It could've been good if they started investigating themselves after Detective ended up missing. It would make sense plotwise without compromising the character. Forever DM was just being an asshole after that.
That first story is an excellent example of having a session 0, explaining what type of game you are running, and explaining what type of characters would fit. It is okay to tell a player "no, make a different type of character" when they make a character that doesn't want to do dangerous investigative things if you make a game where going into places and doing dangerous investigative games is the whole point of what you've planned.
@@curtisholsinger6023 even that isn't guaranteed though. Most of my session 0s so far, most people were no-shows and expected to just get in the game despite that and the DM didn't want to "make us all run through the same stuff again" since we actually showed up and got our stuff straight. Then, when we finally did get session 0s in with everyone, you had one guy fighting against being asked questions, one guy who said yes to everything he was warned about being allowed to do some questionable things (like bring a samurai PC to an Egyptian-themed campaign) but didn't follow said rules once he got in, and the person who seemed the most ready to play the game by the DM's rules but ended up rage-quitting in the third session over the smallest bit of adversity.
@@TheMightyBattleSquid Sounds like you got some problem players. I don't tend to run adventures during Session 0. I go over the system, what I want players to play, and what the game is about. If they aren't able to make it, I will reschedule once or twice, but they cannot just come to the game with whatever character they decided to make and then go against the campaign I stated.
Yeah. I mean, the equivalent would be a D&D campaign where the party meets at the tavern, gets a drink, and then... just refuses to take any quests, ignores the shadowy figure in the corner trying to get their attention, hides when the bar fight breaks out, then goes to the blacksmith, sells all their adventuring gear and all take jobs as dockworkers or something. If your character's core impulse when faced with adventurer is to not get involved, then they are NOT an adventurer, and you have failed the most basic premise of character creation.
Yeah if I'd made a professor type I'd of made him a failed police officer due to health conditions so therefore he became a professor of criminology, it's literally that simple to of made his character actually useful, I think forever DM was just pissed he wasn't the DM so decided to ruin the actual DMs game
Sounds like to me the forever DM Blatantly sabotaged this players first time dming. Like he thinks hes the only one who should be "in charge." At any rate They sound very toxic, Cause there's no way that they're not aware what they're doing if they are A dm regularly.
Forever DM and the party in part one should understand that creating a bunch of college professors for a call of cthulu game who are too afraid to follow up on occult crimes is like creating a bunch of shopkeepers who are too afraid to go on adventures in a dnd game.
That first story's idea sounded fun. Hope they eventually got to use it for players who actually want to play. I would totally make a Jessica Fletcher from Murder, She Wrote-type of character for that kind of campaign
First story- the DM can only do so much in offering a plot hook. The forever DM needs to realize that playing the Call of Cthulu game entails taking risks, and you can't play without playing to the plot hooks. 2nd story - if you enjoy roleplaying and it isn't being well received, you should find a group that matches your play style; it's obvious they weren't ready for that sort of engagement.
for the first story imho, I would have packed up, gone home, and dropped that group, One saboteur and a party of sycophants? Ugh. and if I couldn't find anyone else to play with, well I do believe no ttrpg is better than bad ttrpg.
that forever DM was an asshole. the whole core of the CoC setting is "everyday people" getting into things "above their pay grade" (though the dm could have let them go to the cops again but had them return to the detectives agency with the police, only to find that the cultists had returned and cleaned up the scene making it look like the detective is simply out. resulting in the police not believing the players and due to the nature of the detectives work even if he's eventually declared missing they just shrug and say he probably pissed off the wrong cheating husband and if that's the case it's too late to open in investigation since he'd be gator food by now, the players then either investigate on their own or start taking sanity damage from guilt of abandoning their colleague the trick is to nudge the players back onto the path not just give then a roll to say "do this" )
The other players can’t complain that they weren’t having fun if they were letting the forever DM be the one who decides everything they do. And as for the forever, DM. If that is what your character what do, then he can go away. You can make yourself a new character one who actually gives a shit about the story. And stop wasting the DM’s time. It sounds to me like the forever DM was being purposely obtuse, for no reason other than he could. But most likely it was because he was a DMing, and he probably kept looking at the game and thinking how he could’ve done it so much better.
