem like things specific to the setting.
No hate at all to Jacob whatsoever, but they went into the story questioning the player as much as possible, to the point where basic stuff they say like “talk to the players about this” is just actually brought up later by the writer. It feels like they jump the gun on a lot of their criticisms.
Even though they acknowledge that something they said is brought up, they make it about “hating Dave” rather than what might actually be happening.
Some of that is the nature of reaction content; you want to give your gut reaction the moment you get it so that you're not sitting there quietly reviewing something to give a super correct and thought out response at the end...
that's a different kind of video
Yeah that entire story Jacob seemed extremely baised against this guy's character for no reason? Like straight up dave does something really inconvienient for the party and its literally "whatever". Not to mention apparently dave openly explaining he hated mages to his entire party and them all not objecting wasn't ENOUGH clarification according to Jacob, and he needed to further elaborate on specific clauses like picking a mage class later down the line? Like screw off i main wizard/necromancy in like every dnd and I see nothing wrong with mageslayer, dave is just being a prick.
@@commiterror404irl5 It wasn't for no reason, like Jacob mentioned a lot of details about his character would otherwise traditionally be gigantic red flags in any more traditional campaign. And considering that it's an AITAH story on Reddit, people usually leave out small details and paint the scenario to make them look as great as possible to garner sympathy.
Or it's entirely made up like a lot of the AITAH stories on Reddit are, and it's intentional to get people to argue about assumptions in the comments, Reddit has gotten pretty good at content farming over the years.
@@RutilusMonachus I mean sure but my issue is with his reaction regardless of the validity of this information, he said "whatever" to dave trying to talk with the evil necromancer they were fighting and wasting turns while nobody else was doing that, and I'm sure if mageslayer did this same thing against some anti-mage opponent Jacob would be on his case.
At the start of the story, the warrior character sounded like he'd be a problem player, but I was pleasantly surprised to find he played it well and reasonably respectfully. It would have been poor behavior on the player's part to attack the wizard or destroy his spellbook as soon as he multiclassed into wizard, but he didn’t. He set boundaries and said 'just don't cast spells on me!' A very modest request which the other player did not respect. When a prank was played on his character with magic, his reaction was violent, but the player used it as a character moment and did not inflict harm. It was a warning shot. So when the wizard full on attacked him with magic and said he did want to have pvp, I would not have had any problem with the warrior decapitating the wizard at the end of combat. Instead, he just burned his spellbook. Restrained and appropriate considering he'd already used that threat as part of his boundary-setting warning which the wizard had violated. Making a new spellbook would be time-consuming and expensive, but doesn’t permanently cut that player off from regaining access to those class features eventually. If anything, it'd be good lesson in not poking a sleeping bear by screwing around in ways that deliberately tick off other prople at the table. I give the warrior a thumbs up for his actions in this situation.
Yeah, the DM was making no real attempt at curbing the wizard's instigating behavior, even after the other players started complaining to him above table about it. OP had to do something with genuine consequences if he had any chance at getting the nagging to stop.
Dude f'd around, and he found out. From an outside perspective, I actually think the fresh faced wizard having to grumpily replace his spellbook in a party that distrusts his new class is actually really good storytelling too - but the player instead resorts to whining.
Yep. Dave was a bully, fucked around and found out. He should have been booted from the group the moment he started trolling OP, in the first place. Jacob's take honestly pisses me the fuck off because it shows him to be a bully, just like Dave. He's piling on the _victim_ for a frankly well measured response. What a fucking douchebag he is.
One of my favorite characters that I played that is dangerously close to that trope of hating magic was a barbarian who didn't believe magic was real. It was really fun because I had to come up with excuses why all the casters in the party were actually just trying to trick me
@@BlakesGamez Did this once on a Marvel-Like game.
My character was an detective that was sure that everything happening was some Conspiration Theory and everyone excpet him was brainwashed.
... having extreme luck on dices against super powers and only taking damage from guns surelly didnt help. The RNG Deities wanted the mf'er with his Tinfoil Hat.
So you played as Hercule Satan?
Your character was basically Hercule from DragonBall Z and I love that, even down to the tricks part
I'm in a Vaesen campaign (magical creatures in 19th-century Sweden) and my character is basically this. He's an Irish businessman with a traumatic backstory related to the Vaesen so he chooses to believe they don't exist, and I get to come up with all sorts of wacky reasons why the very clearly supernatural things that happen actually aren't supernatural at all.
DAT MAGIC HAND JUST FLOATS WITH STRINGS!!!
YOU JUST THREW A BURNING BOTTLE OF ALCOHOL AT THAT GUY, THAT'S NOT A FIREBALL... wait we did buy some Fireball whiskey, maybe it was a fireball
14:15 I disagree, the idea of a character who loathes magic due to his cultural upbringing is an unbelievable idea for a character. He had checked with everybody beforehand and they all said he was good. Dave knew what he was getting into and instigated it from the beginning.
Yea I feel like they skipped over that and just went , well don’t play dnd this way, feels like they loath the Idea of conflict and growth
Yeah, gotta say it was pretty telling that their opinion on that story was already set in stone when they went on a rant about this being a character that needs to be cleared with the group, then when they got two whole sentences into the story and it was shown that he *did* clear it, they tried to excuse it as “well technically they didn’t all say they were okay with it just that it didn’t matter to them!” and acting like burning the spellbook of the Fighter4/Wizard1 is somehow crippling to him.
@@Hunter-sw3rl that seems to be a a common take with ttrpg players; they want growth but only as much conflict as to not have real ramifications.
Yeah They both seems to ignore the fact that the players were fine
Yeah, I agree. The trope of a character who loathes magic already existed in D&D itself - back in 3e, I remember a prestige class for barbarians where the whole idea was that they hated magic, were superstitious against it, and you couldn't allow yourself to have magic willingly cast on you. In fact, if I remember correctly, you got spell resistance against all magic and *couldn't* lower it for helpful magic. And it went so far as to the character not having magic items - they had to *destroy* magic items to gain their powers.
And, of course, it hinders fun and interesting growth of the characters. Like you said, the player okayed the character concept with the group - if anyone was planning on playing a magic character, *that was the time to raise the issue*. Dave completely instigated *everything* in that story, just to get at OP, kept needling him. And like someone else said...losing your spellbook, especially in 5e, isn't that disastrous. And he was warned against it to begin with, with the exact threat of "If you cast magic on me, I'll destroy your spellbook". Cause and effect.
