I've never been fond of Ghost's being able to age people decades and even potentially insta-kill players if their characters are older. Its why I basically never run the base Ghost stat block for supernatural encounters. Though I can't really blame the DM for just running the ghost as it is out of the book. I think the player should've been more receptive to the idea of his patron restoring his youth.
I asked my players bc I had a monster I planned to use that could insta-kill their players dead dead needing basically a wish to bring back. So I asked them, how lethal was okay. They were find with challenging encounters where death was a possibility, but not a one shot, lucky dm roll. So I just modified that ability. Course then the players avoided that combat.🙃 but was a good conversation to have.
@@Ambers128 Yeah, I actually know a couple guys who are fond of super lethal encounters, and seemingly the only thing they care about is whether or not they're having fun. As with everything, talk to players and find out what they want or are ok with.
Fun fact! Ghosts have a 1 in 4 chance of instantly killing any aaracokra by rolling 4! And instantly make it live over the expected age that an aaracokra lives to by rolling 3!
Honestly if the player was that upset i would have just put a random potion of greater restoration right in the treasure of the encounter. Free bonus to the fight to just turn the moment from something that makes the character change completely to a oops well that was a silly moment we can tell the bards who will sing of our praises moment.
People often play characters with aspects they feel insecure about or wish they had in real life. A “handsome” character could be from the players own perception of their real life image - taking that away could’ve simply taken away his desire to play the character. GM didn’t do anything wrong, player didn’t either.
I agree with most of what you said here except I will say that the player was perhaps a bit too stubborn to turn out other mechanisms for addressing the issue through the narrative of the game.
Honestly the Player should have accepted a compromise, he made it clear it bothered him and DM offered some reasonable options some of which would have fixed it NOW.
Something to note is the player Didn’t hthrow a tantrum or make a scene. Agter it happened he just didnt talk and just left. And when the dm talked to him he just didnt like any of the dms options and left
I’ve had a character die from being aged and that suck. But I’m not going to refuse to play when the dm is being very accommodating by letting him have a story arc about him and or a rp moment that will make his character more interesting
So he leaves. I've DM'd for years. I don't take it personally. If he doesn't want to keep playing so be it. It's not my place to judge whether or not he's being a brat. Who am I or you or anyone to judge someone else? The mature thing is to simply say, "OK. Let's continue." without emotion or judgement. It's not worth the time or effort and feeling even a glimmer or irritation or sadness means you're taking it personally.@@kgdhgd1342
@@kgdhgd1342It seemed like the player has a fear of phobia of growing old. If thats the case than incan understand him not wanting it to happen at all because it would mean he an accepting that it happened and that conflicts with the fear.
He decided the game wasn't fun and left. End of story. I've played in roleplays that turned into a chore before and had people try every argument to make me stay and it's like. "I have a job already. I'm looking to have fun. We aren't compatible."
Something to keep in mind when considering situations like this: sometimes a player, or even a DM, isn't aware of all of their own boundaries until a situation where one of these unknown boundaries is crossed.
This is the first pro-player arguement on this video that makes sense. I would still kick the player. If you don't like the rules, dont demand the game change just for you. Nothing even should work that way.
I got into situation like that, actually. Long story short, I can't deal with topics of war crimes and children soldiers, and I found it out the hard way. I mean, it's not something I expected to pop up in the game in the first place, but considering certain context, I probably should have.
To the DM easiest thought that came to mind a restoration scroll amongst the treasure or even a magic circle that this creature utilized when it once was alive to become younger. Ghost was an alchemist who liked to play with aging, just have the circle be a 1 time use because it's powersource the ghost core breaks on use.?
I think part of the issue here is that certain things that can happen to the players needs to be agreed on from the beginning. And I've seen some impliment something similar... i was actually given a list of possible scenarios and what i was comfortable with and at what level of comfort as well. And i can see why the player wanted to quit after talking with the DM got them not only ignored and their feelings on the matter dismissed but now the story about it is being shared on the web.
These days (yeah I'm an older player) you have to ask all players who want to join your game if they are ok with character death or having bad things happen to them (outside the obvious off limits stuff). If they say no they're not ok. Politely ask them to find another game. Not every player is going to work for your game, not every GM is the right fit for you. Move on and find compatible players.
I agree... been playing for 4 decades now. Adventuring is dangerous your likelihood of survival, let alone success is low. Back when I started playing we didn't have video games though where the youth of today is used to scumming and just having extra lives. I think the Atari just came out to date me a bit. I am not a fan of the OSX style meat grinders (although they can be fun at times) but I am definitely against death and other permanent consequences not being "permanent". Bottom line... no consequence equals no challenge equals no fun.
The big thing is this dungeon master offered a way to allow him to try to reverse this, but this player wanted to to retcon the whole thing as if it never happened to begin with. The dm did nothing wrong. If anything, a Warlock Patron giving potions of youths like a dealer would be entertaining to me, lol. It is tricky because we want everyone to have a good time. There have been so many times I have played and watched horrifying consequences occur, and yet, those changes can add so many new wrinkles that could help expand a character's development and experiences. I do understand it isn't to everyone's tastes, but to absolutely say NO to possible solutions the dm gave out is just baffling to me.
There was several ways around this and still keep it " Rules as Written". The DM even offered a few of these options. They did everything as right and farly. Personally, I would have simply switch the 1 day of to revenue the curse to 1 week. ( Sticking to the 1 to 1 OG ruling) but stil give the party enough time to find a scroll, item, charm, wizard or creature which could return the OC to their original age. And set up for a fun side quest.
I run ghost aging as 1D10 years instead of 1D4 * 10. It can still be really bad if the PC gets thwacked by a ghost a few times. RAW... the Ghost can just keep Horifying Visage spamming as long as it keeps frightening the PCs. SOMEONE is going to fail that by enough to age in a group of 6 PCs that have to roll saves 2 times. I also don't use the 24 hr limit to fix it. I've considered even making the aging effect WEAR OFF in 24 hr, with no spell needed. Ghost as written is a PC killer that "hits way above CR" It can come THROUGH A WALL, FLOOR OR CEILING, and attack with no warning. That essentially means it can get automatic surprise. *DM:"Roll initiative" Players: "Why?" DM: "You'll find out. You guys seem to go first. What do you do." Players: "Do about what?" DM: OK, you did nothing... My ghost floats down out of the ceiling. Horrifying Visage. Roll saves."* I tend to make a ghost take out NPCs in view of the PCs before it gets to the PCs. This way, the PCs can have a chance to kill it before it kills them. It's hard to kill. It can just go ethereal and be immune to almost everything. I come from the EARLY days of D&D where most saving throws were "Save or Die" and with a normal adventure causing several such saving throws to be made, it was pretty common to have a player fail a save. Average of 30% chance to fail, 5 PCs needing to make the saving throw, odds say at least one dies EACH TIME they need to make saving throws vs an AoE. This was just making the players need a stack of 10 character sheets to play one game session... That's not my idea of fun. But it was Rules As Written. So, I rewrote rules on the fly. DM since 1977.
Its clear that neither the DM nor the player are willing to compromise at all on what they think should happen. I think the majour friction comes from how each party wants to play the game. Its clear the DM has a more grounded by the book playstyle where the player wants a more light hearted forgiving playstyle. I think the best things the player could do is find a DM that will line up more with what they want to play.
I say the DM did everything right, the only difference I would’ve done is that I would’ve interrupted play the moment I saw it was gonna be 40 years, like straight up just say time out, and then discuss on if it should be ruled as written, be temporary where they can recover on their own, or cut the effect in half for this one time, if they want to do a quest to recover their youth or find a greater heal potion I also wouldn’t have expected my player to leave just because of this, so I would be a little more curious if there was anything else, but I do find this to be a pretty big change if I didn’t discuss this before, might as will discuss it now, plus it would be a great opportunity to discuss it with the other players at the same time since, again, this wasn’t discussed before, so I want one want to know their reaction just in case the ghost gets them as well So, to some of that, the problem isn’t with the ruling or the solutions. It’s just the timing, he should’ve made this discussion right then imo
Honestly i would be pretty upset too, they have no oportunity to reverse it on their own, they would either have to offer something to their patron in exchange (whic depending on who is their patron and what kind of relationship they have could be just as big an alteration to what they want to play.) Or they can go on a sidequest they got forced into and derails them from their path for however long, and seeing how hard the dm is about the rules (they have a right to be but still) could end up just not working out that well (you rolled bad, this only de- ages you ten years, sorry) in the end or they could run into another ghost and just plain die . Last two parts sound a bit paranoid? Yeah. Could it still make sense in the players mind if they feel hurt about this. Absolutely, i mean this was a boundary, they just didn't think about it because ghosts are both op and rare, maybe they expected the dm to be less hars about it. I agree with one other comment that said they sould have stopped and discussed twhat is going to happen as soon as it turned out the ghost could age him so much insted of trowing this serious alteration in their face letting them stew and have a discusion with the others while they are clearly hurt and then refusing do anything because it's a retcon. Could the player handeled this better? No doubt but if this cut deep, which it clearly did, and they were alredy having a bad day or week this could very well be the nail in the coffin and ferling ignored and denied afterwards was probably icing on the cake. Dm wasn't wrong but they were sure as heck not right. Player acted a bit immaturely, but still understandabel if you think about it.
Well listen. If the DM was like "No, you're going to play an old man and that's that end of the converstation" the player would have some grounds to be annoyed. But in this scenario the DM offered the player several ways to solve his issue and was willing to find a solution. So, I think the DM acted the best possible way and the player was being somewhat childish. Heck, at the end of the day your character is half celestial...just say that aging fourty years didn't change their appearance that much because of their magical nature and be done with it.
I'm not fond of that ability of ghosts tbh, but every DM can run their campaign as they wish. That said, some boundaries are unknown until they are crossed. =_=
That sucks, losing forty years of your character's life. Especially as an Aasamar, who are known for being beautiful, and not having a 700 year lifespan like Elves. Not sure why the player would quit over it, and we'll probably never know.
It seems that in this scenario, none of the sides are really fully to blame. Did the player knew how ghosts ability works? Did the DM warn gim about the cosequences? Should have player acted like that? In my humble opinion, DM had the right to stay to his choice, however he could have bended the 24h rule. That way the crisis would have been averted. The pc still gets affected, but it can be fixed easily. To be fair, the 24h ruleing is kinda harsh
Considering how deadly undead can be in general, I probably would drop things like aging. Yeah for some people going out to quest for restoring youth might be fun, but I also can see it feel like total salt in the wound for things like losing levels and such depending on the version.
As a DM, I give all my players a mulligan. 1 do over and only one. I don't mind retconning or restructuring things. That's my rule. I also make it clear that you only get one and only early on. everyone gets it so it's fair and I restructure the narrative so everyone is fine with it. Not happy mind you, but fine. I do this especially with new players in the feeling out stage. Once the game has been going awhile and we're past the warmup phase, I declare when the mulligans have been revoked.
This reminds me of another Story reminds me of another story of character aging rapidly via DM. I question to whether or not this is the same DM trying to save face with this story to make the player seem unreasonable!
Old characters are fun. I played an 80 year old fighter, his great grandchildren were orphaned at a young age and he and his wife were the last living relatives and he was a retired adventurer who never had any skills other than adventure but didn't have enough saved up to keep everyone fed until the kids got old enough to help so he was on one last adventure, in a one shot we called the crippled campaign. There was a blind mage, a ranger in a wheelchair, my old fighter, and a one armed rogue. We had to go hunt down some were rats in the sewers and my fighter had to use traps and tricks he'd learned to keep the party alive. He set up light traps to disadvantage the light sensitive enemies, a few tripwires to slow them down, things of that nature. It was fun for all of us trying to solve the riddle of how to play a class with its main abilities being locked. The blind wizard was especially funny. He had to throw a fireball once and nearly roasted everyone because he didn't quite hear the right tunnel.
Gonna have to side with the player on this one, at least partially. Being rather shallow/vain myself, I'd probably do something similar. Especially if it was a group I don't know outside of the game. Permanently altering a PC in some way, any way, is something I definitely wouldn't have done unless it actually fueled the story and the player is okay with it. While the DM offered multiple solutions in the form of side quests, it honestly doesn't sound fun. It's dragging the whole party down a side path because of something one party member wants. At that point, yeah. I'll take my stage left exit. I don't think the DM should be a doormat and give him what he wants, but I don't think the player should be forced to stay either if he's not having fun.
Don’t know about this one. On the one hand I’ve totally flubbed rolls or ignored effects that I think would be to harsh on players. And I do consider an effect that can potentially insta kill older character to be WAY too harsh. On the other, the DM gave him all the opportunities to fix his character. Although it sounded like all those options happened at a cost which can just feel like additional punishment. It’s a real head scratcher. In the end, I don’t think anyone was in the wrong here. Everyone has a view on how the game should be played and that’s inevitably going to cause friction. They talked it out like adults but couldn’t agree on a compromise. I say just accept it and move on.
its dnd its a dangerous world out there what is adventure worth if there are no consequences or danger,pc die and thats okay and sometimes other bad things happen,its all part of the game.
The problem is there was no compromise on the table. The player didn't want compromise. He wanted complete and total submission from the DM. He was purposely being as big of a problem as he could. He was unquestionably in the wrong.
@@f2pcoder92 It doesn’t have to be and there’s no one way to play the game. And expecting everyone to have the same definition of fair risk is just unrealistic.
You laid out nothing valid or reasonable. And it doesn't matter what you "think." The player wanted the DM to cave and do only what he wanted. No compromise. It's not disputable. @@H240909
Career ending consequences at level 6 should be considered a death, not incurable disabilities. If a monster type can regularly cause that type of an effect a party should only face them if they can reasonably recover from that effect. Otherwise there will be serious grief to the party. As a player I would much rather be torn to pieces by a monster than aged significantly as a race that it will completely render my character useless. The time limit to find a cure for the aging should also have been extended to at least a month in game time, as another possible escape from this character being rendered inert.
As far as 5e is concerned there's no difference between age groups, 3.5 and maybe 4e had something like that but 5e doesn't, so it only becomes relevant for short lives races like orcs.
What is the point of playing the game if all the monsters are the same and one can instantly fix any problem? And no, this is not incurable, there are ways to fix this issue, just no willingness to put in the effort.
@@craigtucker1290 the point is to have fun . If the player doesn't believe they will have fun with the dms style then leaving is the right call . Also the player has to believe that the dm won't screw them over as they try to fix the issues. Everyone has their own preferences on dnd games all characters make it to the end to multiple characters die every session just have to realize what kind the dm is running.
@@alaska1592 The DM didn't screw them, they played the game correctly. The player is just being ridiculous in that they want all the good and none of the bad. There is a term for that, acting like a child. And nerfing the game to make if "fun" for the player is not necessarily "fun" for the DM. Everyone should have fun at the table and not be forced to placate a player that doesn't want to play the game.
@craigtucker1290 "what's the point of playing the game if all the monsters are the same and..." No one said that all monsters should be the same. No one said they would think that would be fun. "And not be forced to placate one player" This was never mentioned here, nor in the video. "There's a term for that, acting like a child" I do hope you can see the irony, in telling adults playing make believe with dice and mini's, that there's a right way to play. And if they don't it's childish. Anyway, it's two adults having a patient conversation but ultimately incompatible opinions. And adults have jobs a maybe an actual child of their own. You don't have time to convince people how you like to play ttrpg's, you just find kindred spirits. No need to gatekeep people you disagree with from having fun.
As a Dm, the goal is to make the game engaging and fun for everyone involved. I can fully understand not wanting to go back on a decision, and honestly, there was no need to. However, a DM is also fully at fault for putting a party up against an encounter with effects that they have no way of dealing with. Maybe there could have been a scroll of greater restoration nearby, or maybe you could've had a Cleric on hand after all was said and done, or maybe you could just change the RAW effect's time limit by increasing it or making that time limit into how long the effects last. But all in all, fighting ghost at level 6 is just a big no go in my opinion. Might not be hard to kill, but for shorter lived races or even longer lived races who are at that older age, that can be instant death or force penalties with nothing that can be done about it. As for the player, from the sound of it, he was rather respectful in the way he dropped out. He let the game continue, and didn't make a big fuss. He didn't take away any fun from the other players. Now, he was given options, and was being rather stubborn not to at least try to compromise with the DM, but as someone who's played through a similar scenario, going on a quest like that can turn out to be a chore more than anything for the player. Personally, I would have just scrapped the character and written up a new one, but some people don't like to do that, they have a specific character in mind that they wanna play, and if they can't play it the way they want, then they get disheartened. Case in point, both had their points, and both were in the wrong, but I think that the player is perfectly in the right for backing out once the game stops being enjoyable.
omg how is it possible for a dm to use mechanics as intended *gasp* if you want to play without danger just play monopoly and game that has no character effects and consequences dont play dnd, and yeah its supposed to be fun but its also a combat rp game with consequences and actions if you dont like that you shouldnt play dnd period or any combat rpg.
