The concept of god even coming down to the paladin to tell them, “Yo. This is a REALLY *REALLY* bad idea.” And the paladin responding, “Don’t worry, we’ll be fine.” Is honestly such a hilarious concept to me.
At that point I would have had their Patron god warning the paladin that if they leave town they will do so without their favor, I.E If you want to act stupid and run to your death, do so without your Paladin powers and smearing mud on their gods name.
I think it would be interesting/fun to have the PC's Gods/Deities appear in their corporeal forms during battles and shout commands/attacks at their specific devotees. Like Pokémon battles but with the fanatically devout.
@@Dr.Sho_Minamimoto I think that play may have worked. A "you are leading people to certain death out of your own pride. Go without my favor. Each unnecessary death I shall count against your head."
@@TheDukeOfDallas judging by the way the paladin acted, it would be like using a traded Pokémon without enough badges, IE won’t listen to your commands unless it wants to.
@@Dr.Sho_Minamimoto Depending on the Diety that could be really bad lol. "You don't have enough badges to train me!" Zeus - *smiles* *LIGHTNING BOLT SMITE*
I know right? Lawful good does not mean that you have to play as a bootlicker. It just means that you have a strong moral code and want to help people. My old LG Paladin was fine with our Rogue picking locks, and telling lies, so long as it was in the interest of helping people. He wasn't exactly trustful of criminals, but didn't treat them like subhuman garbage. In fact, for a large portion of the campaign, our group was wanted for regicide, after we killed the tyrannical king, and his son took over. I played a Lawful Good Paladin who killed a King, and was a wanted criminal. For added context, we sneaked our way into the Throne Room, where we (I) challenged the King to a fight. We had to bribe guards, and pick locks, to get there. All very illegal acts, but my character was able to overlook them because he was more of an 'ends justify the means so long as no one gets hurt' type of character.
@@Demolition89336 As a player who has recently made a Paladin, (and is my favourite character I've ever made), I wholeheartedly agree with this. Lawful Good doesn't mean being an asshole.
@@Demolition89336 Lawful good can encompass people like literal Anarchists like myself, as Long as you got high minded principles and you'll Damn stick to em, your lawful good
"Do not try to win a fight against an idiot: they will beat you with experience and drag you down to their level" also comes to mind (albeit paraphrased)
In this case to me it sounds like the DM was the stupid person. I think he tried to force players to play his way/idea and it backfired on him. Otherwise why would the entire table turn back on him? Including the previous more experienced DM?
Yes the paladin was playing their character in a moronic way, however I hold the other party members to just as much responsibility for ruining that campaign and ostracizing the DM out of his group.
yeah even Jim. he was very clearly having fun being the DM that gets to play and was trying to stay in the back seat to let the others shine. But he could have, and should have, talked to Maurice about the way he behaving and stuck up for OP b/c it seems he could tell how hard OP was trying to be a sensible but fair dm.
@@wildhunter939 yeah but the lawful played to dumb and was to stubborn and party did not help besides the one that did not make it but they still vote him off for no reason and and told them this is dumb and also sounds like they were babys because they were not ok with dieing for being dumb sorry for the long rant
@@wildhunter939 How so? They were given a mission they could handle, guard this part of the walls. They ignored it, and were given warning after warning, that what they were attempting was extremely stupid. But he still let them do it. He even altered the mission to give them a chance to win. That's not railroading, he let the players have their agency , and pursue their own strategy as stupid as it was. If he was railroading, He would have said no you can't leave and the captain would have come over with a bunch of guards and said " you have got to guard this part of the wall.
agreed, the DM in this situation did all he could, yes he could've changed some things or forced them..but he didn't. That whole party was a bunch of fucking clowns.
OP sounds like the kind of DM I would love to play with, tough and fair, but still willing to bend the rules to help the players, and the amount of work he did, and effort he put in to try to keep everyone alive and to keep the game enjoyable is admirable.
Not really. It just comes across as weakness. Should have let them die then let them play as the NPC guards as the orcs slaughtered them. And only then allowed them to make new characters.
@SventheCrusader No, but you are the de facto authority in the game. A game where the DM allows their players to walk all over them isn't much more than kids playing pretend. That's why you as the DM have to be the one who tells sociopaths like the Paladin that no you can't go around randomly killing everyone you don't like, especially when you're a paladin of Bahamut. And inform him if he does it again, he might lose his powers because Bahamut disapproves of his actions. But it also doesn't make you a storyteller or some authoritarian dictator. You are the referee who facilitates the actions and decisions of the other players (the DM is a player too, remember) into the world they create in a collaborative effort to make a story together. And if a player decides to do something to either derail the game or otherwise ruin the fun of the group, it's the responsibility of the other players, most of all the DM, to talk to them and ask them to cut it out And no, I didn't suggest that to punish them. I suggested that to get them back into the action ASAP and give them a fun combat encounter with no real stakes since their new characters showing up right in the nick of time doesn't make much sense and it gives the other players time to think up and work on their new characters for next week. My overall point is that rules exist for a reason and it's the responsibility of the DM to selectively bend or break rules in service to the fun of the other players or to facilitate the adventure. But some rules need to be held to in order to keep the game from becoming a farce or to protect the fun of everyone from the actions of others.
@@Lobsterwithinternet I agree with everything the DM did, and if they won that encounter I'd let them get back to the town in time to defend it, if from a slightly more disadvantaged position than they would have been had they gone with the original plan (they weren't there to help with preparations, after all). If they got captured like that, I'd have the town be destroyed by the time they got back tho.
@@something-from-elsewhere Problem is that they more than likely wouldn't have gone back to town and would have marched right up to the orc hoard and either challenged the warlord to a duel or just straight up fought the entire army right there. Everything you described would have vindicated our erstwhile murderhobo and basically left the OP exactly where he was before the whole situation in the first place.
"I can't retreat because of honor or something." "Dude we aren't asking you to leave the fight we just want you to move like 30 feet back so you aren't blind."
For guys like that, even the idea of moving back like that (in the name of common sense) equals retreating. In their mind, the only one who should be moving away in any way, shape or form is the enemy (or anyone else _except_ them), like, "I stand my ground, nothing shall sway me!". Honor is often used as the facilitator and, subsequently, the scapegoat for people's personal ego, delusion, and stupidity.
I agree. Dead dead Dooby dooby dead dead. I would give the party every opportunity to split. “Hey Orcy! I’ve got a paladin here who wants to die for his country. OBLIGE HIM.”
In my experience a Lawful Good Paladin would have insisted on staying town to help fortify and rebuild so long as they agreed to have at minimum a small shrine to the Platinum God.
Yeah wouldn't lawful good be staying and making sure the town is alive? This characters actions sound more like chaotic good where they are doing it really recklessly but like for the greater good sort of thing
This. The PC 100% played STUPID and conflated that with "Lawful Good". That PC was either a troll or so incredibly stupid himself that he literally couldn't tell he was playing the character with the most obnoxious and unrealistic flaws known to gamerkind. A true lawful-good paladin who ISN'T being played purposely stupid is going to preference actions with yield the greatest quantity AND quality of good. IE: They're going to immediately take the town's guard in command, start organizing defenses and ensuring as many people are safe and protected as possible... Only the most ignorant, stupid and pointless of these would do what Tormund does. He was 100% more Chaotic Good, frankly, in the end results if not the actions and intentions. Chaotic Stupid.
He sounds like the more Lawful stupid/murderhobo "Lawful Good" type who's idea of "law" is just a thin veneer to go haphazardly murdering anyone who he deems to be immoral.
He should have been branded oathbreaker from the first sign of trouble, as the almighty platinum one is about forgiveness if one pledges to be a good person from then on, only when they prove they have no intention of repentance then they must die as punishment.
Man my first character was a Lawful good Paladin and instead of playing like this I really was just like "My oath is to protect people, and also its a good act to protect people too, so when my Chaotic nuetral party goes off on hijinx, I need to stay with them to make sure they stay safe"
The worst part is that they waited to splash the cold water in his face at the last second, as a group, because none of them were brave enough, or good enough friends to tell him before hand. Thats really sad.
When the DM breaks character to plead with you about how your current course of action is likely to end very badly, especially when there are other options readily and clearly available; it's time to reconsider.
Players really wanted to fly over a chasm that had an anti magic field. At the bottom of the players would have to make a wisdom save (none of them could make it, even with a 20) or they would hallucinate their own death until they actually died. They were not supposed to be here. This trap was not meant for them. They all died. Thankfully this was a one shot.
My table just knows when I say “Are you sure you want to do this?” They need to make sure to take in all the information because there is a possibility they missed something that will get them killed. I rarely use it and let my party deal with the consequences. Expect, for example, when a new player was about to ambush what looked to be a “Full plate armored Orc with battlescars. They were a personal guard of a noble woman and the only one there” my other player about shit himself when he said yeah I want to attack.
I, as a DM, have a rule, and my players know it. If I ask “Are you sure you want to do that” take a moment, be sure, because it is going to be very important, and possibly very difficult to undo that action. If you say, “yes” and I come back at ask you again “If you are sure” you’re about to do something that is going to kill you, your party or both. If you come back and say “yes” again, I’ll ask the party if they want to interject anything. If they don’t move to stop the PC, the boulder is released from its spot and you have to either run away, deal with it, or get squished. (Not always a boulder). Sadly most try to deal with it in a way they won’t work and get squished.
@@JPatterson61586 i do that to the difference is i do it on right decisions as well. The are you sure is way more effective when they have to think about everything, and my party knows i do it even if what they want to do is how i intended it to.
When I start a fresh campaign, as a DM, I always preface it with "My job is to kill you, your job is to not get dead" so when they do something that even I'm like "Uh...a-are you sure?" they then go into a group discussion very nervously. I mean, I'm the guy that (literally) dropped a Spell-Warped/Plane Touched/Ravenous-Flesh Golem with Vampire/Were Mimic minions on his party. With glee. So when something gives ME pause, they know things are about to get inception level crazy.
The fact that they kicked him out afterwards is the most heart wrenching thing in this entire story. They didn’t take his feelings into account at all, and were complete assholes. When people do this, they’re saying they don’t see this person as their equal, and it makes that person wonder if they are really the bad one there.
@@kalok155 But he didn't "enable" the Paladin at all. He was simply trying to desperately salvage the mess the Paladin player was making of the rest of the party's chances. He could have been more firm and railroaded them into not being able to do what the Paladin did, but for inexperienced DM's that's hard to do without feeling guilty about it or getting accused by the players of railroading them. All he really did was give them free will to make stupid decisions. Should he have put a stop to Tormund's stupidity way earlier with deadly consequences? Absolutely. However as a player Jim should have been more firm rather than being so laid back and letting Tormund's player lead the party into an unwinnable situation, especially when playing with a few other newbies in the party. I blame Jim for not backing up a fellow DM.
@@kalok155 um it was his first time DMing, and he had to do it with a really bad player. That's a super shitty thing to say, everyone starts somewhere. Maybe you're Maurice
Y'know, at first I thought the DM was throwing everyone under the bus and excusing himself by claiming "inexperienced", but as the story went on, he was a lot more experienced than he gave himself credit and the players actually laid down under the bus by their own accord.
Same. Went in expecting an all around clusterf*ck from all parties involved and by the end I don't know if I can really blame OP for a single thing that happened
So lawful stupid paladin does stuff. Party is cool with it, seem to be having fun. DM freaks out cause "DATS NOT HOW YOU LAWFUL STUPID" and then they kick the DM out of the group? Sorry, there's got to be more to this story that the DM is not sharing cause it reflects badly on them. You don't get kicked out of a group unanimously for nothing. Lets read between the lines here. Scared a player away on your first session DM'ing, check. Try your best to railroad party but still fail at it, check. Then blow up/yell at people having fun for......having fun because their fun is "stupid", check. Really makes the DM seem like the bad guy, no?
@@Hazknoklu True, you have a point there. I still have an opinion, which is that the paladin was the one leading the whole party and someone who was really having fun, which ended when the whole party died, sucking out any fun out of all, and the DM was trying to prevent the death. That's just my opinion though, I might be wrong in some points-
@@Hazknoklu The thing is, the DM is in control of the overarching narrative, with the players using that narrative as a device to have fun and change it. THIS is what seemed like disrespect on Tormond's part : - He was the leader. The party followed him. He had control over them. - He was even trying to CONTROL the narrative, like the DM is somehow supposed to work in a way to make 4 lvl 3 heroes beat an army of fifty orcs? No, this was Tormond wanting complete and utter control over the space. The party, the DM, the narrative, everything. This was him, trying to be "alpha". Apparently it worked. I would've honestly been way less merciful than this DM. If he would run towards the army, party in tow, they would've been trampled on by the Orcs, TPK, and I would continue the narrative "With the adventurers killed and the guards already on edge, the orcs easily ransack and kill the remaining townspeople & farmers." And then I would announce there would be no more sessions and I would no longer be playing with them. I can't stand people who need to control everything, and the people that facilitate their BS.
"fuck others i want to kill some goblins " i really want to do a a masochistic paladin one day and not gonna lie he would want to fight everyone and mask his masochism by saying that he is just doing the right thing for everyone else
I think there's an issue here about D&D in general that people don't seem to understand. It's the idea of player death and that campaigns can be more, or less lenient about it. Many players go into D&D believing one of two things: A: They are only allowed and able to interact with things they can see , things that are described to them and so on. They do not understand the concept, or are not comfortable with the idea of trying different things, doing what they want, exploring options and so on. They simply think of it like a game, where you're on a path, and they are just supposed to basically do the task set in front of them. and nothing more. B: They take freedom way too far, and expect the DM to pick up the pieces behind them while somehow managing to stay ahead of them. They will have 0 regard for the plans and stories the DM has set in place, and will expect that literally ANYTHING they do, it's the DM's job to make sure they survive and get through it. This I feel, wasn't so much a case of a player playing a stupid character... yes, his character was stupid. But that wasn't the actual issue here. The issue was that he believed that he could act this way with his character, charge down 50 enemies at once, and that the DM would put systems in place to save him and ensure that he gets to be the hero and defeat the army. In other words, he thought that this was HIS story, and that the DM's job wasn't to tell a story, but was to simply create the world around his character while actively giving him, quite literally, plot armor. And thus, he was angry when his character actually died, and the DM didn't simply have the guards from the town show up to fight alongside them or something. It's sort of like that old joke about Christians in a Hurricane: A Hurricane was coming into a town, and everyone was ordered to evacuate. Police showed up at a man's house and said that he needed to leave, but he said "No, I am staying here. God will see me through this." When the Hurricane hit, the town flooded so bad that the water was up to the roof. The man was on this roof when a boat came by with rescuers, but he said "No, I'll be fine, God will see me through this." And so he stayed there, trapped in the flooded town with nowhere to go. Still on the roof, a helicopter came and dropped a rescuer down to save him, but he said "No, I'll be fine, God will see me through this." The man later drowned as the waters climbed too high for him to simply stay safely on his roof. When the man got to heaven, he said "God, I trusted in you to protect me. Why didn't you save me?" God said "I sent you police, a boat, and a helicopter, what more do you want?! -Replace the idea of the hurricane, with the goblin/orc army. -Replace 'God' with 'The DM'
Totally agree, I don't want my players completely ignoring all quests and just pickpocketing the whole town and randomly going off the edge of the map of what I've prepared. But at the same time I love it if I get to use my extra notes on locations where players explore side alleys to try and find a backdoor entrance to a location, or ask around for more details regarding a certain quest, or even if they initiate their own quests of looking for an item that will help them accomplish certain quests better.
It's funny... first time GMing and I'm gonna be sort of doing what this player was expecting. It's a story told from a bard's perspective, so one character is very much focused on, but my players are friends I've gamed with for years and I can trust them not to charge into unwinnable situations and actual plan out viable strategies. In fact, my biggest hurdle right now is creating challenging encounters for them!
"I don't want to think about the dynamics of the world around me. I want to walk forward in any direction I choose and I expect the DM to build it out under my feet as I go. Oh, and also it should be perfectly balanced."
With tiny script in the corner saying “*note: ‘perfectly balanced’ means just challenging enough to make me feel badass, without losing half my hit points”
i think that is need a shock of reality if he wants to kill 50 monsters that he dont stand a chance ok but dont expect to live because is going to happen what everyone knows is going to happen
we usually had the main story together and side stuff in case at least 3 people missed, main story being serious and the side stuff was less planned, turning goofy easily, it was just perfect
In my game running blindly led to a party of six being ran to a group of five trolls in a narrow passage. Tortle ranger lost its arm permanently for that, since one of the trolls ate it when she was grabbled while dead by another. Okay. I conviently forgot their ability to recover from 0hp in that fight so the PCs had a fighting chance and they won with 0 lasting casualties. Two downed and one dead, but the dead was revivifyed. If the trolls would actually have been getting up like they are written they would have been soooo tpkd
As a GM myself, I started fuming when they said the party basically just elected a different GM at the last minute after a week of preparing the material for the current campaign. Even if we're only getting one side of the story here, I can't imagine a scenario where they are the good guys. I'm glad OP found some new friends.
@@codyholley Them deciding to switch dm’s is understandable but not letting the OP know, letting him plan and prepare all week and only telling him when he gets to the next session is a dick move.
Yeah, that was some bullshit. It’s clear that without him, They clearly would’ve Died! It also pisses me off that the Paladin dude shrugs at the thought of his character dying by simply making a New guys! That is some bullshit too! I would totally Kick that dude for being a Willing Dumbass! And just a bad friend for pulling that crap.
Party: gets themselves killed doing something so stupid DM tells them it’s a bad idea Also party: OMG DM WHY DID YOU MAKE THINGS UNFAIR. NOW U NO LONGER DM
In the comments, OP says that the party only kicked him out because Maurice WOULD NOT STOP WHINING AND BITCHING to them until they did. Not entirely party's fault, but they do need to grow a spine.
If I had been this DM I would have told this Snowflakes that their characters are just barely better nobodys and not worldsafing Heroes. People these days. :))
@@FreedomAndPeaceOnly I am sorry. But I think the DM rattle is the one to get through to idiots. Party: "We will march on an Orc Horde." DM: "Are you Sure?" If they don't take the hint, wipe them out.
Just cause something is a trope, doesn't mean it's bad. Meeting in a tavern is the old-timey equivalent of meeting up at a coffee shop, totally normal for the setting with no need to justify it.
I enjoy it for comedy reasons. Nothing more fun than purposefully doing a stereotypical tavern meeting that is so much of a stereotype that it becomes funny
A couple years ago I played a Lawful Good Paladin with oath of Redemption. She tried to spare a healing point for every enemy we encountered that wasn't already dead, and was mostly trying to mitigate the amount of bloodshed that the barbarian goblin of the group wanted to commit. My favourite part was when we found an Imp, imprisoned centuries earlier, that couldn't go anywhere because his previous master left him there and died. All he asked was a new contract with a mortal and to be able to leave. My Paladin asked if he honestly wouldn't harm innocents, while our fighter was urging her to execute the vile demon. The Imp replied that he honestly wanted a chance to show his loyalty. My paladin couldn't do anything else. She let another character from the group form a contract with the demon, and he joined the party. The Imp was extremely useful to the group and never did anything really evil, just some pranks here and there. He died while exploring for us with his invisibility and my Paladin mourned for the demon that showed her that the oath of Redemption she took had all the meaning in the world.
@@thecoolestofthe834s2 I have no idea what you wrote XD It sounds like you have some kind of hatred towards players, and if you were a dm any and all enemies that got shown mercy would attack the players, so that's mostly your failing as a dm, since the objective of the game is to have fun and roleplay. To each their own, I suppose. I would really dislike you as a dm, if that's what you were trying to convey.