Jesus, the step-mom story... I laughed so hard I feel like someone beat me up 🤣🤣
I clock Dave's type immediately. Granted we don't get his side of the story so there's a good chance I'm wrong, but I've been in a game w/that type of play. OP is at least looking for reasonable in-party tension & giving lots of warnings (tho there should've been OOC warnings and discussion too), but dave is only looking to be a Hero™ against something he IRL thinks is deplorable, instead of considering the other player at the table.
I was in a game where me & the only other player were both paranoid & picked a fight w/someone who we were wrongfully fearful of, next session 2 new players showed up, saw us attacking the guard, and immediately attacked us. We let it happen for a while but didn't want to die (or kill them), so OOC we stopped the fight & said we should stop. They cried "IT'S WHAT MY CHARACTER WOULD DO!1!1!!!!" so we were like, ok, let's find a way for the fight to be _interrupted_ long enough for us to talk, but they whined & refused & said our characters HAD to die for doing something ~unforgivable~. That's Dave's type. he doesn't want the party to have fun, he just wants to lord over his Moral Righteousness over another pc he's deemed bigoted w/out caring about the player behind it.
OP should have stopped & talked OOC, made sure he knew the spellbook threat was Real, discussed being uncomfortable w/his behavior, and worked out a solution. But tbh there's ways to save a spellbook. if the 4th player was so mad their character could've done something to get it out. the DM could've had it rain. they could've made a quest out of getting a replacement. but there's nothing that can save that petty pushing another player into a corner like that. IC problems (spellbook) are easily solved w/imagination & creativity; the spellbook isn't REAL. the players are, so OOC pettiness is the worse problem, hands down.
it sounds like there was OOC discussion and not just from OP but from the entire party on multiple occasions, unless im misinterpretation what was said.
@@outcastedOpal what I mean is before it becomes a serious problem, pulling the guy aside and saying "Hey, this is making me really uncomfortable. let's discuss what we want to have happen in this game and plan how we should handle our respective characters."
@@Pinkstarclan yeah i got the impression thats what happened no? asside from him clearing his character concept in session 0, the whole part talked to him about siding with evil wizards, Op talked to him about how its totally fine that hes a wizard now but to remember not to push boundaries, and even when the characters started
pvp, it seemed that he told the party that he didnt want pvp to happen until Dave sorta pressured him into it.
@@outcastedOpal it didn't read to me like they talked past the intro until the problem happened, but I suppose that's the downside of these AITA posts: only 1 side of the story, always leaving out details & letting a lot be inferred
That third story brings back WILD memories about theatre classes, and I genuinely miss theatre.
For the record. Alice is 100% a theatre kid.
Like this was just how it worked when I was in theatre. We're all actors, we're all comfortable with each other, we do all kinds of stuff. We understand not to take things too far, but, other peoples' boundaries are WAY different than ours. So, that's a really interesting story, and puts things into perspective for me!
@@LaughingThesaurusYeah acting out romantic scenes is incredibly common, but if you're not used to that, it could be extremely awkward 😂
@@ratoh1710 With your stepmom in front of your friends no less.
Yeah, the way she didn't realize why the guy was uncomfortable until he points it out is gold. Like, for her she is just "doing what her character would do", and she even made her character completely based on what she knew of the game based on a campaign she saw, so it's not like she created a flirty character because she loves it, but because that was her information on how the game plays out. It is just so funny watching the guy get extremely uncomfortable because Alice was immersing herself completely and he wasn't. Like, if you create a character that loves to flirt and they get deeply inspired by someone else, it is a classic trope that they will start learning "true love", so she was playing this out. It makes so much sense, but also sounds deeply embarrassing for someone who can't dissociate from the character too much like the guy.
@@TunaHorns The way you phrase it makes it sound like it's his fault.
It's only normal to have a harder time fully immersing when you're in an awkward situation. It's not as simple as him not dissociating enough.
Regarding the Mage-slayer story:
Generally, "I hate arcane magic" is going to be a problematic personality trait for most tables, but this table appears to have been willing to test it out. "I mistrust arcane magic" is a lot easier to work with, and could easily be what mageslayer meant, but we can't know for certain.
But Dave? Dave took actions specifically to be annoying. Abstaining from combat against a random wizard because "They're smarter than me" is immensely flimsy - especially if there is not extreme amoral lust for power in the character, there's no reason to betray the party for a stranger - and blocks party cohesion. Moreover, taking a late level in Wizard like that is transparently motivated by a desire to stir shit. Which was made evident when he non-consensually cast Prestidigitation. Jumping straight to a violent outburst without one final warning isn't a decision I like, though. Nor is destroying the spellbook. OP ought not have done either of those things.
But really it was up to them to (say it with me now) communicate with one another. Like. Who woulda guessed.
That "violent outburst" was without damage, though. That *was* the final warning. It was ignored.
I agree, except on the last bits. Damage wasn't dealt, that *was* the final warning, and Dave decided to keep anyways and is the one that started the actual PvP(I've done that before as well, where my character threatened another's briefly, and I've had it done to my characters before too, each situation never went farther than that, but it also didn't include any OOC reasoning or pestering). OP may have been a little childish occasionally, but it doesn't seem like they forced the personality trait on anyone, they asked about it above table, and everyone didn't have a problem with it until Dave started acting up randomly.
I agree that burning the book was petty AF, but, I'm also petty AF, I probably would've done the same. Doesn't make it right, but, dude also kinda had it coming when Dave was blatantly trying to stir shit
@@xpandorasboxx Whether or not damage was dealt isn't exactly my point. Moreso that leveraging a feat to perform an attack - even with the caveat it will be a damageless attack - is going to come off as "asshole behaviour", at least some of the time. Its not the biggest problem, as it didn't do anything but express OP's character's anger. But it does come across as adversarial, and isn't a decision *I* would make.
I absolutely agree Dave had the spellbook burning coming, though. On an emotional level, 100% deserved. But having characters be mechanically hurt in that way is also pretty rough.
@@smefgrimstae7845The deciding factor for me is that he was warned that his spellbook would be burned if he cast a spell on the dude, and then escalated it to a duel.
considering the sorceror seemed to be his best friend i have no issue with "I hate arcane magic" because it never crossed over into "I hate arcane mages" until dave intentionally tried to make that happen.