To be honest, the player is shorting themselves a golden RP opportunity... Aging 40 years in a day and having to deal with the consequences of that... Making either reversing or dealing with it part of the players personal story... Not everything that happens in a D&D game is good. And the point of it is to either bask in your glory, or deal with the consequences of your actions... Sometimes, at the same time. The DM here is absolutely correct, he wasn't doing it to be vengeful, or spiteful... It's just the way the dice fell and sometimes you have to deal with that, and find a way in a magical universe to undo what happened... Or find a way for your character to deal with their new reality.
Sometimes transforming someones character can freak them out. My DM had my character slowly turning into a rabbit because of a cursed item. I found out I had a phobia! I told them DM i'd like to roll up a new character rather than play through that and instead he was kind enough to remove that that had ever happened.
idk I've heard this story a few times and still think the DM is being unfairly one-sided in this. 1. This is a mechanic that is NOTORIOUS for being a feelsbad for people to the point many DMs make it temporary or nerf it in some other way. 2. The player has a point, there's ONE way by RAW to resolve this and it isn't on the table at their level or in their situation. Pulling this out as a run-of-the-mill encounter is poorly thought out. 3. There are character races that would literally die instantly if hit with this. What then? 4. It doesn't matter that the players killed the creature quickly, no one brought that up as an issue. It's a straw man argument. The issue is it left huge lasting damage akin to losing a limb or the like from a single die roll. It's enough some characters would just get retired right there. It's the equivalent of a trap that permanently disfigures a PC. Sure, it's "realistic" but DnD is very rarely realistic. 5. The DM pulling out the slippery slope fallacy, insults, etc. is showcasing just how little they actually care about the player's side of this. 6. "No retcons" is simply a bad policy. Shit happens, this player who the DM and other players supposedly value made it clear this was an unforseen but very important line that was crossed for them. Give them the benefit of the doubt and just do damage like a normal person. There's more but you get the point. More than half a dozen red flags here.
As another commenter pointed out, This effect could've worked if the DM made it ''a year or month'' for a cure. That way, group could find a new adventure without having to quit.
You sound like the architype 'millenial' player. You think the game is about story telling, and not about establishing a world with lasting and dangerous elements. If something happens in a game, it happens. If something done to your made up character makes you leave a game and subtly ruin other peoples fun? You are a narcissist, period.
@@phillipburke9522 exactly, the DM needs to bring a gun to the next game and if anybody tries to leave he can pull it on them and force them to play whether they’re having fun or not. Not playing a game where you’re not having fun is such an entitled thing to do, only the DM’s fun matters
@@phillipburke9522 It IS about story telling. You can make what DM did as a result of foolish player decision, part of the ending arc to a story where stakes are getting higher, Start of a new adventure to give the unwilling character a reason. Randomly pulling it and saying ''now you are fucked, anyways where were we?'' is simply bad story telling. It has no reason, it is not there as a consequense, it has no purpose. You could remove it and it wouldnt effect the characters nor story. Then whats the point? If a drastic result coming from a random encounter doesnt serve a purpose, ANY Purpose, then you are simply a bad DM. Random encounters are most of the time either a training ground, glimpse into the future encounter of similar type enemies or pieces of the ongoing story where you reveal something that seems to come out of a random fight. Just like pulling a Kraken in middle of the desert without reason or purpose is stupid and bad storytelling, so is forcing conditions on players without purpose or reason. It is not about aging here, its about the pointlessness of it. Which is why the player most likely left. Had DM provided a reason for it, or purpose, Player probably would stay. ''You got greedy'' ''You were too impatient'' ''You were prideful'' 'You offended a god'' Could've been the *reason* behind it for example. A punishment to a player, harsh one at that, to teach them not to be an idiot in a world full of danger. ''You have a month to find a way to cure yourself.'' Could've been a motivation to character and the player both ingame and out to continue playing. Maybe even force them into doing things their character wouldnt do. They could get more desperate with each long rest, wasting time to heal or rushing to fail? DM didnt do anything related to story nor character actions. It was simply ''you are screwed for absolutely no reason.'' Bad roll here didnt even matter at that point.
I did balk when he said "... And I couldn't reverse it" I don't like when GMs say this. YES you CAN reverse it. You are literally the God of this world. You are the one who put the Ghost there in the first place. This is about whether you WANT to or no. And that should come down to consequences; If you stick to your guns, you have effectively 'killed' a PC and punished a player with something he is Not Okay with. This is shaping up to potentially fracture the group and end the game. If you let him evade the effect (Give him more time to get a Greater Restoration, have it not take hold and fade after a long rest, something else that doesn't punish him for it) then you... threaten the integrity of the game? Yes, there COULD be a slippery slope, but you are avoiding a potential leak in the boat by plowing into a torpedo. I would feel differently if this was a consequence of Player Agency; If the Warlock had done something dumb, or made a choice they knew would have consequences, or just picked a fight with something far too powerful for them to handle. But as the Op said, they trounced this encounter easily. The negative consequence is earned purely due to a bad dice roll. A SINGLE bad dice roll. That calls for leniency and mercy, especially when it comes to something character-altering or ending like this. There are ways to handle this, but digging your heels in is not the right way I don't think. Player is upset because they incurred a permanent character detriment without any agency in it. No one else did. They feel that is unfair. The solutions the Op proposed all involved a cost to that player, which is just changing the form of the punishment, which is why they said 'no'. Is it important enough that this player suffer that punishment as to risk breaking the group?
I know that I wouldn't like a character being made old, as that would need to be discussed, and if the player doesn't like it, then offer the player a way out of that ASAP in order for the enjoyment to continue. (For example, temporary effects) As much as it might not be as upsetting, or still upsetting to others, I'd rather my character gets turned into a child, rather than made elderly.
creatures like the ghost and shadow are probably more meant for characters who have the possibility of dealing with their abilities or weaknesses. as the story here has shown, the dm can provide quest hooks to get around the bad rolls when dealing with a ghost.
I had a fabulous situation where I ran a ghost and the one person who failed the check against aging was the "Deep Gnome raised by Orcs" who'd had their orcish rite of adulthood, but who would be very much still considered a child by the more long-lived gnomes. So they aged 10 years (from 13 to 23, or in human terms more like 10 to 17.) In this case, they were within range of town where Greater Restoration was available, and they opted to be returned to their youthful state, but it became a really cool character moment where they had a stark realization of "Oh, I might be legally and officially an adult by the customs of my adoptive culture, but I still have some definite growing up to do."
I had a player that was 10 IRL (in real life) years older than the rest of the party. This was his excuse for why he thought he should be 10 levels above the rest of the party. The party called bull. I introduced a snake oil salesman who sold positions of lvls or (in character) life experience. When they drank it they'd make a con save of 15. On a fail they aged 1d10 years (varied for potency). Each position would add lvls at 1d-number=the potency of the position. Long story short my player drank some potions and got the lvls he wanted but his character aged from 30yrs to 70yrs old, and was pissed. Everyone pointed out that the snake oil salesman took pride in being know as a swindler and a scoundrel. I had in session zero told them there was a fountain of youth in the mountains. So the player wanted to skip the quest to stop a demon horde to go fix his age issue. He didn't get to the fountain or complete the quest as his greed triggered a TPK; which collapsed a mountain.
Quitting because of a monsters ability which purely states if they fail poorly they age is kind of a weird boundary imo. I am no vet by any means (Played for about 3 years) but I feel like moments like this add so much to the world. My age is changed? Now I can interact and find side quests to restore my youth and meet more of my dms imaginings of npcs and maybe even go places me and the party wouldn't have gone too see. No disrespect to the player but it sounds childish to me too quit even with a dm willing to make ways for you to restore it. That's my opinion though
I do understand his point though. Him aging didnt add to the campaign, it didnt have a story point or wasnt a result of his mistake (Foolishness, Ignorance or Greed). He randomly got punished due to sheer bad luck, not action nor story progression. Of course not everyone will drop after that, I wouldnt. But I do understand that losing something you care about to sheer bad luck without any reason given for it in a RPG sucks balls.
@@Kronosfobi There are certain monsters in all known systems, ESPECIALLY with undead (demi-lich, banshee, etc.) that can ruin a players good time with one or two abilities they have, and said abilities can even cause wipes easily. Sometimes these can make for good story moments, other times it just feels pointless.
@@Dragon359 You can abuse any monster if you want to. Thats the whole point of the game. Any monster, if used strategically, can become a threat to the player. A single goblin shaman isnt a match for you? How about 4 goblin shamans focus firing stuns and fireballs at your location? A single undead no match for you? What if you happened to be drunk as balls and said undead was under control of a nearby lich? You have a cape that allows you to blink? How about I place 50 phase spiders into the other dimension that werent hostile prior but now are angered by your presence? DM's goal is story telling first. It can be a dramatic one, It can be a lighthearted one. As long as players actions and DM's presence add to the story anything can be justified. Beating the player without a reason is a easy way to alienate new players, even old ones at times. Since DM already has everything they need to ''win'' against a player, There is no way to truly balance the game. If DM is set to kill you, they will kill you. It feels, by the player's pov, pointless to engage after being punished for sheer bad luck. Especially if said punishment was absolutely irrelevant to the existing and continuation of the story.
Err maybe. But if you work in elderly care in any degree you'll fast develop a fear of aging. I don't want to play fantasy as an elderly man. I wouldn't drop out but I'd talk to the DM and demand a speedy cure.
@@KronosfobiHere's the thing: You're coming at it from a Player vs DM approach, which is a bad mentality to begin with. If you _assume_ anything that happens to a player is "punishing" them in any way, that's _you_ assuming that the DM was going after them. The DM used an ability of the Monster, _that's it._ Assuming Malice or any motivate beyond "Use monster ability" falls into the mentality of "I must best the DM." Could the DM have chosen not to use that ability? Sure. But that's like specifically choosing not to use a Dragon's breath weapon; what's the point of making it a Dragon if you're not going to use the abilities that make it unique?
the thing is: the ghost ability is a hold over from earlier editions, and it is BLATANTLY UNFAIR to ANYONE who doesnt play and elf, and is literally a stronger version of power word kill on any human over the age of 40, any goblin period, and most races with the exception of elf. also, a character who ages 40+ years in an instant with no hope of turning back would not be able to fight anymore, and would re evaluate their priorities and stop adventuring realistically. its a rule that should be ignored for the fun of your players.
I can see both sides. And if course, we only got one person's side of the story. Overall, what's important is that everyone at your table is having fun. And what's fun for your players might be different than what you think is fun. It's very important to remember that as a DM, or you might find yourself losing players. In this case, I would've talked with the player first to attempt a compromise, then discussed with the rest of the party members about the options.
Um the DM did, at length as outlined in the video. The player rejected all compromises and wanted the DM to just retcon. That's on the player. Things aren't always going to go your way and you need to be able to accept that and roll with the punches, especially when someone is actively offering you a lifeline. That's not just DnD advice, that's life advice.
@@ramont8020 they talked it out, came to a compromise that works for both parties (the GM can run the game he wants and the player doesn’t have to play a character he doesn’t want to play), but the GM is the one whining on Reddit about how he didn’t get everything he wanted. It’s clear that he didn’t want a compromise because he’s out here complaining about the compromise he got
@ramont8020 You are entitled to your opinion, but your tone is a little rigid (if not condescending). DND is a game, and games are about having fun. And different people have fun in different ways. That's why I always have an open communication with my players to make sure I'm making an experience that we all enjoy. Life can be hard and unforgiving, but that doesn't mean our games have to be. Some people enjoy that, and good for them! But not everyone does, and to put them down for it is just mean spirited. If a DM and a player can't agree on a play style, then a "goodbye and good luck in your future games" is the right answer.
So he felt like the group fighting a creature with that powerful an ability at level 6 was a good idea? I can understand some things happening that can't be avoided or gotten around, but to have no possible way to reverse it (even though it may make for good story), I felt like the other option if the player still wanted to remain in the game was to either have his current one retire (though given his mindset it felt like he would have gone for seppuku instead), and make a new one. I know all too well the mindset of holding onto a grudge or slight against another, and while I hate that feeling, it's just how I am, and while I don't condone that players behavior, at the same time it felt like the GM was setting them up for failure. Have the character age like that with no real way to get it back? Oh well, tough shit! Something just seems off with that GM...or maybe it's just me.
If I had a character that was aged like this, I’d go a more childish route and use it as an excuse to act like a crazy old coot. “Back in my day when I was your age, hmm… it was last week Tuesday I think…, anywho back in my day…”
I'm happy the dm stood their ground on not going back on what happen. I get when these things happen to your characters it feels bad. But that can be part of the story. A way to create a against all odds come back. This goes towards both DMs and players, be flexable and understanding
If you respect your DM and their story, YOU GO WITH IT DESPITE WHAT HAPPENS TO YOUR CHARACTER, In D&D, There shouldn't be plot armor, It makes excellent challenge for players and test their decision-making skils, Otherwise all D&D campaigns are just different flavors of anime If you want your character to not have this or not have that and instead just do this or that out of your own personal needs... Go Write A Fucking Book Instead
"I'm happy the dm stood their ground" "This goes towards both DMs and players, be flexable and understanding." Well, which is it? Those two statements don't exactly gel together.
@@H240909 but it does tho. It's about DM's listening to their players and working with them so they can maybe plan in the future "ok, they didnt like this, maybe I'll try this instead" but that should always be the after math. I've had players want me to change this within or by the next session cause they didnt like how things were going or what happen to their characters. They wanted to be the OP MC. And that's great and all. I get that. But players need to understand that they are playing the DM's story. Which is why dms should address such ideas with, "ok they want to feel powerful. I can do buuuut. Here's the cost." Sort of thing
This one is COMPLICATED!! Can't really declare if both DM or player is at fault here or neither is at fault. Can sympathise with the player to an extent as the dice can be random as hell & unlucky rolls happen. But shouldn't get too prissy at the DM either. Simultaneously can't blame the DM as he wishes to create a unique gaming experience for the players.... however I personally feel he shouldn't really adhere too much to the rules & where/when possible & if they know how to, alter a DC if it can be allowed & helped.
Permanent debuffs are something that should be considered much more carefully because it can definitely leave a player with a feeling of loss and destroy their motivation to continue as they now feel left behind in ability. Incurable debuffs aren't something you carelessly sprinkle into a campaign like a bit of salt...
Bit if both. It really coulda been fun playing an old guy for a bit but ya gota weigh up the losses. Lose continuity or lose a player. Cab always state. Ok i dont want to lose x as a player so im gona retcon the age thing but can we all agree anything in future stands but can always be given a quest line or something other than a DM retcon to fix
I mean, I don't think it was a reasonable response, but I have general issues with the whole "you have to be OK with it, and if you don't, you don't deserve to play ttrpg".
@@Grayald Not every table uses all the rules, and D&D isn't only ttrpg anyway. Again, I don't think the DM was wrong or that the player was right with the demanding this situation being retconned part. What I disagree with is that you have to accept a particular, same-for-everyone, level of stakes to play any ttrpg (even though every game has a different level of stakes and a different playstyle overall) and that you have to stay in the group even if you don't like the game at all, just not to make it inconvenient to others (I mean, yes, there are cases when you need to stay to support somebody or so, and it may be a right thing to finish a current scene with the group before you can reasonably justify your PC leaving, but overall - it's generally better to find the right group for you that waist your time and be not fun to play with for others).
the DM was more in the right, but if there was a resolution to the out of game conflict, it would have taken more concessions on both sides. Should the DM have caved? No, but that doesnt mean they couldnt have done more to resolve it. In the end, the player was too stubborn. Retcons are for actions that cant be reversed by other means (death before considering a world of magic, gods, and demons that different tables will play differently). If the answer is an ex machina, it is just the most tasteful form of a retcon. Age? The game itself gives an out, and the DM went out of their way to offer alternative solutions that werent directly in the book. As for the player's perspective, i dont think it is an issue of changing age, it is an issue of changing age DRASTICALLY. In our limited mortal lives, 40 years is about half life expectancy gone in but a moment. With it should logically come physical changes drastic enough to qualify as non-consenting character change, but that judgement also depends on the tone of the world and the DMing style. Giving as much benefit of doubt to the player as possible, they could not be satisfied by ignoring what a sudden change in age to a character they spent so long crafting would do, but playing into the drastic change is too invasive on their perceived agency as a player. There is also the argument that the DM shouldnt have run creatures in an encounter if the party does not have the means to combat their effects, but that starts getting into the question of personal values in the game: rules as written vs roleplay supersedes rules within reason? I wasnt there, i dont know the language used. But even in the retelling, the stubbornness of both is clear. Instead of drawing a hard line in the sand about retconning, draw the same line without ever shutting down the player. "Wouldnt it be more interesting to go on a quest for a deity to restore your youth?" "Maybe this can start a character arc about vanity and a blinding ambition to restore your appearance?" "The rule book says that the effects become permanent after a day, but maybe we can bend time a little in your determination to lift the curse (through sheer determination making you move with tireless haste) or i can make it curable by special (roleplaying) feats?" Would you be willing to run a temporary character so i can DMPC you through this age problem in a new arc?" "i am out of ideas, do you have any that doesnt involve pretending the attack never happened? If not, we are at an impasse, and i cant just retcon away your consequences or the other players will start expecting the same thing to happen to them." To put it simply, i have to wonder how much of the retelling is the calm hindsight of the text medium used to initially convey it, and how much of the differing ideas came out in the conversation in a coherent way not lost to the emotion of the moment where it was "hear what i want to hear or nothing at all".