Found the stereotypical rogue player. And naturally they’re incapable of appreciating anything higher brow than giggling about attacking like a mindless automaton. This is why we can’t have these nice things.
Yeah, this to me would be one of those alignment changing, 'your god has abandoned you for your actions' kind of situation. Send the paladin into neutral good alignment and just make them a fighter or something. I don't understand why so many people play paladins like this.
@@oluftheexplorer9476 This ^. It's the worst one dimensional cardboard cutout of a garbage generic caricature of a trope. Seen it a ton in the Star Wars games I used to play, too, both Jedi trying to police the universe and Dark Siders trying to murderhobo genocide everyone for no reason.
Yup, being a Paladin is supposed to be difficult. In my current campaign I play a Paladin but not true to type. Nobody plays their character true to type so it doesn't make sense for me to do it. Still it would be nice.
On a side note, I wish more people realized becoming a paladin involved a lot of training and time with a cult, so there's no way someone as stupid and stubborn would be anointed.
@@liamdalemon1525 Because one guy had to be a stubborn asshole. Hell, if it was my Half-orc paladin he would have gotten out of the Darkness cloud immediately, and he's an idiot!
Agreed 100 %. Maurice was a dumbass but that was workable given time. The former DM and the girlfriend were the real assholes, demoting OP without warning, pissing all over everything he had prepared. It's fair that they wanted to swap DM, it's not fair to do it like that -_- Overall I think it was a mismatched group for OP as well... It very much seemed like they expected balanced encounters no matter what, which is how I played 4e with my starting group. That's fair, but far from the only way to play any system, even 4e :)
DM: You should defend the city walls along with the guards! Tormond: I'm not lisssssteniiiiing~! DM: There's 50 Orcs! You're 3 people! They'll slaughter you if you go in alone! Tormond: I'm not lisssssteniiiiing~! DM: Literally just get out of the magic darkness! It's not that big and while inside you're just swinging at shadows! Tormond: I'm not lisssssteniiiiing~! Tormond: Wow what the hell DM that was so dangerous you didn't give us any options to give ourselves an advantage in that fight! DM: *Genuine Anger*
Wow. I felt like I got punched in the gut when they ousted him from the DM position. I would have left them then. For all the effort that DM put in it sounds like the players did not deserve him. Like seriously should have just said "forget this" when they dropped that "your no longer dm" bombshell like those players are terrible people.
As dumb as all the rest of the story was, him being all "Okay" at that disrespect is baffling. Any action other than telling everyone how the campaign was supposed to go and then leaving was a worse failure than anything Captain Tryhard did.
From what he was saying I get the feel they were fairly young maybe still in school or at least college/university and some area it's really hard to find people to play with.
@@MacClay8nah the player is the worst part, you don’t know if they live in a small town or just don’t have anyway to play with others easily also remember they said “4e was the newest edition” so dnd was very not popular
Meanwhile... Tiamat: "Damn... I thought MY servants were incompetent." Bahamut: "Ya... anyway, wanna trade? I'll even throw in a few extra souls if you take him." Tiamat: "Not in a thousand, thousand years."
That kind of “I’m going off on my own so you might as well follow me” mentality is why I’m VERY happy my Bard has the Sleep spell. Recently, my party and I were attempting to tame a wolf for the Goblin to ride. We were doing stupid well on taming all 4 of the wolves we came across, so, being unprepared to add 4 wolves to the party, the DM railroaded us a little by having three of the wolves respond to the call of the nearby pack. We were bummed, but we still had one wolf, so no big deal. However our Cleric decided she NEEDED these wolves and suddenly took off after AN ENTIRE PACK OF WOLVES. My bard whipped out her violin and cast a second level sleep spell, making the Cleric pass out mid-run and faceplant into the dirt. Our Ranger dragged her back over the the party and then I released the spell.
I had to do something like that,just recently as well. but this was based off of the other players character and how they function. We have a Barbarian-Monk in the party that values life in a particular manner. In such that everyone deserves to live despite their background as a person. When a group of NPCs with high merit took down a flying ship full of soldiers both drafted and volunteers that said barbarian monk had saved from a previous attack our barbarian friend was particularly mad. The NPCs weren't doing this out of sheer blood thirst however, these soldiers were sent to invade and destroy a holy city that these NPCs protect. These soldiers also had no idea that their mad emperor would send them on such a mission. Now, my character is a silver dragon fledgling in secret and is starting off on some of her first adventures with this very same party as a paladin. I had to cast sleep on our barbarian friend to keep them from dying in one of the quickest fashions possible.
Elini The frog she had no idea it was my bard that put her to sleep, since she’d never seen that spell used. The bard managed to convince her that she just must be really tired and it’s time to go back. However she figured it out later when my bard put someone else to sleep, and was very cranky about it 😂😂
"There is a giant blender in front of you. A cackling old man dressed in infant bones tells you to jump in." "Obviously I don't do--" "He says that some very evil monsters are in there just past the spinning blades." "I jump in the blender." "You die instantly." "Dude, no fair."
The "Dude, no fair" is the best part! So true to the original. Except the DM was generous enough to not make it instant death; rather a difficult but possible fight.
I mean, he did railroad them. But the thing is, railroading isn't bad. The DM is creating a story, those are railroads. The trick is to create the illusion of choice, yet encourage the players to engage with the story, to hide the rails. "A giant orc army is going to besiege the city" is a railroady thing, but that's not bad. Having a time constraint, having stakes, those are good. He's forcing them to do something about this attack, but they're so preoccupied with breaking his railroad, they forget WHY to break that. His storytelling wasn't bad up till there (It was shithouse afterwards). There was no reason to dodge the setpiece, but still try to fight the enemies. All they did was derail their trail.
@@snickykitty22 and even if they say the railroading part was the defending the city part, then theres an easy answer to that too how the hell would you expect to fight an army of orcs otherwise?!!!
@@kalok155 I mean, i don't see it as a complete railroad mainly bc he did try to work with them and the paladin was too stubborn to do things. Though he was a new dm, he probably would've let them go and sneak off into the orc encampment if he knew they would try something smart (like attempt to poison them or set fire to the camp). He even offered to provide more support. But he knew the paladin would barge in and knew there would be too many orcs (orcs fighting a battle/war would want to bring at least 20) which is why he deterred it so much. I would say the dm was 100 in the right and the prior dm is in the wrong ONLY for allowing the paladin to dictate the game (seeing as he sided with him to kick out the new dm,allowed him to replay the same character, and prolly even allowed him to succeed in his quest of glory)
@@kalok155 Railroading implies that they were only given one possible path when actually all that happened was that the one particular path the players insisted on using was clearly not viable (plausibly in universe and repeatedly stated out of character to the players) This is less a railroad and more like offering a player a bunch of doors only to watch them break their skull open by repeatedly slamming their head against a wall instead.
I get the distinct feeling that ousting OP as DM was entirely Maurice’s idea. Honestly, I’m most pissed off that it sounds like Jim didn’t even attempt to dissuade them from doing it
Perhaps he tried but the others were like "I'm not playing if OP is the DM" and he had no choice but to become the DM. But we don't know how that conversation went so it's all just guessing
@@SeanStrife I feel like Jim set him up to fail, as if to say, see what I have go through? It was kinda a dick move how he left OP flailing in the water, cause it appears he enjoyed watching the shit show go down.
Idk, there's probably a lot being left out of the story. He admits he wasn't "diplomatic" when he started shouting at Maurice, we're only hearing one side of things of the story.
The way I see it is OP and Maurice were both in the wrong. Hoeever OP is much, MUCH less in the wrong.. Maurice was an arrogant asshole who just wanted to run the game HIS way. He blatantly ignored OP's warnings numerous times and acted tactically stupid. If it was Maurice who missed a session then the party would probably still be alive/not captured. However, I think OP was a bit too passive. OP should have taken Maurice aside and tried to explain the campaign and understand Maurice's character more. By this I mean that OP should have told Maurice personally that his playstyle will get everyone killed and that law-good characters don't have to be so dogmatic. If he still insisted on acting like that then OP should have changed the campaign to punish Maurice while not being so punishing to the others. You've got to remember that there were beginners in this game too. However, only the best DMs could possibly pull that off so I don't blame OP too much for the disastrous campaign.
I would've. Look, if you're gonna... say... jump off a roof during a stealth mission where there are sound sensitive enemies in plain sight... and you land on a car... weeell, don't expect for them to brush it off as the wind. Or for the orcs to just magically die cause of mass heart attack or something.
I would have, as well. There are some players who like to treat the game like a video game scripted with a completely overpowered player character who the world revolves around. And there are groups/DMs who play to that standard. For them, the DM tailors the game such that they can do almost anything they want and still win - because the goal is not to play a role within a world but to fulfill power fantasy. What the group wanted was a DM who would grant their power fantasy, not one who would treat them like they were actually in a real world with consequences.
@Christa Simon By your logic, though, he fulfilled it as a fair encounter. He pointed out POINT BLANK how they could've survived, and they still didn't do it.
@Christa Simon the party got tons of opportunities to leave. They were told multiple times that going to the army head on was a bad idea, that was the first set of opportunities. They then saw the massive army head on, this was opportunity 2. They then fought a smaller portion where they got hit with darkness, opportunity 3. Then the DM straight up told them to leave the darkness, opportunity 4.
Lawful moron is the type of person who in the zombie apocolypes would play loud music and when he finds 2 people robbing someone for their supplies would with Literally 3 bullets left, shooting all 3 in the air to threaten the robbers attracting a horde of zombies then being shocked when his character is eaten to death.
@@kartorrent7496 they don't necessarily _control_ the story, that's true, but they do craft the consequences of the players' actions, and they have foresight. If they break the fourth wall and tell a PC that their choice will end in the death of one or more characters, it's a pretty good idea to listen.
@@Hawk7886 I suppose so, but your example still kinda makes sense for my idea of, “The dungeon master is A proxy between players and their characters’ senses,”… Only this time, the player doesn’t HAVE any sense.
@@kartorrent7496 wrong, the players have ALL of their senses, which are expressed in perception and investigation checks unless otherwise hampered (blinded, deafened, etc.) - it's the DM's job to tell them what is in the world. The players are responsible for making the choices.
In a perfect world this story could be: -Brave heroes inspire city guards and common folk to defend their homes and families -The orc horde is crushed in a breathtaking siege -The party levels up and goes after orc Warlord for an epic final fight, ending the first campaign Meanwhile in *our* world: “JUSTICE” “NEVER RETREAT” “WE GOT THIS” “DM is the problem”
Yeah, but it could have been worse. Don't fall into the "Worst of all Worlds" fallacy. They COULD have had a giant physical altercation about it. Instead they all just split up later on.
"THE SUBTELTY of the Kool-Aid Man striking an artillery shell with a sledgehammer" I can see why this guy makes a good dm lol. Edit: I finally fixed Sudelty
YEEEEEEEEEE OP here! Thank you so much for doing my story! Not gonna lie, the whole inspiration for me writing all that down was in the hopes that you'd feature it. It was everything I hoped for! The JUSTICE parts were just...flawless. Hail crab! 🦀🦀🦀🦀 EDIT Minor update to the story: I recently reconnected with an old friend of mine who knows both Jim and Maurice from a LARP. In fact, his character in the LARP was Maurice's apprentice, and Maurice played a very similar character to Tormund. He said that Maurice had gotten better at playing that type of LG character. He was still stubborn, but he wasn't reckless or stupid about it. He said that, given the timeline, back during the game Maurice was going through a lot of stuff, I'm guessing about coming out, and when this whole event happened it would have been right around the worst of it. But he's apparently doing better now, which is really good to hear. I do hope he's well. When I told him about Jim's actions, he shook his head and agreed that it sounded like something he would do. We both reached the conclusion that Jim is a nice guy, until he's an asshole. My friend was not surprised that he was involved the mutiny, which he agreed was absolutely bananas. So that's the update. Nothing major but it's at least a little bit of closure! BTW I'm still DMing, it's going great, my players are all very happy and my game of choice that I'm running now is the Fantasy Flight Star Wars game. It's fantastic. 👍🏻
You know, I really like what you did with the ambush encounter as a means to break the players out of their bull-headed style of gameplay. That was a really crafty encounter to have them fight and it's a shame that they didn't learn from that. However, in this instance I think the problem came from both Maurice AND you not understanding the type of game that the other person wanted to play. It looked to me like he wanted to play into the heroic fantasy and lead his squad of Good Guys™ around crusading righteously. There was a video someone did about an orc paladin whose story follows this same sort of path. The other players ended up becoming secondary characters in that story, but I think they had a good time of it regardless of the fact that they didn't have the spotlight. It can work sometimes! I hope that you continue to play DnD, and keep drawing wisdom from the event to make your games better. Cheers!
It's clear that there was a big misunderstanding between you and the paladin in this story. Maybe he wanted plot armor so that he could roleplay as a legendary hero who does the impossible through brute force. If he didnt tell you that's what he wanted, then that's his fault of course.
"Don't worry. We'll be fine." is something you consider insulting and disrespectful? What have you gotta be on to be that fucking sensitive 🤣 The rest I understand though
@@TheRealBrit Hi Maurice. This might hard to understand, but when people give you sincere warnings about the zombie plague and blow them off, it means you don't give a damn. So they shouldn't give a damn when the zombies eat your brains and the demons eat your soul.
As a player, I would have just had my character run back to town. No, really: Tormund was clearly just going out to die for his god, not do anything remotely useful. And just for the record, he wasn't playing Lawful Good in the least. He clearly had NO concern for anyone other than himself and his self-important "crusade"; he even abandoned a whole town of innocent people to their fate solely so he could go chasing after glory and honor for himself. Nothing is more selfish. The DM may have made a few mistakes, but honestly those players just plain sucked.
Personally the first red flag for me was he made a dragonborn that worships bahamut. Yes bahamut is a lawful good deity but dragonborn culture sees all dragons as bad so if your dragonborn is worshiping one you need a damn good backstory to justify it,
TBH, when I play a paladin in Pathfinder, I spend the first ten rounds in every combat either fighting defensively, or in total defense, unless there is a damn good reason for it (like the enemy is objectively, irredeemably evil such as a balor, succubus, or who pinged Detect Evil so hard it gave my paladin a headache) and those rounds are spent trying to talk the opponent down, if they're sentient and share languages. There are enough blood-and-glory crusaders in the world, not enough paladins who lead by example and seek to save souls. I've always held that any paladin who willingly marches headfirst into death and drags his party with him would immediately Fall as soon as he set out on that course of action, unless he serves a god so zealous even Ragathiel would say they need to chill the hell out.
This seems like a mistake a first time player would make, my first session, I had to free a party member from a couple of elvish guards. Instead of trying to reason with them or bribe them, I immediately fought them. The team survived the encounter but it could have gone a lot better, at the time I didn't know you could befriend npcs, just fight or not fight. And I also didn't know that you didn't have to fight to get xp. So lesson learned.
@@shadenox8164 While this is indeed true in Forgotten Realms, it's not true for all settings. In fact, for the base 4e edition (the edition that this game takes place in) Dragonborn are very much associated with Bahamut, who is often seen as the patron God of their race. In his description in the 4e player's handbook, I believe it states explicitly that his followers include Dragonborn. Just my two cents.
I was thinking the whole time, “no wonder the other DM is so laid back”. He would have to be, even the OP described the other DM as go with the flow and chill. Which isn’t inherently bad, but I don’t think the other guy pushes the players the way OP tried to.
Let's be honest. Maurice wasn't stupid; he was controlling. He thought he could force the DM into scaling down every encounter to compensate for his whims. He was trying to DM by proxy. And when he didn't get his way he ensured a DM was in charge whom he could control. But, honestly, it's the other snakes in that group who really infuriated me. They listened to this entire infuriating scenario play out, and not only did they side with the person who was clearly in the wrong, but did so in the most underhanded, cowardly way possible. Seriously, fuck those people. I hope OP found a group who appreciates the effort he puts into his games. I've listened to a ton of these stories, and this is one of the few that has made me genuinely angry.
@@factandsuspicionpodcast2727 remember there are three sides to every story, the perspectives of both parties involved and the truth. We only have the DMs perspective, we don't have the perspective of the Paladin or other players. It's very unlikely that an entire group would just oust a DM on a whim if there wasn't some kind of issue that they all had. I'd say the DM was not as good as he says he was and it's probable that he was very railroady with the group amongst other issues we don't know about.
For the DM it was a fair and "reasonable" way to punish a problem player as we are just listening to their side of the story and what they knew, but for the players it probably looked more like the DM was punishing them for no other reason than "DM is mean"
Oh yes, any character I ever played would have either opted to stay in town and help the guards or asked to help with the evacuation efforts of the farms and small villages. Now way they would follow the crazy raving lunatic they just met to fight an army by themselves.
Despite what he says at the beginning, I think the DM here handled things very well. He really did give them all every chance he could without breaking his world and story, and his plans for continuing the campaign sounded fun. His only mistake was, maybe, lashing out, but as a beginner DM doing his best I would have been hella frustrated with that asshole too.
@@BrightWulph I don't. If I were him, I'd let him get himself killed. One warning from the guard and that's it. If you always try to save them from their stupidity, you’ll have a party precisely like this one that expects the DM to protect them from death no matter how stupidly they act.
@@BrightWulph As a DM I always remind my group that running away is an option in session 1. For real if your players lack basic fear for their characters safety, just stop trying and do whatever
They reminded me of a certain Party of Noobs who got their Group wiped in a certain Episode 1 in a Goblin Cave ... ... ... ... but this Time, there was no Silver-Ranked Badass coming to help their Sorry Asses. x'D
Been DMing since about 81. A couple of things you could do in this situation ( or similar) 1. Have the captain of the guard order the character to stay. In a wartime situation his orders are "lawful". 2. Point out that leaving the townspeople undefended would not be considered "good". Then, you just sit back and let him decide whether he wants to lose his powers or not. Remember, alignment change is a powerful tool.
Little late to the party but I agree. If he continued to go fight the whole army by himself, is turn to the rest of the party and tell them “You know, you guys don't have to follow him right?” The paladin and everyone would match off into the sunset while everyone else who remained would roleplay out preparing the defenses and strategizing the rest of the day. By the next morning, the Orc army marches up to the town and lobs the heads of the paladin and the rest of the PCs who left over the walls using catapults. A fitting end for such naves.
Bold of you to assume that "lawful good" paladin even knows the definition of "lawful good". He would more likely still try to go on and if captain tries to stop him - he would proceed to slaughter the entire town. You know - because nobody should stand between him and TRUE JUSTICE (whatever-the-fuck it means in his head)
As someone who has played a lawful good pally, that’s the dream scenario for me. Using charisma rolls to inspire the weak to stand together against a force of evil with you leading the charge would be awesome.
@@SupaDanteX I would call it a Chaotic Neutral, personally. He was killing evil things(good) for his own selfish reasons(evil) and going about it with no rhyme, reason, or strategy.
That's how a lot of people play it. They think they can adopt a moral relativist approach to a character who's worldview is fundamentally opposed to that.
This story is too well explained for me to think it’s someone making themselves look better then they actually are. Usually you can tell something is off with OPs in stories like this so I would absolutely love to see Tormund’s POV of this situation and try to defend themselves.
Next up, Tormund tells the story of the awful DM who punished his refusal to get railroaded by throwing unfair encounters and insults at him and then proceeding to keep his PC alive past a TPK to, presumably, get tortured
@@paxtheskeleton6636 Maurice was an an in the closet homosexual at the time and making things difficult on the DM because he was not satisfied with his personal life. This info was provided by an update from the OP. Though they were much more graceful than I was in relaying it.
@@patjacksonpodium Aye! The DM himself in all his glory! Praise be the Funny One! (I would want to play with this DM too, but I am just a noob at dnd still.)