Taking Mageslayer OP's story at face value, they had a character concept, they checked with the group, no one disagreed about it and the one sorcerer said it would work out well with their character concept, and the antagonistic player was purely toxic and combative the entire time. Unless there's a ton of missing context, OP does not seem like the asshole. But agreed, they shouldn't play together. They clearly don't like each other, otherwise they'd just talk about it.
Dave choosing to take a level in Wizard instead of Fighter 5 seemed like it was specifically done to piss OP off.
Throwing the spellbook into a fire was also a threat from several sessions prior, so even that was justified. Fair warning is fair warning!
Definitely seems like an ESH, but yeah, at face value, it seems like Dave was specifically trying to get under OP’s skin and was shocked when OP followed through
The biggest offense is Dave being upset. I personally love creating characters that can rub other PCs the wrong way because of their strong opinions. When you take on that role as an aggravator for a group, it can really spice up roleplay but you can't get upset when things don't play out in your favor. It's the position you've put yourself in to roll a boulder uphill, against the grain, and if you can't handle the boulder rolling back down with grace then you shouldn't have started rolling it up in the first place.
I actually think that what Spencer said may be kinda accurate. At least partially. OP may not have had a crush on the sorcerer, just liked the character connection, but fuckin Dave may have been jealous of that connection, whether above table or between characters, and was clearly seeking group focus with the combat interruptions prior.
Like, thats one thing that I actually think was the DM's fault here, that should have been talked out above table. Playing dumb in every encounter and trusting obvious badguys all the time cause lulzrandum is disruptive and dumb. Whether this is just how the guy plays, or because they were jealous of the attention OP had from the start and just kept escalating? Who knows. Could be either honestly.
But I agree, unless there is loads of missing context(there oculd be, OP *could* be a dick and be misrepresenting things), Dave is 100% at fault and OP is justified in burning the spellbook. It was a direct clarified threat and Dave had every opportunity to back down after the first exchange. DM also should have stepped in here, pvp over clear out of table pettiness is stupid, but regardless Dave is definitely an instigator.
Regarding burning the spellbook: OP said he would do it, he was simply following through on a clear and credible threat. Dave brought it on himself.
Playing devil's advocate for OP in the second story: I feel like it'd be pretty hard to have a character arc about learning to accept magic when between the only two magic users in the party one thinks it's a curse and the other is being openly antagonistic and unhelpful.
Five levels is enough for someone to get over their bs
@@themenagerie5247 could have started at level 3 or 4
@@themenagerie5247 "five levels is enough" acting like you know how many sessions were between those levels lmao
@themenagerie5247 Is that official, or buried in a UA somewhere? "If a character's arc isn't resolved by the time they reach level 5, that arc can never be resolved, and the character must leave the party and retire from adventuring, as their personal growth is now a Lost Cause (tm)."
@@themenagerie5247yeah. Like Dave could have
12:25 i think the Dave player is in the wrong. The guy seems like a "it's just a prank bro" type dude who likes to push buttons. He keeps pushing, until someone pushes back, then gets all offended when someone follows through on a warning they gave him. Yeah, mechanically it was kinda crippling, but story-wise, OPs character sounds like they'd do that. They warned everyone ahead of time, everyone was chill with it, then Dave started to be a douche. Idk, maybe he did have a crush on jess, and was low key jealous OP had all these rp interactions with her. Or had some weird vendetta against OP, idk, idk these people. Either way, the dm should have probably stepped in early like Spencer said and made sure everyone was doing all of this sincerely and didn't have issues with what's been going on above table. So, no, OP is not the asshole. Imo
YTA make paragraphs stay in school
@@1Peasant bro cant read
In our Strength of Thousands game, my friend rolled up with a Matanji Orc (known to hunt demons and demon worshippers). Hearing this, I pitched. Beykar Tiefling (known to worship "demons" (actually devils)). Its been fun being snarky and learning to cooperate in character, but outside of some occasional AoE damage, we've never hurt or worked against each other. The story with the burned spellbook could have been such a fun arc for both characters, but they squandered it, imo.
PF2e gang rise up!
The post is probably biased for sure, but yeah, if I was at a table with opposed/frictional character concepts like that I'd be checking in after every session to make sure things are going well. Character friction can be great if it's two players agreeing to put their Dudes in Situations but it sounds like this was intended specifically to tweak noses across the table.
"I dont think he should have burned the spellbook"
Wizard bias showing
Burning a wizards spellbook is a unforgivable crime.
@@stargateproductions Not in a world where people don't like magic :3
@conquer535 I don't main wizards because of this inherent issue
@@stargateproductions is it common that people make worlds that dislike magic?
I thought it'd be pretty rare tbh (an avid dnd lurker but not player lol)
@@conquer535 It's not super common but I preferer sorcerers to wizards because of their meta magic.
0:11 you can't fool me, you're both fully dressed up - gold dragons in disguise!
Do they look like yellow canaries to anyone else?
ok lemme cast Trueseeing real quick…
oh shit
11:21 I love this. Love the RP. (I usually don't allow pvp; haven't allowed it yet) I think as far as pvp goes, this isn't too bad. Especially at such a low wizard level, they probably lost only a couple spells at most. Dave is 100% in the wrong, the writer is 20% in the wrong.
That stepmom story was the best TTRPG Reddit story I have ever heard 😆
If I was one of dude’s friend in that campaign, I would (jokingly) give him shit about his hot stepmom until the end of time 😂🤣😂🤣
~_~
As someone who DM's a family campaign (my parents, my sister, and her husband, we started in the first year of COVID as a way to stay in touch), I have (at multiple points) ended up flirting with all of my family members in some capacity, and that changes you. I didn't steer them into it, they all took it there on their own, but that doesn't make it any easier XD
Just move to Alabama. It will be allright.
Geschichten aus dem Saarland
Interesting…
Jacob, I have to disagree with you on Mageslayer being in the wrong at all. He asked the table and it was all established in the Session 0. If everyone agrees to the concepts at a Session 0 with one player actively liking the concept, and a player suddenly changes their mind and is antagonistic, it's not the Mageslayer who's in the wrong. NuWizard should have discussed the multiclass and how to proceed with the arc and trust magic rather than randomly turn antagonistic and butt in where he never was before.
NuWizard had several warnings of what would happen, and could have even made an in character apology to Mageslayer, but instead he initiated PvP long after being told "Cast spells on me and I'll burn your book."
NuWizard should have apologized, and offered his book as a peace offering, with Mageslayer setting his grudge aside for his companion. Of course, buildup beforehand would have needed to be different, but still.