I love the “every roll is a story telling opportunity” because that is exactly my philosophy when it comes to D&D. There’s no point cheating, because you’re just telling a story from a character’s perspective. Dying doesn’t mean you lost the game, it’s just another chapter in the story.
I usually just make a new character when that happens. Because it does effectively mean that character is unplayable. Especially if you're using raw age rules. Unless you're playing something like an elf of course, what's 40 years to them after all? Still, either this player was a big baby or we're not being told the whole story. Honestly, to me it just sounds like this was the straw that broke the camel's back. Some styles of gming just don't mesh with certain styles of playing, and that's fine, but it's also very frustrating to be stuck in that situation. All-in-all, him leaving was probably best for everybody all around.
Honestly, given a number of responses here, I'm beginning to think the player just being a big baby is far more likely. And I'd hardly consider something that doesn't functionally effect the character at all making them "unplayable." Even if they were using the RAW age rules, Aasimar live a lot longer than a human (Around 160 years or so) so it's not like they're gonna be effected as much as if they were human. It would be like the difference between 21 and 31. Sure, you might be a bit more achey, but you're otherwise good to go.
This very same circumstance has led to awesome side quests at my table, and there was the option of a side quest or a “I’ll fix it, for a favor in return” from the Patron of the character. So, besides the aging barely mattering to that race, the was never a moment of “unplayable” as the fix was *right there* with added story hook.
I'm not one to call a story fishy, cause life is often stranger than fiction, but I can kinda get where the player is coming from. Hypothetically, they're still in the wrong for demanding a retcon - especially when an Aasimar has a longer lifespan than a human's, so they probably weren't THAT old comparatively (probably, like, middle aged at best). So the player is still very much being in the wrong - cause you gotta be willing to accept your PC is gonna get FUBAR'd at some point. HOWEVER, this is why I don't use Ghosts when I run D&D - cause rapid aging is a pretty bad feeling (especially when, going by RAW, it can be a real slog to play an aged character - again, the Aasimar should have been fine, but maybe they were playing an older character from the get go, IDK, I wasn't at this table). Not to mention that the DM is going down the slippery slope fallacy - this isn't about the PC dying to a dragon or getting poisoned by a friendly NPC, this is an ability that can actually ruin a character and make them borderline unplayable even with a magical quest to fix it. I get not wanting to go back on decisions and setting a precedent to your players, but these are extenuating circumstances to me.
If you play the game expecting not to have anything bad to your character, then you shouldn't be playing the game in the first place. And this version of the game has very much nerfed most of the worst things that used to be part of the game that made it a challenge. And no, this isn't a slippery slope fallacy, that is what you are asserting that aging somehow ruins a character. This is just not liking something about the game and wanting to nerf that as well.
@@craigtucker1290the DM's "If I let this slide, where does it end?" is the textbook case of a slippery slope. I don't know what else you would call it. I don't think it's weird for this player to quit, nor for this DM to not want to do a full retcon. Cause the main point is to be spending some free time in a fun way. No obligation to stick with a group composition that just doesn't work out. The player just ran into something that bothered him, probably taking him by surprise as well. That doesn't mean "he shouldn't play this game", it just means he should play the game with someone else. Preferably someone who doesn't feel the need for some gatekeeping when he hears a second hand story on a youtube video
@@todorus No it's not. "If I nerf this bad result, will I have to nerf every undesirable result?" is the slippery slope. Playing the game by the rules of the game that everyone agrees to play with when they sit down at the table is called playing the game. The fact that bad things can and do happen is part of the game. The fact that the player does not want to experience bad effects is more on the delusional expectations of this particular player, in which case this is not the game for them. And even if he finds someone else willing to nerf the game and prevent all bad things from happening to his player, then he isn't playing this game, but some facsimile of it. While he might enjoy this facsimile, nothing his characters will ever do will ever matter for the game is now rigged to only serve up desirable results. Might as well just write fanfic of play by himself. And no this isn't gatekeeping. You can play the game however you want, like any game out there. But there are specific ways to actually play the game legitimately, and there there is everything else that is not. It would be like bragging that you have beat everyone at poker because the dealer allows you an unlimited amount of draws. While you might be having fun, you are not actually experiencing poker, nor are your stories legitimate or believable. D&D is no different. Play it how you like, but there is an actual way to play it, death, aging, and worse are part of the experience, and nerfing the game does delegitimize any accomplishment when the dangers are removed or the DM hands the players their victory. That is just reality without the sugar-coating that so many put on it these days.
@@craigtucker1290 But...but that's exactly what was said in the video. That's the slippery slope fallacy. "If I go back on this bad result, will I have to go back on every bad result the player(s) doesn't like" was said in the video. It's the slippery slope fallacy. You literally quote what's basically said in the video; go back to 5:29, the DM says if he goes back on this bad result, it will set the precedent for the rest of the group. By your own definition, it's the slippery slope. If he goes back on this player, he'll be expected to go back for the other players when bad things happen.
@@JangoFox But it's not a fallacy with these kinds of whiners. This is why the game has been so nerfed from it original version to the point that dying takes herculean efforts in the current edition. WotC has been kowtowing to the community whenever people whine about something they don't like. And it won't be any different with this player for the DM. He is already irrationally upset that his character was aged, imagine how he would feel if something really bad actually happened to his character. The DM would always be concerned about this one player and if they are going to overreact to something that is completely normal within the game.
There's no boogeyman here. I think it's important to remember that this is an at-will game. A person can and should leave a game that no longer appeals to them, even if the internet thinks their reasons are dumb. Life is short and no dnd is better than bad dnd, even if the people hosting try to make it good. In this instance I think the DM took an unnecessary hard line. Its not like the effect was caused by the BBEG, its a poorly designed effect by a random throwaway ghost. If it were me, I'd rather have my character die than be heavily aged because at least they die how I remembered them, and I get to play a shiny new character who is also how I want them. I dont think Id usually leave for a reason like this, but I also can't say I never would. If you think about it becoming old instantly without any benefit of wisdom is absolutely horrifying and not something I'd be into if I was just looking for a lowkey game.
I started with 1e AD&D. This kind of thing, or worse, could happen to a PC. As Players, we just took it in stride if the GM was fair and balanced. Your character is a piece in a game. You made a new character and kept playing the game. Fantasy game worlds are cruel, and not all heroes (a.k.a. Player Characters) survive unscathed. This situation, and it's outcome, help to create verisimilitude for the game world.
This could have been a bridge to a very fun side quest centered around this player finding some healing elixir or magic plant in some fun and different setting. Pretty sad they quit, makes you wonder about the DM’s attitude/word choice when speaking to the player in question.
exactly, but let's be clear, any fun quest that stemmed from this would have been an after thought. I don't think the DM did this intentionally to upset a player, but they honestly probably thought it was kinda cool to do that. And that's fine...it's fun to mess with your players...but give them an out. That should have been part of the encounter design. A simple scroll of greater restoration...maybe even a level 9 Cleric was the quest giver because guess what! They could use greater restoration as they return
As a DM I always try to have a plan for if things go badly for the players, including a TPK. But I only retcon if something misunderstood or forgotten would have greatly changed what happened, within reasonable time. Example: I once had a level 2 character die, but the celestial lock was new to the subclass and how the healing dice worked. So the player asked on his turn if he could have healed the rogue, I said yes, he asked if he could try even if the rogue was now dead, and I allowed the rollback and kept the surrounding enemies attacking the rogue so we'd see if he survived this time. End result: barely alive rogue instead of dead. Everyone happy and scared. But I had options should it have been a TPK or single death so I was not worried. I think the players felt that, because I did make it clear to them that death is only the end if they want it to be, so there's that. But stuff can be difficult to predict. I mean that 20 something aasimar now looks to be in their 40's... not a big change tbh, and options were given. I don't think "I think the monster's ability to change the appearance of my character" is a valid reason to retcon, because an unchanging character in a D&D game sounds like a static character that can never be hurt and is just there to play out the players predetermined story and I'm not about that kind of game. The unexpected ways characters change from events beyond their control is much of the fun to me. Without that, I can just write the story for myself instead. 🤔
This is a player problem, not a DM problem. In my opinion the DM was being overly generous in spitballing ideas for the player to reverse the effects. I'm betting dollars to donuts he's right that he was the type of player who would rage quit of his character died. Don't need those kind of players at my table. This is why in session zero I made it clear to all my players exactly what kind of DM I am. I don't even cater to triggers. If you sit at my table you do so knowing that anything and everything is on the table. The players who can handle that type of table become stronger for it. Facing the things that make you uncomfortable is healthy. I like to think my players have become better versions of themselves to varying degrees thanks in part to my table.
so let me get this straight the played had the option of sacrificing something else to his patron to reverse the aging or somehow completing a whole side quest to undo it within 24 hours or it was permanent.. yeah really seems like he was given alot of options there.. permanent character changes are something that should be discussed before the campaign starts and agreed upon at the start as a possibility. not just dropped into someones lap and have them expected to just "deal with it"
I understand there should be consequences but ones that make the chracters perform worse in game really can be troublesome and can seriosuly bog down the mood. No one wants to dedicate so much time to their character only for them to suddenly be forced to have a worse time playing them. The quest to resolve problem could be cool story wise but having to slog through stuff while having to deal with a worse character and the party having to put up with you being worse just leads to everone having less fun.
@hartthorn it is true rules as written that there are no effects from aging in the 5th addition and that longer living races will take more aging to feel effect. My original comment is more so speaking in how I believe that almost all people that will use the again effect in such a fashion will also give downsides due to the increased age, especially for the shorter living races. For me personally I have seen a strength build charscter get ruined after their strength stat was lowered enough to drop their modifier by 2 and it made the remainder of the time the character was in play dreadful for the entire table.
@@kolbyrasmussen5195 Yeah, sure. That was a shitty GM. But that's not THIS GM. You can't judge their actions based on the bad behavior of some other dude.
@hartthorn I've seen the general behavior multiple times not just with people I have played. I think in the original story we don't have enough information on how much the aging actually altered the character. My original comment is mostly going off of my assumptions due to my own and others experiences
A Gm threw a werebear at us and 3 party members got infected. We lost 3 player characters that day because none of them wanted to play a werebear and the game died do to it. Any time you have a chance at changing your character perminantly that isn't death you need to talk to your players about it.
Got ya, glad i asked. Btw, Remove curse is busted, cures ANY curse. Tell ahole R.A.W it says any. If dm don't back down, they should have told you about the changes to spells at session 0. Then leave. I feel like i have trolled for justice now
@@thenomad2311 not sure it if it makes a difference but this was pathfinder 1e where lychanthropy says remove curse only works within the first 3 days.
People act like D&D is a video game, and treat it as such. It's a storytelling session. Not a game. Stuff happens to characters and the story evolves. If you can't evolve with the story and be flexible with your character then you should be playing a video game.
I think the player was wrong here. Yes, it sucks that their character was aged over forty years by the ghost. But the DM offered solutions to RP a solution for it. And it wasn't like the DM was purposefully attempting to make this happen. If the DM would have simply reconned the event, he would have to do that every single time something bad happened to the character. At that point, what's the point in playing the game?
As a player yes the situation is very bs. That said I'm not sure how 5e even rules aging since I don't play it. I do know that would hurt a character quite a bit in D&D 3.5 or PF 1e but really if the DM is willing to make a side quest of sorts to undo it I'm not sure I really see an issue to get very upset over let alone quit the game.
I had a character possessed by a ghost, my character committed suicide by jumping into a pot of soup being made by hags. Much worse than aging, but that's one of my favourite D&D stories I've been involved in. It was hilarious. I was invested in the character, but the whole party had a great time with that session. Worth it!
My hexblood ranger made a pact with a devil on a whim, and I've regretted it ever since, fearing the consequences for my baby 😢 I understand it's all pretend, and it was ultimately my choice to do it, but it kept me up at night for a little while.
@deru72 Not really the point. Choices in these games have consequences to your character, and when you put a lotta investment into one and something bad happens to it, you kinda feel that too. But sure, just handwave away my concerns.
I’m with the GM on this 1000% this player was not willing to work with the situation. The GM followed the rules and gave unique options for him to restore the situation and it could have been a cool way to role play and build up the character. But the player threw a fit and quit. Dice rolls are random and not always in a players favor (or GM). I’d ban the player if it were me even though I don’t think he would have come back anyways. I also won't play with a GM where my character can't die. If there's no risk there is no point. Situations like this are exactly why I love this game and it could have been such a cool storytelling/quest experience. Good on the GM for sticking to his ruling!
I actually think the DM is in the wrong. Permanent aging is a pretty old school monster ability and this surely a third party monster that did it or this an older edition. One solution I see that was not tried is getting rid of the time limit on recovery. A monster like that was clearly written for classic dungeon delve. In those settings the PCs homebase is usually not that far away and has a high level caster. If you are running a different campaign, then it makes no sense to not alter the ability to match the campaign you are in. Give the PC a month or year.
Had the players were given a larger timeframe to reverse the effects, DM could actually have a whole new setup for a game. Lets say 2 months. Curse one of the players with accelerated aging (deadly), other with something else (equally deadly). Same deadline. Give the players some shortcuts to cure ONE at the expense of other. Add more tricks, encounters on the way. You can keep this up for several sessions. And maybe during their path to this new adventure, they still come across some relevant objects, people or general lore about the original story they will resume after curing themselves? Maybe the locals are angry at them for leaving? That they see themselves as abandoned to the [insert evil character here] and blame their would-be saviours for not keeping their promise? Could be done SO MUCH MORE if it wasnt just a cut and dry ''oh, you are old now. Have fun!''
That night, tortured by nightmares of deformity and lost opportunity, you hear the faintest whispers of what you can tell to be from your patron. A manuscripts worth of instruction are etched onto your mind, and though you may not be able to recall all of the words spoken to you in the strange eldritch language of the divine, you awaken feeling your hand as a bit heavier than before. Upon your finger lays a strange ring you knew you did not ever possess before. It gleams with light reflective of the colors you had just seen while enraptured within the horrors of your own mind. The ring calls out to you. Only one word coming to mind to speak in response, the name of your patron. The words leave your mouth and you watch as a mirror image of yourself phases into existence of your former Visage before laying itself over on top of your current position. An image of a parchment with many instructions appears in your mind along with another message from your patron, "I can make you whole again, but can you make yourself whole in light of your own experience?" Ring does not need identification and doesn't take a ring slot. It cannot be removed but possesses the ability to cast minor illusion on the bearer to make it look like the aging never happened. Should they follow their quest, the ring can be upgraded until it is powerful enough to undo the curse should they choose to part with the ring
Personally I probably would've continued playing, but my character would be so psychologically damaged by the event that he'd begin a spiral down into bitter, hateful misanthropy, probably changing alignment to some form of evil and eventually killing as many innocents as he could before ending himself. I mean really, if we're gonna use the excuse that this is an excellent roleplaying opportunity, we may as well accept the fact that being aged 40 years instantaneously would leave a person feeling violated on the deepest and most horrific level possible. Nobody would come back from that the same mentally, and most probably wouldn't come back at all. So yeah, I'd roll with it, but in the darkest way possible to highlight at every opportunity just how fucked it is to force something like that onto somebody's character.
i like this idea and im gonna use it if it ever happens to me in game. something akin to this or losing limbs and crap in game needs to be brought up before starting and making sure everyone is okay with it and knows it could happen, not just dropped in at random and then being told to just deal with it.
@@cryofist It almost feels similar to if the DM were to say "this monster rapes your character and now you have to either go on a long quest or sell your soul to cure the STDs it gave you." It's like holy shit, dial it back a notch will you?
