I’m deeply confused as to a) why this random Internet stranger desperately wanted there to be hobgoblins in a game they weren’t even in, b) why this hypothetical girl who found a genie lamp would wish for hobgoblins to be real instead of, I don’t know, LITERALLY ANYTHING ELSE A PERSON COULD CONCEIVABLY WANT, and c) how genie lamp girl would even know what hobgoblins are so she could wish them into existence.
Well... the last part is the easiest to answer. Because maybe she didn't wish for "hobgoblins", but for "creatures that look like this and act like that", therefore describing hobgoblins. And those creatures then named themselves hobgoblins. Voilá, you now have hobgoblins. b) might be just a stupid girl having this thought about those creatures she came up with... If it is a really young girl... Why not? Children have strange ways of thinking. The first one though... Yeah... No reasonable explanation is coming to my mind.
People like that weirdo are why I will never fully be against bullying kids in school. Some people just really need to be bullied to learn what is socially acceptable.
That first tip is so important and not just for the DM. I was part an online group who, when the session ended, all immediately disconnected and didn't say a word to each other. It freaked me out and made me wonder if something was wrong! That group didn't last long.
Because that girl was raised by Hobgoblins and was plane-shifted into a world without them, but she thinks some mighty wizard might have wished them out of existence and so she works towards getting them back. By doing so, she stumbles upon the party who finds out she's from a different plane. Now they can either help her get Hobgoblins into their world (if the players want) or find a way to yeet her back to her plane (if they don't). I get the point that random person from the internet was trying to make: "Every DnD game needs Hobgoblins" was their opinion. No idea what compelled them to force that opinion onto someone else, and doing that via friendly suggestions doen't help a lot to justify that. But: Their suggestion in itself doesn't need to be bad.
There's one DM I had many years back who had a very bad habit, which is that he had a very dualistic approach to things. He basically thought there were two ways to run games: a) happy wacky adventures with low stakes where victory is basically guaranteed and nothing bad happens, and b) horrible slogfests where anyone can die at anytime, sometimes for BS reasons, and where... let's say Upsetting Subject Matter often tended to come up. The mere notion that someone might want a serious adventure with big stakes that *didn't* have that Upsetting Subject Matter, or which didn't have random unpreventable death, seemed utterly alien to him. Unsurprisingly, I had a falling out with that group, because I was the only person who didn't want to play that way.
A note on negative feedback (I'm not a DM, but think this still applies): As a chronic overthinker, I've come to actually love when people have no issue when telling me that they didn't like something I did or said, as it means that I don't have to worry about whether they secretly dislike me or the things I do/say. This way, whenever my brain is being a jerk and telling me that I did something wrong, I can always reassure myself by thinking that A) it's not true, as they would have told me if I did, and B) even if it IS true, it's a much smaller deal than I think it is, as they didn't feel the need to tell me.
Interesting point on the hexadin example Crispy used, I play one and still act as a teamplayer. I didn't go as far as darkness/eldritch sight combo but honestly I can see a place where that too could be used for team plays. Though the reason I am saying all this is to clarify to those missing the point in the video: these plays or builds themselves aren't what make you selfish it is how you use them. To me it is more fun to do my insane smites to draw attention of the big bad to focus on me while the party get their personal buffs and fights done. Even my fighting style was picked to just reduce damage to my party but swapped it out recently when it didn't seem as reliable against the enemy we fought
I’ve used a similar spell, it was Fog cloud, our melee combatant was in range of the enemy and in range of being knocked unconscious by an AoO so I cast it centered on the enemy so that both are heavily obscured and can’t see each other so he can run without any risk, it also seemed the safer move than to try and push him with gust.
Some good points there. Have certainly encountered the "always shielding" player, although in Demon Hunters, not d&d. He spent the entire end-of-story boss fight continually using buff effects on his own defence rather than doing anything productive Also had a try to do the "break all combat" thing, only for a combination of his ignorance of the system and the natural of a load of pre-planned monsters to completely undermine his attempts.