@@patjacksonpodium I'd love to play with this DM, as well. Maybe it'd finally get me over this curse I have with always ending up in bad D&D groups and sessions.
This might be one of those few times to split the party. "There's 50 of them." _Aight Ima head back to town, that's enough warning for me, yall have fun._
@@evilbob840 There is also a DnD-Story about someone who made a Half-Orc Rogue named Grog, but instead of making him stealthy, they made him super intimidating and instead of sneaking past people, he'd walk straight up to them and shout at them "YOU NOT SEE GROG!", which they would confirm, while completely shitting their pants, due to his talent for intimidation.
There are two moments in the GM's explanation that make it seem like...no one in the party was comunicating with them. The most glaring one is that the GM was ousted for the previous GM/Ranger. The other was, "Oh, Wizard isn't coming today; you have to run her character," on the day of the session. Like, I realize the GM explained that GM/Ranger wanted to rest between GMing hence how they ended up being GM but...it was like no one else bothered to shift who they should contact for scheduling.
At that point, one would have to ask if these people even like you? They don't communicate with you, they don't listen to you, they oust you without a second thought
First: there is nothing wrong with starting as strangers in a tavern!!! One of the single greatest campaigns I have ever played (and am still playing two years in!) began with us as strangers in a tavern...where the deposed daughter of an absentee king murdered 40 people in a ritual to fuse herself with a Yugoloth (daemon). It was an epic first session. Second: My first and only paladin was made for 5e oneshots and I've played her several times. She's a lawful good Drow Paladin of Rao, with the Oath of the Redeemer. She isn't here to punish evildoers. She's here to save them. I have turned goblins from the path of evil. The kind of paladin that Tormond played was just...offensive!
Completely agree! I don’t get this anti-tavern start stuff. It’s a fun way to introduce characters to eachother and let them RP for a bit. Just cause it’s a classic kind of start location doesn’t mean it’s bad
Honestly, when it comes to a medieval fantasy setting with any realism, the single most likely place for adventurers to meet is going to be A) on the road; B) at a tavern; or C) at an inn. I mean, where would we network with new people, or prepare to go on a trip, in the modern day? At a bar or cafe or restaurant or conference room or hotel lobby, most likely.
I love playing a paladin who wants to redeem people instead of sending then to their god’s judgment, tho lately my poor scorned paladin is getting a lesson that some are too far gone to be saved
@@ruusaanyc2117 totally agree is hard to play with characters that thing everyone is good inside and deserve a chance i play with a characters that thinks that everyone in his team or around him(who is good) are like a family to him and love him like he love they(what is really not it) sorry for my english i m still learning
That was my thoughts on the 'you meet in a tavern' a) You're traveling, so where else would you go. b) that's where everyone in town goes to share news and gossip! it IS the IDEAL place for adventurers to go. I haven't played a Paladin because everyone I know thinks Lawful Good Paladin means Lawful Stupid, and they would strip me of my divine powers for doing the slightest thing. Like addressing the thief, "I don't condone your theft and subterfuge; but I can accept that it is sometimes needed for the greater good." -- BAM! NO MORE POWAH! "You didn't kill the rogue for breaking the law!" wtf
“Do any of you have an intelligence or wisdom score above 10?” Yes “Then your character would know that this is a suicide mission, and that walking face first into the warband will be your deaths. You need a tactical advantage in order to fight these orcs, an advantage that you do not currently possess. If you continue forward, there can be a combat section, however some of you will die, and you have no chance at all of succeeding this way.”
The funny thing is that all situations can be salvaged so long as players are willing. In a near identically scenario to this, as a cleric of life, I bargained a duel with an orc army’s chieftain to buy the survivors time to escape from the blockaded church. It cost an eye and having to be his pet slave until I could figure out how to kill his ass but that doe eyed cleric became a badass. Gouged out his one good eye and grafted it on and the clan now served a blond haired human life domain cleric in all her glory. Played their half-orc son later down the track since being a warchief became a bit much.
Well, even a paladin with max level 3 game health of 28, could not beat 50 3-8 dmg enemies, even with all nat twenties. Even at 18 constitution, hits would slip in on 19 and 20 rolls, and the dm gets 50 chances every turn XD. Statistically and logically impossible.
@@xenoswarrior6900 That's why the DM is an idiot. A smarter DM would have let the Paladin do his thing. Fuck the barrelbomb. Let him square up to 50 orcs. Then let each of them take a roll at him. He will be dead very quickly.
@@kalok155 True. It sucks because I've had plenty of these moments where I feel like I'm limiting player choice because the storyline I'm driving would be cooler (at least, in my opinion as the DM, they usually dont see it that way though)
it's funny, I had the exact opposite thing happen to one of my groups I DM'd for. I warned them at the start of the campaign "I will not hold your hands, nor will I tone things down if you make stupid decisions. your actions have consequences, keep that in mind". I thought that would just discourage reckless behaviour like what was described here Instead, I turned my entire party into super paranoid adventurers, rarely ever acting on rumours they heard, because you never know when that report of "some kobolds taking up residency in a cave nearby" would turn into "ancient dragon sending out his minions to scout the area". It got to the point in one of the sessions where I had to say "guys... come on... sometimes /a couple of displacer beasts are ruining crops in the farms outside of town/ is REALLY just /a couple displacer beasts ruining the croups outside of town/"
After watching this video I have a feeling I can only describe as "Dissatisfied", the situation itself was stupid to a funny extent and makes it's own point, and even if the Paladin had tried to drop the DM I would've been able to accept that, but the fact that this EXPERIENCED PLAYER actually just let their genuinely hard working DM get thrown out the window like that just ABSOLUTELY LEAVES ME WANTING TO THROW SOMEONE (Disclaimer: I will not actually throw someone). C'mon, if you're legitimately experienced or at least reasonable enough to see the flaw in the players then DON'T LET THEM DO THAT TO A DM. And seriously who's idea was it to not inform the DM that they had been dropped? Noone in that situation (Aside from OP) has any right to call themselves an actual player imo as D&D is a cooperative multiplayer RPG game and requires the BASIC COMMON SENSE to COMMUNICATE. I'm sorry, I'm a Dungeon Master who was blessed with not having to deal with the peak of stupidity in my campaigns and to see things like this sets me off.
Remember here we only hear the side of the story of the DM. From reading between the lines I am fairly certain the players have a way more believable story about how this whole thing unfolded. Remember this is the dm who by his own words went "He told me 'We got this' ..So disrespectful! I SHALL SMITE HIM DOWN WITH THE POWER OF THE DM!". Does that sounds like a fair/good DM to you?
@@benjamindeh873 I see where you're coming from, however unless OP is flat out lying then it doesn't change the fact that the players followed the Paladin into an encounter that they obviously couldn't win. However, this isn't even my issue, players be players and this is far from the most stupid I've heard. The reason I'm Dissatisfied is that (regardless of how good or bad the DM was) they kicked OP from DM without OP having a say in it, showing a complete lack of any attempt to communicate which is (in my opinion) probably the most important aspect of any group game that takes any organization. Also, it's more important to note that the Dungeon Master was relatively new so if they where going to kick him off for being a "bad DM" without actually giving him a chance to improve, then they shouldn't have let him DM in the first place. Them kicking him for that reason show that the players suffer from something similar to the Matt Mercer Effect where they have unrealistic expectations of the new DM, which in itself is a problem with the players. And for the last part, see my last point about new DMs, but also this: To answer your question it does not sound like a fair/good DM but it also doesn't sound like a serious comment at all, I feel like this is backed up by the fact that he doesn't speak like that for the rest of the post aside from the fairly consistent comments about "disrespect" which does show a bit of problem on OP's side but honestly is understandable to be upset about, just preferably not with an egotistical perspective. To sum it up, even if the players are less at fault than OP makes them sound they still kicked him out without communicating, which is what upsets me and will continue to. (Also I apologize if my text tone sounds aggressive, I don't intend to be.)
@@Dratina Well what I say is that in the BEST case scenario where we believe 100000% of what he said, he still sounds like a bad DM. So even if there is a 5 or 10% of inaccuracies in the way he recalls thing, that only makes it worse. He doesnt needs to be outright lying, simply skipping small details or embellishing some things can change how things sound a lot. And if every player is communicating except the DM.....Is it really likely that EVERY other player has communication issues? Or is it more likely only the OP who had bad communication with the players? What I saw in this video from the OP was: - A lot of arrogance despite his lack of experience. (And EVEN if he had 20 years of experience dming... arrogance is never a sign of a good DM) - Constant insulting, making fun and demoting of certain players and their playstyles. - Blaming everyone but himself. I kept hearing HE HE THEY THEM rather than introspectively think what HE could have done better. - Constantly trying to force players to play things the exact way he planned them, and getting angry/frustrated when they do not, and even telling them as DM not to do what they want to do. A good DM knows that if you plan for players to do 1 out of 20 options, they will likely do option #772. Oh by the way, that was further confirmed to me when I went to my youtube homepage and youtube recommended me 2-3 more videos of this OP and they all had very arrogant titles...like "HOW X PLAYER/CHARACTER ALMOST RUINED THE GAME AND I/CRAB SAVED IT". Glad youtube has the "never show me this channel again" option. This is only the second time I have ever used it.
@@benjamindeh873 Okay I should probably clarify because I feel like you misunderstood which is my bad, I wasn't stating that he's a good DM or even that he's being truthful, or even that I'm on his side for that matter, though those are implied, the implications are not intended. I *did* see that arrogant/egotistical tone, I noticed the blaming and the railroading as well: trust me when I say I'm not *that* ignorant, even a noobie DM such as myself can see that stuff. However, to be frank that's not what I care about, not to say I don't care for the argument that you make, you are correct to be skeptical about the OP's implied "right and wrongs" of the situation and to be frank after taking time to analyze the post I can somewhat agree with you to that extent, however no amount of the DM sinning will get my eyes away from the fact that the players just kicked OP from DM without telling them about it until the start of the next session (which is what I expressed I was initially dissatisfied with, and still am). No I'm not oblivious to the possibility that some circumstance may have prevented that communication, but there is nothing to prove or really imply that as far as I am aware and therefore I have no reason to assume that, making that assumption with no basis basically would take away the point of me listening to this post initially anyways.
If we must go into who is good and bad, the players took a 3 v 50 encounter at level 3 without a mage intentionally, so they aren't exactly the most rational of peeps. As OP stated "nobody in particular will come out looking good", which is why as I implied with the above post I don't really want to take a side.
Jim is the spirit of a man that died long ago during a D&D campaign that never reached its conclusion. He's continued to exist in the material plane, joining many games, just along for the ride. In death, he's learned that the true joy of the game is just being at the table and watching the stories unfold, no matter what kind of mistakes are made. He knows they're going to die, he knows the DM and Maurice are butting heads, and he knows that no one is really having a good time. But he is. Because he's there for the love of the game, and he knows that these mortal's lives won't last longer than a century. Might as well enjoy it while they're still here.
I remember I was in a game where each of our characters were being chased out of hell by some giant terrifying monster. And one of them was like "I run toward the sounds!" Dm: "Really?" Player: "Yes!" Dm:"Alright roll a new character" That character lasted a whole 15 minutes
There's being brave And then there's just having no self-preservation whatsoever The difference being a brave person KNOWS when he needs to be brave. A suicidal moron is always a suicidal moron. No matter the context.
One of the most epic moments I can remember, from the longest campaign I've played in, was when a low level (2-4, i forget) warforged paladin on their warhorse charged a juvenile purple worm, yelling at the rest of the party to run while we still could. A juvenile just meant it did slightly less damage and it's psionic abilities hadn't developed yet. They died almost instantly, I think the purple worm still had a fourth attack. We also had a halfling bard in the party with the dragonmark of the house of healing. We had another horse but it did not want to be anywhere near the purple worm. So after a handle animal check to control the horse and another check to pick up the halfling we were riding alongside the paladin's warhorse away from the worm. The halfling then had to roll a check to jump onto the other horse and this is where the GM fudged things, allowed a high enough check to use the dragonmark to revive the paladin from below -con hitpoints. That same paladin then went on to become a saint in a massive battle with a witch/hag with only their sword left behind (the player had checked out of the game months earlier). The party took on the quest to return the sword as an artifact of the church. That was the best paladin I've seen and the best character that player has ever played despite the fact they hated it. That player typically played vampires or undead or half-dragon-half-wartroll monstrousities that could regenerate from everything except fire damage.
One Player acts like that and just walks off then I am like okay "I'm staying here and the helping these people as the paladin should." "He can go die and we will defend the town." "As he does NOT speak for all of us"
I didn't do this but something similar my friend was paralysed so I ran past 4 guys to keep him safe all of the opportune attacks missed and I'm still mythed as to how
Alternative-alternative title: Shitty DM gets mad about not being able to control player-characters, gets "offended" that people are having fun, and doesn't stick to his guns. they should have just fought 50 orcs because thats what they set out to do. As a DM, I would've had no problem controlling this group and the fact that this DM CLEARLY has not learned his lesson in just letting players do what they want, consequences an all, is frankly sad
Maurice literally just turned down a failing-forward campaign. My primary campaign's party had bloated to such an extent that a TPK is nigh impossible and, as a consequence, failing-forward is similarly difficult. I would be honored to receive such a way out from my DM even though I'm in her second campaign ever since I would imagine she would know about failing-forward styles. The fact that a first-time DM was able to take this style into consideration even after the party had effectively committed suicide is the most tolerant I had ever seen a DM.
@@Lobsterwithinternet I guess. But one of them was new and the other never lost a character. First time Dms never want to be the one to be your first death.
@@magellan6439 True enough. Nobody likes being the bad guy. But otherwise, you're demonstrating that there are no repercussions for their actions and that you will ensure that they will succeed no matter what they do. This makes it a very boring game for the majority of players and they'll just leave.
@@patrickdees5256 As the OP, I can 100% confirm that her stealth was gaaaaarbage. Not that she used it anyway. She wouldn't sneak up on you, she'd just whack you in the head as you're looking at her.
As someone on the lawyer path, we pretty much have to be lawful neutral or we're not doing the job properly. Though some are more lawful evil or lawful good ig.
When a DM says "are you sure?" IMMEDIATELY regret all your decisions if you continue your plan EDIT: 1.5K+ UPVOTES!? thanks everyone, this blew up harder than I thought!!!
The one of the only two good dm's I've gotten to play with would use that when someone was making either an awful stupid decision where he would likely have to come up with consequences due to their being no way it ends well, or when making the decision to take a dead end branch of an event he planned. He would still let you roll, and sometimes you could defy the odds and he would reward that, but you had a better chance of failing misserably and ending up with a significant penalty. That included pvp conflict. Had a player who was a dick to me and crossed some lines with other characters too. He walked right into a trap i had prepared and the DM gave his support as long as i didn't take it to far myself. Dude ended up spending half the campaign with a chastity belt bolted on.
I was running a very loose game over Discord a while back, and the greatest mistake I made was not killing a PC who, when bored, decided to ask the other DM to have him encounter ‘the strongest monster in the area’ I wrapped up the encounter, which was done over two separate days but only a few hours, again, loose rules game, and I realized afterwards he should’ve either died or been horribly crippled. This dumbass didn’t seem to get it. At all. When I pointed out that he had just fought the region boss and I really should’ve just killed him for doing it ALONE, he said ‘I just wanted to fight the strongest monster, not a boss.’ so on and so forth
Sounds more like the DM didn't realize that he's the DM, he has all of the control. If a player is going to go outside of the box, show the horrors that lie outside the box. Rocks Fall. You Die.
That player really had main character syndrome. I kinda liked Jim though, I'm sad that he didn't stick up for the DM more, though we don't know the the parties friend ship dynamics. DM may have been the outlier friend so it was easier for Jim to side with his girlfriend and Stupid.
If I was Jim I would've looked at Maurice and said, "Dude, we were all warned that this was way to high level. Multiple. Times. This isn't the DM's fault because the players made a mistake."
I do not believe the story of this dm, particularly when an experienced DM who has dmed with this group long enough to get burn out decided to side with the players and demote this DM.
@@benjamindeh873 Hey pal, never learned humans can be assholes who laugh at the suffering of others? Sure it could be exaggerated because the story was from a while ago, buuut some people want to see the world burn. So I'm giving it a plausibility pass. Worse shit has happened, someone maybe lieing about a dnd game gone wrong isn't the worst thing to happen to this world.
I think another problem here is that the player playing as Tormond, had different expectations of this. He thought this was like....a heroic story that the players are "supposed" to win at, no matter how stupidly they play it. he probably worked hard on his character concept, thinking it would be funny and entertaining and was legit shocked when the dm let him face the consequences of his stupidity. like years ago, my brother wanted me to dm an "evil" campaign for him and i agreed and he starts off by marching into a tavern, reaching behind the counter, grabbing a bottle of beer and smashing it over the bartenders head and when i reveal then, that the bartender is a level 5 fighter and isn't going to stand for that, he gets all mad calling me a cheater, saying its not fair that my npcs have class levels. and that i'm not letting him play out his evil fantasy blah blah blah. anyway, after summarily tossing him out of the bar, i agree to set up a solo adventure for him to sneak in and raid the castle treasury. i set up guards and a sneaking section and a bunch of stuff for him to go through to reach the treasury...but i put a little "surprise" in there. when he got in there, he saw all this treasure, but there was also a pedestal..with a light shining on it...with a gleaming weapon...that was exactly what my bro was proficient in. so , of course, my bro immediately grabs it, and equips it...takes as much treasure and gold as he can carry...and a guard catches him on the way out. my bro fights the guard with his gleaming new weapon ..and seems to be fighting poorly...like ..missing attacks that seem like they should have hit and he's all like wtf, what is this guy's AC?! and he barely wins ...only to find out later when he tries to use a ranged attack to shoot a guard that he can't pull out his bow because the melee weapon he found in the treasury is cursed, giving him a -1 to hit and he can't get rid of it and it always flies into his hand in every combat situation, not allowing him to use any other weapon...until he removes the curse...then my bro explodes, saying i cheated and doesn't want to play anymore. . . and i had set up a thing , i was gonna gove him a quest to go on, to remove the curse and everything. i was just trying to teach him consequences and make it challenging and i wanted to let him be evil, i just wanted him to be more subtle about it and play his character more carefully, you know, like a real person that fears death would act. like an evil person wants to do evil, but also still wants to avoid capture and not get killed, but my bro just wanted to go on an all out chaos and destruction spree..at level 1. . . moral, i made a mistake because my expectations were different from his. I think he thought i was "supposed" to just let him do what he wanted, like my game world was just a huge "sandbox" for him.
A player not understanding how the game works is not the DM's fault. You didn't make a mistake, he did. People need to not play DnD expecting it to be like Skyrim.
And this is why I 100% subscribe to the "FULL DISCLAIMERS BEFORE GAME 0 EVEN STARTS" methodology. If the DM aint properly outlined (or I haven't if I'm DMing) the "style" (hard/FULL CONSEQUENCES, easy/chill/Heroic Mode & Plot Armour Enabled, Medium/Average) I just bring it up by asking first thing. If its a new DM, first thing I want to know: _"What's your style of Godhood? Do you work to ensure that we somehow survive at all costs, cooperatively, or are we in for a "neutral but fair" God who'll be giving us resources and maybe hints but who'll otherwise let us face the full repercussions of our choices, good or bad?"_ This is also the first info a new PC will learn about me/my style, I do NOT hand hold. You do the stupid, within reason you will FEEL that stupid 3x returned. I am not a kindly DM, I am a fair one, and if you play my game you don't complain when your stupidity gets you killed, because that means you've (usually) ignored all warnings and alternatives or just have done something stupid... You reroll and try again.