@Argonwolfproject not just that, they had 24 hours till it was permanent meaning they somehow had to finish the quest in that time or it was pointless lol
@@ArgonwolfprojectThats a false equivalency. The Ghost was played R.A.W. If you don't like 3-pointers dont play basketball, don't demand the game accommodate you. Entitled much?🙄
The player could have had such a fun time side questing that. In my first campaign I played in my characters freedoms had been the entire point of play him for three years. You kinda give up part of it when you become a warlock or anyone who signs with another being, guild, etc because your promising your services. In my case the arch devil Geryon and Strahd. Going into our second campaign I’m the only one probably playing the same character and this campaign is almost entirely about him gaining his freedom or losing his soul, no half measures there and it’s my favorite character. I’m agreeing by playing that I may just lose Solomon and that’s that.
Session 0 isnt the be all methods. things happen that changes. new phobias get discovered. harsher issues might come out. That being saied. a bad roll is part of the game. and this is tough i sucks and i would be very mad too (specially I tend to play less age resistance races tortlls dragonborn aarakocra.. not intentionally lol). but having a DM says he can give you quests and maybe involve your patron into this ... SUPER AWESOME !! that is the kind of consequences I like "its can be tedious to rlly up everyone for a side quest they didnt intend for" last year I had something similar happend to my charcter. my charcter was very anti slavery and hate charm magic so they got charmed by a shop keeper that was a busness partner to another player. I was ready to fight that NPC and bring the whole shop down . but I talked to everyone I was super frustrated that every one says hey its your fault and I didnt want the other player to lose his business viniew so much to the DM grudge he reversed that roleplay other wise I would have never broken that iron clad rule for my PC and as a player I didnt want to wreck my fellow player hard work ....
I feel the best way to play a character is to think like the Ancestor/Heir from The Darkest Dungeon, instead of playing the character play as the guy who may have hired them out for the quest for one reason or the other, that way you don't put yourself in the game, but make the character that might be a good fit for the quest and if they die or becomes incapacitated you can just make a reason for why the character quit the party, but not you, so then you hire/make another character. It's best not to insert yourself in a game, because if you die because of the sad quirks of circumstance such as bad luck, it makes one feel depressed that "they" died for nothing and the quest continued without you and was completed without your help, like you didn't matter, and if you take it that serious then maybe RPGs aren't healthy for you.
It's a bit unfair for a WotC to create a CR 4 monster with the ability to permanently changes your character, unless you cast a spell that requires you to be level 9 and has to be cast within 24 hours, but this is on the DM They knew this was a possibility and I get unique abilities like this can be fun for the DM, but it's a permanent change and you really should offer a way to reverse it. And I get there was an *attempt* to restore their youth, but this was well after several, "these are the rules" and after going back and forth where they weren't willing to reverse it, I'd probably be done as well. In hindsight, before putting the ghost in the encounter, the DM should have thought of a few what if scenarios so the player could reverse it if need be. Once the situation happened, the DM should have initiated the conversation on how to go about reversing it as opposed to having the player sit there bummed
Guess we have to remove death, blindness, curses/cursed objects, lycanthropes, vampires, polymorph spells/effects, and anything remotely challenging from the game… First session: DM: You are sitting in the tavern. Players: Cool. DM: One of you unknowingly makes a gesture that kills every evil thing and breaks the *concept* of curses, congrats, you saved the world, the end.
@@nvfury13 sigh…all of your examples aren’t permanent RAW. Blindness has a saving throw at the end of every turn and lasts only a minute. I’m thinking of the spell…not sure if any creature can impose for longer. Lycanthropy can be removed via Remove Curse at ant point as long as they weren’t born as one. There is no mechanism for players to be turned into vampires and by most lore, you have to actively participate to become one. Polymorph lasts an hour…True Polymorph can be become permanent but can always be dispelled…and even death can be undone with Revivify/Raise Dead. Hell, you get 3 saves before you die anyway.
@@jasminebryant4238 A simple Dispell gets rid of permanent magic effects instead of just suppressing them for a while, blindness isn’t until cured? This edition is so messed up… Frankly, 5E is already “PCs are sledgehammers in a world of rice paper cutouts”, if you can’t handle the tiny dangers left, you might as well self DM and actually replace all encounters with attacking paper targets.
If he was a young Aasimar, he'd age to 70s or 60s. Aasimar live to be around 160, at most he'd have a bit of salt and pepper (look like a normal humans in his late 30s) If he rolled a 4, as in total after mods, his proficiency bonus brings it to 7 minimum But like Aasimar get a wisdom bonus (since it sounds like he was protector) and wisdom is a solid Stat. His wisdom would probably 14 or higher, which would would make the 4 a 9. And we where told he didn't get a nat one ( 1 + proficiency would be 4) IDK this whole store seems kinda fake, Aasimar wouldn't look that old and even if he had one only a 12 Wis that's also barley the amount you need to fail and then he got the max effect? Seems fake to me
Idk I think it’s a bit much to claim a story is fake just because of one detail. I think it’s pretty clear in the story that the player wasn’t really mad at what age his character became, he was more mad at the concept of his character aging without his permission due to a monsters ability.
@@Rebell-mi4zu Which is understandable. From what we're told, his aging didnt contribute to the story, wasnt a direct repercussion for his action (greed or foolishness etc), There were no reasons explained other than sheer badluck. And as a previous commenter said, Video left out the part where his aging was ignored by everyone until it became clear he didnt want to play. I wouldnt drop a game after this, I would pursue a means to retain youth or extend my life. However, I fully understand a player dropping a game because they are stuck to play a character they didnt want to play as, Due to just bad luck. No story, No repercussion for their actions, just bad luck. I certainly wouldnt stuck around 2 more sessions as a human warrior turned into an oversized sheep that sometimes add to a important conversation by ''baaa''ing, If I were turned into said sheep by result of an encounter, that I have not initiated, determined by sheer bad luck.
It was a Celestial Warlock...unless you roll for stats and roll well, Wisdom is probably a 12 or worse, so a 4 (roll) + 3 (PB) + 1 equals an 8 which is 5 less than the DC
I mean, you could've allowed the retcon by just saying it was a very powerful illusion spell and then tell the player/group that this was their one and only deus ex machina, that you'd be playing as the rules were written and if anyone has a problem with the rules, they can either solve it in game or leave. As far as I see it, best of both worlds, player gets what they want, you tell them that you won't be making a habit out of it ever.
Yeah, no. The dude was completely in the wrong here. You can't control everything in life, even if it's a fantasy game. What's the point of rolling the dice if the results are dictated by the player's feelings anyways? I'm new and I do get attached to my character fast, but that disappointment of failure is what pushes me to play the game better, not act out when it happens. The player doesn't fit the campaign in this scenario.
I think the DM should have done better at working with the player, not just sticking to the rules. For any DM being the last say on the rules is just a base function. The primary function of the DM, and everyone at the table, is to have fun. I personally think it would have been a fun side-quest to go on to restore the character's youth... but it's also not game breaking to just mention the affect appears to have worn off after a short while. Now, there are cases where players may ask for unreasonable exceptions... this does not fall into that category. In addition, having a player feel attached and sensitive about their character is fairly common. Even at 6th level there most likely has been some character development which has strengthened that attachment. I would encourage the author of this video to re-read Chapter 8 of the DMG. There is a part in there about table rules where it mentions to foster respect: Don’t bring personal conflicts to the table or let disagreements escalate into bad feelings. From this video both the player and DM let the disagreement escalate into bad feelings. However, even though it's within both party's power to resolve this out of game, it's more in the power of the DM to resolve this in game. Just as a last note. I love this game and I think most people would love it too. I especially love introducing people to this game. And I definitely would not want to be part of the reason somebody didn't like this game. There's always a better way.
Good for the DM. I can see why the player is upset, but in every game there're situations where your character is going to change in ways you might not like. In my own game, a player failed a save and is now becoming a werewolf. He was excited about it. It's just part of the game. What if the character was on the brink of death, this attack finished the job, and the player demanded to the DM that his character actually survives? It sounds like this guy doesn't like things that he couldn't plan for happening to him.
I remember losing a beloved character. He had 3 pages of backstory. Perfect abilities. The works. I lost him on critical hit by a KOBALD!!!! I was bummed. The DM required the group to run two players each. So, I threw together his shieldman/squire named Mazar Mancrusher. Low intelligence. Musclebound oaf!! between real and game life the DM knocked us down to one player each. I said I stick with Mazar until town. I ended up playing that guy till 8th level and 7 years of real life. The PLAYER needs to harden the FRANK up (HTFU). In real LIFE you are going to take unfair blows. I got demoted at work and my arch enemy got promoted to now be the boss. Could not quit. Needed the medical insurance for the wife who had a sudden serious medical issue. So, I had to HTFU. I really think losses playing D&D. Changes of fortune. Helped me deal with the situation. Wife became better Arch enemy got himself canned. I turned down the promotion and departed the crappy job. No everything is TOP SHELF!!!! I remember my late best friend joked. Hey. You are like Mazar. One of biggest belly laugh I ever had.
The DM was in the right and was willing to let the player try to recover his youth, which is generous. I get the player being unnerved by a sudden a permanent change, but you got to accept that you're not immune to the world and the dangers in it. I did a hardcore campaign with some 2nd edition rules and monster effects that were harsh, but it helped me grow as a player when dealing with character death and making laughing off stuff. One of my characters was a monk that got his right foot cut off, making his max movement speed permanently 10ft. Rough at times, but I played into it, and it helped shape him to be unique.
The Ghost's aging ability is a bit strong. It's also a bit unfair based on what race you play. 40 years for a human is HORRIBLE. 40 years for an elf is whatever. I think the DM was reasonable to offer a quest to reverse the issue. I would personally NEVER make a drastic change to a character without it being reversible. I had a similar situation in one of my games. The party was fighting a red dragon and the sorceress had cast a magic barrier that blocked spells, but that she could physically reach through to cast spells. She kept casting Polar Ray at the red dragon every turn, retreating back into the barrier afterward. The next time the dragons breath weapon was ready, I held my action. When she went to cast Polar Ray again, I had the dragon breathe fire, which dropped her in one hit. I ruled that her arm, from the elbow down, was incinerated. After the fight, we talked about having someone cast regeneration on her arm to restore it, but she decided that she wanted her character to bear that scar. We eventually gave her a magic item that granted a permanent mage hand that hovered at arms length, where her hand would have been. Mechanically, there is no difference in how her character plays. She can cast spells and use items with her mage hand. There is just some cool RP stuff where stuff passes through her "arm".
There's a lot of options that could have been used to handle a situation like this. But none of them should involved sacrificing the integrity of the game. The roll happened and the consequences should have to be dealt with. The options of going on a quest to try and resolve it. Or a plea to a patron make total sense. Another option would be to let the player retire that character and create another. I don't think allowing the player to throw a tantrum and get their way is a good approach and I think the DM is right to stick to his guns on that. If a player is going to leave the table over such a small thing they probably would have left or something sooner or later anyhow. Every table has disagreements. And every party has unfortunate rolls that reshape them. Part of the gun of the game is working with those changes. Seeing how the party handles it and progresses after.
I once had a Wild Magic Sorcerer. He had a Wild magic roll that allowed him to reincarnate if he died within the next minute. He didn't I get to know this because I have the Player roll, but only I get to see the results. So I git to let the Ettin fully unleash on this PC. The party freaked,,, but after the Ettin was dead the character rose up, entered a cocoon and emerged. The race was the same, but I assumed there should be some change, so 'he', was now 'her'. After the session I talked to the Player alone to make sure they were OK. A few weeks later, a Wild Magic surge reduced their age. Now the young adult male Sorcerer was a 13 year old girl. Again we had a talk, and he was fine to roll with it. Things happen within a D&D campaign. Changes can occur. Many of them can also be reversed or fixed. When there is a serious issue, the Player and the DM should work together within the game to resolve any issues. I feel that was the issue here. The character suffered an RP ONLY change, and refused to work with the DM. They left the DM no option but "My way or the highway." If a DM starts allowing that, then they may as well just end the game.
This sounds like a roleplay VS mechanics. The player is likely from games that are more heavily character and roleplay based. I know people who play the game for the story and the fun of getting into a characters head and many have admitted they don't have fun in pure by the rules games. The player made their decision so the DM needs to just accept it. It sucks to lose players and DMs to lack of fun compatibility but it is a game in the end and if you don't fit the group you don't keep trudging along.
Simple solution, let the PC keep the cosmetic looks and appearance, but enforce the ageing as it taken off their life span u can use their patron to relay this effect or if u want it to be more physical effects take a -1 to con or str.
Ok so unless its players screwing each other or themselves a dm is responsible for what they put on the table . If a dm without warnings players runs limb loss and players get mad thats fair . The fact that a player can get hit with something they consider out of the boundaries or characters ruining makes players loose trust in the dm sometimes. Loosing that trust can make them think well even if i get x thing fixed i will probably wind up screwed over worse in the end and if they wernt already het mad as well .
The thing is limb loss is an optional rule a dm should bring up. A completely raw monster ability isn't something any dm should be expected to bring up. Even more so when it's pure cosmetic
@@kingwildcat6192000just because stats don't change doesn't mean it's 100 percent cosmetic. Example 20 something humans gets aged 40 years now they are creeps if they hit on characters that are the age their character should have been . Things like that can have different impact for different players. I personally don't want to play a female character would probably retire a character if they had been forcibly turned into one even though that's just cosmetic.
Your changing the topic from something that has mechanics like being unable to use two handed weapons or having slower movement speed (or removal of flying speed) to something that is in actuality solely cosmetic. Like regardless if your character was 5 or 95 that character would there is no mechanical change same thing with gender. There is no + or - for choosing a gender. While sure RP wise things may be different but thats more on the table your at than anything. And in terms of preference your completely right that you shouldnt be forced to be a character of the opposite sex. (though I dont think there is a mechanical way to alter a character's gender in the way a ghost can alter age but I could be wrong.) @@alaska1592
If you play d&d/TTRPGs, you have to be able to accept change. STORY TIME I once played in a Starfinder game where I was an Ysoki engineer, who had aspirations of being the greatest mechanic in the galaxy. He started with a hover drone, a pistol and his trusty tool box. But, due to the nature of the campaign, which was very focused on war and heavy combat, he had to adapt to survive. He traded in his hover drone for a riding mech, loaded with guns, got a second pistol and a lot of explosives. By the end of the game, he was a grizzled war vet who now worked on and repaired ships for the military. While it wasn't the character I had originally envisioned, I had a blast and still enjoyed the campaign. I especially enjoyed the changes my character went through, and how it affected what decisions he would make, and how he handled different situations. Change is a powerful thing, and can lead to amazing stories you might not otherwise get to experience. So the next time something changes your character, enjoy the ride and see where it takes you. Who knows, you might come out the other side learning something new.
The DM didn't do anything wrong, this player was a stubborn brickwall devoted to not compromise. Like I get it bad rolls can be annoying, and I admit I've gotten pretty heated too about a roll going south more than once but we made it work. Sometimes u also need that day or 2 after the session to realize that for as annoying as it mightve been in the moment it opens the door to a lot of story opportunities
I've never been fond of Ghost's being able to age people decades and even potentially insta-kill players if their characters are older. Its why I basically never run the base Ghost stat block for supernatural encounters.
Though I can't really blame the DM for just running the ghost as it is out of the book. I think the player should've been more receptive to the idea of his patron restoring his youth.
I asked my players bc I had a monster I planned to use that could insta-kill their players dead dead needing basically a wish to bring back. So I asked them, how lethal was okay. They were find with challenging encounters where death was a possibility, but not a one shot, lucky dm roll.
So I just modified that ability.
Course then the players avoided that combat.🙃 but was a good conversation to have.
@@Ambers128 Yeah, I actually know a couple guys who are fond of super lethal encounters, and seemingly the only thing they care about is whether or not they're having fun.
As with everything, talk to players and find out what they want or are ok with.
Fun fact! Ghosts have a 1 in 4 chance of instantly killing any aaracokra by rolling 4! And instantly make it live over the expected age that an aaracokra lives to by rolling 3!
I think the easy solution was just dropping the restriction on how long you had to cure it.
Honestly if the player was that upset i would have just put a random potion of greater restoration right in the treasure of the encounter. Free bonus to the fight to just turn the moment from something that makes the character change completely to a oops well that was a silly moment we can tell the bards who will sing of our praises moment.
People often play characters with aspects they feel insecure about or wish they had in real life. A “handsome” character could be from the players own perception of their real life image - taking that away could’ve simply taken away his desire to play the character.
GM didn’t do anything wrong, player didn’t either.
I agree with most of what you said here except I will say that the player was perhaps a bit too stubborn to turn out other mechanisms for addressing the issue through the narrative of the game.
Honestly the Player should have accepted a compromise, he made it clear it bothered him and DM offered some reasonable options some of which would have fixed it NOW.