I as a player currently play a gunslinger Fighter. To help out my team I normally just stay back and if they need it Support them in dealing damage to the enemy attacking them. Another thing my DM and I worked together to do is make my fighter somewhat of an inventor who can make small items for himself or the party
Speaking as someone who plays sorcerer a lot arguably the second most selfish caster afer warlock. One of my favourite moves was twinspelling haste on the barb and rogue, because when they were able to use that to tear through enemies we all won.
I believe selfish play is almost actively being encouraged by many of the D&D content creators out there. Especially hate when I'm running a game and I see a bunch of party members run so far away from the fight that they're completely off the map because they can't stand the thought of ever possibly getting hit meanwhile their frontliner is left to be ganged up on by 8 to 10 enemies and immediately goes down and then none of them rush up the help them either.
my "favorite" example of selfish play is an infamous incident on the West Marches server I'm on - a wizard dropping a fireball specifically so it woud kill the "maximum" number of enemies to maximize her DPS, ignoring hte fact that a party member was in the middle of it, and when the party member protested, the response was "It's fine, he has resistance."
Post game feedback is something I've always struggled with as a player because of my anxiety. If it's a few days later and something specific about the game comes up, then I can talk about it. But the DM for most of the games I've played in always had a specific post-game period where she went around the table and specifically asked everyone for feedback, and it always made me feel put on the spot, and when my anxiety kicks up like that, I just clam up and can't really form full structured thoughts, so I tend to panic and just say whatever quick thing will get attention off me as quickly as possible
That's something you should probably bring up to your DMs and just say something like "Look, I have anxiety issues and I struggle to give feedback post-game, it would be easier for me to talk with you about it privately another time before the next session". Most reasonable people would react fine to that, they don't want you to be uncomfortable in most cases.
Tip two and three are really important, especially for DMs trying out playing. We're struggling with our old DM right now who seems... Very put out by the fact dice don't roll in his favour. He rolled lower stats for his PC than others and was salty about it despite an offer to trade stats with another player. He chose to keep his lower stats (still normal and higher than point buy), but also took two weeks to bitch about it. Likewise in another system, he had his character march off away from the rest of us and confronted two enemy groups in what was supposed to be a stealthy heist. And then got mad his character was defeated going up against a dozen gunmen and a miniboss!
The only time I can think of for when I’ve had a problem with the difficulty of a game is when a DM because we managed to beat some difficult battles because of good teamwork and the fact we had all our resources fully charged decided a proper challenge for a party of 2 level 7s and 3 level 6s was 4 bugbear chieftains and a orc, followed by a Behir, followed by two young dragons, followed by a Sire of insanity, followed by a even higher CR Aberration that I never saw since I quit before that happened one after the other with 3 turns of actions, yes TURNS not rounds, I lost all interest in the game after this battle because I lost care for my character and if I stayed I would’ve likely just said, “I bonk every turn till I die”.
My first attempts at GMing basically ended because of the first part - I asked if they had fun, they more or less shrugged and said "Sure", and then...never played again. So obviously they...hated it? Were meh about it? Something? _Anything!?!_ ...ahem. Sorry. Flashbacks.
When you talk about giving feedback to DMS, I felt that. I try to give positive feedback at the end of sessions (or during sessions as stuff happens!) and the occasional negative if something bad happens. Unfortunately, I think I helped in scaring off my DM in a reboot game, with some stuff I said due to anxiety involving another player.
What's funny about the selfishness is it can easily exacerbate the martial caster difference. Not many martials have AOE and if they have buff/support abilities they are usually very limited so generally martials rely on casters for those things. But it's not wrong for casters to want to use thier spellslots sparingly, even if they aren't being selfish like the Sheild guy casters. So as the (usual) main source of AOE, most buffs/support casters can be "selfish" by simply being frugal with thier spellslots which kinda sucks but sucks even more if they are actively hoarding spells for thier own gain. And then sometimes it gets downright awful when casters dictate the pace of the game to revolve around thier biggest spells! So yeah, not fun in general when anyone is selfish but exceedingly not fun for those playing more limited classes if a member who has important abilities decides to be a dick.