Furthermore, the guy did a Fighter 4/Wizard 1 multiclass. Does anyone believe he did it for ANY reason but to further disrupt the table?
Im convinced Jacob didn't pay attention or is just willingly ignorant of how the problem player was Dave the prick who antagonized OP for no reason
Dave was warned, and he did it anyway. Torch the book
Leon Kennedy arc incoming?
Spencer looks like she could do a kickflip without breaking eye-contact with you.
"Remember when I asked your mom to the prom?" "Shut up, Ted!" - Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, 1989
Bless you for that deep cut. 😆
Dave was 100% the antagonist
and 100% hilarious, lol.
@@kreiyu - Oh...you're one of _those._ 🙄
@@kreiyuOh… you praise assholes who do nothing but cause drama and problems…
Honestly, Dave is way more in the wrong in the spellbook burning post than OP. Obviously neither are entirely justified, but setting aside character choices, it really feels like Dave was doing it all just to get on OP's nerves? Like, OP's character idea was problematic, but he expressly went out of his way before the game started to ensure that it wouldn't be a problem for anyone at the table. The issue was arcane magic, and the only person playing an arcane caster had a viewpoint that aligned with his in a way that made for a compelling dynamic. Nobody else planned on playing one, so the issue would only be relegated to OP's characters having a heavy distrust of certain NPCs - which isn't a gamebreaking issue.
And then, after OP cleared this with the rest of the group, Dave decides to make his character multi-class into Wizard and use spells in suspiciously high frequency, even down to having his character be so lax with it as to break another characters' boundaries in terms of magic. The whole thing, including his attempted dynamic with Jess, feels really forced - especially if Jess was having as many problems with it as OP, and from the sounds of it she was. It feels like Dave wanted to retroactively change his character to be OP's character's foil without clearing that with the rest of the group, and couldn't pick up the hint that it was a bit forced and a lot more antagonistic - both in and out of character - than it probably seemed.
Intentionally and openly doing something that violates boundaries, that were explicitly established and weren't outlandish, is too much. At most I could tell OP "dude, probably don't make a character that full of hate" but to Dave it's just "aight, go fuck right off"
Ye but also the dude wrote it. So you know I mean ye, Dave is questionable in his status the dude who wrote it is guaranteed immature.
No winners in that story.
@@stevefilms1997 If you start making it about the validity of the post rather than its content you've lost the plot you might as well conclude the whole thing's fiction designed to rile you up and not interact with it at all.
@@EnraiChannel as its written the writer is 100% in the right and dave is 100% in the wrong
obviously we dont know all sides, but considering the 2/3 of the other people sided with the guy doing the book burning, including the DM, while the 1/3 people who didnt, didnt because they just thought it was harsh, im VERY inclined to believe the writer is at least mostly truthful
2nd player was 100% in the right
he only went an "anti mage" guy with the express permission of everyone at the table, dave only went a mage AFTER allowing the anti mage guy to be a thing, and went a mage knowing the anti mage guy would be against that
dave in character tried to antagonise the anti mage guy, got warned in character (and out of character) about how the anti mage guy would react, and still provoked it
pvp between players is 100% a thing that can and should be allowed if everyone is ok with it, just blindly saying "pvp should be allowed" is just daft if the players are cool with it
so dave, allowed an anti wizard character, then having allowed this, and knowing it exists rolled a wizard (he could easily have said beforehand "i will want to multiclass later so please dont")
dave then deliberatly in character provoked the anti wizard guy, then got warned in character and out of character about how the anti wizard guy would react, and still chose to act in the way he did
he engaged in pvp of his own volition, activly instigating it of his own choice, knowing that the other character would react in a certain way, and having previously given permision for that character to exist
the writer is 100% fine, he did nothing wrong
also jacobs absolute aversion to pvp is just....weird
if both players are ok with it, why as the DM do you want to stop it?
you are just preventing them from roleplaying and playing their characters, you are railroading
if you are so utterly against pvp that you never want it to happen (despite it being a perfectly valid tool within a roleplaying game) then you dont put your foot down when its about to happen, you put your foot down when people are making characters that might clash
OP asked for permision, and was given it by everyone at the table, dave after the fact chose to multiclass into wizard knowing ops character, if you are so against pvp its not op who was making the antagonistic character here, it was dave, because "the party hates magic" was already established at the point he CHOSE to make a wizard
also the attitude that you ARENT ALLOWED to make a character who dislikes magic, and if you do you HAVE to make your character grow to like it, is just WILD to me
thats absurd DM railroading and character control
and the arguement that "magic is all over the place, you cant dislike/distrust it" is just dumb at best, guns in the real world are all over the place, you still have plenty of people who hate guns and think they should be illegal, the idea that someone thinks magic is bad in a setting with lots of magic isnt just perfectly ok, it activly makes sense
you have a VERY very weird take on that story
and tbh, based on your attitude towards it, you really sound like a bad dm
100%
First story Ranger sought the party's approval first, and everyone was okay with it. It even sparked an interesting RP with the Sorcerer. That is totally a fine way to play DnD. The Fighter siding with wizards they're already in combat with and saying his character would do it because he's dumb (when stat-wise, he's way above average intelligence and even average wisdom, which was the point of telling us that) yet then also becomes a Wizard (well gosh, I thought he was dumb? Yet he's been apparently training to be a Wizard this whole time?) was trolling him. He was also warned ahead of time not to cast spells on the Ranger and what the Ranger would do in response if he violated that, which he then proceeded to do anyway. He absolutely got what he deserved.
Also, of course the mage hating Ranger took Mage-Slayer, why wouldn't he?
Yeah, I don't know why they made fun of OP mentioning Dave's character's stats. Dave was making his character do things that hindered and harmed the party and defended it by saying it's what his character would do because is character his dumb while his character has average wisdom and exceptional intelligence.
@@AAAAAA-613 I think it's because OP came off as fairly incessant about a character trait that has the potential to be annoying and controlling throughout the post, so the stat mention came across as a red flag. I personally felt more on OP's side after finishing the story.
Also after that point Dave really showed how much of a asshole he was.
@@DrgnDrake Yeah, Dave was definitely the issue. OP was reasonable at every step and warned Dave of the consequences of casting on him well in advance. Dave chose to cast on him, he has no right to be upset that OP followed through on his warning. That's fair and consistent RP.
Dave was just trying to be an ass to be annoying.