Something to note is the player Didn’t hthrow a tantrum or make a scene. Agter it happened he just didnt talk and just left. And when the dm talked to him he just didnt like any of the dms options and left
I’ve had a character die from being aged and that suck. But I’m not going to refuse to play when the dm is being very accommodating by letting him have a story arc about him and or a rp moment that will make his character more interesting
So he leaves. I've DM'd for years. I don't take it personally. If he doesn't want to keep playing so be it. It's not my place to judge whether or not he's being a brat. Who am I or you or anyone to judge someone else? The mature thing is to simply say, "OK. Let's continue." without emotion or judgement. It's not worth the time or effort and feeling even a glimmer or irritation or sadness means you're taking it personally.@@kgdhgd1342
@@kgdhgd1342It seemed like the player has a fear of phobia of growing old. If thats the case than incan understand him not wanting it to happen at all because it would mean he an accepting that it happened and that conflicts with the fear.
He decided the game wasn't fun and left. End of story. I've played in roleplays that turned into a chore before and had people try every argument to make me stay and it's like. "I have a job already. I'm looking to have fun. We aren't compatible."
I don't know, quitting and not trying any other work around our offering one other than it didn't happen is kinda a tantrum.
Something to keep in mind when considering situations like this: sometimes a player, or even a DM, isn't aware of all of their own boundaries until a situation where one of these unknown boundaries is crossed.
Excellent point, I agree fully. How do you know you're okay with something unless you've thought about it or experienced it in the first place?
This is the first pro-player arguement on this video that makes sense.
I would still kick the player.
If you don't like the rules, dont demand the game change just for you. Nothing even should work that way.
I got into situation like that, actually. Long story short, I can't deal with topics of war crimes and children soldiers, and I found it out the hard way. I mean, it's not something I expected to pop up in the game in the first place, but considering certain context, I probably should have.
To the DM easiest thought that came to mind a restoration scroll amongst the treasure or even a magic circle that this creature utilized when it once was alive to become younger. Ghost was an alchemist who liked to play with aging, just have the circle be a 1 time use because it's powersource the ghost core breaks on use.?
I think part of the issue here is that certain things that can happen to the players needs to be agreed on from the beginning. And I've seen some impliment something similar... i was actually given a list of possible scenarios and what i was comfortable with and at what level of comfort as well.
And i can see why the player wanted to quit after talking with the DM got them not only ignored and their feelings on the matter dismissed but now the story about it is being shared on the web.
These days (yeah I'm an older player) you have to ask all players who want to join your game if they are ok with character death or having bad things happen to them (outside the obvious off limits stuff). If they say no they're not ok. Politely ask them to find another game. Not every player is going to work for your game, not every GM is the right fit for you. Move on and find compatible players.
This is probably the best answer. I'm too old and get frustrated with the light consequence style of play
I agree... been playing for 4 decades now. Adventuring is dangerous your likelihood of survival, let alone success is low. Back when I started playing we didn't have video games though where the youth of today is used to scumming and just having extra lives. I think the Atari just came out to date me a bit. I am not a fan of the OSX style meat grinders (although they can be fun at times) but I am definitely against death and other permanent consequences not being "permanent".
Bottom line... no consequence equals no challenge equals no fun.
The big thing is this dungeon master offered a way to allow him to try to reverse this, but this player wanted to to retcon the whole thing as if it never happened to begin with. The dm did nothing wrong. If anything, a Warlock Patron giving potions of youths like a dealer would be entertaining to me, lol.
It is tricky because we want everyone to have a good time. There have been so many times I have played and watched horrifying consequences occur, and yet, those changes can add so many new wrinkles that could help expand a character's development and experiences. I do understand it isn't to everyone's tastes, but to absolutely say NO to possible solutions the dm gave out is just baffling to me.
There was several ways around this and still keep it " Rules as Written". The DM even offered a few of these options. They did everything as right and farly.
Personally, I would have simply switch the 1 day of to revenue the curse to 1 week. ( Sticking to the 1 to 1 OG ruling) but stil give the party enough time to find a scroll, item, charm, wizard or creature which could return the OC to their original age. And set up for a fun side quest.
I run ghost aging as 1D10 years instead of 1D4 * 10. It can still be really bad if the PC gets thwacked by a ghost a few times.
RAW... the Ghost can just keep Horifying Visage spamming as long as it keeps frightening the PCs. SOMEONE is going to fail that by enough to age in a group of 6 PCs that have to roll saves 2 times.
I also don't use the 24 hr limit to fix it. I've considered even making the aging effect WEAR OFF in 24 hr, with no spell needed.
Ghost as written is a PC killer that "hits way above CR" It can come THROUGH A WALL, FLOOR OR CEILING, and attack with no warning. That essentially means it can get automatic surprise.
*DM:"Roll initiative"
Players: "Why?"
DM: "You'll find out. You guys seem to go first. What do you do."
Players: "Do about what?"
DM: OK, you did nothing... My ghost floats down out of the ceiling. Horrifying Visage. Roll saves."*
I tend to make a ghost take out NPCs in view of the PCs before it gets to the PCs. This way, the PCs can have a chance to kill it before it kills them.
It's hard to kill. It can just go ethereal and be immune to almost everything.
I come from the EARLY days of D&D where most saving throws were "Save or Die" and with a normal adventure causing several such saving throws to be made, it was pretty common to have a player fail a save.
Average of 30% chance to fail, 5 PCs needing to make the saving throw, odds say at least one dies EACH TIME they need to make saving throws vs an AoE.
This was just making the players need a stack of 10 character sheets to play one game session... That's not my idea of fun. But it was Rules As Written. So, I rewrote rules on the fly.
DM since 1977.
Its clear that neither the DM nor the player are willing to compromise at all on what they think should happen. I think the majour friction comes from how each party wants to play the game. Its clear the DM has a more grounded by the book playstyle where the player wants a more light hearted forgiving playstyle. I think the best things the player could do is find a DM that will line up more with what they want to play.
He wasn't feeling it, doesn’t want to play anymore and its ok. DM doesn't want to change and its ok.
I say the DM did everything right, the only difference I would’ve done is that I would’ve interrupted play the moment I saw it was gonna be 40 years, like straight up just say time out, and then discuss on if it should be ruled as written, be temporary where they can recover on their own, or cut the effect in half for this one time, if they want to do a quest to recover their youth or find a greater heal potion
I also wouldn’t have expected my player to leave just because of this, so I would be a little more curious if there was anything else, but I do find this to be a pretty big change if I didn’t discuss this before, might as will discuss it now, plus it would be a great opportunity to discuss it with the other players at the same time since, again, this wasn’t discussed before, so I want one want to know their reaction just in case the ghost gets them as well
So, to some of that, the problem isn’t with the ruling or the solutions. It’s just the timing, he should’ve made this discussion right then imo
Honestly i would be pretty upset too, they have no oportunity to reverse it on their own, they would either have to offer something to their patron in exchange (whic depending on who is their patron and what kind of relationship they have could be just as big an alteration to what they want to play.)
Or they can go on a sidequest they got forced into and derails them from their path for however long, and seeing how hard the dm is about the rules (they have a right to be but still) could end up just not working out that well (you rolled bad, this only de- ages you ten years, sorry) in the end or they could run into another ghost and just plain die .
Last two parts sound a bit paranoid?
Yeah.
Could it still make sense in the players mind if they feel hurt about this.
Absolutely, i mean this was a boundary, they just didn't think about it because ghosts are both op and rare, maybe they expected the dm to be less hars about it. I agree with one other comment that said they sould have stopped and discussed twhat is going to happen as soon as it turned out the ghost could age him so much insted of trowing this serious alteration in their face letting them stew and have a discusion with the others while they are clearly hurt and then refusing do anything because it's a retcon.
Could the player handeled this better?
No doubt but if this cut deep, which it clearly did, and they were alredy having a bad day or week this could very well be the nail in the coffin and ferling ignored and denied afterwards was probably icing on the cake.
Dm wasn't wrong but they were sure as heck not right.
Player acted a bit immaturely, but still understandabel if you think about it.
Truth
Yeah, this would have been reasonable for characters high enough level to fix the aging.
Well listen. If the DM was like "No, you're going to play an old man and that's that end of the converstation" the player would have some grounds to be annoyed. But in this scenario the DM offered the player several ways to solve his issue and was willing to find a solution. So, I think the DM acted the best possible way and the player was being somewhat childish.
Heck, at the end of the day your character is half celestial...just say that aging fourty years didn't change their appearance that much because of their magical nature and be done with it.
I'm not fond of that ability of ghosts tbh, but every DM can run their campaign as they wish. That said, some boundaries are unknown until they are crossed. =_=
That sucks, losing forty years of your character's life. Especially as an Aasamar, who are known for being beautiful, and not having a 700 year lifespan like Elves. Not sure why the player would quit over it, and we'll probably never know.
It seems that in this scenario, none of the sides are really fully to blame.
Did the player knew how ghosts ability works? Did the DM warn gim about the cosequences?
Should have player acted like that?
In my humble opinion, DM had the right to stay to his choice, however he could have bended the 24h rule. That way the crisis would have been averted. The pc still gets affected, but it can be fixed easily.
To be fair, the 24h ruleing is kinda harsh
Considering how deadly undead can be in general, I probably would drop things like aging. Yeah for some people going out to quest for restoring youth might be fun, but I also can see it feel like total salt in the wound for things like losing levels and such depending on the version.
As a DM, I give all my players a mulligan. 1 do over and only one. I don't mind retconning or restructuring things. That's my rule. I also make it clear that you only get one and only early on. everyone gets it so it's fair and I restructure the narrative so everyone is fine with it. Not happy mind you, but fine. I do this especially with new players in the feeling out stage. Once the game has been going awhile and we're past the warmup phase, I declare when the mulligans have been revoked.
This reminds me of another Story reminds me of another story of character aging rapidly via DM.
I question to whether or not this is the same DM trying to save face with this story to make the player seem unreasonable!
Old characters are fun. I played an 80 year old fighter, his great grandchildren were orphaned at a young age and he and his wife were the last living relatives and he was a retired adventurer who never had any skills other than adventure but didn't have enough saved up to keep everyone fed until the kids got old enough to help so he was on one last adventure, in a one shot we called the crippled campaign. There was a blind mage, a ranger in a wheelchair, my old fighter, and a one armed rogue. We had to go hunt down some were rats in the sewers and my fighter had to use traps and tricks he'd learned to keep the party alive. He set up light traps to disadvantage the light sensitive enemies, a few tripwires to slow them down, things of that nature. It was fun for all of us trying to solve the riddle of how to play a class with its main abilities being locked. The blind wizard was especially funny. He had to throw a fireball once and nearly roasted everyone because he didn't quite hear the right tunnel.
Dm is in the right about to ruling. Aging your character is of very little consequence. There's other ways to fix it such as a wish.
Gonna have to side with the player on this one, at least partially. Being rather shallow/vain myself, I'd probably do something similar. Especially if it was a group I don't know outside of the game. Permanently altering a PC in some way, any way, is something I definitely wouldn't have done unless it actually fueled the story and the player is okay with it. While the DM offered multiple solutions in the form of side quests, it honestly doesn't sound fun. It's dragging the whole party down a side path because of something one party member wants. At that point, yeah. I'll take my stage left exit. I don't think the DM should be a doormat and give him what he wants, but I don't think the player should be forced to stay either if he's not having fun.
Don’t know about this one. On the one hand I’ve totally flubbed rolls or ignored effects that I think would be to harsh on players. And I do consider an effect that can potentially insta kill older character to be WAY too harsh. On the other, the DM gave him all the opportunities to fix his character. Although it sounded like all those options happened at a cost which can just feel like additional punishment. It’s a real head scratcher.
In the end, I don’t think anyone was in the wrong here. Everyone has a view on how the game should be played and that’s inevitably going to cause friction. They talked it out like adults but couldn’t agree on a compromise. I say just accept it and move on.
its dnd its a dangerous world out there what is adventure worth if there are no consequences or danger,pc die and thats okay and sometimes other bad things happen,its all part of the game.
The problem is there was no compromise on the table. The player didn't want compromise. He wanted complete and total submission from the DM. He was purposely being as big of a problem as he could. He was unquestionably in the wrong.
@@f2pcoder92 It doesn’t have to be and there’s no one way to play the game. And expecting everyone to have the same definition of fair risk is just unrealistic.
@@Grayald I already laid out why I don’t believe that. So I don’t know what you’re trying to achieve here.
You laid out nothing valid or reasonable. And it doesn't matter what you "think." The player wanted the DM to cave and do only what he wanted. No compromise. It's not disputable. @@H240909
Career ending consequences at level 6 should be considered a death, not incurable disabilities.
If a monster type can regularly cause that type of an effect a party should only face them if they can reasonably recover from that effect. Otherwise there will be serious grief to the party.
As a player I would much rather be torn to pieces by a monster than aged significantly as a race that it will completely render my character useless.
The time limit to find a cure for the aging should also have been extended to at least a month in game time, as another possible escape from this character being rendered inert.
As far as 5e is concerned there's no difference between age groups, 3.5 and maybe 4e had something like that but 5e doesn't, so it only becomes relevant for short lives races like orcs.
What is the point of playing the game if all the monsters are the same and one can instantly fix any problem? And no, this is not incurable, there are ways to fix this issue, just no willingness to put in the effort.
@@craigtucker1290 the point is to have fun . If the player doesn't believe they will have fun with the dms style then leaving is the right call . Also the player has to believe that the dm won't screw them over as they try to fix the issues. Everyone has their own preferences on dnd games all characters make it to the end to multiple characters die every session just have to realize what kind the dm is running.
@@alaska1592 The DM didn't screw them, they played the game correctly. The player is just being ridiculous in that they want all the good and none of the bad. There is a term for that, acting like a child.
And nerfing the game to make if "fun" for the player is not necessarily "fun" for the DM. Everyone should have fun at the table and not be forced to placate a player that doesn't want to play the game.
@craigtucker1290 "what's the point of playing the game if all the monsters are the same and..."
No one said that all monsters should be the same. No one said they would think that would be fun.
"And not be forced to placate one player"
This was never mentioned here, nor in the video.
"There's a term for that, acting like a child"
I do hope you can see the irony, in telling adults playing make believe with dice and mini's, that there's a right way to play. And if they don't it's childish.
Anyway, it's two adults having a patient conversation but ultimately incompatible opinions. And adults have jobs a maybe an actual child of their own. You don't have time to convince people how you like to play ttrpg's, you just find kindred spirits. No need to gatekeep people you disagree with from having fun.
As a Dm, the goal is to make the game engaging and fun for everyone involved. I can fully understand not wanting to go back on a decision, and honestly, there was no need to. However, a DM is also fully at fault for putting a party up against an encounter with effects that they have no way of dealing with. Maybe there could have been a scroll of greater restoration nearby, or maybe you could've had a Cleric on hand after all was said and done, or maybe you could just change the RAW effect's time limit by increasing it or making that time limit into how long the effects last. But all in all, fighting ghost at level 6 is just a big no go in my opinion. Might not be hard to kill, but for shorter lived races or even longer lived races who are at that older age, that can be instant death or force penalties with nothing that can be done about it.
As for the player, from the sound of it, he was rather respectful in the way he dropped out. He let the game continue, and didn't make a big fuss. He didn't take away any fun from the other players. Now, he was given options, and was being rather stubborn not to at least try to compromise with the DM, but as someone who's played through a similar scenario, going on a quest like that can turn out to be a chore more than anything for the player. Personally, I would have just scrapped the character and written up a new one, but some people don't like to do that, they have a specific character in mind that they wanna play, and if they can't play it the way they want, then they get disheartened.
Case in point, both had their points, and both were in the wrong, but I think that the player is perfectly in the right for backing out once the game stops being enjoyable.
omg how is it possible for a dm to use mechanics as intended *gasp* if you want to play without danger just play monopoly and game that has no character effects and consequences dont play dnd, and yeah its supposed to be fun but its also a combat rp game with consequences and actions if you dont like that you shouldnt play dnd period or any combat rpg.
To be honest, the player is shorting themselves a golden RP opportunity... Aging 40 years in a day and having to deal with the consequences of that... Making either reversing or dealing with it part of the players personal story... Not everything that happens in a D&D game is good. And the point of it is to either bask in your glory, or deal with the consequences of your actions... Sometimes, at the same time.
The DM here is absolutely correct, he wasn't doing it to be vengeful, or spiteful... It's just the way the dice fell and sometimes you have to deal with that, and find a way in a magical universe to undo what happened... Or find a way for your character to deal with their new reality.
An actually nuanced situation on this channel for once
Sometimes transforming someones character can freak them out. My DM had my character slowly turning into a rabbit because of a cursed item. I found out I had a phobia! I told them DM i'd like to roll up a new character rather than play through that and instead he was kind enough to remove that that had ever happened.
idk I've heard this story a few times and still think the DM is being unfairly one-sided in this.
1. This is a mechanic that is NOTORIOUS for being a feelsbad for people to the point many DMs make it temporary or nerf it in some other way.