This is why I keep the lore in my games vague and loose, so I can incorporate sweeping changes without breaking a sweat. Basically, I develop only what I need in the next session and let the lore of the world build up organically through play, instead of trying to impose some kind of grand vision that is set in stone on my players.
When bad stuff happens, just remember "chicks dig scars!" Yeah, I'm speaking metaphorically here but the bad stuff (and overcoming it) can make the best stories later.
Personally I like Hobgoblins, but I generally give them their own empire modelled after the Roman Empire. But I do think limiting your worlds to a handful of races and sometimes classes does help simplify things for you as the DM. Not every race is going to pop up on every world out there. Just like species of animal does on every continent. It gives that world a bit of flavor. And as for classes, well not every world would have had a Great Magic War in which Warforged were created. Not every world will have active gods, so no clerics. It keeps it from being a cookie cutter world in my opinion.
I don’t know if I have the rules right but I Disagree about your darkness point. Yes they would be getting disadvantage from the darkness, BUT they would be rolling without disadvantage because they are counted as unseen attackers, which gives advantage, cancelling out the effects of being blinded by darkness. The only creatures that are actually effected by darkness, fog cloud etc… are spellcasters with spells that require sight.
On the player who couldn't handle being bitten by a werewolf. Something that comes up in game design/psychology at times is loss aversion - not wanting to lose what you've got or have worked for. Paradoxically, loss aversion can make some players want to die and start over rather than play a character that has lost progress on levels, items, or their personal storyline. A werewolf bite does come with some changes that could have that effect. Check if transformations of any kind are just a hard boundry for that player, so you can use consequences that they find more exciting, or check if they're okay with it if they know it's reversable. Or if the game is supposed to be more harrowing, let them go from the game if they're just too anxious about any sort of loss or change to their character.
As a DM, I have no problem with either creating or finding a homebrew system for something like crafting magic items or making potions (things that aren't really supported, or at least exciting, in the 5e rules). I also don't have a problem with a player wanting to use a homebrew or third-party subclass, race, feat, etc., provided that I can review it first and make sure it isn't going to break the game. At the same time, I do hope that the player will be accommodating if I either say that it's too powerful as written, or say that I want to see it in play before making any judgments about using it long-term. On the flip side, as a player I feel awkward about asking to play a homebrew that I created in game, unless it's for a short campaign to test it out.
A girl uses a genie lamp to wish Hobgoblins into existence? OK... If presumably she's from Crispy's homebrew setting, which has no Hobgoblins, how would she know what a Hobgoblin is?
Selfish play ! My computer had a bug and I wrote "Elfsih play" so I think I've magically found the next pet peeve : Don't play elves. Most my characters are elves ! OAO
of course, no one's denying that. It's when the player's idea of fun interferes with the fun of the rest of the group, DM included, that it has to be evaluated and discussed on whether it works with them or is bad playing, or should be modified, or if the rest of them are wrong or etc etc.
1. If I say "oh, it was good" it means I thought it sucked, but I'm not sure yet how to bring it up 😅 2. Yes, take it out on the villains, not the GM 5. I haven't seen that type of content, but wow... Just don't play RPGs then
Universal Gamer Rule #1- Never suggest adding something to a game or campaign that you're not playing. And if you do want to add something, make sure it fits the lore of the DM's world, otherwise prepare for rejection.
I can tell you what players don't do, that suck, is not taking a shower the day of the game......or week of the game. I know alot of people scream to have proper hygiene but clearly those players don't listen as they further the stereotype.