@@bakaichigo I am curious. Do you have some leniency to first timers during camp 0? Like, if they make a mistake do you give them a chance to recover? But once they get a full understanding do you ramp up the difficulty?
@@Firan25 Yeah - I always run it a bit easy on newbies, esp. if they are complete TTRPG newbies. I'm a "if the table's not having fun, I'm not doing my job well" type. Used to teach a few of the younger kids at school how to play. :D I prefer DMs who give some leniency to lowbies and inexperienced types, as I feel it leads to more cooperative gamers out of them later.
Not your fault. The only alternative is to just tell such a player" "You win. You are now everything you dreamed of being, and own the whole world. Good luck." There is no point otherwise.
You can do lawful stupid well. Self aware lawful stupid can be good as hell. One of my friends runs a character named yeth who is a silver dragonborn palading of bahamat who is lawful good. What makes it self aware is that the voice of his that is pushing him to inact Justice is not actually bahamat. It's schizophrenia. So we just have a delusional dragonborn who thinks he's the Messiah and it is one of the best characters I have ever played with.
That's clever :) and honestly, if everyone else is role-playing well, there would be good balance within the party :) also it sounds pretty hilarious :)
See, that would actually be good and fun to play. However, sadly, this Paladin was not. I've also had ideas myself of playing up the Edgelord as something comedic, with all the stereotypical tropes, like sitting in the dark corner, brooding about his dark past.
@@ChateauLonLon no they are actually a paladin of bahamat. They are just a bit confused. Sometimes when they do something that's bahamats will it's actually bahamat. Sometimrs it's the voice in his head. The party just had to guess which is which.
Rogue with high Strength and Charisma, based around just intimidation... sounds absolutely hilarious. Not great at sneaking, just telling guards they saw nothing. "YOU SAW NOTHING!" "I-I saw nothing!" "DAMN RIGHT!"
You know, I'd expect nothing less of the lawful braindead to oust the DM. The two newbies agreeing to it? Sure, I guess they didn't know better. But the supposedly experienced DM Jim, who knew exactly what the problem was, to just agree and go with this? That's honestly the shittiest thing out of this whole shitshow. The only way I can see this happening is if the hollow-skulled paladunce held the game hostage behind the scenes.
Take into account the social context. He probably didn't wanted to go, but he knew people would react bad at him in person if he refused to go. He probably didn't wanted to cause conflict. I don't know. Maybe, just maybe, the DM thinks that this was the whole reason they mutinied against him, but this might have been just the drop of water that overflowed the cup.
My personal theory is that OP just ran a better game than Jim, so out of jealousy jim used Paladont as his personal Hitman in the game. We don't know who started the "Mutiny on The Tabletop" first, but my vote goes to Jim being Ringleader.
Jim is described as being the super laid back and chill guy. Which he's probably so laid back and chill that he's also a wet blanket when it comes to dealing with conflict. Maurice seems like the kind of forceful personality that would browbeat others around him in to agreeing with him.
There's got to be more to the story than what we are told. Remember, we are hearing from the bias perspective of the DM himself, not the PCs. For all we know, they went along for a valid reason.
@@Vossenator Yeah, something doesn't feel right about this story and how it ended. I get that the party shouldn't have done that fight but it was the paladin who would make the situations worse. Why punish the whole group for his stupid actions? And you're telling me Jim didn't say anything about replacing the DM? Something isn't being told to us.
It's insane to you that the players had fun in a game going along with some guys ridiculous plan? Are you aware that this is a game? The characters died, so what? Jim presumably DMd just fine with the Maurice guy so why couldn't the new DM? It was clear that the party was just goofing around playing a GAME while the DM was taking it more seriously than it needed to be. This comment section is actually insane to me, the DM looked like an idiot in his own story. Meaning that he probably was much worse in the actual story. All the DM just wanted the PCs to do what HE wanted. If his players wanted to meathead the campaign and just murder shit, why should he be like "no because that's not fun to me." Its 3 against 1, and if that's not the campaign you want to run, then that's FINE. Just say that's not the campaign you want to run and be done with it.
In one of my group, we had a human paladin with intelligence as the dumpstat... ...He was actually really good and funny, he basically channeled The Tick. Basically, a dumb paladin can be amazing and unforgettable if done correctly.
That’s the thing, Tormund could’ve been an amazing character without doing all that much different. Don Quixote is hilarious, and it’s literally entirely about a very Tormund-esque character. The issue is that Maurice wasn’t self-aware of the fact that he was being blatantly suicidal. If he knew, and was doing all this because he felt like charging into a horde of orcs and not retreating even to give himself a better chance of winning would be funny, then this video would have a very different tone.
If I was in that party, when the paladin declared he'll march into 50 orcs at level 3, I would have said: "Good luck." and stayed in town. And I mean ANY character I would have made.
Yeah, I don't know where this group got the idea to "not split the party". If one Player is hellbent on doing something suicidal, it would be bad roleplaying to not imagine your characters instinct of self-preservation. And whan an Orc horde is barreling down on the town you're in, it's all about safety in numbers (i.e staying with the town guards) So I would've let this psycho paladin go off to die on his own.
Yeah. My paladin is brash two, but even he wouldn’t be such a dumbass to try and fight the giant orc army. He would have stated in that town, barricaded ir, and fought like hell.
Honestly op is a nicer DM then me. I wouldn't have even talked out of character. I would have just made sure the paladin died and allowed the party to make a desperate escape. Edit: never mind op did exactly what I'd do. Lol
Honestly sounds like a lot of fun up until the end. If player's wanna be stupid, let them be stupid. I'm surprised that the Paladin's player wasn't in on the joke and that he was actually shocked by the outcome.
I'm surprised that the party thought (or at least implied) that he was a bad DM. HE TOLD YOU SEVERAL TIMES THAT YOU WOULD GET REKT AND HE DIDN'T EVEN KILL YOUR PC'S!!!
I think this was probably the burnout that Jim had, was dealing with this player's BS and Jim probably realized that the DM and the player of the lawful stupid Paladin was just going to end in more headbutting... But Jim should definitely have spoken to the DM before making such a decision.
@Jasonmanguy Or maybe the OP isn't actually being honest about what happened. It doesn't seem like it could have been any more dramatic or written to make the DM look good than it already was. Maurice is stupid because the story teller says so. If the story isn't just completely fabricated.
"I keep running forward." "There's a cliff here." "I KEEP RUNNING" "Are you sure?" "YES." "You barrel off the cliff." "WoW, mAyBe GiVe Us SoMe WaRnInG aNd DoN't JuSt TPK
The moment they all showed up to the new campaign with the same characters, including the problem player, was perhaps the biggest red flag. That might’ve been the best moment to back out
@@liamdalemon1525 Paladin: Becomes catalyst for entirely unecessary encounter that the dm did his best avoid, even telegraphing the ambush he made to keep you away from the 50 orcs in the most ovious way possible. Also Paladin: uNfAiR
Especially when you KNOW it's a trap. If he was just too dense to realize it, then ok. Kind of excusable. But he flat out got told it was a trap by the other PC, and he decided "Let's go! You're under arre-" ***EXPLODES***
Sometimes splitting the party is a good thing. Such as when one of it's members seems hellbent on killing himself. I'm puzzled by the party for just blindly following the paladin.
It sounds like the entire party were idiots, honestly. They never made an attempt to correct for the Paladin, they literally tried to fight blind until they were all dead, and then they all unanimously decided the DM was the problem - despite them making multiple attempts to be fair, and give them a second chance.
@@LordofFullmetal i agree. But player skill level should be taken into account when designing a world. Including their propensity to make stupid decisions. As an experienced player I would have loved this. I’m all about pushing the party to the ragged edge, that’s just me tho.
I have to say, half-orc brute of a Rogue is a cool idea that I feel I don't hear enough about. I think Spoony has an old video talking about a similar character. If I recall, the introduction for the character went something like "How is this supposed to be our thief when he's a huge brute?". The rogue clubs the naysayer over the head, knocking him out and taking his stuff, saying to the others "When he wakes up, tell him I've got his stuff in my room."
A shame it ended this way. I'm fairly new to D&D myself, but from my perspective it sounded like the DM had an interesting story arc going on. I'm also impressed that he somehow managed to salvage that absolute dumpster fire of an encounter by potentially having the wizard break them out. Unfortunate that never happened thanks to those crybabies deciding that they just didn't want to play it anymore.
@@Lobsterwithinternet dude, you sound like a guy who believes DND is meant to be Players Vs DM and everything has to kill the party, and you want to punish everyone for one person’s mistakes/stupidity. This DM didn’t make the characters Mary Sues, he made tough but potentially winnable encounters that a single player fucked up for everyone. You can tell by his wording “salvage” that he is okay with PC death, but not TPK from a single player’s stupidity. If it was one player being punished for his stupidity, great! The whole party dying for one player’s stupidity? That’s a fast way to make everyone pissed off.
@@AshtonMonitor 🤨 The low-level paladin charged straight into an army of Orcs. And the rest of the party followed him even when the DM warned them that it was stupid and they shouldn't do it. That's not just a simple mistake on his part that the DM can bend to save them from a TPK. That's someone walking into a Sphere of Annihilation and the rest of the party watching them do it and following them into it. The DM can't salvage player stupidity and shouldn't. Every time he ‘salvaged’ the situation, that only emboldened them and gave them the false hope that the DM would just let them win like their previous DM obviously did if OP was accurate in his description of him. What should have happened was that the DM should have let him run off, turning to focus on the rest of the party while the captain encouraged the other players to stay and man the defenses. They help prepare defenses in whatever ways the DM determined they can. They roleplay with NPCs. They go to sleep and in the morning when the Orc army arrives, the party sees them put up a stake with the Paladin’s head on top. Then the DM would turn to the Paladin and ask him to make a new character. TL;DR You can't and shouldn't save stupid.
*The Dunning Kruger Effect* Someone with such LOW cognitive abilities that they actually believe that they have HIGHER cognitive abilities than everyone else.
It is not about cognitive ability. Its about how well informed someone is on a topic verse how well informed they think they are. Someone can be perfectly intelligent and fall prey to it.
![F.HERO Ft. JSPKK x ลำไย ไหทองคำ x M-PEE - ไม่สนิทบิดหมด (Thai Riders Anthem) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kPJZ0UihBfk/mqdefault.jpg)
The concept of god even coming down to the paladin to tell them, “Yo. This is a REALLY *REALLY* bad idea.” And the paladin responding, “Don’t worry, we’ll be fine.” Is honestly such a hilarious concept to me.
At that point I would have had their Patron god warning the paladin that if they leave town they will do so without their favor, I.E If you want to act stupid and run to your death, do so without your Paladin powers and smearing mud on their gods name.
I think it would be interesting/fun to have the PC's Gods/Deities appear in their corporeal forms during battles and shout commands/attacks at their specific devotees. Like Pokémon battles but with the fanatically devout.
@@Dr.Sho_Minamimoto
I think that play may have worked. A "you are leading people to certain death out of your own pride. Go without my favor. Each unnecessary death I shall count against your head."
@@TheDukeOfDallas judging by the way the paladin acted, it would be like using a traded Pokémon without enough badges, IE won’t listen to your commands unless it wants to.
@@Dr.Sho_Minamimoto Depending on the Diety that could be really bad lol.
"You don't have enough badges to train me!"
Zeus - *smiles* *LIGHTNING BOLT SMITE*
"I cannot allow any of them to live!"
Little did his comrades know, Tormund was talking about them.
okay this is funny
Who could have guessed?
That the LG Paladin was actually a deep-cover Orc plant designed to get the whole party killed off.
-okay this is funny- @@uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhidk and so horribly accurate, in a Way ... ...
I read that in Ron Howard's voice
I LAUGHED SO FREAKING HARD AT THIS
Me as a paladin player hearing stories like this. "You were supposed to bring justice to the world. Not plunge it into darkness."
I know right? Lawful good does not mean that you have to play as a bootlicker. It just means that you have a strong moral code and want to help people. My old LG Paladin was fine with our Rogue picking locks, and telling lies, so long as it was in the interest of helping people.
He wasn't exactly trustful of criminals, but didn't treat them like subhuman garbage. In fact, for a large portion of the campaign, our group was wanted for regicide, after we killed the tyrannical king, and his son took over. I played a Lawful Good Paladin who killed a King, and was a wanted criminal.
For added context, we sneaked our way into the Throne Room, where we (I) challenged the King to a fight. We had to bribe guards, and pick locks, to get there. All very illegal acts, but my character was able to overlook them because he was more of an 'ends justify the means so long as no one gets hurt' type of character.
@@Demolition89336 As a player who has recently made a Paladin, (and is my favourite character I've ever made), I wholeheartedly agree with this. Lawful Good doesn't mean being an asshole.
@@Demolition89336 Lawful good can encompass people like literal Anarchists like myself, as Long as you got high minded principles and you'll Damn stick to em, your lawful good
You were suppose to destroy the sith, not join them.
@@AbstractTraitorHero that'd be more lawful neutral rather than lawful good.
Maurice: *shoots Tormund*
Maurice: why would the DM do this?
Wack.
Nice eric andre reference
+mauriced
@@cewla3348 tormund got ultrakilled
And the DM was trying to pry the gun out of his hand before he did
This reminds me of the saying "It's hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it's impossible to win an argument with a stupid person. "
So true
"Do not try to win a fight against an idiot: they will beat you with experience and drag you down to their level" also comes to mind (albeit paraphrased)
@@Nomadith other way around. First comes the dragging, then comes the beating
Don't play chess with a pigeon, as my wife likes to remind me.
In this case to me it sounds like the DM was the stupid person. I think he tried to force players to play his way/idea and it backfired on him. Otherwise why would the entire table turn back on him? Including the previous more experienced DM?
*Crosses the street without looking both ways*
Lawful stupid: _So, you've chosen death_
It's like some shit out of a comedy skit.
Overdo library books beware.
@Darksealer
Lawful Stupid of the year?
Civilian: but I just dropped that trash on accident I meant to pick it up
lawful stupid: SO YOU ADMIT TO YOUR CRIME
Not that I cannot imagine a Lawful Neutral character being played like that to wonderful effect, provided the player is self-aware enough.
Yes the paladin was playing their character in a moronic way, however I hold the other party members to just as much responsibility for ruining that campaign and ostracizing the DM out of his group.
yeah even Jim. he was very clearly having fun being the DM that gets to play and was trying to stay in the back seat to let the others shine. But he could have, and should have, talked to Maurice about the way he behaving and stuck up for OP b/c it seems he could tell how hard OP was trying to be a sensible but fair dm.
While I agree with you it also sounds like the DM was railroading a bit
@@wildhunter939 yeah but the lawful played to dumb and was to stubborn and party did not help besides the one that did not make it but they still vote him off for no reason and and told them this is dumb and also sounds like they were babys because they were not ok with dieing for being dumb sorry for the long rant
@@wildhunter939 How so? They were given a mission they could handle, guard this part of the walls. They ignored it, and were given warning after warning, that what they were attempting was extremely stupid. But he still let them do it. He even altered the mission to give them a chance to win. That's not railroading, he let the players have their agency , and pursue their own strategy as stupid as it was. If he was railroading, He would have said no you can't leave and the captain would have come over with a bunch of guards and said " you have got to guard this part of the wall.
agreed, the DM in this situation did all he could, yes he could've changed some things or forced them..but he didn't. That whole party was a bunch of fucking clowns.
OP sounds like the kind of DM I would love to play with, tough and fair, but still willing to bend the rules to help the players, and the amount of work he did, and effort he put in to try to keep everyone alive and to keep the game enjoyable is admirable.
Not really.
It just comes across as weakness.
Should have let them die then let them play as the NPC guards as the orcs slaughtered them. And only then allowed them to make new characters.
@SventheCrusader No, but you are the de facto authority in the game. A game where the DM allows their players to walk all over them isn't much more than kids playing pretend. That's why you as the DM have to be the one who tells sociopaths like the Paladin that no you can't go around randomly killing everyone you don't like, especially when you're a paladin of Bahamut. And inform him if he does it again, he might lose his powers because Bahamut disapproves of his actions.
But it also doesn't make you a storyteller or some authoritarian dictator. You are the referee who facilitates the actions and decisions of the other players (the DM is a player too, remember) into the world they create in a collaborative effort to make a story together. And if a player decides to do something to either derail the game or otherwise ruin the fun of the group, it's the responsibility of the other players, most of all the DM, to talk to them and ask them to cut it out
And no, I didn't suggest that to punish them. I suggested that to get them back into the action ASAP and give them a fun combat encounter with no real stakes since their new characters showing up right in the nick of time doesn't make much sense and it gives the other players time to think up and work on their new characters for next week.
My overall point is that rules exist for a reason and it's the responsibility of the DM to selectively bend or break rules in service to the fun of the other players or to facilitate the adventure. But some rules need to be held to in order to keep the game from becoming a farce or to protect the fun of everyone from the actions of others.
420th 👍
@@Lobsterwithinternet I agree with everything the DM did, and if they won that encounter I'd let them get back to the town in time to defend it, if from a slightly more disadvantaged position than they would have been had they gone with the original plan (they weren't there to help with preparations, after all). If they got captured like that, I'd have the town be destroyed by the time they got back tho.
@@something-from-elsewhere Problem is that they more than likely wouldn't have gone back to town and would have marched right up to the orc hoard and either challenged the warlord to a duel or just straight up fought the entire army right there.
Everything you described would have vindicated our erstwhile murderhobo and basically left the OP exactly where he was before the whole situation in the first place.
"I can't retreat because of honor or something."
"Dude we aren't asking you to leave the fight we just want you to move like 30 feet back so you aren't blind."
For guys like that, even the idea of moving back like that (in the name of common sense) equals retreating. In their mind, the only one who should be moving away in any way, shape or form is the enemy (or anyone else _except_ them), like, "I stand my ground, nothing shall sway me!".
Honor is often used as the facilitator and, subsequently, the scapegoat for people's personal ego, delusion, and stupidity.
"What does back mean?"
He is already blind tho. Blind with rage at all the INJUSTICE
Guy's never even heard of the art of war
He could have moved 30 feet forward and fight.
“I DO NOT RETREAT!”
“Then perish.”
Unrelated but your username is the funniest shit I’ve ever seen
I agree. Dead dead Dooby dooby dead dead. I would give the party every opportunity to split. “Hey Orcy! I’ve got a paladin here who wants to die for his country. OBLIGE HIM.”
" So he had chosen Death ... ... "
"WHY DID I PERISH!"
"you didn't retreat"
He could have also just advanced through the darkness, no retreat necessary. It’s wild.
In my experience a Lawful Good Paladin would have insisted on staying town to help fortify and rebuild so long as they agreed to have at minimum a small shrine to the Platinum God.
Yeah wouldn't lawful good be staying and making sure the town is alive? This characters actions sound more like chaotic good where they are doing it really recklessly but like for the greater good sort of thing
This. The PC 100% played STUPID and conflated that with "Lawful Good". That PC was either a troll or so incredibly stupid himself that he literally couldn't tell he was playing the character with the most obnoxious and unrealistic flaws known to gamerkind. A true lawful-good paladin who ISN'T being played purposely stupid is going to preference actions with yield the greatest quantity AND quality of good. IE: They're going to immediately take the town's guard in command, start organizing defenses and ensuring as many people are safe and protected as possible... Only the most ignorant, stupid and pointless of these would do what Tormund does. He was 100% more Chaotic Good, frankly, in the end results if not the actions and intentions. Chaotic Stupid.
He sounds like the more Lawful stupid/murderhobo "Lawful Good" type who's idea of "law" is just a thin veneer to go haphazardly murdering anyone who he deems to be immoral.