2. The player has a point, there's ONE way by RAW to resolve this and it isn't on the table at their level or in their situation. Pulling this out as a run-of-the-mill encounter is poorly thought out.
3. There are character races that would literally die instantly if hit with this. What then?
4. It doesn't matter that the players killed the creature quickly, no one brought that up as an issue. It's a straw man argument. The issue is it left huge lasting damage akin to losing a limb or the like from a single die roll. It's enough some characters would just get retired right there. It's the equivalent of a trap that permanently disfigures a PC. Sure, it's "realistic" but DnD is very rarely realistic.
5. The DM pulling out the slippery slope fallacy, insults, etc. is showcasing just how little they actually care about the player's side of this.
6. "No retcons" is simply a bad policy. Shit happens, this player who the DM and other players supposedly value made it clear this was an unforseen but very important line that was crossed for them. Give them the benefit of the doubt and just do damage like a normal person.
There's more but you get the point. More than half a dozen red flags here.
As another commenter pointed out, This effect could've worked if the DM made it ''a year or month'' for a cure.
That way, group could find a new adventure without having to quit.
You sound like the architype 'millenial' player. You think the game is about story telling, and not about establishing a world with lasting and dangerous elements. If something happens in a game, it happens. If something done to your made up character makes you leave a game and subtly ruin other peoples fun? You are a narcissist, period.
@@phillipburke9522 exactly, the DM needs to bring a gun to the next game and if anybody tries to leave he can pull it on them and force them to play whether they’re having fun or not. Not playing a game where you’re not having fun is such an entitled thing to do, only the DM’s fun matters
@@phillipburke9522 It IS about story telling.
You can make what DM did as a result of foolish player decision, part of the ending arc to a story where stakes are getting higher, Start of a new adventure to give the unwilling character a reason.
Randomly pulling it and saying ''now you are fucked, anyways where were we?'' is simply bad story telling. It has no reason, it is not there as a consequense, it has no purpose.
You could remove it and it wouldnt effect the characters nor story.
Then whats the point?
If a drastic result coming from a random encounter doesnt serve a purpose, ANY Purpose, then you are simply a bad DM.
Random encounters are most of the time either a training ground, glimpse into the future encounter of similar type enemies or pieces of the ongoing story where you reveal something that seems to come out of a random fight.
Just like pulling a Kraken in middle of the desert without reason or purpose is stupid and bad storytelling, so is forcing conditions on players without purpose or reason.
It is not about aging here, its about the pointlessness of it. Which is why the player most likely left.
Had DM provided a reason for it, or purpose, Player probably would stay.
''You got greedy''
''You were too impatient''
''You were prideful''
'You offended a god''
Could've been the *reason* behind it for example. A punishment to a player, harsh one at that, to teach them not to be an idiot in a world full of danger.
''You have a month to find a way to cure yourself.''
Could've been a motivation to character and the player both ingame and out to continue playing. Maybe even force them into doing things their character wouldnt do.
They could get more desperate with each long rest, wasting time to heal or rushing to fail?
DM didnt do anything related to story nor character actions.
It was simply ''you are screwed for absolutely no reason.'' Bad roll here didnt even matter at that point.
I did balk when he said "... And I couldn't reverse it"
I don't like when GMs say this. YES you CAN reverse it. You are literally the God of this world. You are the one who put the Ghost there in the first place. This is about whether you WANT to or no. And that should come down to consequences; If you stick to your guns, you have effectively 'killed' a PC and punished a player with something he is Not Okay with. This is shaping up to potentially fracture the group and end the game. If you let him evade the effect (Give him more time to get a Greater Restoration, have it not take hold and fade after a long rest, something else that doesn't punish him for it) then you... threaten the integrity of the game? Yes, there COULD be a slippery slope, but you are avoiding a potential leak in the boat by plowing into a torpedo.
I would feel differently if this was a consequence of Player Agency; If the Warlock had done something dumb, or made a choice they knew would have consequences, or just picked a fight with something far too powerful for them to handle. But as the Op said, they trounced this encounter easily. The negative consequence is earned purely due to a bad dice roll. A SINGLE bad dice roll. That calls for leniency and mercy, especially when it comes to something character-altering or ending like this.
There are ways to handle this, but digging your heels in is not the right way I don't think. Player is upset because they incurred a permanent character detriment without any agency in it. No one else did. They feel that is unfair. The solutions the Op proposed all involved a cost to that player, which is just changing the form of the punishment, which is why they said 'no'. Is it important enough that this player suffer that punishment as to risk breaking the group?
I know that I wouldn't like a character being made old, as that would need to be discussed, and if the player doesn't like it, then offer the player a way out of that ASAP in order for the enjoyment to continue. (For example, temporary effects)
As much as it might not be as upsetting, or still upsetting to others, I'd rather my character gets turned into a child, rather than made elderly.
creatures like the ghost and shadow are probably more meant for characters who have the possibility of dealing with their abilities or weaknesses. as the story here has shown, the dm can provide quest hooks to get around the bad rolls when dealing with a ghost.
Page 1 in the DM manual is that the rules are just guidelines. 😉
I had a fabulous situation where I ran a ghost and the one person who failed the check against aging was the "Deep Gnome raised by Orcs" who'd had their orcish rite of adulthood, but who would be very much still considered a child by the more long-lived gnomes. So they aged 10 years (from 13 to 23, or in human terms more like 10 to 17.) In this case, they were within range of town where Greater Restoration was available, and they opted to be returned to their youthful state, but it became a really cool character moment where they had a stark realization of "Oh, I might be legally and officially an adult by the customs of my adoptive culture, but I still have some definite growing up to do."
I had a player that was 10 IRL (in real life) years older than the rest of the party. This was his excuse for why he thought he should be 10 levels above the rest of the party. The party called bull. I introduced a snake oil salesman who sold positions of lvls or (in character) life experience. When they drank it they'd make a con save of 15. On a fail they aged 1d10 years (varied for potency). Each position would add lvls at 1d-number=the potency of the position. Long story short my player drank some potions and got the lvls he wanted but his character aged from 30yrs to 70yrs old, and was pissed. Everyone pointed out that the snake oil salesman took pride in being know as a swindler and a scoundrel. I had in session zero told them there was a fountain of youth in the mountains. So the player wanted to skip the quest to stop a demon horde to go fix his age issue. He didn't get to the fountain or complete the quest as his greed triggered a TPK; which collapsed a mountain.
Would he have been happier if it was save or die? Or would he have unhappy about you changing his state of aliveness without his consent
Quitting because of a monsters ability which purely states if they fail poorly they age is kind of a weird boundary imo. I am no vet by any means (Played for about 3 years) but I feel like moments like this add so much to the world. My age is changed? Now I can interact and find side quests to restore my youth and meet more of my dms imaginings of npcs and maybe even go places me and the party wouldn't have gone too see. No disrespect to the player but it sounds childish to me too quit even with a dm willing to make ways for you to restore it. That's my opinion though
I do understand his point though. Him aging didnt add to the campaign, it didnt have a story point or wasnt a result of his mistake (Foolishness, Ignorance or Greed). He randomly got punished due to sheer bad luck, not action nor story progression.
Of course not everyone will drop after that, I wouldnt. But I do understand that losing something you care about to sheer bad luck without any reason given for it in a RPG sucks balls.
@@Kronosfobi There are certain monsters in all known systems, ESPECIALLY with undead (demi-lich, banshee, etc.) that can ruin a players good time with one or two abilities they have, and said abilities can even cause wipes easily. Sometimes these can make for good story moments, other times it just feels pointless.
@@Dragon359 You can abuse any monster if you want to. Thats the whole point of the game.
Any monster, if used strategically, can become a threat to the player.
A single goblin shaman isnt a match for you?
How about 4 goblin shamans focus firing stuns and fireballs at your location?
A single undead no match for you? What if you happened to be drunk as balls and said undead was under control of a nearby lich?
You have a cape that allows you to blink? How about I place 50 phase spiders into the other dimension that werent hostile prior but now are angered by your presence?
DM's goal is story telling first. It can be a dramatic one, It can be a lighthearted one. As long as players actions and DM's presence add to the story anything can be justified.
Beating the player without a reason is a easy way to alienate new players, even old ones at times.
Since DM already has everything they need to ''win'' against a player, There is no way to truly balance the game. If DM is set to kill you, they will kill you.
It feels, by the player's pov, pointless to engage after being punished for sheer bad luck. Especially if said punishment was absolutely irrelevant to the existing and continuation of the story.
Err maybe. But if you work in elderly care in any degree you'll fast develop a fear of aging. I don't want to play fantasy as an elderly man. I wouldn't drop out but I'd talk to the DM and demand a speedy cure.
@@KronosfobiHere's the thing: You're coming at it from a Player vs DM approach, which is a bad mentality to begin with.
If you _assume_ anything that happens to a player is "punishing" them in any way, that's _you_ assuming that the DM was going after them.
The DM used an ability of the Monster, _that's it._ Assuming Malice or any motivate beyond "Use monster ability" falls into the mentality of "I must best the DM."
Could the DM have chosen not to use that ability? Sure. But that's like specifically choosing not to use a Dragon's breath weapon; what's the point of making it a Dragon if you're not going to use the abilities that make it unique?
the thing is: the ghost ability is a hold over from earlier editions, and it is BLATANTLY UNFAIR to ANYONE who doesnt play and elf, and is literally a stronger version of power word kill on any human over the age of 40, any goblin period, and most races with the exception of elf. also, a character who ages 40+ years in an instant with no hope of turning back would not be able to fight anymore, and would re evaluate their priorities and stop adventuring realistically. its a rule that should be ignored for the fun of your players.
Its a holdover yes but it used to be any unnatural aging caused a system shock roll and you died if you failed it so its really not that bad.
I can see both sides. And if course, we only got one person's side of the story. Overall, what's important is that everyone at your table is having fun. And what's fun for your players might be different than what you think is fun. It's very important to remember that as a DM, or you might find yourself losing players.
In this case, I would've talked with the player first to attempt a compromise, then discussed with the rest of the party members about the options.
Um the DM did, at length as outlined in the video. The player rejected all compromises and wanted the DM to just retcon. That's on the player. Things aren't always going to go your way and you need to be able to accept that and roll with the punches, especially when someone is actively offering you a lifeline. That's not just DnD advice, that's life advice.
@@ramont8020 they talked it out, came to a compromise that works for both parties (the GM can run the game he wants and the player doesn’t have to play a character he doesn’t want to play), but the GM is the one whining on Reddit about how he didn’t get everything he wanted. It’s clear that he didn’t want a compromise because he’s out here complaining about the compromise he got
Ok it could be up to a minus six depending on age categorys and no benefits to mental stats that would come with normal aging
@ramont8020 You are entitled to your opinion, but your tone is a little rigid (if not condescending). DND is a game, and games are about having fun. And different people have fun in different ways. That's why I always have an open communication with my players to make sure I'm making an experience that we all enjoy. Life can be hard and unforgiving, but that doesn't mean our games have to be. Some people enjoy that, and good for them! But not everyone does, and to put them down for it is just mean spirited. If a DM and a player can't agree on a play style, then a "goodbye and good luck in your future games" is the right answer.
So he felt like the group fighting a creature with that powerful an ability at level 6 was a good idea? I can understand some things happening that can't be avoided or gotten around, but to have no possible way to reverse it (even though it may make for good story), I felt like the other option if the player still wanted to remain in the game was to either have his current one retire (though given his mindset it felt like he would have gone for seppuku instead), and make a new one. I know all too well the mindset of holding onto a grudge or slight against another, and while I hate that feeling, it's just how I am, and while I don't condone that players behavior, at the same time it felt like the GM was setting them up for failure. Have the character age like that with no real way to get it back? Oh well, tough shit! Something just seems off with that GM...or maybe it's just me.
If I had a character that was aged like this, I’d go a more childish route and use it as an excuse to act like a crazy old coot. “Back in my day when I was your age, hmm… it was last week Tuesday I think…, anywho back in my day…”
I'm happy the dm stood their ground on not going back on what happen. I get when these things happen to your characters it feels bad. But that can be part of the story. A way to create a against all odds come back. This goes towards both DMs and players, be flexable and understanding
If you respect your DM and their story, YOU GO WITH IT DESPITE WHAT HAPPENS TO YOUR CHARACTER, In D&D, There shouldn't be plot armor, It makes excellent challenge for players and test their decision-making skils, Otherwise all D&D campaigns are just different flavors of anime
If you want your character to not have this or not have that and instead just do this or that out of your own personal needs...
Go
Write
A
Fucking
Book
Instead
"I'm happy the dm stood their ground"
"This goes towards both DMs and players, be flexable and understanding."
Well, which is it? Those two statements don't exactly gel together.
@@spearsharp Or just find a DM with the same playstyle? Wanting a low stakes D&D campaign is perfectly valid.
@@H240909both. Stand your ground on somethings, but be open to change sometimes. Be flexible.
@@H240909 but it does tho. It's about DM's listening to their players and working with them so they can maybe plan in the future "ok, they didnt like this, maybe I'll try this instead" but that should always be the after math. I've had players want me to change this within or by the next session cause they didnt like how things were going or what happen to their characters. They wanted to be the OP MC. And that's great and all. I get that. But players need to understand that they are playing the DM's story. Which is why dms should address such ideas with, "ok they want to feel powerful. I can do buuuut. Here's the cost." Sort of thing
This one is COMPLICATED!! Can't really declare if both DM or player is at fault here or neither is at fault.
Can sympathise with the player to an extent as the dice can be random as hell & unlucky rolls happen. But shouldn't get too prissy at the DM either.
Simultaneously can't blame the DM as he wishes to create a unique gaming experience for the players.... however I personally feel he shouldn't really adhere too much to the rules & where/when possible & if they know how to, alter a DC if it can be allowed & helped.
Permanent debuffs are something that should be considered much more carefully because it can definitely leave a player with a feeling of loss and destroy their motivation to continue as they now feel left behind in ability.
Incurable debuffs aren't something you carelessly sprinkle into a campaign like a bit of salt...
There is no debuff. Unless they’re playing a previous edition 5e has no aging penalties.
Bit if both. It really coulda been fun playing an old guy for a bit but ya gota weigh up the losses. Lose continuity or lose a player. Cab always state. Ok i dont want to lose x as a player so im gona retcon the age thing but can we all agree anything in future stands but can always be given a quest line or something other than a DM retcon to fix
I mean, I don't think it was a reasonable response, but I have general issues with the whole "you have to be OK with it, and if you don't, you don't deserve to play ttrpg".
Well, you kind of need to be okay with playing within the rules. Otherwise you shouldn't be playing.
@@Grayald Not every table uses all the rules, and D&D isn't only ttrpg anyway.
Again, I don't think the DM was wrong or that the player was right with the demanding this situation being retconned part. What I disagree with is that you have to accept a particular, same-for-everyone, level of stakes to play any ttrpg (even though every game has a different level of stakes and a different playstyle overall) and that you have to stay in the group even if you don't like the game at all, just not to make it inconvenient to others (I mean, yes, there are cases when you need to stay to support somebody or so, and it may be a right thing to finish a current scene with the group before you can reasonably justify your PC leaving, but overall - it's generally better to find the right group for you that waist your time and be not fun to play with for others).
the DM was more in the right, but if there was a resolution to the out of game conflict, it would have taken more concessions on both sides. Should the DM have caved? No, but that doesnt mean they couldnt have done more to resolve it. In the end, the player was too stubborn. Retcons are for actions that cant be reversed by other means (death before considering a world of magic, gods, and demons that different tables will play differently). If the answer is an ex machina, it is just the most tasteful form of a retcon. Age? The game itself gives an out, and the DM went out of their way to offer alternative solutions that werent directly in the book.
As for the player's perspective, i dont think it is an issue of changing age, it is an issue of changing age DRASTICALLY. In our limited mortal lives, 40 years is about half life expectancy gone in but a moment. With it should logically come physical changes drastic enough to qualify as non-consenting character change, but that judgement also depends on the tone of the world and the DMing style. Giving as much benefit of doubt to the player as possible, they could not be satisfied by ignoring what a sudden change in age to a character they spent so long crafting would do, but playing into the drastic change is too invasive on their perceived agency as a player. There is also the argument that the DM shouldnt have run creatures in an encounter if the party does not have the means to combat their effects, but that starts getting into the question of personal values in the game: rules as written vs roleplay supersedes rules within reason?