I once had a player get mad because everything he did had a bad consequence. He made all the bad decisions because he wanted to be an asshole. I can literally speak for an hour and a half straight and never get all of the things he did to try and derail my game only to have it backfire on him. I ran this game as a karmic backlash thing since I was getting fed up with murderhobos at my table and even had a karmic system that granted boons and banes for deeds done. This was agreed upon before we even started. He tried to murderhobo and got a high level mecha police force chasing him down. He tried to hit on every female PC either trying to persuade them into or intimidate their mates to stop dating his targets. This earned him nothing since he chose only the ones who outright rold him no or were Asexual. He did manage to convince one but didn't want her after finding she was trans. I didn't do this on purpose he just got the woman with thw lowest standards because his seduction score was -5 at first level. He dumped all his points into strength and xonstitution when warned it was roleplay heavy. He was misogynistic, homophobic, and a whole host of other things, and he kept getting karmically botch slapped by the dice and the karma system. Worst of all he pissed off the goddess Athena so bad she moved out of her man cave. And THAT was the most impressive thing that happened in the game up to that point and this game had mini Mecha combat and combat nuns.
@Crispy, one thing to note on the player and the werewolf...a lot of players know that certain things take away the character from them. This player may have been freaking out because it states in the rules of playing a lycanthrope that if a PC gets turned into one, the DM is supposed to take the character and it becomes an NPC. They may not have realized that you wouldn't do that and was freaking out that if they did contract lycanthropy, they'd lose their character. So in this case, this is a little bit on you as well for not telling the player that that was not something to potentially worry about.
Actually, it says the DM takes control if you choose to give into the lycanthropy instead of fighting against it. Just becoming one does not immediately end your character.
@@CameronsVideo Except during a full moon where the player loses control of the character no matter if player fights it or not. Players do not like losing control of their characters and that is a very likely reason why this particular player freaked out.
Omfg the homebrew..... I'm okay with homebrew, BUT, I got to review it and will likely make changes if necessary. But when we collaborate on a homebrew.... Don't sneak shit in after portions have been approved. You have no idea how deeply frustrating that is.... Hours wasted only to waste more. Basically I had to just call it on homebrew for a player. If you can't figure out how to reskin it, play something else.
While yes it is your prerogative to decide there’s no hobgoblins in your campaign I personally think a compromise can be done to give a player the ability to play as one. Hobgoblins are pretty much just medium sized goblins so maybe a goblin that’s grown ridiculously large could’ve lived his life differently and as such you could use the hobgoblin racial features while still playing a goblin player character.
I am absolutely not a fan of hard games. When the monsters hit with nearly every attack for a ton of damage, succeed every saving throw and contested skill check, uncluding stealth checks to surprise the party and the party barely gets enough gold for paying for the inn, that just isn't for me.
My latest pet peeve is the entire reason i kicked the whole group and ended the campaign. It's okay, though, I'm sure one of them will DM for the others, so I don't feel guilty about anything. But some of the members freaked out, because they walked into an obvious trap that was telegraphed half an hour before they walked into it by another character [and most of the players afterward admitted that it was obvious in chat], and then proceeded to walk into it, anyway, without rolling one listen or spot check. Anyhoozle, some of them immediately angrily called me a killer DM and challenged the veracity of the 2nd or 3rd level spells that the SIXTH LEVEL bad guy was casting on them. It was just too irritating to put up with. No one died that day, i promise you, though they came extremely close. But i just dropped the group after that, i cannot enjoy myself if i have to walk on eggshells and have to treat the PC's with kid gloves. I don't want any of them to die, either, but there has to be SOME stakes in the game, or it's not worth playing, it's not a game. It's just sunshine and rainbows. Oh, also: the campaign wasn't even created by me, it was the legendary-Top-10-modules of 3/3.5 edition Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, and i ran it exactly how it logically should have been run, didn't add anything. So.....
I’m deeply confused as to a) why this random Internet stranger desperately wanted there to be hobgoblins in a game they weren’t even in, b) why this hypothetical girl who found a genie lamp would wish for hobgoblins to be real instead of, I don’t know, LITERALLY ANYTHING ELSE A PERSON COULD CONCEIVABLY WANT, and c) how genie lamp girl would even know what hobgoblins are so she could wish them into existence.
