Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Easy E wrote:
In my experience, the hardest part about being a nerd is having to deal with other nerds in order to play games.

This.

I would say that in my short time in TTRPGs, I've found that it's pretty steep on these things. A lot of groups seem to go really out of their way (like really out of their way) to be as accommodating and open as possible.

D&D is probably the first time I've ever seen the words "trigger warning" used unironically when a DM gave an upfront description of the campaign's premise so people would know it mildly mentioned rape in a character's backstory. Up until that point, the only times I'd ever seen that phrase used were unlikeable people doing their damndest to bitch about nothing.

At the same time, D&D is also the first time I'd ever seen anyone say the phrase "I want to play a chaotic good character who rapes people." Because... Wow. Okay. Obviously the DM did not accept that person's request to join the game, because even as a joke it's not really funny and who is going to take that gamble?

Anyway, point is that I've seen extremes of these issues far more frequently in D&D than I have in other places and it seems to be part of the landscape. I don't find the video that off base. It might hinge on where you are in things, but I've only been at this for like, 9 months and I've seen a lot of what she's talking about either in person or in passing.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

So, basically she is saying that RPGs are great and amazing and can be really inclusive but you do still need to be careful as there are still people out there who are toxic, like in any fandom. What part of that do you actually disagree with?

Anti-SJW's gonna anti-SJW.

And yeah, there are some...weirdos in the hobby. Rare, but they cast a long shadow. There was one player I gamed with in an online group who...in hindsight, was really goddamn creepy, and clearly using the games to indulge some stuff that I really shouldn't have let him get away with (or kept him in the group after trying. Nasty stuff under spoiler.



In hindsight, I should have instantly kicked him, but I was a socially withdrawn geek and too easily cowed (he was a manipulative little turd as well, an expert at "negotiating" by just sulking and guilt-tripping) and scared of causing OOC drama. He was one player out of hundreds I've gamed with and none of the others (even on sites designed for explicit adult RP's) came close, but creeps like that do exist, and do much more to damage the reputation of RPG's than videos that call out this behaviour. Someone unambiguously saying "that stuff ain't right, nobody should be expected to have that sort of player in their games" would have been very useful for me back then.

BTW, feminists do complain about mysogynistic imagery in music videos. Stop the whataboutisms, Togusa, you're not fooling anyone.

[/spoiler]

I'm sure some have, some where. But they do not go as hard on that group as they do on the gamers. I don't really care if that statement gets me labled either as "anti-sjw" or "antifeminist." I'll stand by it, modern media throws a ton of crap at gamers, and I garuntee you half of it is nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
I would say that in my short time in TTRPGs, I've found that it's pretty steep on these things. A lot of groups seem to go really out of their way (like really out of their way) to be as accommodating and open as possible.

D&D is probably the first time I've ever seen the words "trigger warning" used unironically when a DM gave an upfront description of the campaign's premise so people would know it mildly mentioned rape in a character's backstory. Up until that point, the only times I'd ever seen that phrase used were unlikeable people doing their damndest to bitch about nothing.

At the same time, D&D is also the first time I'd ever seen anyone say the phrase "I want to play a chaotic good character who rapes people." Because... Wow. Okay. Obviously the DM did not accept that person's request to join the game, because even as a joke it's not really funny and who is going to take that gamble?

Anyway, point is that I've seen extremes of these issues far more frequently in D&D than I have in other places and it seems to be part of the landscape. I don't find the video that off base. It might hinge on where you are in things, but I've only been at this for like, 9 months and I've seen a lot of what she's talking about either in person or in passing.

Strange people you've encountered. As I said, in nearly 23 years of role playing, I've never even had a session that had any sex in it. Most people I know are too awkward to handle such things anyways and would probably go out of their way to avoid it.

My personal feeling about sex in games is the same as sex in movies, unless we're talking about porn, then why? Why is it there?

Also, "Chaotic Good" and "Rape." What kind of slow was that? Hopefully you or your DM booted him from the group.