I wasnt there, i dont know the language used. But even in the retelling, the stubbornness of both is clear. Instead of drawing a hard line in the sand about retconning, draw the same line without ever shutting down the player. "Wouldnt it be more interesting to go on a quest for a deity to restore your youth?" "Maybe this can start a character arc about vanity and a blinding ambition to restore your appearance?" "The rule book says that the effects become permanent after a day, but maybe we can bend time a little in your determination to lift the curse (through sheer determination making you move with tireless haste) or i can make it curable by special (roleplaying) feats?" Would you be willing to run a temporary character so i can DMPC you through this age problem in a new arc?" "i am out of ideas, do you have any that doesnt involve pretending the attack never happened? If not, we are at an impasse, and i cant just retcon away your consequences or the other players will start expecting the same thing to happen to them." To put it simply, i have to wonder how much of the retelling is the calm hindsight of the text medium used to initially convey it, and how much of the differing ideas came out in the conversation in a coherent way not lost to the emotion of the moment where it was "hear what i want to hear or nothing at all".
I love the “every roll is a story telling opportunity” because that is exactly my philosophy when it comes to D&D. There’s no point cheating, because you’re just telling a story from a character’s perspective. Dying doesn’t mean you lost the game, it’s just another chapter in the story.
I usually just make a new character when that happens. Because it does effectively mean that character is unplayable. Especially if you're using raw age rules. Unless you're playing something like an elf of course, what's 40 years to them after all? Still, either this player was a big baby or we're not being told the whole story. Honestly, to me it just sounds like this was the straw that broke the camel's back. Some styles of gming just don't mesh with certain styles of playing, and that's fine, but it's also very frustrating to be stuck in that situation. All-in-all, him leaving was probably best for everybody all around.
Honestly, given a number of responses here, I'm beginning to think the player just being a big baby is far more likely.
And I'd hardly consider something that doesn't functionally effect the character at all making them "unplayable."
Even if they were using the RAW age rules, Aasimar live a lot longer than a human (Around 160 years or so) so it's not like they're gonna be effected as much as if they were human.
It would be like the difference between 21 and 31. Sure, you might be a bit more achey, but you're otherwise good to go.
This very same circumstance has led to awesome side quests at my table, and there was the option of a side quest or a “I’ll fix it, for a favor in return” from the Patron of the character. So, besides the aging barely mattering to that race, the was never a moment of “unplayable” as the fix was *right there* with added story hook.
balls of steel DM for sticking to his principles
I'm not one to call a story fishy, cause life is often stranger than fiction, but I can kinda get where the player is coming from. Hypothetically, they're still in the wrong for demanding a retcon - especially when an Aasimar has a longer lifespan than a human's, so they probably weren't THAT old comparatively (probably, like, middle aged at best). So the player is still very much being in the wrong - cause you gotta be willing to accept your PC is gonna get FUBAR'd at some point.
HOWEVER, this is why I don't use Ghosts when I run D&D - cause rapid aging is a pretty bad feeling (especially when, going by RAW, it can be a real slog to play an aged character - again, the Aasimar should have been fine, but maybe they were playing an older character from the get go, IDK, I wasn't at this table). Not to mention that the DM is going down the slippery slope fallacy - this isn't about the PC dying to a dragon or getting poisoned by a friendly NPC, this is an ability that can actually ruin a character and make them borderline unplayable even with a magical quest to fix it. I get not wanting to go back on decisions and setting a precedent to your players, but these are extenuating circumstances to me.
If you play the game expecting not to have anything bad to your character, then you shouldn't be playing the game in the first place. And this version of the game has very much nerfed most of the worst things that used to be part of the game that made it a challenge.
And no, this isn't a slippery slope fallacy, that is what you are asserting that aging somehow ruins a character. This is just not liking something about the game and wanting to nerf that as well.
@@craigtucker1290the DM's "If I let this slide, where does it end?" is the textbook case of a slippery slope. I don't know what else you would call it.
I don't think it's weird for this player to quit, nor for this DM to not want to do a full retcon. Cause the main point is to be spending some free time in a fun way. No obligation to stick with a group composition that just doesn't work out.
The player just ran into something that bothered him, probably taking him by surprise as well. That doesn't mean "he shouldn't play this game", it just means he should play the game with someone else. Preferably someone who doesn't feel the need for some gatekeeping when he hears a second hand story on a youtube video
@@todorus No it's not. "If I nerf this bad result, will I have to nerf every undesirable result?" is the slippery slope.
Playing the game by the rules of the game that everyone agrees to play with when they sit down at the table is called playing the game. The fact that bad things can and do happen is part of the game. The fact that the player does not want to experience bad effects is more on the delusional expectations of this particular player, in which case this is not the game for them.
And even if he finds someone else willing to nerf the game and prevent all bad things from happening to his player, then he isn't playing this game, but some facsimile of it. While he might enjoy this facsimile, nothing his characters will ever do will ever matter for the game is now rigged to only serve up desirable results. Might as well just write fanfic of play by himself.
And no this isn't gatekeeping. You can play the game however you want, like any game out there. But there are specific ways to actually play the game legitimately, and there there is everything else that is not. It would be like bragging that you have beat everyone at poker because the dealer allows you an unlimited amount of draws. While you might be having fun, you are not actually experiencing poker, nor are your stories legitimate or believable. D&D is no different.
Play it how you like, but there is an actual way to play it, death, aging, and worse are part of the experience, and nerfing the game does delegitimize any accomplishment when the dangers are removed or the DM hands the players their victory. That is just reality without the sugar-coating that so many put on it these days.
@@craigtucker1290 But...but that's exactly what was said in the video. That's the slippery slope fallacy. "If I go back on this bad result, will I have to go back on every bad result the player(s) doesn't like" was said in the video. It's the slippery slope fallacy. You literally quote what's basically said in the video; go back to 5:29, the DM says if he goes back on this bad result, it will set the precedent for the rest of the group. By your own definition, it's the slippery slope. If he goes back on this player, he'll be expected to go back for the other players when bad things happen.
@@JangoFox But it's not a fallacy with these kinds of whiners. This is why the game has been so nerfed from it original version to the point that dying takes herculean efforts in the current edition. WotC has been kowtowing to the community whenever people whine about something they don't like.
And it won't be any different with this player for the DM. He is already irrationally upset that his character was aged, imagine how he would feel if something really bad actually happened to his character. The DM would always be concerned about this one player and if they are going to overreact to something that is completely normal within the game.
There's no boogeyman here. I think it's important to remember that this is an at-will game. A person can and should leave a game that no longer appeals to them, even if the internet thinks their reasons are dumb. Life is short and no dnd is better than bad dnd, even if the people hosting try to make it good. In this instance I think the DM took an unnecessary hard line. Its not like the effect was caused by the BBEG, its a poorly designed effect by a random throwaway ghost. If it were me, I'd rather have my character die than be heavily aged because at least they die how I remembered them, and I get to play a shiny new character who is also how I want them. I dont think Id usually leave for a reason like this, but I also can't say I never would. If you think about it becoming old instantly without any benefit of wisdom is absolutely horrifying and not something I'd be into if I was just looking for a lowkey game.
I started with 1e AD&D. This kind of thing, or worse, could happen to a PC. As Players, we just took it in stride if the GM was fair and balanced. Your character is a piece in a game. You made a new character and kept playing the game. Fantasy game worlds are cruel, and not all heroes (a.k.a. Player Characters) survive unscathed. This situation, and it's outcome, help to create verisimilitude for the game world.
This could have been a bridge to a very fun side quest centered around this player finding some healing elixir or magic plant in some fun and different setting.
Pretty sad they quit, makes you wonder about the DM’s attitude/word choice when speaking to the player in question.
exactly, but let's be clear, any fun quest that stemmed from this would have been an after thought. I don't think the DM did this intentionally to upset a player, but they honestly probably thought it was kinda cool to do that. And that's fine...it's fun to mess with your players...but give them an out. That should have been part of the encounter design. A simple scroll of greater restoration...maybe even a level 9 Cleric was the quest giver because guess what! They could use greater restoration as they return
I think it was the player just not liking something that is part of the game and being a baby when the DM did not capitulate.
As a DM I always try to have a plan for if things go badly for the players, including a TPK.
But I only retcon if something misunderstood or forgotten would have greatly changed what happened, within reasonable time.
Example:
I once had a level 2 character die, but the celestial lock was new to the subclass and how the healing dice worked. So the player asked on his turn if he could have healed the rogue, I said yes, he asked if he could try even if the rogue was now dead, and I allowed the rollback and kept the surrounding enemies attacking the rogue so we'd see if he survived this time.
End result: barely alive rogue instead of dead. Everyone happy and scared. But I had options should it have been a TPK or single death so I was not worried.
I think the players felt that, because I did make it clear to them that death is only the end if they want it to be, so there's that.
But stuff can be difficult to predict. I mean that 20 something aasimar now looks to be in their 40's... not a big change tbh, and options were given. I don't think "I think the monster's ability to change the appearance of my character" is a valid reason to retcon, because an unchanging character in a D&D game sounds like a static character that can never be hurt and is just there to play out the players predetermined story and I'm not about that kind of game.
The unexpected ways characters change from events beyond their control is much of the fun to me. Without that, I can just write the story for myself instead. 🤔
This is a player problem, not a DM problem. In my opinion the DM was being overly generous in spitballing ideas for the player to reverse the effects. I'm betting dollars to donuts he's right that he was the type of player who would rage quit of his character died. Don't need those kind of players at my table.
This is why in session zero I made it clear to all my players exactly what kind of DM I am. I don't even cater to triggers. If you sit at my table you do so knowing that anything and everything is on the table.
The players who can handle that type of table become stronger for it. Facing the things that make you uncomfortable is healthy. I like to think my players have become better versions of themselves to varying degrees thanks in part to my table.
so let me get this straight the played had the option of
sacrificing something else to his patron to reverse the aging or
somehow completing a whole side quest to undo it within 24 hours or it was permanent..
yeah really seems like he was given alot of options there.. permanent character changes are something that should be discussed before the campaign starts and agreed upon at the start as a possibility. not just dropped into someones lap and have them expected to just "deal with it"
Death is a permanent change too.
Make sure you ask ahead of time in a game with random dice rolls.😂
L take.
The DM doesn't need permission to employ the game's rules. Players consent when they choose to play. Stop coddling these pussies.
I understand there should be consequences but ones that make the chracters perform worse in game really can be troublesome and can seriosuly bog down the mood. No one wants to dedicate so much time to their character only for them to suddenly be forced to have a worse time playing them. The quest to resolve problem could be cool story wise but having to slog through stuff while having to deal with a worse character and the party having to put up with you being worse just leads to everone having less fun.
But there was no mechanical effect. Aasimar can live to 160. They wouldn't be hitting mechanical effects until over 120 years old.
@hartthorn it is true rules as written that there are no effects from aging in the 5th addition and that longer living races will take more aging to feel effect. My original comment is more so speaking in how I believe that almost all people that will use the again effect in such a fashion will also give downsides due to the increased age, especially for the shorter living races. For me personally I have seen a strength build charscter get ruined after their strength stat was lowered enough to drop their modifier by 2 and it made the remainder of the time the character was in play dreadful for the entire table.
@@kolbyrasmussen5195 Yeah, sure. That was a shitty GM. But that's not THIS GM. You can't judge their actions based on the bad behavior of some other dude.
@hartthorn I've seen the general behavior multiple times not just with people I have played. I think in the original story we don't have enough information on how much the aging actually altered the character. My original comment is mostly going off of my assumptions due to my own and others experiences
A Gm threw a werebear at us and 3 party members got infected. We lost 3 player characters that day because none of them wanted to play a werebear and the game died do to it. Any time you have a chance at changing your character perminantly that isn't death you need to talk to your players about it.
So.....there were no scrolls or temples with Remove Curse?
@@thenomad2311 None within 3 days travel which was our time limit before it becomes permanent.
Got ya, glad i asked.
Btw, Remove curse is busted, cures ANY curse. Tell ahole R.A.W it says any. If dm don't back down, they should have told you about the changes to spells at session 0.
Then leave.
I feel like i have trolled for justice now
@@thenomad2311 not sure it if it makes a difference but this was pathfinder 1e where lychanthropy says remove curse only works within the first 3 days.
Yea😂
Never played pathfinder
People act like D&D is a video game, and treat it as such.
It's a storytelling session. Not a game. Stuff happens to characters and the story evolves.
If you can't evolve with the story and be flexible with your character then you should be playing a video game.
I think the player was wrong here. Yes, it sucks that their character was aged over forty years by the ghost. But the DM offered solutions to RP a solution for it. And it wasn't like the DM was purposefully attempting to make this happen. If the DM would have simply reconned the event, he would have to do that every single time something bad happened to the character. At that point, what's the point in playing the game?
As a player yes the situation is very bs. That said I'm not sure how 5e even rules aging since I don't play it. I do know that would hurt a character quite a bit in D&D 3.5 or PF 1e but really if the DM is willing to make a side quest of sorts to undo it I'm not sure I really see an issue to get very upset over let alone quit the game.
There are no aging penalties in 5e aside for race lifespans.
Someone called in Murphy.
I had a character possessed by a ghost, my character committed suicide by jumping into a pot of soup being made by hags. Much worse than aging, but that's one of my favourite D&D stories I've been involved in. It was hilarious. I was invested in the character, but the whole party had a great time with that session. Worth it!
Hm, the one thing I disagree is that the DM thought he couldnt do anything about the dice roll
My hexblood ranger made a pact with a devil on a whim, and I've regretted it ever since, fearing the consequences for my baby 😢
I understand it's all pretend, and it was ultimately my choice to do it, but it kept me up at night for a little while.
Then you realized it's just a game?
@deru72 Not really the point.
Choices in these games have consequences to your character, and when you put a lotta investment into one and something bad happens to it, you kinda feel that too.
But sure, just handwave away my concerns.
I don't see the problem but I started with AD&D 2e and no save level drain by undead, save or die poison and deadly traps were the norm.
I’m with the GM on this 1000% this player was not willing to work with the situation. The GM followed the rules and gave unique options for him to restore the situation and it could have been a cool way to role play and build up the character. But the player threw a fit and quit. Dice rolls are random and not always in a players favor (or GM). I’d ban the player if it were me even though I don’t think he would have come back anyways. I also won't play with a GM where my character can't die. If there's no risk there is no point. Situations like this are exactly why I love this game and it could have been such a cool storytelling/quest experience. Good on the GM for sticking to his ruling!
I actually think the DM is in the wrong. Permanent aging is a pretty old school monster ability and this surely a third party monster that did it or this an older edition.
One solution I see that was not tried is getting rid of the time limit on recovery. A monster like that was clearly written for classic dungeon delve. In those settings the PCs homebase is usually not that far away and has a high level caster. If you are running a different campaign, then it makes no sense to not alter the ability to match the campaign you are in. Give the PC a month or year.
I agree
Ghosts in 5e retain the ability to age people, so it wasn't a third party monster or from an older edition
Had the players were given a larger timeframe to reverse the effects, DM could actually have a whole new setup for a game.
Lets say 2 months. Curse one of the players with accelerated aging (deadly), other with something else (equally deadly). Same deadline.
Give the players some shortcuts to cure ONE at the expense of other. Add more tricks, encounters on the way.
You can keep this up for several sessions. And maybe during their path to this new adventure, they still come across some relevant objects, people or general lore about the original story they will resume after curing themselves?
Maybe the locals are angry at them for leaving? That they see themselves as abandoned to the [insert evil character here] and blame their would-be saviours for not keeping their promise?
Could be done SO MUCH MORE if it wasnt just a cut and dry ''oh, you are old now. Have fun!''
I don't get all the whining from the community about aging. It is like a bunch of babies that can't deal with adversity.
I agree the "now you are old, live with it" is pretty boring.
I had a player quit cause the party fought kobalds and he liked kobalds as a player and didnt like that they were the enemy.
That night, tortured by nightmares of deformity and lost opportunity, you hear the faintest whispers of what you can tell to be from your patron. A manuscripts worth of instruction are etched onto your mind, and though you may not be able to recall all of the words spoken to you in the strange eldritch language of the divine, you awaken feeling your hand as a bit heavier than before. Upon your finger lays a strange ring you knew you did not ever possess before. It gleams with light reflective of the colors you had just seen while enraptured within the horrors of your own mind. The ring calls out to you. Only one word coming to mind to speak in response, the name of your patron. The words leave your mouth and you watch as a mirror image of yourself phases into existence of your former Visage before laying itself over on top of your current position. An image of a parchment with many instructions appears in your mind along with another message from your patron, "I can make you whole again, but can you make yourself whole in light of your own experience?"
Ring does not need identification and doesn't take a ring slot. It cannot be removed but possesses the ability to cast minor illusion on the bearer to make it look like the aging never happened. Should they follow their quest, the ring can be upgraded until it is powerful enough to undo the curse should they choose to part with the ring
Personally I probably would've continued playing, but my character would be so psychologically damaged by the event that he'd begin a spiral down into bitter, hateful misanthropy, probably changing alignment to some form of evil and eventually killing as many innocents as he could before ending himself. I mean really, if we're gonna use the excuse that this is an excellent roleplaying opportunity, we may as well accept the fact that being aged 40 years instantaneously would leave a person feeling violated on the deepest and most horrific level possible. Nobody would come back from that the same mentally, and most probably wouldn't come back at all.