@@FromMan2Monkey-nb5fq mentioning that a character is smart when the player is saying they are dumb isnt a red flag
its just showing that the player isnt playing the character
So much this, and I'm surprised they didn't pick up on it. The story poster checked with the group and they said it was ok (this is even kind of mocked in the video as people only saying they're not going to play a wizard/sorcerer.) They get good RP out of it. Then another player decides he is suddenly going to start having a trait that antagonizes the poster (with no mention of out of character conversation about it.) Said fighter then does several things to antagonize said poster. Poster gives a warning. Fighter/Wizard after getting the warning antagonizes him again. Player responds with an attack but does no damage as a warning (this would normally be called good RP.) Fighter/Wizard then starts a fight by actually attempting to do damage.
Like there could be more to this story, but as it is written it's pretty clear that the poster is not in the wrong. Someone deliberately adjusted their character - without group conversation - to antagonize members of the group, repeatedly antagonized a character, and then got upset when their actions had consequences.
At my table? Spellbook stays destroyed, and you're on notice to stop antagonizing other players and provoking PVP if you're going to whine when there are consequences. Or do we really think the fighter/wizard was just going to leave the magic hating person who is trying to help the sorcerer cure their magic unconscious?
Spencer's horror is my horror as well. Secondhand embarrassment is far more terrifying than any slasher film
Alice was just a really good method actor
The magic hating guy didn't try to PvP Dave when Dave became a Wizard or when Dave would constantly use magic to annoy his character. Even though his character hated wizards he found a way to still adventure with one. All he wanted was for him not to cast any magic on him, which Dave couldn't be bothered to respected and so cast a completely meaningless cleaning spell on him for no good reason. It seems like Dave just thought it was fun to constantly undermine the guy and antagonize him at every opportunity. Dave was clearly being the problem player. Dave even used the "its what my character would do" defense to justify why he was doing shitty stuff to the party. I wouldn't have even let him take any levels in being a Wizard because he said his character was not smart and that he wouldn't be playing a wizard. I might have let Dave be some other type of caster but certainly not the one that is literally based on being intelligent and definitely not after Dave used being dumb as a defense for his previous actions.
Yeah if I had been the DM then I would have made Dave stick to the "my character is dumb" and not allow a multiclass into a caster class until Dave did something in-game to increase his intelligence. However as DM I would not have let the player pull the "my character is dumb" card to begin with in the scenario outlined in the story and would have out of character told them to stop being disruptive to the rest of the party. There are ways people can play a character that may not be aligned with the rest of the party but you have to be careful how you go about it. Dave just seemed to want to cause pain.
Thank you for making the point about confrontation being awkward and difficult for some.
Yeah it's hard but sometimes you really should do it anyways.
Also I had this bit about adult pants that was supposed to descend into a gag about the pants not always being pants and stuff, I lost the plot.
@@janschievink1586 I mean yes, it's beneficial to do. It's just not something that's as easy as 'gawd, just DO it, if I was in that group I would be the gigachad and say 'NO STOP IT' and then everyone would clap'
@@sephy26946 I mean it's not even the best option every time sometimes it gets you nowhere anyways and sometimes the whole situation is such a lost cause it's not even worth trying it's the right option when it's the right option.
Maybe I've just lost my patience for struggling through bad situations or tolerating bad people as I've gotten old.
Anyways I hope you can manage it when you should.
normally i get my reddit stories from smosh and they always say something along the lines of, well your kinda an asshole for not confronting the guy who everyone agrees is in the wrong. an i always feel guilty when they say stuff like that because its terrifying and not all of us have a fight response to perceived danger.
For the “I hate arcane magic” I had a similar thing with the game I’m currently working on starting up.
One of my players wanted to stick with an idea of being against revival magic and wanting to stop it happening. I worked with him to make a backstory as to why, and then dial it back to instead being distrustful. It’s an Eberron game so we had the decision that in his past, he revived someone, the wrong soul came to their body, and it was a malicious one.
My biggest thing is if this thing will fuck over the party, no. So instead we had it shift to distrusting, or he’s basically “if we are reviving this dude, we need to do every single step possible to make sure it goes right and then he’s keeping his eyes on that person to make sure it’s really them.” It added depth but won’t keep someone permanently dead if they got downed. So I’m excited to see how it goes, I trust the player to not be a dick, or at least if I tell him to stop he will listen.
I actually don't agree with you. Not all D&D is Forgotten Realms (or even 5E) where everyone and their mother can cast magic. You can 100% make the character who hates magic for whatever reason work, even if there's a magic user in the group and never ever change his views. It's those players pettiness that made this thing go wrong.
Please don’t bring up player’s moms on this video
@@9000ethanator LoL
Even then they don't HATE magic its more so untrusted as I DM a lot of low magic sure people distrust magic but not many out right hate it as it exists it just is rare.
There are plenty of cultures even within the Forgotten Realms that distrust arcane magic. It's a perfectly valid way to roleplay, because there are real cultures with those same opinions (against occult topics, or even modern technology), which should be given the humanity and introspection they deserve.
In my campaign the wizard distrusted sorcerers because they weren't trained in how to control their magic, but through interacting with the party sorcerer and several evil wizards over the course of the campaign, he realized that it's not about where your magic comes from, it's about what you do with it. It was some nice character growth that didn't involve PVP or kneecapping another player's character
To be fair I think you would be tempted to do so if a sorcerer kept prodding you and when you decided to take a pure roleplay swipe at them that does no damage after they did something your characters said not to do to them, and the sorcerer decided to initiate combat. You would make do the threat you said you would do. Besides while not great losing a spellbook at level one is something that can be worked past, it won't be easy but it not completely crippling and serves as consequences for pushing somebody's clearly labeled boundaries. Heck the DM could give them a spellbook next session to give them the problems with not having a spellbook while not mechanically kneecapping them for long.
someone snatched Jacob’s wig
Burning the spell book. To be clear it never should have been allowed to get to that point in the first place. It's like watching a steam roller come at you slowly and not moving lol.
The stepmom story. yes that is exactly how real friends would be toward the guy. Giving him crap and teasing him lol. As for the flirting, yeah AWKWARD lol. She was certainly all in on the theater aspect. I am super glad it ended well with her being willing to dial it back in and not ACTUALLY trying to hook up with players etc.