He never joined the group. That was his written request to join, which included an answer to the question "what kind of character do you want to play?"

Part of it might be that I don't have an established network to play with. I got started looking for games on the internet (r/LFG, Roll20, Discord), which is what I assume a lot of people do when they either a) haven't played long enough to have people to reliably play the game with or b) have played long enough to have no people to reliably play the game with because no one wants to play with them.

I haven't seen sex in game either, though I have seen a fair bit of debate on how to handle it and whether or not it has any place in the game(s). Reminds me a lot of debate over sex in film and novels, which generally tends to be "why? Oh but that time was tastefully handled so it was okay." I find it hard to see that ever happening in a group of people who aren't really familiar/comfortable with each other though.

 LordofHats wrote:
He never joined the group. That was his written request to join, which included an answer to the question "what kind of character do you want to play?"

Part of it might be that I don't have an established network to play with. I got started looking for games on the internet (r/LFG, Roll20, Discord), which is what I assume a lot of people do when they either a) haven't played long enough to have people to reliably play the game with or b) have played long enough to have no people to reliably play the game with because no one wants to play with them.

I haven't seen sex in game either, though I have seen a fair bit of debate on how to handle it and whether or not it has any place in the game(s). Reminds me a lot of debate over sex in film and novels, which generally tends to be "why? Oh but that time was tastefully handled so it was okay." I find it hard to see that ever happening in a group of people who aren't really familiar/comfortable with each other though.

I am always amazed when I listen to podcasts and read blogs about RPG and they make it seem like picking up new members, creating a group of games, or getting into a new groups is really easy to do. If you are looking for in-person RPG it is NOT easy to do. First, there is finding the local community and second it is getting to know them well enough to be invited, and then actually being comfortable RPing with them.

This is simply NOT easy to do unless you have a pretty well-established network of fellow local gamers. I find it is much easier to go an grab a pick-up game of any current GW game than getting into a half-decent RPG group.

 LordofHats wrote:
He never joined the group. That was his written request to join, which included an answer to the question "what kind of character do you want to play?"

Part of it might be that I don't have an established network to play with. I got started looking for games on the internet (r/LFG, Roll20, Discord), which is what I assume a lot of people do when they either a) haven't played long enough to have people to reliably play the game with or b) have played long enough to have no people to reliably play the game with because no one wants to play with them.

I haven't seen sex in game either, though I have seen a fair bit of debate on how to handle it and whether or not it has any place in the game(s). Reminds me a lot of debate over sex in film and novels, which generally tends to be "why? Oh but that time was tastefully handled so it was okay." I find it hard to see that ever happening in a group of people who aren't really familiar/comfortable with each other though.

You really lucked out on that one.

Yeah, I've met most of the people I've played with through places like Gencon & Dragoncon, or through High School and College. I guess I've just been lucky not to get any perverts in that regard.

Now, on the other side of this topic, I have had my fair share of murder hobos. So much so that I've started to have "the talk" with my players about not just trying to murder/kill/steal every thing in sight. I tend to run low power games, so I get a lot of push back from players who want their vorpal sword asap. It sorta ruins the mood sometimes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
He never joined the group. That was his written request to join, which included an answer to the question "what kind of character do you want to play?"

Part of it might be that I don't have an established network to play with. I got started looking for games on the internet (r/LFG, Roll20, Discord), which is what I assume a lot of people do when they either a) haven't played long enough to have people to reliably play the game with or b) have played long enough to have no people to reliably play the game with because no one wants to play with them.

I haven't seen sex in game either, though I have seen a fair bit of debate on how to handle it and whether or not it has any place in the game(s). Reminds me a lot of debate over sex in film and novels, which generally tends to be "why? Oh but that time was tastefully handled so it was okay." I find it hard to see that ever happening in a group of people who aren't really familiar/comfortable with each other though.

I am always amazed when I listen to podcasts and read blogs about RPG and they make it seem like picking up new members, creating a group of games, or getting into a new groups is really easy to do. If you are looking for in-person RPG it is NOT easy to do. First, there is finding the local community and second it is getting to know them well enough to be invited, and then actually being comfortable RPing with them.