So yeah, I'd roll with it, but in the darkest way possible to highlight at every opportunity just how fucked it is to force something like that onto somebody's character.
i like this idea and im gonna use it if it ever happens to me in game. something akin to this or losing limbs and crap in game needs to be brought up before starting and making sure everyone is okay with it and knows it could happen, not just dropped in at random and then being told to just deal with it.
@@cryofist It almost feels similar to if the DM were to say "this monster rapes your character and now you have to either go on a long quest or sell your soul to cure the STDs it gave you." It's like holy shit, dial it back a notch will you?
@Argonwolfproject not just that, they had 24 hours till it was permanent meaning they somehow had to finish the quest in that time or it was pointless lol
@@ArgonwolfprojectThats a false equivalency. The Ghost was played R.A.W.
If you don't like 3-pointers dont play basketball, don't demand the game accommodate you.
Entitled much?🙄
@@cryofistYou have nothing but L takes on this, through this whole comment section.
The player could have had such a fun time side questing that. In my first campaign I played in my characters freedoms had been the entire point of play him for three years. You kinda give up part of it when you become a warlock or anyone who signs with another being, guild, etc because your promising your services. In my case the arch devil Geryon and Strahd. Going into our second campaign I’m the only one probably playing the same character and this campaign is almost entirely about him gaining his freedom or losing his soul, no half measures there and it’s my favorite character. I’m agreeing by playing that I may just lose Solomon and that’s that.
Session 0 isnt the be all methods. things happen that changes. new phobias get discovered. harsher issues might come out.
That being saied.
a bad roll is part of the game. and this is tough i sucks and i would be very mad too (specially I tend to play less age resistance races tortlls dragonborn aarakocra.. not intentionally lol). but having a DM says he can give you quests and maybe involve your patron into this ... SUPER AWESOME !! that is the kind of consequences I like "its can be tedious to rlly up everyone for a side quest they didnt intend for"
last year I had something similar happend to my charcter. my charcter was very anti slavery and hate charm magic so they got charmed by a shop keeper that was a busness partner to another player.
I was ready to fight that NPC and bring the whole shop down . but I talked to everyone I was super frustrated that every one says hey its your fault and I didnt want the other player to lose his business viniew so much to the DM grudge he reversed that roleplay other wise I would have never broken that iron clad rule for my PC and as a player I didnt want to wreck my fellow player hard work ....
I put out the "wanted poster" for the game before a module is made to know what is to be expected. Helps.
I feel the best way to play a character is to think like the Ancestor/Heir from The Darkest Dungeon, instead of playing the character play as the guy who may have hired them out for the quest for one reason or the other, that way you don't put yourself in the game, but make the character that might be a good fit for the quest and if they die or becomes incapacitated you can just make a reason for why the character quit the party, but not you, so then you hire/make another character.
It's best not to insert yourself in a game, because if you die because of the sad quirks of circumstance such as bad luck, it makes one feel depressed that "they" died for nothing and the quest continued without you and was completed without your help, like you didn't matter, and if you take it that serious then maybe RPGs aren't healthy for you.
It's a bit unfair for a WotC to create a CR 4 monster with the ability to permanently changes your character, unless you cast a spell that requires you to be level 9 and has to be cast within 24 hours, but this is on the DM
They knew this was a possibility and I get unique abilities like this can be fun for the DM, but it's a permanent change and you really should offer a way to reverse it.
And I get there was an *attempt* to restore their youth, but this was well after several, "these are the rules" and after going back and forth where they weren't willing to reverse it, I'd probably be done as well.
In hindsight, before putting the ghost in the encounter, the DM should have thought of a few what if scenarios so the player could reverse it if need be. Once the situation happened, the DM should have initiated the conversation on how to go about reversing it as opposed to having the player sit there bummed
With you.
Would it have been impossible for there to be some kind of prisoner in the tower or traveler along the trail with the ability they need?
Guess we have to remove death, blindness, curses/cursed objects, lycanthropes, vampires, polymorph spells/effects, and anything remotely challenging from the game…
First session:
DM: You are sitting in the tavern.
Players: Cool.
DM: One of you unknowingly makes a gesture that kills every evil thing and breaks the *concept* of curses, congrats, you saved the world, the end.
@@nvfury13 sigh…all of your examples aren’t permanent RAW. Blindness has a saving throw at the end of every turn and lasts only a minute. I’m thinking of the spell…not sure if any creature can impose for longer. Lycanthropy can be removed via Remove Curse at ant point as long as they weren’t born as one. There is no mechanism for players to be turned into vampires and by most lore, you have to actively participate to become one. Polymorph lasts an hour…True Polymorph can be become permanent but can always be dispelled…and even death can be undone with Revivify/Raise Dead. Hell, you get 3 saves before you die anyway.
@@jasminebryant4238 A simple Dispell gets rid of permanent magic effects instead of just suppressing them for a while, blindness isn’t until cured? This edition is so messed up…
Frankly, 5E is already “PCs are sledgehammers in a world of rice paper cutouts”, if you can’t handle the tiny dangers left, you might as well self DM and actually replace all encounters with attacking paper targets.
@@jasminebryant4238 BTW: Thanks to the options the DM gave, *the aging wouldn’t be permanent either.*
If he was a young Aasimar, he'd age to 70s or 60s. Aasimar live to be around 160, at most he'd have a bit of salt and pepper (look like a normal humans in his late 30s)
If he rolled a 4, as in total after mods, his proficiency bonus brings it to 7 minimum
But like Aasimar get a wisdom bonus (since it sounds like he was protector) and wisdom is a solid Stat. His wisdom would probably 14 or higher, which would would make the 4 a 9.
And we where told he didn't get a nat one ( 1 + proficiency would be 4)
IDK this whole store seems kinda fake, Aasimar wouldn't look that old and even if he had one only a 12 Wis that's also barley the amount you need to fail and then he got the max effect?
Seems fake to me
Idk I think it’s a bit much to claim a story is fake just because of one detail. I think it’s pretty clear in the story that the player wasn’t really mad at what age his character became, he was more mad at the concept of his character aging without his permission due to a monsters ability.
@@Rebell-mi4zu Which is understandable. From what we're told, his aging didnt contribute to the story, wasnt a direct repercussion for his action (greed or foolishness etc), There were no reasons explained other than sheer badluck. And as a previous commenter said, Video left out the part where his aging was ignored by everyone until it became clear he didnt want to play.
I wouldnt drop a game after this, I would pursue a means to retain youth or extend my life. However, I fully understand a player dropping a game because they are stuck to play a character they didnt want to play as, Due to just bad luck.
No story, No repercussion for their actions, just bad luck.
I certainly wouldnt stuck around 2 more sessions as a human warrior turned into an oversized sheep that sometimes add to a important conversation by ''baaa''ing, If I were turned into said sheep by result of an encounter, that I have not initiated, determined by sheer bad luck.
It was a Celestial Warlock...unless you roll for stats and roll well, Wisdom is probably a 12 or worse, so a 4 (roll) + 3 (PB) + 1 equals an 8 which is 5 less than the DC
Heh, I actually got pinged when the OP posted on reddit.
Ngl I was too lazy to read the whole thing
Glad we could help
I mean, you could've allowed the retcon by just saying it was a very powerful illusion spell and then tell the player/group that this was their one and only deus ex machina, that you'd be playing as the rules were written and if anyone has a problem with the rules, they can either solve it in game or leave. As far as I see it, best of both worlds, player gets what they want, you tell them that you won't be making a habit out of it ever.
Yeah, no. The dude was completely in the wrong here. You can't control everything in life, even if it's a fantasy game. What's the point of rolling the dice if the results are dictated by the player's feelings anyways? I'm new and I do get attached to my character fast, but that disappointment of failure is what pushes me to play the game better, not act out when it happens. The player doesn't fit the campaign in this scenario.
Seems like a player being immature
I think the DM should have done better at working with the player, not just sticking to the rules. For any DM being the last say on the rules is just a base function. The primary function of the DM, and everyone at the table, is to have fun. I personally think it would have been a fun side-quest to go on to restore the character's youth... but it's also not game breaking to just mention the affect appears to have worn off after a short while. Now, there are cases where players may ask for unreasonable exceptions... this does not fall into that category.
In addition, having a player feel attached and sensitive about their character is fairly common. Even at 6th level there most likely has been some character development which has strengthened that attachment.
I would encourage the author of this video to re-read Chapter 8 of the DMG. There is a part in there about table rules where it mentions to foster respect: Don’t bring personal conflicts to the table or let disagreements escalate into bad feelings. From this video both the player and DM let the disagreement escalate into bad feelings. However, even though it's within both party's power to resolve this out of game, it's more in the power of the DM to resolve this in game.
Just as a last note. I love this game and I think most people would love it too. I especially love introducing people to this game. And I definitely would not want to be part of the reason somebody didn't like this game. There's always a better way.
I agree with the DM, but not quite with his reasoning
Good for the DM. I can see why the player is upset, but in every game there're situations where your character is going to change in ways you might not like. In my own game, a player failed a save and is now becoming a werewolf. He was excited about it. It's just part of the game. What if the character was on the brink of death, this attack finished the job, and the player demanded to the DM that his character actually survives? It sounds like this guy doesn't like things that he couldn't plan for happening to him.
I remember losing a beloved character. He had 3 pages of backstory. Perfect abilities. The works. I lost him on critical hit by a KOBALD!!!! I was bummed. The DM required the group to run two players each. So, I threw together his shieldman/squire named Mazar Mancrusher. Low intelligence. Musclebound oaf!! between real and game life the DM knocked us down to one player each. I said I stick with Mazar until town. I ended up playing that guy till 8th level and 7 years of real life. The PLAYER needs to harden the FRANK up (HTFU). In real LIFE you are going to take unfair blows. I got demoted at work and my arch enemy got promoted to now be the boss. Could not quit. Needed the medical insurance for the wife who had a sudden serious medical issue. So, I had to HTFU. I really think losses playing D&D. Changes of fortune. Helped me deal with the situation. Wife became better Arch enemy got himself canned. I turned down the promotion and departed the crappy job. No everything is TOP SHELF!!!! I remember my late best friend joked. Hey. You are like Mazar. One of biggest belly laugh I ever had.
The DM was in the right and was willing to let the player try to recover his youth, which is generous. I get the player being unnerved by a sudden a permanent change, but you got to accept that you're not immune to the world and the dangers in it. I did a hardcore campaign with some 2nd edition rules and monster effects that were harsh, but it helped me grow as a player when dealing with character death and making laughing off stuff. One of my characters was a monk that got his right foot cut off, making his max movement speed permanently 10ft. Rough at times, but I played into it, and it helped shape him to be unique.
The Ghost's aging ability is a bit strong. It's also a bit unfair based on what race you play. 40 years for a human is HORRIBLE. 40 years for an elf is whatever. I think the DM was reasonable to offer a quest to reverse the issue. I would personally NEVER make a drastic change to a character without it being reversible.
I had a similar situation in one of my games. The party was fighting a red dragon and the sorceress had cast a magic barrier that blocked spells, but that she could physically reach through to cast spells. She kept casting Polar Ray at the red dragon every turn, retreating back into the barrier afterward.
The next time the dragons breath weapon was ready, I held my action. When she went to cast Polar Ray again, I had the dragon breathe fire, which dropped her in one hit. I ruled that her arm, from the elbow down, was incinerated.
After the fight, we talked about having someone cast regeneration on her arm to restore it, but she decided that she wanted her character to bear that scar. We eventually gave her a magic item that granted a permanent mage hand that hovered at arms length, where her hand would have been. Mechanically, there is no difference in how her character plays. She can cast spells and use items with her mage hand. There is just some cool RP stuff where stuff passes through her "arm".
There's a lot of options that could have been used to handle a situation like this. But none of them should involved sacrificing the integrity of the game. The roll happened and the consequences should have to be dealt with. The options of going on a quest to try and resolve it. Or a plea to a patron make total sense. Another option would be to let the player retire that character and create another. I don't think allowing the player to throw a tantrum and get their way is a good approach and I think the DM is right to stick to his guns on that. If a player is going to leave the table over such a small thing they probably would have left or something sooner or later anyhow. Every table has disagreements. And every party has unfortunate rolls that reshape them. Part of the gun of the game is working with those changes. Seeing how the party handles it and progresses after.
I once had a Wild Magic Sorcerer. He had a Wild magic roll that allowed him to reincarnate if he died within the next minute. He didn't I get to know this because I have the Player roll, but only I get to see the results. So I git to let the Ettin fully unleash on this PC. The party freaked,,, but after the Ettin was dead the character rose up, entered a cocoon and emerged. The race was the same, but I assumed there should be some change, so 'he', was now 'her'. After the session I talked to the Player alone to make sure they were OK.
A few weeks later, a Wild Magic surge reduced their age. Now the young adult male Sorcerer was a 13 year old girl. Again we had a talk, and he was fine to roll with it.
Things happen within a D&D campaign. Changes can occur. Many of them can also be reversed or fixed. When there is a serious issue, the Player and the DM should work together within the game to resolve any issues. I feel that was the issue here. The character suffered an RP ONLY change, and refused to work with the DM. They left the DM no option but "My way or the highway." If a DM starts allowing that, then they may as well just end the game.
Thats what ghosts do. I play dnd and run dnd with the idea that positive and negative things will happen and thats my chance to adapt my story.
This sounds like a roleplay VS mechanics. The player is likely from games that are more heavily character and roleplay based. I know people who play the game for the story and the fun of getting into a characters head and many have admitted they don't have fun in pure by the rules games. The player made their decision so the DM needs to just accept it. It sucks to lose players and DMs to lack of fun compatibility but it is a game in the end and if you don't fit the group you don't keep trudging along.
Wait, don't Asimaars live like 160 years? If he were a young Asimaar 40 years would either have no effect or, at worst, turn him into a DILF.
Silver Fox perhaps?
Simple solution, let the PC keep the cosmetic looks and appearance, but enforce the ageing as it taken off their life span u can use their patron to relay this effect or if u want it to be more physical effects take a -1 to con or str.
Ok so unless its players screwing each other or themselves a dm is responsible for what they put on the table . If a dm without warnings players runs limb loss and players get mad thats fair . The fact that a player can get hit with something they consider out of the boundaries or characters ruining makes players loose trust in the dm sometimes. Loosing that trust can make them think well even if i get x thing fixed i will probably wind up screwed over worse in the end and if they wernt already het mad as well .
The thing is limb loss is an optional rule a dm should bring up. A completely raw monster ability isn't something any dm should be expected to bring up. Even more so when it's pure cosmetic
@@kingwildcat6192000just because stats don't change doesn't mean it's 100 percent cosmetic. Example 20 something humans gets aged 40 years now they are creeps if they hit on characters that are the age their character should have been . Things like that can have different impact for different players. I personally don't want to play a female character would probably retire a character if they had been forcibly turned into one even though that's just cosmetic.
Your changing the topic from something that has mechanics like being unable to use two handed weapons or having slower movement speed (or removal of flying speed) to something that is in actuality solely cosmetic. Like regardless if your character was 5 or 95 that character would there is no mechanical change same thing with gender. There is no + or - for choosing a gender. While sure RP wise things may be different but thats more on the table your at than anything. And in terms of preference your completely right that you shouldnt be forced to be a character of the opposite sex. (though I dont think there is a mechanical way to alter a character's gender in the way a ghost can alter age but I could be wrong.) @@alaska1592
If you play d&d/TTRPGs, you have to be able to accept change.
STORY TIME
I once played in a Starfinder game where I was an Ysoki engineer, who had aspirations of being the greatest mechanic in the galaxy. He started with a hover drone, a pistol and his trusty tool box. But, due to the nature of the campaign, which was very focused on war and heavy combat, he had to adapt to survive. He traded in his hover drone for a riding mech, loaded with guns, got a second pistol and a lot of explosives. By the end of the game, he was a grizzled war vet who now worked on and repaired ships for the military. While it wasn't the character I had originally envisioned, I had a blast and still enjoyed the campaign. I especially enjoyed the changes my character went through, and how it affected what decisions he would make, and how he handled different situations.
Change is a powerful thing, and can lead to amazing stories you might not otherwise get to experience. So the next time something changes your character, enjoy the ride and see where it takes you. Who knows, you might come out the other side learning something new.
If I were that player, I would have explored the options given to reverse the aging. And in the meantime, play a silver-fox type character.
The DM didn't do anything wrong, this player was a stubborn brickwall devoted to not compromise. Like I get it bad rolls can be annoying, and I admit I've gotten pretty heated too about a roll going south more than once but we made it work. Sometimes u also need that day or 2 after the session to realize that for as annoying as it mightve been in the moment it opens the door to a lot of story opportunities