I actually disagree regarding mage hating characters being bad. It seems like op was open and even welcoming opportunities to rp with other mage characters, but dave was being actively antagonistic towards them and was trying their best to make op upset. An irl example would be: if you are for example racist, and someone from that race keeps antagonizing you, you arent gonna go: i see the error of my ways now and will stop being racist. But if you have someone from that race be nice to you or just treat you like someone who is just misguided/misinformed you are more likely to change your perspective. Im sure that if dave didn’t act so antagonistic and obnoxious op would be open to having a reform arc for their character
The problem is that we only have mageslayer's side of the story. From their perspective they were totally justified
@@dedvi daryl davis was right.
I'm not a DnD player myself so I don't know how big of a deal losing a spellbook is (or can be), but as a man of my word, I would feel dishonest not to act according to my previously made threat once the conditions are met in spades. I might still help repairing the damage done afterwards, though, as an act of good will.
It costs like ~100 gold and a day of scribing to replace a level 1 spellbook. It's not a "permanent crippling" of the character in any way. I completely agree.
I’m just imagining the Future Trunks internal scream (DBZA) throughout the last story
"you can call me mommy~"
*"AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-"*
I always find these kinda vids amusing in the idea that the game where you're told to "play what you want to play" always ends up with "oh but you can't play that".
It's "Play what you want to play - but don't mess up _other_ people's play." The second half of that sentence is just as important as the first. TTRPGs are a _group_ activity. If you don't play well with others, go write fiction.
seeing the new haircut gave me the same vibe as being a tiny kid and seeing that your dad got a clean shave. I am shaking and crying (violently)
LMAOOOOOOO RIGHT
The thing I think a lot of people are missing about the AITA story is that everything was fine until Dave started making weird and disruptive decisions like antagonizing other party members, siding with evil wizards who were actively attacking them, and lying about his stats to brush off why his character was doing these things. I can't say if Dave's reasoning for those decisions might have been at all justified, as we don't know what he was thinking since OP either also didn't know, or didn't include that information, but at the end of the day, one player was being a nuisance, and the other retaliated only after his warnings to knock it off were ignored multiple times.
OP was playing a character. He asked everyone, they all said it was fine. The magic user was fine, nobody else was being a magic user nor had any intention to dual class into magic. OP and the sorcerer was doing serious RP, fully engaged. Then Dave decided to start trolling. When trying to convince the sorcerer to start spell blasting didn't work, he took wizard just to take spammable cantrips to egg on OP for literally no reason. OP was being Extremely nice and tolerant and reminded him that it would cause issues and Dave did it anyways. He told Dave to never cast magic on him, and Dave did it. No real reason. Just to clean dirt. When OP's character did a warning swipe ((Let's be real, that was being tolerant, his character would have tried to go for the neck)) Dave used SHOCKING GRASP on him.
The only thing burning the spell book did was disable Dave's trolling mechanism. Unless Dave wanted to re-roll a new character (He should have, OP broke RP by not killing him at that point IMHO) the DM could have taken away the wizard lvl 1 to make him a lvl 5 fighter and continue on and just try to lightly retcon the trolling.
I personally would quit that table if Dave wasn't removed and he wasn't planning to start playing in a way that wasn't trolling everyone else.
If I'm putting that amount of effort into a campaign just for someone to try and target me and sabotage the campaign just for lulz, there's no way I would continue on.
I don't know if you were just playing it up for the camera or not, but I've never seen you go so strange as to say "They should have asked", immediately read "They asked", and then act like he did something wrong by asking. As if "It doesn't bother me, I'm not playing anything that would conflict" is somehow an invalid horrible answer that should be scoffed at and have OP abandon all of his plans for receiving that explanation.
You didn't see anything wrong with Dave trying to get the entire party killed fighting the Necromancer, and instead focused on OP pointing out that Dave's reasoning was "My character is really stupid" and yet has 15 intelligence and 10 wisdom. As if OP was being some kind of way by knowing that. No, his character is not stupid. If you want to play a stupid character, don't put a high stat into the "brain" category. He claims that "He likes wizards because wizards smart so follow the wizard" goes to the point of immediately enlisting with any necromancer that asks. And yet he takes lvl 1 wizard and acts like he's the smartest man alive. He was trying to coach the Sorcerer on what to do with their SORCERER, (NOT WIZARD) powers... By the way, who takes 15 int as a stupid fighter? Dave was clearly planning this entire thing from the start.
"You can be DISTRUSTFUL of magic but not hate magic" Example: "A Wizard killed my whole family while I was a kid". . . .What?
Where does the slope of this reasoning end? Your Paladin isn't allowed to hate Necromancy? Your Ranger isn't allowed to hate poachers? Your Cleric isn't allowed to hate Rogues and Thieves? Rogues and Thieves aren't allowed to hate the hoity toity rich Lawfuls? Lawful Good characters aren't allowed to hate chaotic evil? I could go on - why are characters not allowed to hate something when it's agreed on by all players and DM?
I'm sorry for this giant ass post but my man I feel like you've given my brain a swirly.
that's a lotta text, hun
I was worried about where the stepmom story was going when it started with "my stepmom is 3 years older than me".
I’m glad Spencer is back, but I’m sad your hair is gone
A sacrifice had to be made...
I price well paid
@@slammurai6492spencer absorbed his hair
OP in story 2 is dangerously based tbh. He was totally transparent about the potential consequences of actions, and followed through. Simple as.
nah. OP let dave work him into a shoot. it's very clear that dave's actions were either to deliberately piss off OP or OP just assumed they were deliberate and dave was really just stupid/trying to be funny.
You're right tbh. People really need to learn the phrase "play stupid games win stupid prizes". Dude was warned multiple times in multiple different ways and he can always get the spellbook back. Maybe now he'll actually listen to other players boundaries and stop poking the bear now that he knows he'll actually face meaningful consequences.
@@xsoultillerx, and it's also really clear that OP gave Dave multiple warnings and told him exactly what he would do if Dave continued, and then simply followed through with that. It honestly does not matter at all whether Dave was acting like that deliberately or if he was just acting like an idiot; actions have consequences, and that's apparently a lesson Dace still needs to learn.
@@keppakappa5033 if dave was being deliberate then he was never going to learn that lesson because he got what he wanted to out of it, a chance to make OP "look bad".
the fact that he had 5 levels in ranger implies that he took the mage slayer feat long before dave took a level in mage, he checked with everyone in the group if they were fine with his character concept(and everyone was), dave was the only one being childish about the whole thing, heck if he wanted to play an arcane caster he should have just picked eldritch knight as a subclass instead of randomly deciding to take a level in wizard for no good reason
Yeah, it's very clear Dave wasn't just playing the game but specifically doing dumb things and going out of his way to hose the OP.