This is simply NOT easy to do unless you have a pretty well-established network of fellow local gamers. I find it is much easier to go an grab a pick-up game of any current GW game than getting into a half-decent RPG group.

I think that depends on how introverted or extroverted a player is. As I've said, for me it's simple. I go looking for a group and join. Because I'm pretty social and easy to get along with most of the time, I never have trouble finding a group. Finding a good group, however, is another story.

I think 5e is more welcoming to non-stereotypical nerds than any other version of the game I have seen. The playerbase is also changing to reflect that, though a little slowly, because it has always been heavily male, middle class and white (in countries where that is relevant, of course).

The stuff I see happening to female players is mostly what I call Quarterbacking, which is the guy in the group dictating what to do to the other players each round (and then being really annoyed when they don't do as he says). It was really noticeable in my last group because I had all women except for one guy. The balance has shifted a bit now and it is slightly less of a problem because the women have sort of stood up for themselves about it.

I have also been guilty of some tropey plot devices with female players when I was younger, which I am embarassed about now. And my minis were mostly white people (to be fair, I am from Ireland and that is just how it is there). Now that I have a bunch of indian kids in the game I run for the school club I am making sure my hero minis have a bit more diversity in how they look.

My biggest issue with Dungeons and Dragons is the use of the word "Race" rather than "Species" but that is mostly the legacy of the fantasy literature the game is inspired by. I just would rather it was not used since race is just a social construct invented by racists to justify discrimination. I see Pathfinder is moving to "Ancestry" which is a bit better I suppose. But the concept of "evil races" is pretty dodgey no matter how you slice it.

I've heard people say that Stranger Things has exploded popular interest in DnD. At least in my AL group that's true, cause half the players say they got interested in the game because of Stranger Things. Kind of the game breaking out of its traditional audience and drawing in other people. Which is probably not a wholly bad thing given the often insular nature of gaming communities.

 Da Boss wrote:
I think 5e is more welcoming to non-stereotypical nerds than any other version of the game I have seen. The playerbase is also changing to reflect that, though a little slowly, because it has always been heavily male, middle class and white (in countries where that is relevant, of course).

The stuff I see happening to female players is mostly what I call Quarterbacking, which is the guy in the group dictating what to do to the other players each round (and then being really annoyed when they don't do as he says). It was really noticeable in my last group because I had all women except for one guy. The balance has shifted a bit now and it is slightly less of a problem because the women have sort of stood up for themselves about it.

I have also been guilty of some tropey plot devices with female players when I was younger, which I am embarassed about now. And my minis were mostly white people (to be fair, I am from Ireland and that is just how it is there). Now that I have a bunch of indian kids in the game I run for the school club I am making sure my hero minis have a bit more diversity in how they look.

My biggest issue with Dungeons and Dragons is the use of the word "Race" rather than "Species" but that is mostly the legacy of the fantasy literature the game is inspired by. I just would rather it was not used since race is just a social construct invented by racists to justify discrimination. I see Pathfinder is moving to "Ancestry" which is a bit better I suppose. But the concept of "evil races" is pretty dodgey no matter how you slice it.

I don't know, people trying to tell the rest of the party what to do isn't new. I've experienced that many times over the years. I think in most cases that is more an issue of min/max waac people vs people who just want to role play.

So far this year I've lost 8 characters to death in a single campaign, two of our fellow players have become very upset about that, saying that because I won't listen to their advice, I'm dying a lot. Whereas I look at it that I'm just role playing my characters and letting the dice fall where they will.

Also, I do not see Race as a dirty word. Context matters a lot, and D&D is the one game where I've encountered the fewest amount of racist people, out of all my hobbies.

I don't really care if that statement gets me labled either as "anti-sjw" or "antifeminist." I'll stand by it, modern media throws a ton of crap at gamers, and I garuntee you half of it is nonsense.