He should have been branded oathbreaker from the first sign of trouble, as the almighty platinum one is about forgiveness if one pledges to be a good person from then on, only when they prove they have no intention of repentance then they must die as punishment.
Man my first character was a Lawful good Paladin and instead of playing like this I really was just like "My oath is to protect people, and also its a good act to protect people too, so when my Chaotic nuetral party goes off on hijinx, I need to stay with them to make sure they stay safe"
The worst part is that they waited to splash the cold water in his face at the last second, as a group, because none of them were brave enough, or good enough friends to tell him before hand. Thats really sad.
When the DM breaks character to plead with you about how your current course of action is likely to end very badly, especially when there are other options readily and clearly available; it's time to reconsider.
Players really wanted to fly over a chasm that had an anti magic field. At the bottom of the players would have to make a wisdom save (none of them could make it, even with a 20) or they would hallucinate their own death until they actually died. They were not supposed to be here. This trap was not meant for them. They all died. Thankfully this was a one shot.
My table just knows when I say “Are you sure you want to do this?” They need to make sure to take in all the information because there is a possibility they missed something that will get them killed.
I rarely use it and let my party deal with the consequences. Expect, for example, when a new player was about to ambush what looked to be a “Full plate armored Orc with battlescars. They were a personal guard of a noble woman and the only one there” my other player about shit himself when he said yeah I want to attack.
I, as a DM, have a rule, and my players know it.
If I ask “Are you sure you want to do that” take a moment, be sure, because it is going to be very important, and possibly very difficult to undo that action.
If you say, “yes” and I come back at ask you again “If you are sure” you’re about to do something that is going to kill you, your party or both.
If you come back and say “yes” again, I’ll ask the party if they want to interject anything.
If they don’t move to stop the PC, the boulder is released from its spot and you have to either run away, deal with it, or get squished. (Not always a boulder). Sadly most try to deal with it in a way they won’t work and get squished.
@@JPatterson61586 i do that to the difference is i do it on right decisions as well. The are you sure is way more effective when they have to think about everything, and my party knows i do it even if what they want to do is how i intended it to.
When I start a fresh campaign, as a DM, I always preface it with "My job is to kill you, your job is to not get dead" so when they do something that even I'm like "Uh...a-are you sure?" they then go into a group discussion very nervously. I mean, I'm the guy that (literally) dropped a Spell-Warped/Plane Touched/Ravenous-Flesh Golem with Vampire/Were Mimic minions on his party. With glee. So when something gives ME pause, they know things are about to get inception level crazy.
The fact that they kicked him out afterwards is the most heart wrenching thing in this entire story. They didn’t take his feelings into account at all, and were complete assholes. When people do this, they’re saying they don’t see this person as their equal, and it makes that person wonder if they are really the bad one there.
@@kalok155 But he didn't "enable" the Paladin at all. He was simply trying to desperately salvage the mess the Paladin player was making of the rest of the party's chances. He could have been more firm and railroaded them into not being able to do what the Paladin did, but for inexperienced DM's that's hard to do without feeling guilty about it or getting accused by the players of railroading them. All he really did was give them free will to make stupid decisions.
Should he have put a stop to Tormund's stupidity way earlier with deadly consequences? Absolutely.
However as a player Jim should have been more firm rather than being so laid back and letting Tormund's player lead the party into an unwinnable situation, especially when playing with a few other newbies in the party. I blame Jim for not backing up a fellow DM.
@@kalok155 It is not the dm's job to save the players from their decisions
@@kalok155 the DM is a guide not a babysitter
@@kalok155 it's not the DM's fault that the party is incomprehensibly stupid.
@@kalok155 um it was his first time DMing, and he had to do it with a really bad player. That's a super shitty thing to say, everyone starts somewhere. Maybe you're Maurice
DM: "Everyone roll Intelligence"
Player: "I have a modifier of 0 and I rolled a 1, did I pass?"
DM: "Yes, you understand that this is suicide."
More like a modifier of -5.
@@sethwhitehead3956 me if i was dm: you have a modifier of -5 due to bad genetics and luck
@@dani.2479 And don't forget a lack of common sense.
Oh you’ll pass alright…
Even a critical failure is a critical success. That’s when you know it’s bad bad.
Y'know, at first I thought the DM was throwing everyone under the bus and excusing himself by claiming "inexperienced", but as the story went on, he was a lot more experienced than he gave himself credit and the players actually laid down under the bus by their own accord.
So does that mean he underestimated their stupidity? Or overestimated their intelligence?
@@ДмитрийГусарев-ж8ъ Is there a difference?
They laid down under the bus and paid the bus driver to repeatedly run them over while a sniper takes shots at them 50 feet away.
@@SoftisNelaris Yeah, it's usually in how you view them.
Not much else, though. The end result is still the same.
Same. Went in expecting an all around clusterf*ck from all parties involved and by the end I don't know if I can really blame OP for a single thing that happened
" When will you learn?! When will you learn- that your actions have consequences!? "
Basically.
that wasn't even their actions having consequences that was them jumping into a volcano and then demoting the DM because they got burned!
So lawful stupid paladin does stuff. Party is cool with it, seem to be having fun. DM freaks out cause "DATS NOT HOW YOU LAWFUL STUPID" and then they kick the DM out of the group? Sorry, there's got to be more to this story that the DM is not sharing cause it reflects badly on them. You don't get kicked out of a group unanimously for nothing. Lets read between the lines here. Scared a player away on your first session DM'ing, check. Try your best to railroad party but still fail at it, check. Then blow up/yell at people having fun for......having fun because their fun is "stupid", check. Really makes the DM seem like the bad guy, no?
@@Hazknoklu True, you have a point there. I still have an opinion, which is that the paladin was the one leading the whole party and someone who was really having fun, which ended when the whole party died, sucking out any fun out of all, and the DM was trying to prevent the death. That's just my opinion though, I might be wrong in some points-
@@Hazknoklu hey Maurice
@@Hazknoklu The thing is, the DM is in control of the overarching narrative, with the players using that narrative as a device to have fun and change it. THIS is what seemed like disrespect on Tormond's part :
- He was the leader. The party followed him. He had control over them.
- He was even trying to CONTROL the narrative, like the DM is somehow supposed to work in a way to make 4 lvl 3 heroes beat an army of fifty orcs?
No, this was Tormond wanting complete and utter control over the space. The party, the DM, the narrative, everything. This was him, trying to be "alpha".
Apparently it worked.
I would've honestly been way less merciful than this DM. If he would run towards the army, party in tow, they would've been trampled on by the Orcs, TPK, and I would continue the narrative "With the adventurers killed and the guards already on edge, the orcs easily ransack and kill the remaining townspeople & farmers." And then I would announce there would be no more sessions and I would no longer be playing with them.
I can't stand people who need to control everything, and the people that facilitate their BS.
*Terrified town guards beg party to stay and help them defend the town*
Lawful good paladin: Did you hear something?
Must have been the wind
I heard your god stripping you of your Paladin powers for refusing to stay and help a town in need.
@@DrAsh-eg7or Definetly the wind
"fuck others i want to kill some goblins "
i really want to do a a masochistic paladin one day and not gonna lie he would want to fight everyone and mask his masochism by saying that he is just doing the right thing for everyone else
@@hipopotamodata9932 You just described Darkness, from KonoSuba 😂😂😂
I think there's an issue here about D&D in general that people don't seem to understand. It's the idea of player death and that campaigns can be more, or less lenient about it. Many players go into D&D believing one of two things:
A: They are only allowed and able to interact with things they can see , things that are described to them and so on. They do not understand the concept, or are not comfortable with the idea of trying different things, doing what they want, exploring options and so on. They simply think of it like a game, where you're on a path, and they are just supposed to basically do the task set in front of them. and nothing more.
B: They take freedom way too far, and expect the DM to pick up the pieces behind them while somehow managing to stay ahead of them. They will have 0 regard for the plans and stories the DM has set in place, and will expect that literally ANYTHING they do, it's the DM's job to make sure they survive and get through it.
This I feel, wasn't so much a case of a player playing a stupid character... yes, his character was stupid. But that wasn't the actual issue here. The issue was that he believed that he could act this way with his character, charge down 50 enemies at once, and that the DM would put systems in place to save him and ensure that he gets to be the hero and defeat the army.
In other words, he thought that this was HIS story, and that the DM's job wasn't to tell a story, but was to simply create the world around his character while actively giving him, quite literally, plot armor. And thus, he was angry when his character actually died, and the DM didn't simply have the guards from the town show up to fight alongside them or something.
It's sort of like that old joke about Christians in a Hurricane:
A Hurricane was coming into a town, and everyone was ordered to evacuate.
Police showed up at a man's house and said that he needed to leave, but he said "No, I am staying here. God will see me through this."
When the Hurricane hit, the town flooded so bad that the water was up to the roof.
The man was on this roof when a boat came by with rescuers, but he said "No, I'll be fine, God will see me through this."
And so he stayed there, trapped in the flooded town with nowhere to go.
Still on the roof, a helicopter came and dropped a rescuer down to save him, but he said "No, I'll be fine, God will see me through this."
The man later drowned as the waters climbed too high for him to simply stay safely on his roof.
When the man got to heaven, he said "God, I trusted in you to protect me. Why didn't you save me?"
God said "I sent you police, a boat, and a helicopter, what more do you want?!
-Replace the idea of the hurricane, with the goblin/orc army.
-Replace 'God' with 'The DM'
I think this perfectly encapsulates everything!
Legendary man👌
Totally agree, I don't want my players completely ignoring all quests and just pickpocketing the whole town and randomly going off the edge of the map of what I've prepared.
But at the same time I love it if I get to use my extra notes on locations where players explore side alleys to try and find a backdoor entrance to a location, or ask around for more details regarding a certain quest, or even if they initiate their own quests of looking for an item that will help them accomplish certain quests better.
It's funny... first time GMing and I'm gonna be sort of doing what this player was expecting. It's a story told from a bard's perspective, so one character is very much focused on, but my players are friends I've gamed with for years and I can trust them not to charge into unwinnable situations and actual plan out viable strategies. In fact, my biggest hurdle right now is creating challenging encounters for them!
I think I heard a similar story in the Bible itself, though I'm not too sure. Though of course with different levels of technology and people.
"I don't want to think about the dynamics of the world around me. I want to walk forward in any direction I choose and I expect the DM to build it out under my feet as I go. Oh, and also it should be perfectly balanced."
With tiny script in the corner saying
“*note: ‘perfectly balanced’ means just challenging enough to make me feel badass, without losing half my hit points”
i think that is need a shock of reality
if he wants to kill 50 monsters that he dont stand a chance ok
but dont expect to live because is going to happen what everyone knows is going to happen
we usually had the main story together and side stuff in case at least 3 people missed, main story being serious and the side stuff was less planned, turning goofy easily, it was just perfect
In my game running blindly led to a party of six being ran to a group of five trolls in a narrow passage. Tortle ranger lost its arm permanently for that, since one of the trolls ate it when she was grabbled while dead by another.
Okay. I conviently forgot their ability to recover from 0hp in that fight so the PCs had a fighting chance and they won with 0 lasting casualties. Two downed and one dead, but the dead was revivifyed.
If the trolls would actually have been getting up like they are written they would have been soooo tpkd
As a GM myself, I started fuming when they said the party basically just elected a different GM at the last minute after a week of preparing the material for the current campaign. Even if we're only getting one side of the story here, I can't imagine a scenario where they are the good guys. I'm glad OP found some new friends.
I most certainly can, however they had a different idea for a dnd game than the dm. It's as simple as that.
@@codyholley Them deciding to switch dm’s is understandable but not letting the OP know, letting him plan and prepare all week and only telling him when he gets to the next session is a dick move.
Yeah, that was some bullshit. It’s clear that without him, They clearly would’ve Died!
It also pisses me off that the Paladin dude shrugs at the thought of his character dying by simply making a New guys! That is some bullshit too! I would totally Kick that dude for being a Willing Dumbass! And just a bad friend for pulling that crap.
I mean the GM was being really unreasonable. The paladin wasn’t even being disrespectful.
@@nazeem8068 you're kidding right? Did we watch different videos?
Party: gets themselves killed doing something so stupid DM tells them it’s a bad idea
Also party: OMG DM WHY DID YOU MAKE THINGS UNFAIR. NOW U NO LONGER DM
You forgot one thing....
Party: REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
@@kasper7574 Two things: the Darkness spell isn't counteracted by Darkvision. You need magic to pierce it's effects.
In the comments, OP says that the party only kicked him out because Maurice WOULD NOT STOP WHINING AND BITCHING to them until they did. Not entirely party's fault, but they do need to grow a spine.
If I had been this DM I would have told this Snowflakes that their characters are just barely better nobodys and not worldsafing Heroes.
People these days. :))
@@FreedomAndPeaceOnly I am sorry. But I think the DM rattle is the one to get through to idiots.
Party: "We will march on an Orc Horde."
DM: "Are you Sure?"
If they don't take the hint, wipe them out.
Meeting in the tavern is a classic way to start. It may seem a bit stale, but it holds a special place in my heart
Its a great way to start, and can be a simple meeting point where each player's character can come to interact.
Build a city and five ways to come in, let the players know what they see on their way in and meet at a guild hall. If you want something new.
Just cause something is a trope, doesn't mean it's bad. Meeting in a tavern is the old-timey equivalent of meeting up at a coffee shop, totally normal for the setting with no need to justify it.
I enjoy it for comedy reasons. Nothing more fun than purposefully doing a stereotypical tavern meeting that is so much of a stereotype that it becomes funny
@Sam Larrimore breaking out of jail, huh?
A couple years ago I played a Lawful Good Paladin with oath of Redemption. She tried to spare a healing point for every enemy we encountered that wasn't already dead, and was mostly trying to mitigate the amount of bloodshed that the barbarian goblin of the group wanted to commit. My favourite part was when we found an Imp, imprisoned centuries earlier, that couldn't go anywhere because his previous master left him there and died. All he asked was a new contract with a mortal and to be able to leave. My Paladin asked if he honestly wouldn't harm innocents, while our fighter was urging her to execute the vile demon. The Imp replied that he honestly wanted a chance to show his loyalty. My paladin couldn't do anything else. She let another character from the group form a contract with the demon, and he joined the party.
The Imp was extremely useful to the group and never did anything really evil, just some pranks here and there. He died while exploring for us with his invisibility and my Paladin mourned for the demon that showed her that the oath of Redemption she took had all the meaning in the world.
*trys to heal enemy me as dm: it fucking stabs you in your armors weakness and has advantage on attack its also a plus 1 dagger of venom
@@thecoolestofthe834s2 I have no idea what you wrote XD
It sounds like you have some kind of hatred towards players, and if you were a dm any and all enemies that got shown mercy would attack the players, so that's mostly your failing as a dm, since the objective of the game is to have fun and roleplay.
To each their own, I suppose. I would really dislike you as a dm, if that's what you were trying to convey.
Found the stereotypical rogue player. And naturally they’re incapable of appreciating anything higher brow than giggling about attacking like a mindless automaton. This is why we can’t have these nice things.
@@ornerylurker8296 You mean me or the Pepe guy that replied to me? XD
@@TheDahaka1 Other guy, of course! I should hope? Honestly this would be a terrible way to learn I've gone senile otherwise!
I would say “Due to your violent and reckless ways you are stripped of your Paladin privileges and can no longer use your spell slots”
Yeah, this to me would be one of those alignment changing, 'your god has abandoned you for your actions' kind of situation. Send the paladin into neutral good alignment and just make them a fighter or something. I don't understand why so many people play paladins like this.
@@hokutoulrik7345 My guess, too much World of Warcraft, where most paladins are just fighters, with the exception of Uther
@@oluftheexplorer9476 This ^. It's the worst one dimensional cardboard cutout of a garbage generic caricature of a trope. Seen it a ton in the Star Wars games I used to play, too, both Jedi trying to police the universe and Dark Siders trying to murderhobo genocide everyone for no reason.
Yup, being a Paladin is supposed to be difficult. In my current campaign I play a Paladin but not true to type. Nobody plays their character true to type so it doesn't make sense for me to do it. Still it would be nice.
On a side note, I wish more people realized becoming a paladin involved a lot of training and time with a cult, so there's no way someone as stupid and stubborn would be anointed.
The worse thing of this story?
Is that the players "demoted" the dm without any warning...
WHY DID THEY DEMOTE HIM???
@@liamdalemon1525 Because one guy had to be a stubborn asshole. Hell, if it was my Half-orc paladin he would have gotten out of the Darkness cloud immediately, and he's an idiot!
because they don't care :C.
Honestly that is depressing.
Agreed 100 %. Maurice was a dumbass but that was workable given time. The former DM and the girlfriend were the real assholes, demoting OP without warning, pissing all over everything he had prepared. It's fair that they wanted to swap DM, it's not fair to do it like that -_-
Overall I think it was a mismatched group for OP as well... It very much seemed like they expected balanced encounters no matter what, which is how I played 4e with my starting group. That's fair, but far from the only way to play any system, even 4e :)
DM: You should defend the city walls along with the guards!
Tormond: I'm not lisssssteniiiiing~!
DM: There's 50 Orcs! You're 3 people! They'll slaughter you if you go in alone!
Tormond: I'm not lisssssteniiiiing~!
DM: Literally just get out of the magic darkness! It's not that big and while inside you're just swinging at shadows!
Tormond: I'm not lisssssteniiiiing~!
Tormond: Wow what the hell DM that was so dangerous you didn't give us any options to give ourselves an advantage in that fight!
DM: *Genuine Anger*
Like seriously has not not seen LOR movies that's not how u fight orcs
Gandof:......RUN U FOOLS!!!!!!!!
I... I am having flash backs... my players... they are...so...stupid... get out of the burning building... stop huffing the smoke...
Ah yes. Gandof the groy.
Yeah that’s just annoying. I actually have a story like that
Translation:
DM: Stop ruining the story I'm railroading you into!
In all seriousness, the DM should have seen their actions coming a mile away.
Wow. I felt like I got punched in the gut when they ousted him from the DM position. I would have left them then. For all the effort that DM put in it sounds like the players did not deserve him. Like seriously should have just said "forget this" when they dropped that "your no longer dm" bombshell like those players are terrible people.
As dumb as all the rest of the story was, him being all "Okay" at that disrespect is baffling. Any action other than telling everyone how the campaign was supposed to go and then leaving was a worse failure than anything Captain Tryhard did.
From what he was saying I get the feel they were fairly young maybe still in school or at least college/university and some area it's really hard to find people to play with.
@@MacClay8nah the player is the worst part, you don’t know if they live in a small town or just don’t have anyway to play with others easily also remember they said “4e was the newest edition” so dnd was very not popular
Meanwhile...
Tiamat: "Damn... I thought MY servants were incompetent."
Bahamut: "Ya... anyway, wanna trade? I'll even throw in a few extra souls if you take him."
Tiamat: "Not in a thousand, thousand years."
Lmao that feels so accurate.
@Afqwa Surprisingly no probably not xD
with this i think the GM should have had bahamut show and angrerly scold him cause he just killed some one with important information about tiamat.
@Afqwa Okay, trap bait it is.
Tyr stays quiet in the background.
That kind of “I’m going off on my own so you might as well follow me” mentality is why I’m VERY happy my Bard has the Sleep spell. Recently, my party and I were attempting to tame a wolf for the Goblin to ride. We were doing stupid well on taming all 4 of the wolves we came across, so, being unprepared to add 4 wolves to the party, the DM railroaded us a little by having three of the wolves respond to the call of the nearby pack. We were bummed, but we still had one wolf, so no big deal. However our Cleric decided she NEEDED these wolves and suddenly took off after AN ENTIRE PACK OF WOLVES. My bard whipped out her violin and cast a second level sleep spell, making the Cleric pass out mid-run and faceplant into the dirt. Our Ranger dragged her back over the the party and then I released the spell.