"For no good reason" is a key phrase here. We're given so few hints as to why Dave would go from a perfectly normal player in the first few sessions to so obviously wanting to frustrate OP specifically that it feels like OP is leaving something important out of the story.
@@softreyna I mean... wouldnt call a player that constantly betrays their own party and force them to lose actions mid battle to "convince" him with actual diplomacy rolls a "perfect normal player", but...
If anything, the whole story seems like it could've been a good time but this kind of "I'll do dumb things because that's what my character would do" from Dave is the problem since the start.
@@albertonishiyama1980 Well, yeah, that's not the part where he's a perfectly normal player. The story says something like "for the first few sessions everything went great" and that's what I meant
@@softreyna - Some malicious troublemakers _do_ play cool for a while, to scope things out and see what they think they can get away with. Then they start pushing boundaries, until they find which ones give them the reactions they crave.
The flirting step mom story is both the stuff of nightmares and the stuff of comedic genius XD
I played a Barb/Druid that was distrustful of non-druidic magics, to the degree that he wouldn't even let a non Druid heal him for fear of "their kind of magic".
His backstory was that he was a hermit, abandoned after a battle at a young age. He was a barbarian but came to adore nature as a result of being surrounded by it all the time, so his journey starts because he wants to be a druid.
Because he is a hermit, he was also generally inept at socialization and generally kept to himself. This meant that I could RP a character who didn't necessarily trust mages and magic but who wasn't just a bigot all the time. Because he didn't really mix with anyone, he didn't come off as particularly rude to any group or person.
And the biggest thing I would say to take from this is that you should only roleplay elements that might be a detriment to YOU, never something that could negatively influence the party or anyone else individually. It even set up a cool character moment where deep in the campaign, my barb had to accept healing from a non Druid because the party was almost finished, so you get this cool set piece of the barb accepting the heal, finishing the threat, and saving the party. He's realized there's something greater than fear and mistrust and it became a huge development milestone
Magic hater story, Dave was warned. Several times. I would allow this and side with OP. Plus, losing a lv1 spellbook when you already have several levels in a martial is not a big deal.
agreed. i think as a whole, OP took his character's magic hatred too far (like Jacob said, your character shouldn't stifle the others), but losing the spellbook was absolutely on Dave
@@ryanwillinghamit wasn't too far. He didn't do anything as long as they weren't casting spells on him.
It's on Dave to ignore multiple warnings.
If he wants to continue in the group he should apologize and agree to redcon the book burning.
The discussion about how justified it is is just realy childish, both need to make a step towards each other.
@@ryanwillingham Dave literally took his character in a direction he said he wouldn't during session zero he is a shit disturber.
Dave is 100% in the right and OP is wrong. OP is over role-playing to the point of being stupid and Dave is right to fuck with him, which he probably wasn't. OP is just assuming Dave is doing this to screw with him.
In the second story, assuming he is being honest, the guy was petty, but the orc wizard was so much worse. The DM should have stopped it ages ago and told the orc to stop being a dick. OP seemed to check all teh boxes for playing contentious characters and no one said anything, and one character was even into it.
26:30 best story so far
That step mother story was some entertaining fiction.
I am on the fence, but you’re probably right.
It’s either fiction or this 36 year old dude has a gigantic crush on his step mother by the way he wrote about her, and I want to continue living in the world where it’s fiction
@@atsumaruthepartydragonslay5007 a gigantic crush on his same-age stepmon
If I had a step parent who was around the same age as me, I'd disown my biological parent so fast. That's so creepy
13:10 I will allow pvp to happen at my tables given all problems are in character. If two people start pvp and they clearly have beef I stop it.
IF the action had been done without the pettiness I’d have allowed it. It takes time but you can remake a spell book and from strictly a in character perspective. “Hey don’t use magic on me” *Uses magic on him* “I warned you” is completely justified.
I think a good rule of thumb is if both sides are okay with either outcome then PVP is fine. If one player is going to be upset if the other player wins then it's a lose lose situation and should be talked out OOC.
The second story.
It's also a matter of consent. Op told the new wizard dont cast magic on me and the wizard ignored that. That alone is not okay. Nvm him multiclassing just to piss Op off.
Imagine going to your DM like "I swear to god if the next inn we go to doesn't have enough beds for each of us I'm gonna flip this table."
6:36 exactly what I was thinking. In the ad&d unearthed arcana, the barbarian class had a built-in fear of magic that the character would grow to overcome with level ups. I always loved that about the class. If I remember correctly, the earlier levels couldn't even use potions. There was a magic user in the group which by the end of the campaign who he had grown to be friends with.
Im glad Alice and him worked it out 😂 i was getting concerned there for a minute, lol.
It actually reminded me of what happened to our group. Not exactly the same, but brought it back to the front of my memories. Friend invites someone to our group, and that person winds up going with out the DM. Which wouldn't have been much of an issue if they weren't already in a multiple year relationship with one of the other players👀... oof that was something 😅
I prefer this hairstyle. You have recieved internet stranger approval.
14:10 I actually disagree with this. There is this game called Arcanum: of Steamworks and Magick Obscura where technology and magick are at complete odds with each other to the point where they can cause serious reactions when mixed. Obviously, there are characters who hate you if you are a technologist, and there are characters who hate you if you a magick user.
There is a way to make it work where you hate magic in a world full of magic. It just requires the DM to craft the world with that in mind
Well he was talking about Dungeons and Dragons specifically. There are probably other RPGs where magic is uncommon or unheard of
@@MiroredImageIt still stands for DND, if your DM is running a low-magic setting it could definitely work, but you have to communicate with your DM and have a good understanding of the world. Just comes down to communication, like everything else in DND
It's funny having Spencer being a copilot in this as we both react the same way at the same time to the nonsense in these stories.
12:29 So, the ranger did nothing wrong... Provoking another player's character to a fight by spamming mage hand, prestidigitation and whatnot isn't a way to convince a mage-hating person that magic is good. I believe it could have been achieved via role-playing dialogues between the sorcerer and the ranger, but definitely not an orc fighter who gets 1 level of Wizardry out of nowhere and starts pissing ranger out. He even violated his warnings. Dumbass got what he asked for and then started crying over his little spellbook.
Ranger McGuire: cute spellbook. did your husband give it to you?