Even if that's true, half of what's been reported being true would still be unacceptable. We have unpleasant and under-socialised people in our hobby (remember the guy who thought running a con game centered around rape was a-ok?). Any group closing ranks, saying "they're making it all up to make us look bad!" and denying anything's wrong so as not to give a bad impression just makes the problem worse in the long term--the best disinfectant is sunlight.

(I will certainly label you as someone who thinks that using a term for people with mental disabilities to mean "stupid" is ok. Poor form.)

I have tended to see (and it has been the reported experience of my female friends and wife) that women get quarterbacked more than men in nerdy hobbies. A lot of it comes from a place of helpfulness but it can be pretty annoying.

As to race, probably a discussion for another time. I think the word and concept are a problem because they are a made up construction for the purpose of denigrating certain groups of people over others. Dungeons and Dragons is fundamentally American, and so is constructed in that social context, and I think stuff like having racial penalties to intelligence is pretty uncomfortable. That said, Tolkien, Howard and Lovecraft were also all pretty steeped in the racism of their time, and that is the literature the game draws on, so it is not surprising that it uses that word to denote the different people in the game. It would probably read weirdly to a lot of fantasy fans if any other word was used.

 Da Boss wrote:
I have tended to see (and it has been the reported experience of my female friends and wife) that women get quarterbacked more than men in nerdy hobbies. A lot of it comes from a place of helpfulness but it can be pretty annoying.

As to race, probably a discussion for another time. I think the word and concept are a problem because they are a made up construction for the purpose of denigrating certain groups of people over others. Dungeons and Dragons is fundamentally American, and so is constructed in that social context, and I think stuff like having racial penalties to intelligence is pretty uncomfortable. That said, Tolkien, Howard and Lovecraft were also all pretty steeped in the racism of their time, and that is the literature the game draws on, so it is not surprising that it uses that word to denote the different people in the game. It would probably read weirdly to a lot of fantasy fans if any other word was used.

That, and the "races" of D&D aren't different ethnic and cultural groups (exceptions for half-elves, etc), they are actual different life-forms with no common ancestry. And that's something we don't have a real-world equivalent for at all. "Species" would be more accurate, but the term maybe sounds a bit incongruous to a fantasy setting. Sci-fi settings seem to get more of a pass on having alien species who are Broadly All Like This.

And settings that...well, "humanise" all their nonhuman groups tend to feel a bit bland to me, and make me wonder "what are these elves doing that you couldn't do with a culture of humans who live in the forests and are really snooty?"

 Elemental wrote:

I don't really care if that statement gets me labled either as "anti-sjw" or "antifeminist." I'll stand by it, modern media throws a ton of crap at gamers, and I garuntee you half of it is nonsense.

Even if that's true, half of what's been reported being true would still be unacceptable. We have unpleasant and under-socialised people in our hobby (remember the guy who thought running a con game centered around rape was a-ok?). Any group closing ranks, saying "they're making it all up to make us look bad!" and denying anything's wrong so as not to give a bad impression just makes the problem worse in the long term--the best disinfectant is sunlight.

No, I don't remember that. I tend to not pay attention to things morons do or say with regards to rape and murder. Life on the internet is a lot different from real life. Out there in the world, I never, EVER encounter this stuff. But, online? The stories are told as if they're the only stories going on at the time. It's getting harder and hard to even determine what is a real story about something happening in the world, vs what might be a click-bait troll topic made up out of thin air to illicit an emotional response so that someone can get a laugh.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
I have tended to see (and it has been the reported experience of my female friends and wife) that women get quarterbacked more than men in nerdy hobbies. A lot of it comes from a place of helpfulness but it can be pretty annoying.

As to race, probably a discussion for another time. I think the word and concept are a problem because they are a made up construction for the purpose of denigrating certain groups of people over others. Dungeons and Dragons is fundamentally American, and so is constructed in that social context, and I think stuff like having racial penalties to intelligence is pretty uncomfortable. That said, Tolkien, Howard and Lovecraft were also all pretty steeped in the racism of their time, and that is the literature the game draws on, so it is not surprising that it uses that word to denote the different people in the game. It would probably read weirdly to a lot of fantasy fans if any other word was used.