I had to do something like that,just recently as well. but this was based off of the other players character and how they function.
We have a Barbarian-Monk in the party that values life in a particular manner. In such that everyone deserves to live despite their background as a person. When a group of NPCs with high merit took down a flying ship full of soldiers both drafted and volunteers that said barbarian monk had saved from a previous attack our barbarian friend was particularly mad. The NPCs weren't doing this out of sheer blood thirst however, these soldiers were sent to invade and destroy a holy city that these NPCs protect. These soldiers also had no idea that their mad emperor would send them on such a mission. Now, my character is a silver dragon fledgling in secret and is starting off on some of her first adventures with this very same party as a paladin. I had to cast sleep on our barbarian friend to keep them from dying in one of the quickest fashions possible.
Lol, what happened next?
Elini The frog she had no idea it was my bard that put her to sleep, since she’d never seen that spell used. The bard managed to convince her that she just must be really tired and it’s time to go back.
However she figured it out later when my bard put someone else to sleep, and was very cranky about it 😂😂
iJackSparrow d
i know im way late but correct me if im wrong
your deterrent for "party member does something stupid" is the A-Team method?
"I would rather you kill me than get captured." Yeah, that's the reason you're getting captured.
"There is a giant blender in front of you. A cackling old man dressed in infant bones tells you to jump in."
"Obviously I don't do--"
"He says that some very evil monsters are in there just past the spinning blades."
"I jump in the blender."
"You die instantly."
"Dude, no fair."
How can you define Tormund so Precisely.....
The "Dude, no fair" is the best part! So true to the original. Except the DM was generous enough to not make it instant death; rather a difficult but possible fight.
@@bendystrawz2832 Which was a mistake on his part.
Splatoon 2: Octo Expansion
@@disneydork100 except no agent 3
you know how they say "the dm railroaded me" imagine being a character and your whole party railroad themselves.
It's a good old "Fine. I'll do it myself." Classic move, truly!
I mean, he did railroad them. But the thing is, railroading isn't bad. The DM is creating a story, those are railroads. The trick is to create the illusion of choice, yet encourage the players to engage with the story, to hide the rails.
"A giant orc army is going to besiege the city" is a railroady thing, but that's not bad. Having a time constraint, having stakes, those are good. He's forcing them to do something about this attack, but they're so preoccupied with breaking his railroad, they forget WHY to break that. His storytelling wasn't bad up till there (It was shithouse afterwards). There was no reason to dodge the setpiece, but still try to fight the enemies. All they did was derail their trail.
@@snickykitty22 and even if they say the railroading part was the defending the city part, then theres an easy answer to that too
how the hell would you expect to fight an army of orcs otherwise?!!!
@@kalok155 I mean, i don't see it as a complete railroad mainly bc he did try to work with them and the paladin was too stubborn to do things. Though he was a new dm, he probably would've let them go and sneak off into the orc encampment if he knew they would try something smart (like attempt to poison them or set fire to the camp). He even offered to provide more support. But he knew the paladin would barge in and knew there would be too many orcs (orcs fighting a battle/war would want to bring at least 20) which is why he deterred it so much. I would say the dm was 100 in the right and the prior dm is in the wrong ONLY for allowing the paladin to dictate the game (seeing as he sided with him to kick out the new dm,allowed him to replay the same character, and prolly even allowed him to succeed in his quest of glory)
@@kalok155 Railroading implies that they were only given one possible path when actually all that happened was that the one particular path the players insisted on using was clearly not viable (plausibly in universe and repeatedly stated out of character to the players)
This is less a railroad and more like offering a player a bunch of doors only to watch them break their skull open by repeatedly slamming their head against a wall instead.
As a DM, when Tormund said "I will not allow them to live" would've been the moment I would've replied. "Wrong. *They* will not allow *you* to live.
Imagine a Tormund that vowed to save anybody from drowning in their path.
"I DRINK the LAKE!"
I get the distinct feeling that ousting OP as DM was entirely Maurice’s idea. Honestly, I’m most pissed off that it sounds like Jim didn’t even attempt to dissuade them from doing it
Perhaps he tried but the others were like "I'm not playing if OP is the DM" and he had no choice but to become the DM. But we don't know how that conversation went so it's all just guessing
@@bignoseandrew Nah, Jim was probably just going with the flow.
@@SeanStrife I feel like Jim set him up to fail, as if to say, see what I have go through? It was kinda a dick move how he left OP flailing in the water, cause it appears he enjoyed watching the shit show go down.
Idk, there's probably a lot being left out of the story. He admits he wasn't "diplomatic" when he started shouting at Maurice, we're only hearing one side of things of the story.
The way I see it is OP and Maurice were both in the wrong. Hoeever OP is much, MUCH less in the wrong..
Maurice was an arrogant asshole who just wanted to run the game HIS way. He blatantly ignored OP's warnings numerous times and acted tactically stupid. If it was Maurice who missed a session then the party would probably still be alive/not captured.
However, I think OP was a bit too passive. OP should have taken Maurice aside and tried to explain the campaign and understand Maurice's character more. By this I mean that OP should have told Maurice personally that his playstyle will get everyone killed and that law-good characters don't have to be so dogmatic. If he still insisted on acting like that then OP should have changed the campaign to punish Maurice while not being so punishing to the others. You've got to remember that there were beginners in this game too. However, only the best DMs could possibly pull that off so I don't blame OP too much for the disastrous campaign.
OP should have said: “You’re right, it was unfair. I should have just let you walk into that horde of 50 orcs!”
I would've. Look, if you're gonna... say... jump off a roof during a stealth mission where there are sound sensitive enemies in plain sight... and you land on a car... weeell, don't expect for them to brush it off as the wind. Or for the orcs to just magically die cause of mass heart attack or something.
He should have also told them to go fuck themselves when he showed up to the mutiny game. Why would you waste your time playing with those people?
I would have, as well.
There are some players who like to treat the game like a video game scripted with a completely overpowered player character who the world revolves around. And there are groups/DMs who play to that standard. For them, the DM tailors the game such that they can do almost anything they want and still win - because the goal is not to play a role within a world but to fulfill power fantasy.
What the group wanted was a DM who would grant their power fantasy, not one who would treat them like they were actually in a real world with consequences.
@Christa Simon By your logic, though, he fulfilled it as a fair encounter. He pointed out POINT BLANK how they could've survived, and they still didn't do it.
@Christa Simon the party got tons of opportunities to leave. They were told multiple times that going to the army head on was a bad idea, that was the first set of opportunities. They then saw the massive army head on, this was opportunity 2. They then fought a smaller portion where they got hit with darkness, opportunity 3. Then the DM straight up told them to leave the darkness, opportunity 4.
Lawful moron is the type of person who in the zombie apocolypes would play loud music and when he finds 2 people robbing someone for their supplies would with Literally 3 bullets left, shooting all 3 in the air to threaten the robbers attracting a horde of zombies then being shocked when his character is eaten to death.
Bold of you to assume there not bitten right off the bat.
@@hazydoom69 Perhaps, but it's not nearly as entertaining.
@@reloadpsi ya got me on that one.
"We'll be fine." Dude straight up said that to the person *controlling the story.*
The Dungeon Master does not control the story. They are A proxy for the players to experience what their characters experience.
@@kartorrent7496 they don't necessarily _control_ the story, that's true, but they do craft the consequences of the players' actions, and they have foresight. If they break the fourth wall and tell a PC that their choice will end in the death of one or more characters, it's a pretty good idea to listen.
@@Hawk7886 I suppose so, but your example still kinda makes sense for my idea of, “The dungeon master is A proxy between players and their characters’ senses,”… Only this time, the player doesn’t HAVE any sense.
@@kartorrent7496 wrong, the players have ALL of their senses, which are expressed in perception and investigation checks unless otherwise hampered (blinded, deafened, etc.) - it's the DM's job to tell them what is in the world. The players are responsible for making the choices.
@@Hawk7886 Yes, the DM is A proxy between the players and their characters. Thank you for reiterating.
In a perfect world this story could be:
-Brave heroes inspire city guards and common folk to defend their homes and families
-The orc horde is crushed in a breathtaking siege
-The party levels up and goes after orc Warlord for an epic final fight, ending the first campaign
Meanwhile in *our* world:
“JUSTICE” “NEVER RETREAT” “WE GOT THIS” “DM is the problem”
Yeah, but it could have been worse.
Don't fall into the "Worst of all Worlds" fallacy.
They COULD have had a giant physical altercation about it. Instead they all just split up later on.
You know that ladder one is more entertaining. Don’t lie to me
"THE SUBTELTY of the Kool-Aid Man striking an artillery shell with a sledgehammer"
I can see why this guy makes a good dm lol.
Edit: I finally fixed Sudelty
Subtlety
@@notsmoothie I dont know where you heard a 'b' in Sudelty, but thanks.
@@xenoswarrior6900 6:17
@@notsmoothie XD I was just joking, I know I spelled it wrong. Thanks for correcting me.
Seriously though, the english language is pretty dumb.
YEEEEEEEEEE OP here! Thank you so much for doing my story! Not gonna lie, the whole inspiration for me writing all that down was in the hopes that you'd feature it. It was everything I hoped for! The JUSTICE parts were just...flawless. Hail crab! 🦀🦀🦀🦀
EDIT
Minor update to the story: I recently reconnected with an old friend of mine who knows both Jim and Maurice from a LARP. In fact, his character in the LARP was Maurice's apprentice, and Maurice played a very similar character to Tormund. He said that Maurice had gotten better at playing that type of LG character. He was still stubborn, but he wasn't reckless or stupid about it. He said that, given the timeline, back during the game Maurice was going through a lot of stuff, I'm guessing about coming out, and when this whole event happened it would have been right around the worst of it. But he's apparently doing better now, which is really good to hear. I do hope he's well.
When I told him about Jim's actions, he shook his head and agreed that it sounded like something he would do. We both reached the conclusion that Jim is a nice guy, until he's an asshole. My friend was not surprised that he was involved the mutiny, which he agreed was absolutely bananas.
So that's the update. Nothing major but it's at least a little bit of closure!
BTW I'm still DMing, it's going great, my players are all very happy and my game of choice that I'm running now is the Fantasy Flight Star Wars game. It's fantastic. 👍🏻
You know, I really like what you did with the ambush encounter as a means to break the players out of their bull-headed style of gameplay. That was a really crafty encounter to have them fight and it's a shame that they didn't learn from that.
However, in this instance I think the problem came from both Maurice AND you not understanding the type of game that the other person wanted to play. It looked to me like he wanted to play into the heroic fantasy and lead his squad of Good Guys™ around crusading righteously. There was a video someone did about an orc paladin whose story follows this same sort of path. The other players ended up becoming secondary characters in that story, but I think they had a good time of it regardless of the fact that they didn't have the spotlight. It can work sometimes!
I hope that you continue to play DnD, and keep drawing wisdom from the event to make your games better. Cheers!
I feel bad for you man. Your story seemed really interesting and I would gladly have you DM at my table any day.
It's clear that there was a big misunderstanding between you and the paladin in this story. Maybe he wanted plot armor so that he could roleplay as a legendary hero who does the impossible through brute force. If he didnt tell you that's what he wanted, then that's his fault of course.
"Don't worry. We'll be fine." is something you consider insulting and disrespectful?
What have you gotta be on to be that fucking sensitive 🤣
The rest I understand though
@@TheRealBrit Hi Maurice. This might hard to understand, but when people give you sincere warnings about the zombie plague and blow them off, it means you don't give a damn.
So they shouldn't give a damn when the zombies eat your brains and the demons eat your soul.
As a player, I would have just had my character run back to town. No, really: Tormund was clearly just going out to die for his god, not do anything remotely useful.
And just for the record, he wasn't playing Lawful Good in the least. He clearly had NO concern for anyone other than himself and his self-important "crusade"; he even abandoned a whole town of innocent people to their fate solely so he could go chasing after glory and honor for himself. Nothing is more selfish.
The DM may have made a few mistakes, but honestly those players just plain sucked.
Personally the first red flag for me was he made a dragonborn that worships bahamut. Yes bahamut is a lawful good deity but dragonborn culture sees all dragons as bad so if your dragonborn is worshiping one you need a damn good backstory to justify it,
TBH, when I play a paladin in Pathfinder, I spend the first ten rounds in every combat either fighting defensively, or in total defense, unless there is a damn good reason for it (like the enemy is objectively, irredeemably evil such as a balor, succubus, or who pinged Detect Evil so hard it gave my paladin a headache) and those rounds are spent trying to talk the opponent down, if they're sentient and share languages. There are enough blood-and-glory crusaders in the world, not enough paladins who lead by example and seek to save souls.
I've always held that any paladin who willingly marches headfirst into death and drags his party with him would immediately Fall as soon as he set out on that course of action, unless he serves a god so zealous even Ragathiel would say they need to chill the hell out.
This seems like a mistake a first time player would make, my first session, I had to free a party member from a couple of elvish guards. Instead of trying to reason with them or bribe them, I immediately fought them. The team survived the encounter but it could have gone a lot better, at the time I didn't know you could befriend npcs, just fight or not fight. And I also didn't know that you didn't have to fight to get xp. So lesson learned.
@@shadenox8164 While this is indeed true in Forgotten Realms, it's not true for all settings. In fact, for the base 4e edition (the edition that this game takes place in) Dragonborn are very much associated with Bahamut, who is often seen as the patron God of their race. In his description in the 4e player's handbook, I believe it states explicitly that his followers include Dragonborn.
Just my two cents.
I was thinking the whole time, “no wonder the other DM is so laid back”. He would have to be, even the OP described the other DM as go with the flow and chill. Which isn’t inherently bad, but I don’t think the other guy pushes the players the way OP tried to.
Let's be honest. Maurice wasn't stupid; he was controlling.
He thought he could force the DM into scaling down every encounter to compensate for his whims. He was trying to DM by proxy.
And when he didn't get his way he ensured a DM was in charge whom he could control.
But, honestly, it's the other snakes in that group who really infuriated me. They listened to this entire infuriating scenario play out, and not only did they side with the person who was clearly in the wrong, but did so in the most underhanded, cowardly way possible.
Seriously, fuck those people. I hope OP found a group who appreciates the effort he puts into his games.
I've listened to a ton of these stories, and this is one of the few that has made me genuinely angry.
He was stupid and controlling
@@factandsuspicionpodcast2727 remember there are three sides to every story, the perspectives of both parties involved and the truth. We only have the DMs perspective, we don't have the perspective of the Paladin or other players.
It's very unlikely that an entire group would just oust a DM on a whim if there wasn't some kind of issue that they all had. I'd say the DM was not as good as he says he was and it's probable that he was very railroady with the group amongst other issues we don't know about.
For the DM it was a fair and "reasonable" way to punish a problem player as we are just listening to their side of the story and what they knew, but for the players it probably looked more like the DM was punishing them for no other reason than "DM is mean"
@@HaosnirIf he really did warn them as much as he says he did, then I say the second position is an unreasonably stupid one to have.
Oh yes, any character I ever played would have either opted to stay in town and help the guards or asked to help with the evacuation efforts of the farms and small villages. Now way they would follow the crazy raving lunatic they just met to fight an army by themselves.
Despite what he says at the beginning, I think the DM here handled things very well. He really did give them all every chance he could without breaking his world and story, and his plans for continuing the campaign sounded fun. His only mistake was, maybe, lashing out, but as a beginner DM doing his best I would have been hella frustrated with that asshole too.
All things considered I think the DM handled himself well, I probabbly would have gotten frustrated and railroaded them into staying in the town. XD
@@BrightWulph I don't.
If I were him, I'd let him get himself killed. One warning from the guard and that's it. If you always try to save them from their stupidity, you’ll have a party precisely like this one that expects the DM to protect them from death no matter how stupidly they act.
@@BrightWulph As a DM I always remind my group that running away is an option in session 1.
For real if your players lack basic fear for their characters safety, just stop trying and do whatever
Even an experienced DM could lash out in frustration at something like this.
"We should never have gone up against something like that" you're right, *you* shouldnt have...
"And you wouldn't have if you weren't a bloody moron"
They reminded me of a certain Party of Noobs who got their Group wiped in a certain Episode 1 in a Goblin Cave ... ... ... ... but this Time, there was no Silver-Ranked Badass coming to help their Sorry Asses. x'D
@@venusluminariesdiina4027 Where the goblins at?
Been DMing since about 81. A couple of things you could do in this situation ( or similar)
1. Have the captain of the guard order the character to stay. In a wartime situation his orders are "lawful".
2. Point out that leaving the townspeople undefended would not be considered "good".
Then, you just sit back and let him decide whether he wants to lose his powers or not.
Remember, alignment change is a powerful tool.
Little late to the party but I agree.
If he continued to go fight the whole army by himself, is turn to the rest of the party and tell them “You know, you guys don't have to follow him right?”
The paladin and everyone would match off into the sunset while everyone else who remained would roleplay out preparing the defenses and strategizing the rest of the day. By the next morning, the Orc army marches up to the town and lobs the heads of the paladin and the rest of the PCs who left over the walls using catapults.
A fitting end for such naves.
@@Lobsterwithinternet i can't even say that even that would change anything unfortunately.
@@codyholley Who said anything about changing anything?
I'm just letting the dice fall as they may.
@@Lobsterwithinternet seem like the dragonborn paladin was the leader to me they probably wouldn't have Still followed him
Bold of you to assume that "lawful good" paladin even knows the definition of "lawful good". He would more likely still try to go on and if captain tries to stop him - he would proceed to slaughter the entire town. You know - because nobody should stand between him and TRUE JUSTICE (whatever-the-fuck it means in his head)
As someone who has played a lawful good pally, that’s the dream scenario for me. Using charisma rolls to inspire the weak to stand together against a force of evil with you leading the charge would be awesome.
"Lawful good" just sounds like "chaotic evil" with extra steps of talking
Personally I think this paladin was playing Lawful Evil.
@@SupaDanteX I would call it a Chaotic Neutral, personally. He was killing evil things(good) for his own selfish reasons(evil) and going about it with no rhyme, reason, or strategy.
That's how a lot of people play it. They think they can adopt a moral relativist approach to a character who's worldview is fundamentally opposed to that.
@@danmorgan3685 More like most people just play themselves in different costumes rather than actually play a role.
Your alignment chart is NOT a label.
WHEN WILL THEY LEARN
Man. I wish SO hard one of the players would see this and try to explain themselves. I would love to see their reasoning
Yes.
This story is too well explained for me to think it’s someone making themselves look better then they actually are. Usually you can tell something is off with OPs in stories like this so I would absolutely love to see Tormund’s POV of this situation and try to defend themselves.
Next up, Tormund tells the story of the awful DM who punished his refusal to get railroaded by throwing unfair encounters and insults at him and then proceeding to keep his PC alive past a TPK to, presumably, get tortured
@@paxtheskeleton6636 "What? I thought that my actions would have no consequences!"
@@paxtheskeleton6636 Maurice was an an in the closet homosexual at the time and making things difficult on the DM because he was not satisfied with his personal life. This info was provided by an update from the OP. Though they were much more graceful than I was in relaying it.
"Swinging like they were trying out for the Mets" I would fucking love to play with this DM.
Thanks dude. I try 🙂👍🏻
@@patjacksonpodium
Aye! The DM himself in all his glory! Praise be the Funny One!
(I would want to play with this DM too, but I am just a noob at dnd still.)
@@patjacksonpodium I'd love to play with this DM, as well. Maybe it'd finally get me over this curse I have with always ending up in bad D&D groups and sessions.
I wouldn't.
He sounds boring. If I wanted to play Skyrim with cheats enabled, I’d do just that.