Well... the last part is the easiest to answer. Because maybe she didn't wish for "hobgoblins", but for "creatures that look like this and act like that", therefore describing hobgoblins. And those creatures then named themselves hobgoblins. Voilá, you now have hobgoblins.
b) might be just a stupid girl having this thought about those creatures she came up with... If it is a really young girl... Why not? Children have strange ways of thinking.
The first one though... Yeah... No reasonable explanation is coming to my mind.
People like that weirdo are why I will never fully be against bullying kids in school. Some people just really need to be bullied to learn what is socially acceptable.
That first tip is so important and not just for the DM. I was part an online group who, when the session ended, all immediately disconnected and didn't say a word to each other. It freaked me out and made me wonder if something was wrong! That group didn't last long.
'You should have a plot about someone wishing hobgoblins into existence'
🤔 ... why?
Also what an oddly specific wish lol
Because that girl was raised by Hobgoblins and was plane-shifted into a world without them, but she thinks some mighty wizard might have wished them out of existence and so she works towards getting them back. By doing so, she stumbles upon the party who finds out she's from a different plane. Now they can either help her get Hobgoblins into their world (if the players want) or find a way to yeet her back to her plane (if they don't).
I get the point that random person from the internet was trying to make: "Every DnD game needs Hobgoblins" was their opinion. No idea what compelled them to force that opinion onto someone else, and doing that via friendly suggestions doen't help a lot to justify that. But: Their suggestion in itself doesn't need to be bad.
There's one DM I had many years back who had a very bad habit, which is that he had a very dualistic approach to things. He basically thought there were two ways to run games: a) happy wacky adventures with low stakes where victory is basically guaranteed and nothing bad happens, and b) horrible slogfests where anyone can die at anytime, sometimes for BS reasons, and where... let's say Upsetting Subject Matter often tended to come up.
The mere notion that someone might want a serious adventure with big stakes that *didn't* have that Upsetting Subject Matter, or which didn't have random unpreventable death, seemed utterly alien to him. Unsurprisingly, I had a falling out with that group, because I was the only person who didn't want to play that way.
A note on negative feedback (I'm not a DM, but think this still applies): As a chronic overthinker, I've come to actually love when people have no issue when telling me that they didn't like something I did or said, as it means that I don't have to worry about whether they secretly dislike me or the things I do/say. This way, whenever my brain is being a jerk and telling me that I did something wrong, I can always reassure myself by thinking that A) it's not true, as they would have told me if I did, and B) even if it IS true, it's a much smaller deal than I think it is, as they didn't feel the need to tell me.
Interesting point on the hexadin example Crispy used, I play one and still act as a teamplayer. I didn't go as far as darkness/eldritch sight combo but honestly I can see a place where that too could be used for team plays.
Though the reason I am saying all this is to clarify to those missing the point in the video: these plays or builds themselves aren't what make you selfish it is how you use them. To me it is more fun to do my insane smites to draw attention of the big bad to focus on me while the party get their personal buffs and fights done. Even my fighting style was picked to just reduce damage to my party but swapped it out recently when it didn't seem as reliable against the enemy we fought
I’ve used a similar spell, it was Fog cloud, our melee combatant was in range of the enemy and in range of being knocked unconscious by an AoO so I cast it centered on the enemy so that both are heavily obscured and can’t see each other so he can run without any risk, it also seemed the safer move than to try and push him with gust.
Some good points there.
Have certainly encountered the "always shielding" player, although in Demon Hunters, not d&d. He spent the entire end-of-story boss fight continually using buff effects on his own defence rather than doing anything productive
Also had a try to do the "break all combat" thing, only for a combination of his ignorance of the system and the natural of a load of pre-planned monsters to completely undermine his attempts.
The thumbnail art used here is genuinely funny and fitting
I as a player currently play a gunslinger Fighter. To help out my team I normally just stay back and if they need it Support them in dealing damage to the enemy attacking them. Another thing my DM and I worked together to do is make my fighter somewhat of an inventor who can make small items for himself or the party
Speaking as someone who plays sorcerer a lot arguably the second most selfish caster afer warlock. One of my favourite moves was twinspelling haste on the barb and rogue, because when they were able to use that to tear through enemies we all won.