Why do you agree to play a game if you don´t want to play the game. I guess this is the classic: "Haha, i´m the dm here to outsmart you. This is how you play. You should go back just beeing a player and be happy that you are allowed to play in a game of a genius like myself" I´m at 2:13 right now and already have enough of this. Been there a long time ago
Man, DMs can be some of the worst players. For the love of all things holy, ANSWER THE DAMN CALL TO ADVENTURE! How would he have felt if his players pulled that same crap? I think we all know the answer to that question. FFS.
I heard this story a while ago. Honestly, the forever DM is in the wrong here. Sometimes you need to metagame to keep the story going, even if it's not what your characters would do. It's just a necessity. Talking about the first story.
I'd also say that the DM was being waaaay too passive. He let a week go by in game without consequence? Where's the random encounter during the work week? The paranormal event that freezes students? The corpse with a cryptic message? There are so many ways to engage and force players to get involved or work together, it just takes mild creativity and having watched 1-2 anime ever.
I'll give the forever DM the biggest benefit of the doubt ever given and say "oh, but maybe the Forever DM just wanted to teach new DM how to make an interesting plot hook to get all the character movings. Yeah no, that definitely wasn't the way of doing. "I don't like the way you are telling the story. Let's ignore all your work which *I* don't consider hard work and let's play a boardgame". That guy needs to be humbled in whatever way you deem apropriate
No Way! I would have been furious if that happened to me. I understand letting everyone know if you're having fun or not, but this is on a whole other level.
Yes absolutely. I don't care about your immersion, you are there to play a game as a group of people who supposedly enjoy roleplaying games. Play the game.
Why have a character if they're not going to participate in the storyline? The entire point of D&D, and other games like it, is to go on fantastical imaginary adventures; having a character that does everything in their power to refuse the call, even when there's no other choice, defeats the purpose. Sounds like active sabotage.
I mean, i can kind of see the logic, but all ttrpgs are like horror movies in the sense that sometimes the characters just have to throw logic out the window in order for the plot to progress.
The first story baffles me... so your character is a lump of a person who would never take initiative in their own life or step outside of their comfort zone? The idea of professors poking around onto mystery and finding themselves needing to step far outside their comfort zone is a great story arc Good dm, bad players. I appreciate that he broke immersion to talk with the table about game expectations instead of outright railroading (though he did a little of that to try to get the party on track. Nothing egregious though)
Story one is the reason "it's what my character would do" is the same as "no because I said so" and the second story is a fable about how you should share your spotlight so everyone can enjoy the same fun not just try roll for or role-playing every scene yourself
Next game with that dm I would be sorely tempted to make a character that would act the same way, and use the same excuse any time the dm complained. If you're going to insist on a character that isn't interested in an adventure, why are you there playing? Did they just expect to role play their character going to work every day? Honestly sounds like he deliberately sabotaged the game because he wasn't dm
that ancient bronze Dragon one.. like.. Y? you 'kill' a character for no reason, also, Bronze dragons don't have a petrifying breath, also also if it was a spell 22 would have succeeded.. like clearly this guy didn't want Free will in his shop keeper sim.
"Its what my character would do" Why on earth would you make a character like, hell why play the if you're NOT GOING PLAY THE GAME?! If the characters only action is to not get involved then you failed the very premise of the game.
YIRBEL LIVES! Eeech, I feel like statistically you would have sweared in one of these vids, but that first F bomb and the emphasis threw me aloof! Alk, that well this ones just a bummer.
I would never play a single game with any of the players in the first game ever again. Not just the forever DM but the other two players deliberately sabotaged your game for no reason
i'll argue that the players acted like exactly how a group of tenured professors in comfortable jobs would act. the players are in the wrong still for refusing the call to adventure and making characters who would all refuse the call to adventure.