That might be, it's hard to tell sometimes what a person's motives might be. With that being said, it's also of note to point out that many times, especially with new players who haven't experienced the game before, someone trying to help (especially if it is a single male) will draw ire, good intentions or not. Unfortunately, this is just the reality of the world that we live in.

Well, I don't think we should drag up the race debate. But I will say, given how social justicy WoTC has been recently, I wouldn't be surprised if Race gets replaced in 6e with Species. If it does, I'm sure some people will pitch a fit, but I'm personally not likely to care one way or the other.

I encountered people who did weird gak at the dnd table in my late teens over a decade ago. 2 years ago I played with a group whos DM laid down the law that everyone has to play their own gender. Because it get REAL uncomfortable when people start cross dressing and doing bizarre gak at the table.

It's not that players shouldn't be able to play anything. It's that too many people who do feth it up for everyone else and it's easier to just not allow it.

Weirdos exist. They exist everywhere. That includes Roleplaying games where they are literally encouraged to act out their fantasies.

 Lance845 wrote:
I encountered people who did weird gak at the dnd table in my late teens over a decade ago. 2 years ago I played with a group whos DM laid down the law that everyone has to play their own gender. Because it get REAL uncomfortable when people start cross-dressing and doing bizarre gak at the table.

That is kind of odd. I'm playing a female character in a game, but I don't put on a dress when I do it :/

 LordofHats wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I encountered people who did weird gak at the dnd table in my late teens over a decade ago. 2 years ago I played with a group whos DM laid down the law that everyone has to play their own gender. Because it get REAL uncomfortable when people start cross-dressing and doing bizarre gak at the table.

That is kind of odd. I'm playing a female character in a game, but I don't put on a dress when I do it :/

Hardy Har Har.

It's called "cross dressing" as a general term for players playing other gendered characters. The DM has to do it out of necessity and is in direct control of where and how every interaction goes with those NPCs. But players who do it sometimes do it just to act out whatever weird thing they have going on in their head. Nothing like a beardy dude playing a promiscuous lady who turns every town arrival into a prostitution racket (yes I have personally seen this happen).

 Lance845 wrote:
Nothing like a beardy dude playing a promiscuous lady who turns every town arrival into a prostitution racket (yes I have personally seen this happen).

That sounds less weird than creepy. That's actually less weird than the image in my head was (I thought you were talking about beardy dudes playing promiscuous ladies while wearing dresses and makeup, which is Silence of the Lambs level creepy).

 LordofHats wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Nothing like a beardy dude playing a promiscuous lady who turns every town arrival into a prostitution racket (yes I have personally seen this happen).

That sounds less weird than creepy. That's actually less weird than the image in my head was (I thought you were talking about beardy dudes playing promiscuous ladies while wearing dresses and makeup, which is Silence of the Lambs level creepy).

Yeah i have never played with anyone who got in costume for their dnd games.

The point is its a community activity even if that community is 5 people. You should never gain your fun at the cost of everyone elses comfort. For some reason there are peoplewho dont get that and then rules have to be made.

 Lance845 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Nothing like a beardy dude playing a promiscuous lady who turns every town arrival into a prostitution racket (yes I have personally seen this happen).

That sounds less weird than creepy. That's actually less weird than the image in my head was (I thought you were talking about beardy dudes playing promiscuous ladies while wearing dresses and makeup, which is Silence of the Lambs level creepy).

Yeah i have never played with anyone who got in costume for their dnd games.

The point is its a community activity even if that community is 5 people. You should never gain your fun at the cost of everyone elses comfort. For some reason there are peoplewho dont get that and then rules have to be made.

You could just remove those problem players without needing to make a blanket rule about what gender characters the players can play as. Someone who wants to make the game their personal orgy-fantasy-generator is usually gonna try and do that no matter what gender their character is and they are probably going to have other toxic behaviours which affect others enjoyment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

It's called "cross dressing" as a general term for players playing other gendered characters.