The guy's character idea was actually pretty good, it's a shame that sometimes you get idiots playing with you.
Surprisingly, totally on board with burning the spell book. Wild amounts of warning given. OP's character's hatred of magic clearly wasn't problematic with the sorcerer for the first 4 levels, so honestly I struggle to see them as the problem.
It's fair in a way, but it also doesn't really address the issue of whatever Dave's problem is. It's just cathartic.
@@ProudPlatypus If that story is real. I would honestly believe the DM was actually sick of "Dave" and allowed for the book burning because of that. Comes across as a spiteful DM thing to do.
I would absolute watch a show based on that Ranger's beef with a cocky wizard party member.
So, you finally made it, Jacob! You chased me all the way to the Short Hair Timeline!
Ok honestly that first story sounds like a blast, I'd welcome that kind of roleplay at any table of mine, granted the players all had as much fun playing this as I'd have watching it (clearly in this case they didn't, given the story exists at all, but you get my point). At my tables I allow pvp under the condition that everyone is on the same page and sometimes I'll even double check to make sure they're both cool with it, if someone instigates pvp. It rarely happens but I've seen it done very well. It's great as long as no one is being practically subjected to it.
But I'm on OPs side, if you instigate PVP, same with instigating anything in ttrpgs, you accept any consequences that come from that. He fucked around, he found out. He even warned him, which means this player knew that magically attacking OP carried that threat, and he did it anyway.
I actively stop DMing to make everyone at the table aware of a big fart I'm about to produce. Then everyone claps.
My Hero. ❤
👏👏👏👏👏
I agree with the guy who burned the spellbook. I think he can make that character work, and it sounded like he had growth planned, but the other dude is an absolute theater kid about it and ruining potential growth. I probably wouldn't have burned the book, but I would have checked him above the table.
And PF2e is such a slog.
Nah, dude, spellbook immolator is 100% in the right. If the DM wasn't gonna intervene with Dave's OBVIOUS attempts to provoke the guy, then he absolutely needed to be taught a lesson from another player. He was warned that his spellbook would get burned and he completely disregarded the warning. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Yeah, it would have been a great chance for "Dave" to have a character growth moment, which could then lead to OP eventually getting past his own issues with magic when he sees Dave become more responsible with magic.
This was absolutely a F### around and Find out moment
OP, don't think we didn't notice this wasn't you.
But for the record, if someone says "If you keep using magic around me, I'm gonna make all your levels in this class null & void" then the last thing I'm taking it is seriously, because that's insane to do. Even for someone like me who was kinda on OP's side, as soon as they said they were gonna burn the spellbook, they became the bad guy immediately.
@@HashimotoDatsu There was no way OP was getting past their magic hate, this was their entire thing and lauded it over the group.
@@mouthyschannel2474 That is absolutely NOT what the spellbook burner said. He wasn't cool with the magic use, but he said don't cast spells ON ME or I will burn the book. Then Dave went out of his way to do just that. He got what was coming to him as far as I'm concerned. Like I said, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Also I have no idea what "don't think we didn't notice this wasn't you" means. That's like a triple negative my guy.
Dave was warned ahead of time of the consequences, and chose to commit the act anyway. Right down to the threat of burning the spellbook. He did everything he was warned not to do, and the warning was fulfilled.
My man has never played a game of chicken before
Yeah... a bit of a messy situation since both played by the rules established and were open about their character natures etc....maybe there could be a plot hook about them trying to reach out for eachother to make the group stronger or something? Maybe involving them finding a new spell book if feasible. Somehow I feel like the players aren't down for it though....
Yeah I think he should stick with the burning of the book because it’s cool and was warned.
I think the dm should give Dave the level back to re- spec into a different class
But I feel this might continue to fuel a pvp rivalry that could take over the campaign or get toxic
As a non-player, can you get another spellbook? Maybe they could go on a trek to find one specific to his wierd 4 fighter/1 sorc blend
Maybe have him take the level in fighter again and change his subclass to Eldritch Knight? He gets so mad his magic becomes somewhat innate@@DoABarrelRol1l
What are you doing step-pirate?
1) Your character, in a game, should never limit what other people can do with theirs. "Sorry, no one can play a bard, because music sends my character into a blood rage, due to my designed background - an orc bard, 'Taylorc Swift' robbed my family and murdered them!"
2) "Dave" was 100% trying to provoke the other player, by provoking that player's character in game. I wouldn't be surprised if the player "Dave" had a crush on the girl playing the sorcerer, that the other guy was interacting with and building a closer bond in game with... Dave, trying to piss him off quite openly, screams 'jealous and petty'.
The GM should never allow a character that imposes limits on other people.... if limits are to be imposed, it should be the GM that is imposing them, and it should be a part of the campaign affecting everyone equally. (Like the world I made that had a historical reason why there were no Halflings.- their disappearance was tied into the overarching story that would evolve)
Also, a GM seeing this type of toxic interaction between players, and not recognizing it, or not caring, is not doing his job as a GM.
I used to rock the long hair myself and cutting it short like you did after years of that long hair, not many things feel as good as that. Personally, I won't ever be going back to long hair again. Lookin good my dude!
I actually know a weird thing similar to story 2. Knew a guy who had a Warhammer 40K DM who was constantly nitpicking people on lore. However, the DM encouraged everyone to play different races at the start. So players would try to work together, and the DM would get upset
Hell nah, ranger homie warned him to not cast a single spell on him again or he would burn his spell book, dave did and suffered the forseen consequence. Thats his problem
Holy crap those are the most detailed and accurate looking costumes of you guys I've ever seen.
Me based on his hair: "Oh, this video must be several years old" 😅😅
13:19 this problem was caused by Dave. He INTENTIONALLY did all of this to upset the Ranger. He got exactly what he asked for
Laughing too hard at the D&D table and farting is too real, man
Then that extends the laugh while everybody says "no no it's okay"
I was listening to your vids in the car and that 'BOO' actually got me.
Well played, Mr. 3, well played.
4:00 I'm in a game right now that I absolutely love. I admit, there are sessions where I do literally nothing. I joined the campaign like over half-way through, so some of the story and systems are still lost on me. There are sessions where I make maybe one roll, or barely RP, but FOR ME it's fine. The DM is really engaged and we're all friends, so it's just a nice time.
I respect players like you so goddamn much thank you for having fun just being there. I also feel obligated to say, please do discuss with your DM if you feel like you want to take a more active role in sessions cause you deserve it!