Gosh that's irritating. While the dm does need to provide motives for the player characters, it's the players' job to make characters that would be *receptive* to those motives. If a player makes a character that would not, under any circumstances, go on the adventure, they need to make a character thay would
For the most part, yes, the forever DM was being ridiculous about refusing to participate. But on the other side, for a game about roleplaying, there were likely more options to get them motivated. Force a backstory connection on the character who needs motivation to take initiative, "reward" the runaround with a dmpc cop who drags the party into the mess claiming some sort of connection to the disappearance: be it suspicions about their integrity (and forcing them to come along so as to keep them in sight) or simply knowing more about a co-worker and their potential whereabouts than a random cop doing it because it is their job, throw the party in prison for suspicion, have the police task the party with gathering information whilst they do all the (foreseen) combat (likely warning players that this distraction will lead to many ambushes and rarely having initiative in combat), have a villain capture the forever dm to create an escape and investigation story line while ensuring the rest of the party cant just fall behind the loudest voice. With those ideas out of the way, it really means nothing if the player made clear they will not participate, at which point you have to either kick them out or find a story reason to sideline them until they find their missing motivation.
I will say that CoC is a very different game from 5e, and those who like one aren't likely to like the other, but these guys didn't even give it a chance.
A. You shouldn't have been embarrassed, you should have been mad. They knew what they were playing and refused to play the game. Wasting your time and effort. Your forever dm was the worst offender due to him knowing what it takes to dm. B. Never apologize for playing your character the way you designed them. Everyone else was in the wrong on how they acted. When the dm pulled his public shaming you should have packed up and left.
1) "It's what my character would do" is never a valid excuse to sabotage the game. 2) I was leery when I heard "and our girlfriends" as that's usually a bad sign for a gaming group. When the players started to lash out because one of them was playing a bombastic character that was the end of it. That's a toxic gaming group and you need to move on. 3) A DM that can't string together a cohesive story and tries to railroad in random crap should not be running a game. Don't bother having the barbarian roll a new character. Just leave.
While the forever GM could have metagamed a little bit to just go along with the adventure, the GM should have done a better job at either providing a hook or to have the police/detective take the PCs with them. "Calling the police" is a common and understandable problem for Cthulhu and one the GM has to think about to best avoid/solve the situation.
I notice threw ALL these stories that most dnd players ARE NOT good at being friends and they just use eachother because NO ONE ELSE WILL HANG OUT WITH THEM ...... seriously, if there's one thing I learned it's dnd players do not make for good friends
Hmmm....this first one, seems that you needed to make the cops more competent, give that forever DM some strong motivation, it was a poorly handled one and failed to make a real inpact. If it was me, i'd make the private eye the GMPC, who now has a reason and considers the whole cheating couples to be a nothing. Then nudge them bit by bit. Ask the professor if his area of expertise is this. If you need to hand hold them, make it work
1st story, DM did not understand that the PCs drive the game, not the DM. If your plot hooks are unappealing to the PCs, you just have to move on and use an open sandbox approach, not a railroad plot synopsis. This is something most inexperienced DMs do not understand as they believe it is the DMs game when the DM is only the facilitator of the game.
"It's what my character would do..." In that case, why would you make a character like that? This is more on the player than the GM.
It could've been good if they started investigating themselves after Detective ended up missing. It would make sense plotwise without compromising the character.
Forever DM was just being an asshole after that.
That first story is an excellent example of having a session 0, explaining what type of game you are running, and explaining what type of characters would fit. It is okay to tell a player "no, make a different type of character" when they make a character that doesn't want to do dangerous investigative things if you make a game where going into places and doing dangerous investigative games is the whole point of what you've planned.
Bingo. Session 0 is essential to guaranteeing a good time.
@@curtisholsinger6023 even that isn't guaranteed though. Most of my session 0s so far, most people were no-shows and expected to just get in the game despite that and the DM didn't want to "make us all run through the same stuff again" since we actually showed up and got our stuff straight.