I believe selfish play is almost actively being encouraged by many of the D&D content creators out there.
Especially hate when I'm running a game and I see a bunch of party members run so far away from the fight that they're completely off the map because they can't stand the thought of ever possibly getting hit meanwhile their frontliner is left to be ganged up on by 8 to 10 enemies and immediately goes down and then none of them rush up the help them either.
my "favorite" example of selfish play is an infamous incident on the West Marches server I'm on - a wizard dropping a fireball specifically so it woud kill the "maximum" number of enemies to maximize her DPS, ignoring hte fact that a party member was in the middle of it, and when the party member protested, the response was "It's fine, he has resistance."
Post game feedback is something I've always struggled with as a player because of my anxiety. If it's a few days later and something specific about the game comes up, then I can talk about it. But the DM for most of the games I've played in always had a specific post-game period where she went around the table and specifically asked everyone for feedback, and it always made me feel put on the spot, and when my anxiety kicks up like that, I just clam up and can't really form full structured thoughts, so I tend to panic and just say whatever quick thing will get attention off me as quickly as possible
That's something you should probably bring up to your DMs and just say something like "Look, I have anxiety issues and I struggle to give feedback post-game, it would be easier for me to talk with you about it privately another time before the next session".
Most reasonable people would react fine to that, they don't want you to be uncomfortable in most cases.
I like this style of video. I’d be happy to see more D&D list vids.
So, someone said you just Deus Ex Machina some Hobgoblins into existence because reasons? Yeah, that pretty lame.
Tip two and three are really important, especially for DMs trying out playing.
We're struggling with our old DM right now who seems... Very put out by the fact dice don't roll in his favour. He rolled lower stats for his PC than others and was salty about it despite an offer to trade stats with another player. He chose to keep his lower stats (still normal and higher than point buy), but also took two weeks to bitch about it.
Likewise in another system, he had his character march off away from the rest of us and confronted two enemy groups in what was supposed to be a stealthy heist. And then got mad his character was defeated going up against a dozen gunmen and a miniboss!
The only time I can think of for when I’ve had a problem with the difficulty of a game is when a DM because we managed to beat some difficult battles because of good teamwork and the fact we had all our resources fully charged decided a proper challenge for a party of 2 level 7s and 3 level 6s was 4 bugbear chieftains and a orc, followed by a Behir, followed by two young dragons, followed by a Sire of insanity, followed by a even higher CR Aberration that I never saw since I quit before that happened one after the other with 3 turns of actions, yes TURNS not rounds, I lost all interest in the game after this battle because I lost care for my character and if I stayed I would’ve likely just said, “I bonk every turn till I die”.
My first attempts at GMing basically ended because of the first part - I asked if they had fun, they more or less shrugged and said "Sure", and then...never played again. So obviously they...hated it? Were meh about it? Something? _Anything!?!_
...ahem. Sorry. Flashbacks.
When you talk about giving feedback to DMS, I felt that. I try to give positive feedback at the end of sessions (or during sessions as stuff happens!) and the occasional negative if something bad happens. Unfortunately, I think I helped in scaring off my DM in a reboot game, with some stuff I said due to anxiety involving another player.
Some good content here. Selfish play indeed. I think I share all these pet peeves, as a GM :)
What's funny about the selfishness is it can easily exacerbate the martial caster difference.
Not many martials have AOE and if they have buff/support abilities they are usually very limited so generally martials rely on casters for those things. But it's not wrong for casters to want to use thier spellslots sparingly, even if they aren't being selfish like the Sheild guy casters.
So as the (usual) main source of AOE, most buffs/support casters can be "selfish" by simply being frugal with thier spellslots which kinda sucks but sucks even more if they are actively hoarding spells for thier own gain. And then sometimes it gets downright awful when casters dictate the pace of the game to revolve around thier biggest spells!
So yeah, not fun in general when anyone is selfish but exceedingly not fun for those playing more limited classes if a member who has important abilities decides to be a dick.