I know right. The Mets practically have a traditional of sucking. Before anyone busts on me, I understand. I'm a Cubs fan.
"the koolaid man in platemail smacking an artillery shell with a sledgehammer" is just....a wonderful mental image lol
I know, I had to pause the video so I could laugh for five solid minutes at that line
OH YEAH
That's my level of subtlety ( hears some one getting laid proceeds to kick in door ) oh yeah !
"the subtlety of the Kool-Aid man Man in platemail smacking an artillery shell with a sledgehammer" is a phrase I don't think I will ever hear again
I wouldn't bet on it
You'd be surprised at the amount of things you thought you'd never hear more than once, more than once.
Very. Surprised.
i also didnt think i would get robbed by a squirrel.
weird its happened twice to me now
*Players tries to fight an army of orcs after repeated warnings not to inside a magical cloud of darkness.*
Players: Why would the DM do this to us?
This might be one of those few times to split the party. "There's 50 of them." _Aight Ima head back to town, that's enough warning for me, yall have fun._
A half-orc Rogue with high charisma eh? YOU NOT SEE GROG!
Can I just say, I really like your profile picture. That is all, have a good day
@@d-jdoctor5866 Why thank you. I hope you have a lovely day as well.
Come one, we all know Grog is a goliath barbarian. :)
@@evilbob840 There is also a DnD-Story about someone who made a Half-Orc Rogue named Grog, but instead of making him stealthy, they made him super intimidating and instead of sneaking past people, he'd walk straight up to them and shout at them "YOU NOT SEE GROG!", which they would confirm, while completely shitting their pants, due to his talent for intimidation.
@@blacklion8307 Nice, that brings the OP into a whole new light!
There are two moments in the GM's explanation that make it seem like...no one in the party was comunicating with them. The most glaring one is that the GM was ousted for the previous GM/Ranger. The other was, "Oh, Wizard isn't coming today; you have to run her character," on the day of the session. Like, I realize the GM explained that GM/Ranger wanted to rest between GMing hence how they ended up being GM but...it was like no one else bothered to shift who they should contact for scheduling.
At that point, one would have to ask if these people even like you? They don't communicate with you, they don't listen to you, they oust you without a second thought
First: there is nothing wrong with starting as strangers in a tavern!!! One of the single greatest campaigns I have ever played (and am still playing two years in!) began with us as strangers in a tavern...where the deposed daughter of an absentee king murdered 40 people in a ritual to fuse herself with a Yugoloth (daemon). It was an epic first session.
Second: My first and only paladin was made for 5e oneshots and I've played her several times. She's a lawful good Drow Paladin of Rao, with the Oath of the Redeemer. She isn't here to punish evildoers. She's here to save them. I have turned goblins from the path of evil. The kind of paladin that Tormond played was just...offensive!
Completely agree! I don’t get this anti-tavern start stuff. It’s a fun way to introduce characters to eachother and let them RP for a bit. Just cause it’s a classic kind of start location doesn’t mean it’s bad
Honestly, when it comes to a medieval fantasy setting with any realism, the single most likely place for adventurers to meet is going to be A) on the road; B) at a tavern; or C) at an inn.
I mean, where would we network with new people, or prepare to go on a trip, in the modern day? At a bar or cafe or restaurant or conference room or hotel lobby, most likely.
I love playing a paladin who wants to redeem people instead of sending then to their god’s judgment, tho lately my poor scorned paladin is getting a lesson that some are too far gone to be saved
@@ruusaanyc2117 totally agree
is hard to play with characters that thing everyone is good inside and deserve a chance
i play with a characters that thinks that everyone in his team or around him(who is good) are like a family to him and love him like he love they(what is really not it)
sorry for my english i m still learning
That was my thoughts on the 'you meet in a tavern'
a) You're traveling, so where else would you go. b) that's where everyone in town goes to share news and gossip! it IS the IDEAL place for adventurers to go.
I haven't played a Paladin because everyone I know thinks Lawful Good Paladin means Lawful Stupid, and they would strip me of my divine powers for doing the slightest thing. Like addressing the thief, "I don't condone your theft and subterfuge; but I can accept that it is sometimes needed for the greater good." -- BAM! NO MORE POWAH! "You didn't kill the rogue for breaking the law!" wtf
“Do any of you have an intelligence or wisdom score above 10?”
Yes
“Then your character would know that this is a suicide mission, and that walking face first into the warband will be your deaths. You need a tactical advantage in order to fight these orcs, an advantage that you do not currently possess. If you continue forward, there can be a combat section, however some of you will die, and you have no chance at all of succeeding this way.”
Lawful Stupid Paladin: JUSTICE WILL PROTECT ME
Even an intelligence score of 4 would be enough. Even the dumbest pig can recognize a slaughterhouse.
The funny thing is that all situations can be salvaged so long as players are willing. In a near identically scenario to this, as a cleric of life, I bargained a duel with an orc army’s chieftain to buy the survivors time to escape from the blockaded church. It cost an eye and having to be his pet slave until I could figure out how to kill his ass but that doe eyed cleric became a badass. Gouged out his one good eye and grafted it on and the clan now served a blond haired human life domain cleric in all her glory. Played their half-orc son later down the track since being a warchief became a bit much.
I think that Paladin had an int and wis of -10 ...
@@TrueKingOfTheWolves That's fucking metal dude.
paladin: ThAt eNcOuNtEr WaS wAy ToO hArD!
DM: YOU SAID YOU WERE GOING TO RUN INTO 50 ORKS WHEN I SAID THAT YOU WERE ALMOST CERTAIN TO BE KILLED!!!
@Dwali Obahbwah to win that thing you would need to be freelancer levels of lucky!
Well, even a paladin with max level 3 game health of 28, could not beat 50 3-8 dmg enemies, even with all nat twenties. Even at 18 constitution, hits would slip in on 19 and 20 rolls, and the dm gets 50 chances every turn XD. Statistically and logically impossible.
@@xenoswarrior6900 That's why the DM is an idiot.
A smarter DM would have let the Paladin do his thing.
Fuck the barrelbomb.
Let him square up to 50 orcs. Then let each of them take a roll at him.
He will be dead very quickly.
@@kalok155 True. It sucks because I've had plenty of these moments where I feel like I'm limiting player choice because the storyline I'm driving would be cooler (at least, in my opinion as the DM, they usually dont see it that way though)
I love the idea of that half-orc rogue: "Don't need to be silent if noone is watching."
I was genuinely delighted by the concept "Not sure why she chose to play a rogue" "Guessing because it's hilarious?"
it's funny, I had the exact opposite thing happen to one of my groups I DM'd for. I warned them at the start of the campaign "I will not hold your hands, nor will I tone things down if you make stupid decisions. your actions have consequences, keep that in mind". I thought that would just discourage reckless behaviour like what was described here
Instead, I turned my entire party into super paranoid adventurers, rarely ever acting on rumours they heard, because you never know when that report of "some kobolds taking up residency in a cave nearby" would turn into "ancient dragon sending out his minions to scout the area".
It got to the point in one of the sessions where I had to say "guys... come on... sometimes /a couple of displacer beasts are ruining crops in the farms outside of town/ is REALLY just /a couple displacer beasts ruining the croups outside of town/"
Ever since the campaign mentioned in the post below that has always been my go to opening statement.
There's a balance to be had to be sure.
*laughs evilly* "I lied nowhere is safe!" Seriously your group would be great in a horror setting
Good God. I bet they avoid stepping on pebbles incase the pebbles are landmines. Both hilarious and sad.
I truly hope they stopped fearing everything.
@Corvidae To be fair, it is Dark Heresy
After watching this video I have a feeling I can only describe as "Dissatisfied", the situation itself was stupid to a funny extent and makes it's own point, and even if the Paladin had tried to drop the DM I would've been able to accept that, but the fact that this EXPERIENCED PLAYER actually just let their genuinely hard working DM get thrown out the window like that just ABSOLUTELY LEAVES ME WANTING TO THROW SOMEONE (Disclaimer: I will not actually throw someone). C'mon, if you're legitimately experienced or at least reasonable enough to see the flaw in the players then DON'T LET THEM DO THAT TO A DM. And seriously who's idea was it to not inform the DM that they had been dropped? Noone in that situation (Aside from OP) has any right to call themselves an actual player imo as D&D is a cooperative multiplayer RPG game and requires the BASIC COMMON SENSE to COMMUNICATE.
I'm sorry, I'm a Dungeon Master who was blessed with not having to deal with the peak of stupidity in my campaigns and to see things like this sets me off.
Remember here we only hear the side of the story of the DM. From reading between the lines I am fairly certain the players have a way more believable story about how this whole thing unfolded. Remember this is the dm who by his own words went "He told me 'We got this' ..So disrespectful! I SHALL SMITE HIM DOWN WITH THE POWER OF THE DM!". Does that sounds like a fair/good DM to you?
@@benjamindeh873 I see where you're coming from, however unless OP is flat out lying then it doesn't change the fact that the players followed the Paladin into an encounter that they obviously couldn't win. However, this isn't even my issue, players be players and this is far from the most stupid I've heard.
The reason I'm Dissatisfied is that (regardless of how good or bad the DM was) they kicked OP from DM without OP having a say in it, showing a complete lack of any attempt to communicate which is (in my opinion) probably the most important aspect of any group game that takes any organization.
Also, it's more important to note that the Dungeon Master was relatively new so if they where going to kick him off for being a "bad DM" without actually giving him a chance to improve, then they shouldn't have let him DM in the first place. Them kicking him for that reason show that the players suffer from something similar to the Matt Mercer Effect where they have unrealistic expectations of the new DM, which in itself is a problem with the players.
And for the last part, see my last point about new DMs, but also this: To answer your question it does not sound like a fair/good DM but it also doesn't sound like a serious comment at all, I feel like this is backed up by the fact that he doesn't speak like that for the rest of the post aside from the fairly consistent comments about "disrespect" which does show a bit of problem on OP's side but honestly is understandable to be upset about, just preferably not with an egotistical perspective.
To sum it up, even if the players are less at fault than OP makes them sound they still kicked him out without communicating, which is what upsets me and will continue to.
(Also I apologize if my text tone sounds aggressive, I don't intend to be.)
@@Dratina Well what I say is that in the BEST case scenario where we believe 100000% of what he said, he still sounds like a bad DM.
So even if there is a 5 or 10% of inaccuracies in the way he recalls thing, that only makes it worse. He doesnt needs to be outright lying, simply skipping small details or embellishing some things can change how things sound a lot.
And if every player is communicating except the DM.....Is it really likely that EVERY other player has communication issues? Or is it more likely only the OP who had bad communication with the players?
What I saw in this video from the OP was:
- A lot of arrogance despite his lack of experience. (And EVEN if he had 20 years of experience dming... arrogance is never a sign of a good DM)
- Constant insulting, making fun and demoting of certain players and their playstyles.
- Blaming everyone but himself. I kept hearing HE HE THEY THEM rather than introspectively think what HE could have done better.
- Constantly trying to force players to play things the exact way he planned them, and getting angry/frustrated when they do not, and even telling them as DM not to do what they want to do. A good DM knows that if you plan for players to do 1 out of 20 options, they will likely do option #772.
Oh by the way, that was further confirmed to me when I went to my youtube homepage and youtube recommended me 2-3 more videos of this OP and they all had very arrogant titles...like "HOW X PLAYER/CHARACTER ALMOST RUINED THE GAME AND I/CRAB SAVED IT".
Glad youtube has the "never show me this channel again" option. This is only the second time I have ever used it.
@@benjamindeh873 Okay I should probably clarify because I feel like you misunderstood which is my bad, I wasn't stating that he's a good DM or even that he's being truthful, or even that I'm on his side for that matter, though those are implied, the implications are not intended.
I *did* see that arrogant/egotistical tone, I noticed the blaming and the railroading as well: trust me when I say I'm not *that* ignorant, even a noobie DM such as myself can see that stuff. However, to be frank that's not what I care about, not to say I don't care for the argument that you make, you are correct to be skeptical about the OP's implied "right and wrongs" of the situation and to be frank after taking time to analyze the post I can somewhat agree with you to that extent, however no amount of the DM sinning will get my eyes away from the fact that the players just kicked OP from DM without telling them about it until the start of the next session (which is what I expressed I was initially dissatisfied with, and still am).
No I'm not oblivious to the possibility that some circumstance may have prevented that communication, but there is nothing to prove or really imply that as far as I am aware and therefore I have no reason to assume that, making that assumption with no basis basically would take away the point of me listening to this post initially anyways.
If we must go into who is good and bad, the players took a 3 v 50 encounter at level 3 without a mage intentionally, so they aren't exactly the most rational of peeps. As OP stated "nobody in particular will come out looking good", which is why as I implied with the above post I don't really want to take a side.
Jim is the spirit of a man that died long ago during a D&D campaign that never reached its conclusion. He's continued to exist in the material plane, joining many games, just along for the ride. In death, he's learned that the true joy of the game is just being at the table and watching the stories unfold, no matter what kind of mistakes are made.
He knows they're going to die, he knows the DM and Maurice are butting heads, and he knows that no one is really having a good time. But he is. Because he's there for the love of the game, and he knows that these mortal's lives won't last longer than a century. Might as well enjoy it while they're still here.
Jim and Katie are the only players who are worth spit in the game lol.
You just described a classic troll.
I remember I was in a game where each of our characters were being chased out of hell by some giant terrifying monster. And one of them was like "I run toward the sounds!" Dm: "Really?" Player: "Yes!" Dm:"Alright roll a new character"
That character lasted a whole 15 minutes
There's being brave
And then there's just having no self-preservation whatsoever
The difference being a brave person KNOWS when he needs to be brave. A suicidal moron is always a suicidal moron. No matter the context.
One of the most epic moments I can remember, from the longest campaign I've played in, was when a low level (2-4, i forget) warforged paladin on their warhorse charged a juvenile purple worm, yelling at the rest of the party to run while we still could. A juvenile just meant it did slightly less damage and it's psionic abilities hadn't developed yet. They died almost instantly, I think the purple worm still had a fourth attack. We also had a halfling bard in the party with the dragonmark of the house of healing. We had another horse but it did not want to be anywhere near the purple worm. So after a handle animal check to control the horse and another check to pick up the halfling we were riding alongside the paladin's warhorse away from the worm. The halfling then had to roll a check to jump onto the other horse and this is where the GM fudged things, allowed a high enough check to use the dragonmark to revive the paladin from below -con hitpoints.
That same paladin then went on to become a saint in a massive battle with a witch/hag with only their sword left behind (the player had checked out of the game months earlier). The party took on the quest to return the sword as an artifact of the church. That was the best paladin I've seen and the best character that player has ever played despite the fact they hated it. That player typically played vampires or undead or half-dragon-half-wartroll monstrousities that could regenerate from everything except fire damage.
Tormund's pursuit of justice would probably make Bahamut facedesk.
Face desk, burn said desk, curse tiamat who probably gifted him the desk, and toss the desk at Tormund for his blasphemy.
I think it would be more like facemountain... he's a dragon god...
@@aralornwolf3140 Faceearth
@@vahlok1426 ,
Now, Now, I don't believe a Lawful Good god would kill off millions of people from frustration because his follower is stupid...
@@aralornwolf3140 That was literally the plot of one of the Dragonlance novels... It does happen.
One Player acts like that and just walks off then I am like okay "I'm staying here and the helping these people as the paladin should." "He can go die and we will defend the town." "As he does NOT speak for all of us"
“I don’t retreat” ok then charge through the darkness and save the blinded ranger
"N-no I don't want five attacks of opportunity." ~probably
@@kana22693 I mean... disengage is an option, lmao
@@rageoftyrael Oh, that's the thing I never actually do.
THAT MEANS MOVING BACKWARDS! NEVER!
I didn't do this but something similar my friend was paralysed so I ran past 4 guys to keep him safe all of the opportune attacks missed and I'm still mythed as to how
Love how you've got a chill elf, a rogue orc who just kills everything, a Gnome played by a punk and a bastard
Alternative title: Lawful stupid paladin makes stupid choices and wins a stupid prize.
The Darwin award?
Red Cross in this scenario, yes exactly.
The most literal interpretation of play stupid games, get stupid prizes.
Lawful stupid does lawful stupid things.
Alternative-alternative title: Shitty DM gets mad about not being able to control player-characters, gets "offended" that people are having fun, and doesn't stick to his guns. they should have just fought 50 orcs because thats what they set out to do. As a DM, I would've had no problem controlling this group and the fact that this DM CLEARLY has not learned his lesson in just letting players do what they want, consequences an all, is frankly sad
Maurice literally just turned down a failing-forward campaign. My primary campaign's party had bloated to such an extent that a TPK is nigh impossible and, as a consequence, failing-forward is similarly difficult. I would be honored to receive such a way out from my DM even though I'm in her second campaign ever since I would imagine she would know about failing-forward styles. The fact that a first-time DM was able to take this style into consideration even after the party had effectively committed suicide is the most tolerant I had ever seen a DM.
Way too lenient, in my humble opinion.
@@Lobsterwithinternetprobably. But it's not fair for everyone to die because one player is a complete idiot
@@magellan6439 It is when they follow a complete idiot into certain death.
@@Lobsterwithinternet I guess. But one of them was new and the other never lost a character. First time Dms never want to be the one to be your first death.
@@magellan6439 True enough.
Nobody likes being the bad guy.
But otherwise, you're demonstrating that there are no repercussions for their actions and that you will ensure that they will succeed no matter what they do. This makes it a very boring game for the majority of players and they'll just leave.
"Why she didn't just play a fighter, I will never know."
Two words: Sneak. Attack.
only works for finese weapons though?
Also a stealthy orc with a rogue class, I'd probably do the same thing
@@patrickdees5256 But she wasn't stealthy and didn't get sneak attacks with a mace.
@@SapphireDragon357 eh. Yeah but those abilities that rogues get so make it so you don't get hit as much
@@patrickdees5256 As the OP, I can 100% confirm that her stealth was gaaaaarbage. Not that she used it anyway. She wouldn't sneak up on you, she'd just whack you in the head as you're looking at her.
"... lawful good isn't exclusive to police officers or lawyers..." -CritCrab
Me: Hold up, lawyers are lawful good?
I always thought they were closer to lawful evil
@@Me-jx1mo I feel like lawyers are a pretty big lawful neutral.
I'd go for lawful neutral. It's not about right or wrong, it's about what you can prove in court.
Tyr is a lawful good deity in the Forgotten Realms and lawyers are counted among his worshippers
As someone on the lawyer path, we pretty much have to be lawful neutral or we're not doing the job properly. Though some are more lawful evil or lawful good ig.
When a DM says "are you sure?" IMMEDIATELY regret all your decisions if you continue your plan
EDIT: 1.5K+ UPVOTES!? thanks everyone, this blew up harder than I thought!!!
The one of the only two good dm's I've gotten to play with would use that when someone was making either an awful stupid decision where he would likely have to come up with consequences due to their being no way it ends well, or when making the decision to take a dead end branch of an event he planned. He would still let you roll, and sometimes you could defy the odds and he would reward that, but you had a better chance of failing misserably and ending up with a significant penalty. That included pvp conflict. Had a player who was a dick to me and crossed some lines with other characters too. He walked right into a trap i had prepared and the DM gave his support as long as i didn't take it to far myself. Dude ended up spending half the campaign with a chastity belt bolted on.
"Are you sure you want to ask that character for help of that nature? Welp, you asked for it...."
PC: I cast Hold Person
Me: ... on the zombie?
PC: yes.
Me: are you sure?
PC: yes
Me: ... mark down that you have one less spell slot
@@rylog8 so I’m kinda new to dnd. Why wouldn’t hold person work on a humanoid zombie?