Then, when we finally did get session 0s in with everyone, you had one guy fighting against being asked questions, one guy who said yes to everything he was warned about being allowed to do some questionable things (like bring a samurai PC to an Egyptian-themed campaign) but didn't follow said rules once he got in, and the person who seemed the most ready to play the game by the DM's rules but ended up rage-quitting in the third session over the smallest bit of adversity.
@@TheMightyBattleSquid Sounds like you got some problem players. I don't tend to run adventures during Session 0. I go over the system, what I want players to play, and what the game is about. If they aren't able to make it, I will reschedule once or twice, but they cannot just come to the game with whatever character they decided to make and then go against the campaign I stated.
I get the feeling the forever DM was just sabotaging the campaign for whatever reason, and the other players were too spineless to do anything else.
Yeah. I mean, the equivalent would be a D&D campaign where the party meets at the tavern, gets a drink, and then... just refuses to take any quests, ignores the shadowy figure in the corner trying to get their attention, hides when the bar fight breaks out, then goes to the blacksmith, sells all their adventuring gear and all take jobs as dockworkers or something.
If your character's core impulse when faced with adventurer is to not get involved, then they are NOT an adventurer, and you have failed the most basic premise of character creation.
Yeah if I'd made a professor type I'd of made him a failed police officer due to health conditions so therefore he became a professor of criminology, it's literally that simple to of made his character actually useful, I think forever DM was just pissed he wasn't the DM so decided to ruin the actual DMs game
Sounds like to me the forever DM Blatantly sabotaged this players first time dming. Like he thinks hes the only one who should be "in charge." At any rate They sound very toxic, Cause there's no way that they're not aware what they're doing if they are A dm regularly.
Forever DM and the party in part one should understand that creating a bunch of college professors for a call of cthulu game who are too afraid to follow up on occult crimes is like creating a bunch of shopkeepers who are too afraid to go on adventures in a dnd game.
That first story's idea sounded fun. Hope they eventually got to use it for players who actually want to play. I would totally make a Jessica Fletcher from Murder, She Wrote-type of character for that kind of campaign
First story- the DM can only do so much in offering a plot hook. The forever DM needs to realize that playing the Call of Cthulu game entails taking risks, and you can't play without playing to the plot hooks.
2nd story - if you enjoy roleplaying and it isn't being well received, you should find a group that matches your play style; it's obvious they weren't ready for that sort of engagement.
Call of Cthulu? More like call the police and have them deal with Cthulu.
for the first story imho, I would have packed up, gone home, and dropped that group, One saboteur and a party of sycophants? Ugh. and if I couldn't find anyone else to play with, well I do believe no ttrpg is better than bad ttrpg.
that forever DM was an asshole. the whole core of the CoC setting is "everyday people" getting into things "above their pay grade" (though the dm could have let them go to the cops again but had them return to the detectives agency with the police, only to find that the cultists had returned and cleaned up the scene making it look like the detective is simply out. resulting in the police not believing the players and due to the nature of the detectives work even if he's eventually declared missing they just shrug and say he probably pissed off the wrong cheating husband and if that's the case it's too late to open in investigation since he'd be gator food by now, the players then either investigate on their own or start taking sanity damage from guilt of abandoning their colleague the trick is to nudge the players back onto the path not just give then a roll to say "do this" )
Imagine if all the players rather than try to solve the mystery of someone’s murder, they just hound the guards until they do something about it.
The other players can’t complain that they weren’t having fun if they were letting the forever DM be the one who decides everything they do.
And as for the forever, DM.
If that is what your character what do, then he can go away. You can make yourself a new character one who actually gives a shit about the story.
And stop wasting the DM’s time.
It sounds to me like the forever DM was being purposely obtuse, for no reason other than he could.
But most likely it was because he was a DMing, and he probably kept looking at the game and thinking how he could’ve done it so much better.