I have never heard this used to refer to playing a character which is not your gender. Is that a term specific to this GM?

Reading this stuff does make me realise how fortunate I am to have the group I do, where none of this has ever come up. I guess it's the advantage of playing with people who are, at the very least, friends-of-friends if not direct friends, so our table had never really had strangers at it and everyone has been comfortable with the group as a whole from the start. (I honestly can't imagine playing an RPG with people I didn't at least vaguely know beforehand, that's a huge leap of faith that I just wouldn't want to take).

Perhaps related, we've never even thought twice about playing across gender, and I think pretty much all our players have done it at some point, often long term (my current characters include both a sorcerer cowboy and an elven princess ) and no one has ever got weird with it.

I honestly find the idea of a DM limiting it kind of odd, strikes me you'd be better off kicking the weirdos that want to turn their game into something creepy rather than limiting everyone else's options. I admit, that's easier said when you've never lived any of those horror stories, but even so, in general I'd lean towards ditching the problem players rather than trying to limit their problematic presence (as I imagine anyone who would make something dodgy out of playing another gender is probably bringing a generally unhealthy attitude to the game anyway).


On the wider issue though, the hobby does still have strides to make in getting rid of these sorts of individuals; as much as on the whole it is more open, accessible and inclusive than ever, people are still missing out because they (rightly or wrongly) fear that they're going to run into that tiny minority of horror story gamers.

I never ran across "Cross-dressing" as a term either. I also like to play female characters, older characters, or less than optimal characters just to spice things up and challenge myself a bit.

I haven't run across that term either. One person in my group usually plays as the opposite gender, but has never done it in a weird way either. I think it's weird for anyone to criticize that if they're aren't being innapropriate with it. Especially DMs shouldn't be too bothered, as we play all the NPCs so we constantly play both genders...

I agree that it's all good and fine when everyone is being cool about it. I personally don't take issue with it. But clearly that DM had seen enough bad that he just decided to steer clear of it all together.

So, someone help me here.

I feel like in retrospect, my DM has been purposefully trying to initiate a full party kill (or lacking that a unceremonious end to the campaign) for the past 3 sessions.

The first encounter, a fight with 2 CR5 monsters and a 4 man lv. 5 party was kind of the party's own fault. I ran in, made a bad assumption and the situation gets worse. Okay, consequences.

The second time felt like an inevitable boss fight. A Simulcrum with 150 hp, an Earth Elemental, and an apprentice. We only won that fight with lucky crits and that Tasha's Hidious Laughter apparently works on Elementals. It really felt like a tough fight and we barely survived.

I was fine with all of this up until this point. Nothing felt out of place. We lost one party member and came close to losing 3 others over the course of these two sessions.

Now enter session 3, where we are immediately (after that boss fight) met with 2 player strength monk NPCs who almost kill two of us again. We short rest to get back hull HP with hit dice, and then immediately find an assassin who 1 shots 2 characters, "you lose two death saves surprise round over roll death save." I failed and died right there. The next guy passed and then died immediately after when the assassin hit him.

The last two members of the party somehow win that fight, and use revivify with the last spell slot in the party on me and we try to long rest. Then the level 10 boss (we're level 5 here) comes down and just dicks with us for like 5 minutes before giving us one fething lifeline that is "kill Xanathar" and at this point I'm feeling like I'm just done and the DM has seemingly purposefully chosen to run the party into the ground.

His excuse for what in retrospect is a series of poorly balanced encounters (which feels like purposefully trying to kill us and has killed one player's characters twice) is "you guys fooled around too much and didn't make the right choices" which feels like a bs excuse to me for "choices you made 2 months ago made this scenario unwinnable and I'm just dicking you around at this point." EDIT: He follows this up by saying "all you had to do is turn invisible and steal the objective from the powerful wizard" but at this point I feel like the DM just isn't reading the room to notice the entire group is so disgruntled with events that they don't feel like trying anymore and that comment just feels like rubbing salt in the wound.