@@harkwin9277 depends on the version, but usually hold person only works on non monster creatures, and undead count as monsters not people
This paladin pisses me off. He got the entire party killed by being an idiot, and blamed the dm for it.
Funniest part is that to no surprise considering human nature though he lost the battle he won the war.
I don't know what Tormund the Idiot said or did to oust the DM, he must've had rolled high on his charisma or had lots of bribes to make
That paladin is on the path to evil
I was running a very loose game over Discord a while back, and the greatest mistake I made was not killing a PC who, when bored, decided to ask the other DM to have him encounter ‘the strongest monster in the area’
I wrapped up the encounter, which was done over two separate days but only a few hours, again, loose rules game, and I realized afterwards he should’ve either died or been horribly crippled. This dumbass didn’t seem to get it. At all. When I pointed out that he had just fought the region boss and I really should’ve just killed him for doing it ALONE, he said ‘I just wanted to fight the strongest monster, not a boss.’
so on and so forth
Sounds more like the DM didn't realize that he's the DM, he has all of the control. If a player is going to go outside of the box, show the horrors that lie outside the box. Rocks Fall. You Die.
So, he was basically playing Eric Cartman as a Paladin. "YOU WILL RESPECT MAH AUTHORITAH!"
*Gets killed* SCREW YOU DM, YOU'RE GOING HOME.
Then he tries to get a second term as President.
That player really had main character syndrome. I kinda liked Jim though, I'm sad that he didn't stick up for the DM more, though we don't know the the parties friend ship dynamics. DM may have been the outlier friend so it was easier for Jim to side with his girlfriend and Stupid.
Especially since Jim was their original DM and should have known better than any of them how much effort the new DM was putting in there.
If I was Jim I would've looked at Maurice and said, "Dude, we were all warned that this was way to high level. Multiple. Times. This isn't the DM's fault because the players made a mistake."
If only, if only.
If only Jim wasn't a total piece of shit.
yeah, i feel like Jim is just a horrible friend that likes to laugh at the stupid crap his friends get into and only hangs around for that
I do not believe the story of this dm, particularly when an experienced DM who has dmed with this group long enough to get burn out decided to side with the players and demote this DM.
@@benjamindeh873 Depends on where the OP lies on the friend hierarchy.
@@benjamindeh873 Hey pal, never learned humans can be assholes who laugh at the suffering of others? Sure it could be exaggerated because the story was from a while ago, buuut some people want to see the world burn. So I'm giving it a plausibility pass. Worse shit has happened, someone maybe lieing about a dnd game gone wrong isn't the worst thing to happen to this world.
I think another problem here is that the player playing as Tormond, had different expectations of this.
He thought this was like....a heroic story that the players are "supposed" to win at, no matter how stupidly they play it.
he probably worked hard on his character concept, thinking it would be funny and entertaining and was legit shocked when the dm let him face the consequences of his stupidity.
like years ago, my brother wanted me to dm an "evil" campaign for him and i agreed and he starts off by marching into a tavern, reaching behind the counter, grabbing a bottle of beer and smashing it over the bartenders head and when i reveal then, that the bartender is a level 5 fighter and isn't going to stand for that, he gets all mad calling me a cheater, saying its not fair that my npcs have class levels. and that i'm not letting him play out his evil fantasy blah blah blah.
anyway, after summarily tossing him out of the bar, i agree to set up a solo adventure for him to sneak in and raid the castle treasury.
i set up guards and a sneaking section and a bunch of stuff for him to go through to reach the treasury...but i put a little "surprise" in there. when he got in there, he saw all this treasure, but there was also a pedestal..with a light shining on it...with a gleaming weapon...that was exactly what my bro was proficient in. so , of course, my bro immediately grabs it, and equips it...takes as much treasure and gold as he can carry...and a guard catches him on the way out.
my bro fights the guard with his gleaming new weapon ..and seems to be fighting poorly...like ..missing attacks that seem like they should have hit and he's all like wtf, what is this guy's AC?! and he barely wins ...only to find out later when he tries to use a ranged attack to shoot a guard that he can't pull out his bow because the melee weapon he found in the treasury is cursed, giving him a -1 to hit and he can't get rid of it and it always flies into his hand in every combat situation, not allowing him to use any other weapon...until he removes the curse...then my bro explodes, saying i cheated and doesn't want to play anymore. . .
and i had set up a thing , i was gonna gove him a quest to go on, to remove the curse and everything. i was just trying to teach him consequences and make it challenging and i wanted to let him be evil, i just wanted him to be more subtle about it and play his character more carefully, you know, like a real person that fears death would act.
like an evil person wants to do evil, but also still wants to avoid capture and not get killed, but my bro just wanted to go on an all out chaos and destruction spree..at level 1. . .
moral, i made a mistake because my expectations were different from his. I think he thought i was "supposed" to just let him do what he wanted, like my game world was just a huge "sandbox" for him.
A player not understanding how the game works is not the DM's fault. You didn't make a mistake, he did. People need to not play DnD expecting it to be like Skyrim.
And this is why I 100% subscribe to the "FULL DISCLAIMERS BEFORE GAME 0 EVEN STARTS" methodology. If the DM aint properly outlined (or I haven't if I'm DMing) the "style" (hard/FULL CONSEQUENCES, easy/chill/Heroic Mode & Plot Armour Enabled, Medium/Average) I just bring it up by asking first thing. If its a new DM, first thing I want to know: _"What's your style of Godhood? Do you work to ensure that we somehow survive at all costs, cooperatively, or are we in for a "neutral but fair" God who'll be giving us resources and maybe hints but who'll otherwise let us face the full repercussions of our choices, good or bad?"_
This is also the first info a new PC will learn about me/my style, I do NOT hand hold. You do the stupid, within reason you will FEEL that stupid 3x returned. I am not a kindly DM, I am a fair one, and if you play my game you don't complain when your stupidity gets you killed, because that means you've (usually) ignored all warnings and alternatives or just have done something stupid... You reroll and try again.
@@bakaichigo I am curious. Do you have some leniency to first timers during camp 0? Like, if they make a mistake do you give them a chance to recover? But once they get a full understanding do you ramp up the difficulty?
@@Firan25 Yeah - I always run it a bit easy on newbies, esp. if they are complete TTRPG newbies. I'm a "if the table's not having fun, I'm not doing my job well" type. Used to teach a few of the younger kids at school how to play. :D I prefer DMs who give some leniency to lowbies and inexperienced types, as I feel it leads to more cooperative gamers out of them later.
Not your fault.
The only alternative is to just tell such a player" "You win. You are now everything you dreamed of being, and own the whole world. Good luck."
There is no point otherwise.
You can do lawful stupid well. Self aware lawful stupid can be good as hell. One of my friends runs a character named yeth who is a silver dragonborn palading of bahamat who is lawful good. What makes it self aware is that the voice of his that is pushing him to inact Justice is not actually bahamat. It's schizophrenia. So we just have a delusional dragonborn who thinks he's the Messiah and it is one of the best characters I have ever played with.
That's clever :) and honestly, if everyone else is role-playing well, there would be good balance within the party :) also it sounds pretty hilarious :)
See, that would actually be good and fun to play. However, sadly, this Paladin was not. I've also had ideas myself of playing up the Edgelord as something comedic, with all the stereotypical tropes, like sitting in the dark corner, brooding about his dark past.
Out of curiosity, where does their actual magical power come from? Just sheer devotion to a schizophrenic delusion? 🤔
@@ChateauLonLon no they are actually a paladin of bahamat. They are just a bit confused. Sometimes when they do something that's bahamats will it's actually bahamat. Sometimrs it's the voice in his head. The party just had to guess which is which.
@@cyborglion4179 ah I gotcha! I suppose someone staunchly faithful would receive paladin-like abilities regardless! Neato!
Rogue with high Strength and Charisma, based around just intimidation... sounds absolutely hilarious. Not great at sneaking, just telling guards they saw nothing.
"YOU SAW NOTHING!"
"I-I saw nothing!"
"DAMN RIGHT!"
You know, I'd expect nothing less of the lawful braindead to oust the DM. The two newbies agreeing to it? Sure, I guess they didn't know better. But the supposedly experienced DM Jim, who knew exactly what the problem was, to just agree and go with this? That's honestly the shittiest thing out of this whole shitshow. The only way I can see this happening is if the hollow-skulled paladunce held the game hostage behind the scenes.
Take into account the social context. He probably didn't wanted to go, but he knew people would react bad at him in person if he refused to go. He probably didn't wanted to cause conflict. I don't know. Maybe, just maybe, the DM thinks that this was the whole reason they mutinied against him, but this might have been just the drop of water that overflowed the cup.
Maybe it's because he realized the group was fucked, and decided to cut his losses?
My personal theory is that OP just ran a better game than Jim, so out of jealousy jim used Paladont as his personal Hitman in the game. We don't know who started the "Mutiny on The Tabletop" first, but my vote goes to Jim being Ringleader.
@@johnnysizemore5797 If OP's game was better than Jim's, the others wouldn't agree to oust OP in favor of Jim.
Jim is described as being the super laid back and chill guy. Which he's probably so laid back and chill that he's also a wet blanket when it comes to dealing with conflict. Maurice seems like the kind of forceful personality that would browbeat others around him in to agreeing with him.
TBH my response at the end of session two would be to ask "Do you want to play this out or just re roll characters now?"
Some of the hypothetical DM responses in the comments, like this one, are hilarious.
I would have definitely assigned them “Bring an extra character sheet next time guys” on the way out lol
Tormund is just a chaos marine “ blood for the blood god! Skulls for the skull throne! We will attack three thousand Orks if Khorne shall see us!”
Khorne wasn't impressed
Khorne was amused
Khorne hate idiots
Narrator: Khorne did not care
The fact that the rest of the party just went along with the paladins bullshit is absolutely insane to me.
There's got to be more to the story than what we are told. Remember, we are hearing from the bias perspective of the DM himself, not the PCs. For all we know, they went along for a valid reason.
@@Vossenator Yeah, something doesn't feel right about this story and how it ended. I get that the party shouldn't have done that fight but it was the paladin who would make the situations worse. Why punish the whole group for his stupid actions? And you're telling me Jim didn't say anything about replacing the DM? Something isn't being told to us.
It's insane to you that the players had fun in a game going along with some guys ridiculous plan? Are you aware that this is a game? The characters died, so what? Jim presumably DMd just fine with the Maurice guy so why couldn't the new DM? It was clear that the party was just goofing around playing a GAME while the DM was taking it more seriously than it needed to be. This comment section is actually insane to me, the DM looked like an idiot in his own story. Meaning that he probably was much worse in the actual story. All the DM just wanted the PCs to do what HE wanted. If his players wanted to meathead the campaign and just murder shit, why should he be like "no because that's not fun to me." Its 3 against 1, and if that's not the campaign you want to run, then that's FINE. Just say that's not the campaign you want to run and be done with it.
In one of my group, we had a human paladin with intelligence as the dumpstat...
...He was actually really good and funny, he basically channeled The Tick.
Basically, a dumb paladin can be amazing and unforgettable if done correctly.
That sounds Amazing!
I played a similar character based off of Kronk from Emperor's New Groove.
That’s the thing, Tormund could’ve been an amazing character without doing all that much different. Don Quixote is hilarious, and it’s literally entirely about a very Tormund-esque character.
The issue is that Maurice wasn’t self-aware of the fact that he was being blatantly suicidal. If he knew, and was doing all this because he felt like charging into a horde of orcs and not retreating even to give himself a better chance of winning would be funny, then this video would have a very different tone.
He basically channeled The Tick... Well... I guess I know what my next character is gonna be. 😂
Tormund is unforgettable, but in the bad way.
24:00 "Out of pure spite, my character forces himself to die." Who the hell does this guy think he is?
Major Dolmann J U S T I C E
I N C A R N A T E
If I was in that party, when the paladin declared he'll march into 50 orcs at level 3, I would have said: "Good luck." and stayed in town.
And I mean ANY character I would have made.
Yeah, I don't know where this group got the idea to "not split the party".
If one Player is hellbent on doing something suicidal, it would be bad roleplaying to not imagine your characters instinct of self-preservation.
And whan an Orc horde is barreling down on the town you're in, it's all about safety in numbers (i.e staying with the town guards)
So I would've let this psycho paladin go off to die on his own.
Yeah. My paladin is brash two, but even he wouldn’t be such a dumbass to try and fight the giant orc army. He would have stated in that town, barricaded ir, and fought like hell.
My paladin is a Warforged and even him, with the programation, knows that to bring justice to the world, needs to...you know ¡STAY FUCKING ALIVE!
Honestly op is a nicer DM then me. I wouldn't have even talked out of character. I would have just made sure the paladin died and allowed the party to make a desperate escape.
Edit: never mind op did exactly what I'd do. Lol
Orc warboss turns up absolutely smears the paladin walks of whilst insulting the fleeing party members.
Me: ah dumb paladi-
Critcrab: JUSTICE!
Me: sweet baby jesus, my ears!
Honestly sounds like a lot of fun up until the end. If player's wanna be stupid, let them be stupid. I'm surprised that the Paladin's player wasn't in on the joke and that he was actually shocked by the outcome.
It's because to him it wasn't a joke he was completely serious, he didn't think he was being stupid/thought he was more badass than he really was.
I'm surprised that the party thought (or at least implied) that he was a bad DM. HE TOLD YOU SEVERAL TIMES THAT YOU WOULD GET REKT AND HE DIDN'T EVEN KILL YOUR PC'S!!!
I think this was probably the burnout that Jim had, was dealing with this player's BS and Jim probably realized that the DM and the player of the lawful stupid Paladin was just going to end in more headbutting... But Jim should definitely have spoken to the DM before making such a decision.
Plus jail break after the starting town is ravaged sounds fun. Now the big dumb and bland bad guy has some history with you.
@Jasonmanguy Or maybe the OP isn't actually being honest about what happened. It doesn't seem like it could have been any more dramatic or written to make the DM look good than it already was. Maurice is stupid because the story teller says so. If the story isn't just completely fabricated.
I’m shocked OP didn’t stick around to play a lawful good Paladin that was exactly the same.
Hey now, theres no stupid characters. Only stupid players
@@merrickmiller1224 I mean, have you never dump statted Int on a barbarian? There are DEFINITELY stupid characters. I've made one. lol
@@makom2405 yeah but the smart characters can at least point that walking ball of stupid rage in a smart direction a stupid player can't be moved
@@makom2405 and that's how the dumb barbarian kills the bbeg through an illusion deadly spell because shiny lights don't hurt.
"I keep running forward."
"There's a cliff here."
"I KEEP RUNNING"
"Are you sure?"
"YES."
"You barrel off the cliff."
"WoW, mAyBe GiVe Us SoMe WaRnInG aNd DoN't JuSt TPK
The moment they all showed up to the new campaign with the same characters, including the problem player, was perhaps the biggest red flag. That might’ve been the best moment to back out
Nervous Goblin holding a torch + suspicious barrel = BOOM TRAP!!!
*YOU DESERVE WHATEVER FATE YOU GET IF YOU WALK UP TO THIS OBVIOUS TRAP*
Why do I feel the need to say this?
"Obvious trap is obvious."
plaladin: ThAt EnCoUnTeR wAs WaY tOo hArD!
DM: THEN WHY DID YOU WALK INTO IT???
@@liamdalemon1525
Paladin: Becomes catalyst for entirely unecessary encounter that the dm did his best avoid, even telegraphing the ambush he made to keep you away from the 50 orcs in the most ovious way possible.
Also Paladin: uNfAiR
Ditch the ambush. Just keep placing boom traps and see if he keeps charging into them.
Especially when you KNOW it's a trap. If he was just too dense to realize it, then ok. Kind of excusable. But he flat out got told it was a trap by the other PC, and he decided "Let's go! You're under arre-" ***EXPLODES***
Sometimes splitting the party is a good thing.
Such as when one of it's members seems hellbent on killing himself.
I'm puzzled by the party for just blindly following the paladin.
Update!
We had a Lawful Stupid Paladin charge into a room full of zombies and a necromancer/Lich, we followed him like idiots...
@@The_Friendly_Fire A story in two parts
It sounds like the entire party were idiots, honestly. They never made an attempt to correct for the Paladin, they literally tried to fight blind until they were all dead, and then they all unanimously decided the DM was the problem - despite them making multiple attempts to be fair, and give them a second chance.
@@LordofFullmetal I speak from experience as I say you're correct.
We too were being idiots.
@@LordofFullmetal i agree. But player skill level should be taken into account when designing a world. Including their propensity to make stupid decisions. As an experienced player I would have loved this. I’m all about pushing the party to the ragged edge, that’s just me tho.
I have to say, half-orc brute of a Rogue is a cool idea that I feel I don't hear enough about. I think Spoony has an old video talking about a similar character. If I recall, the introduction for the character went something like "How is this supposed to be our thief when he's a huge brute?". The rogue clubs the naysayer over the head, knocking him out and taking his stuff, saying to the others "When he wakes up, tell him I've got his stuff in my room."
A shame it ended this way. I'm fairly new to D&D myself, but from my perspective it sounded like the DM had an interesting story arc going on. I'm also impressed that he somehow managed to salvage that absolute dumpster fire of an encounter by potentially having the wizard break them out. Unfortunate that never happened thanks to those crybabies deciding that they just didn't want to play it anymore.
You shouldn't be anything like this DM.
If you want to run games with a bunch of Mary Sues, that is.
@@Lobsterwithinternet dude, you sound like a guy who believes DND is meant to be Players Vs DM and everything has to kill the party, and you want to punish everyone for one person’s mistakes/stupidity. This DM didn’t make the characters Mary Sues, he made tough but potentially winnable encounters that a single player fucked up for everyone. You can tell by his wording “salvage” that he is okay with PC death, but not TPK from a single player’s stupidity. If it was one player being punished for his stupidity, great! The whole party dying for one player’s stupidity? That’s a fast way to make everyone pissed off.
@@AshtonMonitor 🤨
The low-level paladin charged straight into an army of Orcs. And the rest of the party followed him even when the DM warned them that it was stupid and they shouldn't do it. That's not just a simple mistake on his part that the DM can bend to save them from a TPK. That's someone walking into a Sphere of Annihilation and the rest of the party watching them do it and following them into it.
The DM can't salvage player stupidity and shouldn't. Every time he ‘salvaged’ the situation, that only emboldened them and gave them the false hope that the DM would just let them win like their previous DM obviously did if OP was accurate in his description of him.
What should have happened was that the DM should have let him run off, turning to focus on the rest of the party while the captain encouraged the other players to stay and man the defenses. They help prepare defenses in whatever ways the DM determined they can. They roleplay with NPCs. They go to sleep and in the morning when the Orc army arrives, the party sees them put up a stake with the Paladin’s head on top. Then the DM would turn to the Paladin and ask him to make a new character.
TL;DR You can't and shouldn't save stupid.
Dark Syde Phil as a paladin. "OMG WHY IS THE ENCOUNTER SO HARD. WHY AM I DYING. WOW THIS GAME IS BULLSHIT"
*The Dunning Kruger Effect*
Someone with such LOW cognitive abilities that they actually believe that they have HIGHER cognitive abilities than everyone else.
*Standing in a cloud of darkness missing every attack and being sliced apart*
"Yeah this is fine let's keep doing thi-why am I dead!? BULLSHIT DM!"
Like Benjamin Deh?
Everyone is stupid except me
It is not about cognitive ability. Its about how well informed someone is on a topic verse how well informed they think they are. Someone can be perfectly intelligent and fall prey to it.
@@shadenox8164 Fair point, but it can still be applied in the context I was speaking in.
Taking out longsword, coming into bandit camp and shouting that they are under arrest is pretty badass.