This is why I keep the lore in my games vague and loose, so I can incorporate sweeping changes without breaking a sweat. Basically, I develop only what I need in the next session and let the lore of the world build up organically through play, instead of trying to impose some kind of grand vision that is set in stone on my players.
Shout out to nahiri in the thumbnail
When bad stuff happens, just remember "chicks dig scars!" Yeah, I'm speaking metaphorically here but the bad stuff (and overcoming it) can make the best stories later.
Personally I like Hobgoblins, but I generally give them their own empire modelled after the Roman Empire.
But I do think limiting your worlds to a handful of races and sometimes classes does help simplify things for you as the DM. Not every race is going to pop up on every world out there. Just like species of animal does on every continent. It gives that world a bit of flavor. And as for classes, well not every world would have had a Great Magic War in which Warforged were created. Not every world will have active gods, so no clerics. It keeps it from being a cookie cutter world in my opinion.
One of my pet peeves is the lack of hobgoblins in Crispy's world.
I don’t know if I have the rules right but I Disagree about your darkness point. Yes they would be getting disadvantage from the darkness, BUT they would be rolling without disadvantage because they are counted as unseen attackers, which gives advantage, cancelling out the effects of being blinded by darkness. The only creatures that are actually effected by darkness, fog cloud etc… are spellcasters with spells that require sight.
On the player who couldn't handle being bitten by a werewolf. Something that comes up in game design/psychology at times is loss aversion - not wanting to lose what you've got or have worked for. Paradoxically, loss aversion can make some players want to die and start over rather than play a character that has lost progress on levels, items, or their personal storyline. A werewolf bite does come with some changes that could have that effect. Check if transformations of any kind are just a hard boundry for that player, so you can use consequences that they find more exciting, or check if they're okay with it if they know it's reversable. Or if the game is supposed to be more harrowing, let them go from the game if they're just too anxious about any sort of loss or change to their character.
As a DM, I have no problem with either creating or finding a homebrew system for something like crafting magic items or making potions (things that aren't really supported, or at least exciting, in the 5e rules). I also don't have a problem with a player wanting to use a homebrew or third-party subclass, race, feat, etc., provided that I can review it first and make sure it isn't going to break the game. At the same time, I do hope that the player will be accommodating if I either say that it's too powerful as written, or say that I want to see it in play before making any judgments about using it long-term.
On the flip side, as a player I feel awkward about asking to play a homebrew that I created in game, unless it's for a short campaign to test it out.
A girl uses a genie lamp to wish Hobgoblins into existence? OK... If presumably she's from Crispy's homebrew setting, which has no Hobgoblins, how would she know what a Hobgoblin is?
Story books that are horror inspired fairy tales?
I mean. How do we know what they are? She made them up I assume
Hey I still rehash some decisions I made decades ago.
Selfish play !
My computer had a bug and I wrote "Elfsih play" so I think I've magically found the next pet peeve : Don't play elves.
Most my characters are elves ! OAO
#FreeHobgobs
The goal of any game (regulard board, rpg, computer, whatever) should be for everyone to have fun.
of course, no one's denying that. It's when the player's idea of fun interferes with the fun of the rest of the group, DM included, that it has to be evaluated and discussed on whether it works with them or is bad playing, or should be modified, or if the rest of them are wrong or etc etc.
1. If I say "oh, it was good" it means I thought it sucked, but I'm not sure yet how to bring it up 😅
2. Yes, take it out on the villains, not the GM
5. I haven't seen that type of content, but wow... Just don't play RPGs then
wouldnt be a fan of selfish play either
Universal Gamer Rule #1- Never suggest adding something to a game or campaign that you're not playing. And if you do want to add something, make sure it fits the lore of the DM's world, otherwise prepare for rejection.
Never? Like even in the posts where people ask? lol
I can tell you what players don't do, that suck, is not taking a shower the day of the game......or week of the game. I know alot of people scream to have proper hygiene but clearly those players don't listen as they further the stereotype.
I once had a player get mad because everything he did had a bad consequence. He made all the bad decisions because he wanted to be an asshole.