Why do you agree to play a game if you don´t want to play the game. I guess this is the classic: "Haha, i´m the dm here to outsmart you. This is how you play. You should go back just beeing a player and be happy that you are allowed to play in a game of a genius like myself" I´m at 2:13 right now and already have enough of this. Been there a long time ago
Man, DMs can be some of the worst players. For the love of all things holy, ANSWER THE DAMN CALL TO ADVENTURE! How would he have felt if his players pulled that same crap? I think we all know the answer to that question. FFS.
I heard this story a while ago. Honestly, the forever DM is in the wrong here. Sometimes you need to metagame to keep the story going, even if it's not what your characters would do. It's just a necessity. Talking about the first story.
Even without metagaming, it's not unusual to check in on your coworkers.
I'd also say that the DM was being waaaay too passive. He let a week go by in game without consequence? Where's the random encounter during the work week? The paranormal event that freezes students? The corpse with a cryptic message? There are so many ways to engage and force players to get involved or work together, it just takes mild creativity and having watched 1-2 anime ever.
I'll give the forever DM the biggest benefit of the doubt ever given and say "oh, but maybe the Forever DM just wanted to teach new DM how to make an interesting plot hook to get all the character movings. Yeah no, that definitely wasn't the way of doing. "I don't like the way you are telling the story. Let's ignore all your work which *I* don't consider hard work and let's play a boardgame". That guy needs to be humbled in whatever way you deem apropriate
Isn't taking risk, getting in over your head, and maybe dying horribly the point of Call of Cthulu.
No Way! I would have been furious if that happened to me. I understand letting everyone know if you're having fun or not, but this is on a whole other level.
Yes absolutely. I don't care about your immersion, you are there to play a game as a group of people who supposedly enjoy roleplaying games. Play the game.
Why have a character if they're not going to participate in the storyline? The entire point of D&D, and other games like it, is to go on fantastical imaginary adventures; having a character that does everything in their power to refuse the call, even when there's no other choice, defeats the purpose. Sounds like active sabotage.
I like the idea of a turtle cart. Just gonna...."borrow" that
I mean, i can kind of see the logic, but all ttrpgs are like horror movies in the sense that sometimes the characters just have to throw logic out the window in order for the plot to progress.
The first story baffles me... so your character is a lump of a person who would never take initiative in their own life or step outside of their comfort zone?
The idea of professors poking around onto mystery and finding themselves needing to step far outside their comfort zone is a great story arc
Good dm, bad players.
I appreciate that he broke immersion to talk with the table about game expectations instead of outright railroading (though he did a little of that to try to get the party on track. Nothing egregious though)
Story one is the reason "it's what my character would do" is the same as "no because I said so" and the second story is a fable about how you should share your spotlight so everyone can enjoy the same fun not just try roll for or role-playing every scene yourself
This is the second DND channel I have seen reveiw this story
Next game with that dm I would be sorely tempted to make a character that would act the same way, and use the same excuse any time the dm complained. If you're going to insist on a character that isn't interested in an adventure, why are you there playing? Did they just expect to role play their character going to work every day? Honestly sounds like he deliberately sabotaged the game because he wasn't dm
that ancient bronze Dragon one.. like.. Y? you 'kill' a character for no reason, also, Bronze dragons don't have a petrifying breath, also also if it was a spell 22 would have succeeded.. like clearly this guy didn't want Free will in his shop keeper sim.
"Its what my character would do" Why on earth would you make a character like, hell why play the if you're NOT GOING PLAY THE GAME?! If the characters only action is to not get involved then you failed the very premise of the game.
This looks like a job for... the proper authorities!
Why play a game of Call of Cthulu if you're not even gonna play it? Like at that point its just trying to get some other npc to solve everything
YIRBEL LIVES! Eeech, I feel like statistically you would have sweared in one of these vids, but that first F bomb and the emphasis threw me aloof! Alk, that well this ones just a bummer.
They made them fellow professors. Forever DM saw their mistake and went for it. Should have made them cops.