EDIT: Anyway, anger anger anger, am I being unreasonable here? I feel like I've just had my time wasted by a DM who decided we can't win and has instead of just telling us that, wasted months of our time watching us lose.

It sounds like a bad DM.

Yes. You should suffer the consequences of your actions.

But the DM should be tailoring the encounters to be more or less difficult but always still winable and at least tossing you guys circumstantial or environmental life lines to turn a otherwise un-winable situation to your favor.

Side note: This is a big part of the reason I hate levels. They are bull gak for things like this.

Having had an hour to calm down and reflect, yeah I still feel like I was cheated.

The party wasn't perfect (nor was I). We definitely got kind of murder hobo toward the end, but it felt like the situation we were in was "kill the evil guys to get the prize" and maybe that itself was a bad assumption to make but that's how it seemed to be going and the encounters were tense and really life threatening but always felt like we had a chance to come out on top.

This last session just feels like he was done and rather than close out the campaign that we're at the end of anyway. A combat that starts with "assassin surprise round" *two players down* "initiative order you two roll death saves" could on its own just be the result of excellent rolling by the assassin and a very unfortunate initiative order, but with those last two encounters it just doesn't feel that way. Maybe we still could have won at that point, we have 2 characters who can go invisible, but after a constant run of "omg we're going to die omg we're dead without having a chance to even act" I didn't feel motivated to try anymore and no one else seemed to be stepping up. Maybe my disgruntled silence didn't help.

He's talking about what campaign to run next, and I'm sitting here trying to decide if I'm the donkey-cave or not for thinking "why would I want to run another campaign and risk it ending like this?"

Yeah, honestly that sounds like a DM who has no idea what he's doing, or one that does and is deliberately being a bit of a dick.

In principle, there is nothing wrong with 'impossible' encounters, but they should be rare, and should serve to illustrate something to the party. That this isn't a fight they can win without help, or that this particular villain is now the most imminent threat and they should be preparing for round 2, so on and so forth. And as a DM I often play with always says, half the time your 'impossible' battles are the ones that the players will win anyway, because if there's is thing players excel at, it's surprising the DM. Nonetheless, it's important that these battles do have a way out if they go south, and that there is at least some potential to achieve something, even if it's not what you came for (the last game of one of my campaigns springs to mind, Vecna may have got what he wanted, but we e took out his enslaved Balor, which is a major win going forward). A parade of genuinely worthless defeats can be a complete slog, if not an outright campaign breaker.

But it sounds like none of that consideration went in here, it's just a DM who's either naive enough to think that it's his job to 'win', or one who's genuinely out for blood and happy to defy all reason, realism and fun to get it. You're absolutely right to be questioning whether you want to keep playing with this DM, and if you're having those thoughts, you probably know the answer as well.

You're probably not the only person having them, so the best thing to do would be to have a word and see if anyone else is disgruntled, and if they are, take that to the DM long before he starts his next game. Best case, it's just inexperience and the wrong idea of what their role is, and they can change going forward, worst case they throw their toys out of the pram at the criticism and you probably have to find a new DM, which I'd argue is still a better situation than stuck with a bad one.

 LordofHats wrote:


He's talking about what campaign to run next, and I'm sitting here trying to decide if I'm the donkey-cave or not for thinking "why would I want to run another campaign and risk it ending like this?"

Maybe you should pitch a game to be the DM for?

Maybe. I’d need a new group cause this one’s broken. This morning one guy said he’s not coming back. Another guy has only stuck around to help us finish an apparently lost cause. His character died 2 sessions ago and he’s played characters left behind by other players when they quit (and I’m now rethinking why they quit, like dis they see something I didn’t?) so I’m expecting him to quit to cause his commitment was already low and the DM basically pissed on him for trying to be a good guy and finish out the campaign.

That just leaves me and the cleric and The DM is currently complaining that we give up too easily in Discord and I’m just feeling ‘feth you’ about that.

So yeah, maybe try my hand at something. I’ve wanted to do Ghosts of Saltmarsh and have failed to find a DM for it that isn’t already well into the experience.