I can literally speak for an hour and a half straight and never get all of the things he did to try and derail my game only to have it backfire on him. I ran this game as a karmic backlash thing since I was getting fed up with murderhobos at my table and even had a karmic system that granted boons and banes for deeds done. This was agreed upon before we even started.
He tried to murderhobo and got a high level mecha police force chasing him down.
He tried to hit on every female PC either trying to persuade them into or intimidate their mates to stop dating his targets. This earned him nothing since he chose only the ones who outright rold him no or were Asexual. He did manage to convince one but didn't want her after finding she was trans. I didn't do this on purpose he just got the woman with thw lowest standards because his seduction score was -5 at first level. He dumped all his points into strength and xonstitution when warned it was roleplay heavy.
He was misogynistic, homophobic, and a whole host of other things, and he kept getting karmically botch slapped by the dice and the karma system.
Worst of all he pissed off the goddess Athena so bad she moved out of her man cave. And THAT was the most impressive thing that happened in the game up to that point and this game had mini Mecha combat and combat nuns.
The truth will be revealed
I would need some examples of that last category as well, if someone might be interested to send me some. I must have missed out that fad back then
@Crispy, one thing to note on the player and the werewolf...a lot of players know that certain things take away the character from them.
This player may have been freaking out because it states in the rules of playing a lycanthrope that if a PC gets turned into one, the DM is supposed to take the character and it becomes an NPC.
They may not have realized that you wouldn't do that and was freaking out that if they did contract lycanthropy, they'd lose their character.
So in this case, this is a little bit on you as well for not telling the player that that was not something to potentially worry about.
Actually, it says the DM takes control if you choose to give into the lycanthropy instead of fighting against it. Just becoming one does not immediately end your character.
@@CameronsVideo Except during a full moon where the player loses control of the character no matter if player fights it or not. Players do not like losing control of their characters and that is a very likely reason why this particular player freaked out.
selfish play
Omfg the homebrew..... I'm okay with homebrew, BUT, I got to review it and will likely make changes if necessary.
But when we collaborate on a homebrew.... Don't sneak shit in after portions have been approved. You have no idea how deeply frustrating that is.... Hours wasted only to waste more.
Basically I had to just call it on homebrew for a player. If you can't figure out how to reskin it, play something else.
While yes it is your prerogative to decide there’s no hobgoblins in your campaign I personally think a compromise can be done to give a player the ability to play as one. Hobgoblins are pretty much just medium sized goblins so maybe a goblin that’s grown ridiculously large could’ve lived his life differently and as such you could use the hobgoblin racial features while still playing a goblin player character.
I am absolutely not a fan of hard games.
When the monsters hit with nearly every attack for a ton of damage, succeed every saving throw and contested skill check, uncluding stealth checks to surprise the party and the party barely gets enough gold for paying for the inn, that just isn't for me.
“D&D is a team game”
Me: Not in 5e
My latest pet peeve is the entire reason i kicked the whole group and ended the campaign. It's okay, though, I'm sure one of them will DM for the others, so I don't feel guilty about anything. But some of the members freaked out, because they walked into an obvious trap that was telegraphed half an hour before they walked into it by another character [and most of the players afterward admitted that it was obvious in chat], and then proceeded to walk into it, anyway, without rolling one listen or spot check. Anyhoozle, some of them immediately angrily called me a killer DM and challenged the veracity of the 2nd or 3rd level spells that the SIXTH LEVEL bad guy was casting on them. It was just too irritating to put up with. No one died that day, i promise you, though they came extremely close. But i just dropped the group after that, i cannot enjoy myself if i have to walk on eggshells and have to treat the PC's with kid gloves. I don't want any of them to die, either, but there has to be SOME stakes in the game, or it's not worth playing, it's not a game. It's just sunshine and rainbows. Oh, also: the campaign wasn't even created by me, it was the legendary-Top-10-modules of 3/3.5 edition Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, and i ran it exactly how it logically should have been run, didn't add anything. So.....