Funny I heard this story first from one shot questers
I heard the Call of Cthulhu story before
I would never play a single game with any of the players in the first game ever again. Not just the forever DM but the other two players deliberately sabotaged your game for no reason
i'll argue that the players acted like exactly how a group of tenured professors in comfortable jobs would act. the players are in the wrong still for refusing the call to adventure and making characters who would all refuse the call to adventure.
Gosh that's irritating. While the dm does need to provide motives for the player characters, it's the players' job to make characters that would be *receptive* to those motives. If a player makes a character that would not, under any circumstances, go on the adventure, they need to make a character thay would
Yeah, forever DM was in the wrong here and railroaded the campaign to a halt because “iTs WhAt HiS cHaRaCtEr WoUlD dO”
Oh man 😅
First time I heard the F word on the channel 😅
For the most part, yes, the forever DM was being ridiculous about refusing to participate. But on the other side, for a game about roleplaying, there were likely more options to get them motivated. Force a backstory connection on the character who needs motivation to take initiative, "reward" the runaround with a dmpc cop who drags the party into the mess claiming some sort of connection to the disappearance: be it suspicions about their integrity (and forcing them to come along so as to keep them in sight) or simply knowing more about a co-worker and their potential whereabouts than a random cop doing it because it is their job, throw the party in prison for suspicion, have the police task the party with gathering information whilst they do all the (foreseen) combat (likely warning players that this distraction will lead to many ambushes and rarely having initiative in combat), have a villain capture the forever dm to create an escape and investigation story line while ensuring the rest of the party cant just fall behind the loudest voice. With those ideas out of the way, it really means nothing if the player made clear they will not participate, at which point you have to either kick them out or find a story reason to sideline them until they find their missing motivation.
I will say that CoC is a very different game from 5e, and those who like one aren't likely to like the other, but these guys didn't even give it a chance.
A. You shouldn't have been embarrassed, you should have been mad. They knew what they were playing and refused to play the game. Wasting your time and effort. Your forever dm was the worst offender due to him knowing what it takes to dm. B. Never apologize for playing your character the way you designed them. Everyone else was in the wrong on how they acted. When the dm pulled his public shaming you should have packed up and left.
1) "It's what my character would do" is never a valid excuse to sabotage the game. 2) I was leery when I heard "and our girlfriends" as that's usually a bad sign for a gaming group. When the players started to lash out because one of them was playing a bombastic character that was the end of it. That's a toxic gaming group and you need to move on. 3) A DM that can't string together a cohesive story and tries to railroad in random crap should not be running a game. Don't bother having the barbarian roll a new character. Just leave.
Am sorry your group or least the forever DM is toxic pffft nope you gotta bail from that.
While the forever GM could have metagamed a little bit to just go along with the adventure, the GM should have done a better job at either providing a hook or to have the police/detective take the PCs with them.
"Calling the police" is a common and understandable problem for Cthulhu and one the GM has to think about to best avoid/solve the situation.
I notice threw ALL these stories that most dnd players ARE NOT good at being friends and they just use eachother because NO ONE ELSE WILL HANG OUT WITH THEM ...... seriously, if there's one thing I learned it's dnd players do not make for good friends
These are the bad ones.
But the right group can be very good friends.
Hmmm....this first one, seems that you needed to make the cops more competent, give that forever DM some strong motivation, it was a poorly handled one and failed to make a real inpact. If it was me, i'd make the private eye the GMPC, who now has a reason and considers the whole cheating couples to be a nothing. Then nudge them bit by bit. Ask the professor if his area of expertise is this. If you need to hand hold them, make it work
More Dungeons and Dragons drama rather than Dungeons and Dragons. 😞 I remember when this channel produced gems like Garg and the moonslicer.
1st story, DM did not understand that the PCs drive the game, not the DM. If your plot hooks are unappealing to the PCs, you just have to move on and use an open sandbox approach, not a railroad plot synopsis. This is something most inexperienced DMs do not understand as they believe it is the DMs game when the DM is only the facilitator of the game.