The Wangrod Defense | Running the Game
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 авг 2024
- Episode 76. Aka "I'm just playing my character!" Maybe play a character that doesn't make everyone miserable.
Our Second Channel! Where you can watch us play D&D!
/ mcdmproductions
Get an alert when the Kingdoms, Organizations, & Warfare Kickstarter goes live: www.mcdmproduc...
Strongholds & Followers, available now!
shop.mcdmprodu...
We have a Patreon!
/ mcdm
Watch us play D&D Wednesdays at 7PM Pacific on Twitch!
/ mcdm
The Podcast version of the livestream!
www.mcdmproduc...
Follow us on Twitter!
MCDM - / hellomcdm
Matt - / mattcolville
Join the conversation on our Discord!
mcdm.gg/discord
#RunningTheGame #MattColville
![[TF2] The Russian Bear Trap](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YFNSwz2_rOA/mqdefault.jpg)
"It's not my fault. I'm just playing my character."
"This is a character You Created."
"Make a new character."
Liam O'Brien's defense for Vaxil'Dan
@Beep Boop There's a difference between a character with an evil alignment and the "toxic character" that this video is about. But semantics aside, in my personal experience it's slightly more complicated then you're suggesting.
You're assuming that the toxicity/evilness is very clearly communicated in session zero and it is being accepted or embraced. I don't think that's what we're talking about here. If it is and everybody is on board it can work. It's probably true that rejecting toxicity shows a need to play in a safe space. Fine, I think it is very reasonable to have the players be in a safe space, especially when the characters aren't. It's certainly has got nothing to do with a desire to not have a realistic campaign (I'm not sure if realism is the right word, but i think I get your intention); characters get away with being toxic because the players are playing a cooperative game together. Realistically the other characters would just not stick with the toxic one, or worse. I've been in a few games a long time ago where the reaction to character turning his "evilness" on the other pc's was "realistic" and that devolved into an exercise in PVP really quickly.
That's all well and good if that's how you all (including the DM) want to spend your evening but basic reality is that you're all there to have fun together and if something is messing that up there needs to be a conversation on what kind of game and characters everyone can enjoy, if any.
@@Kebutor No. Just no.
Vax would pull pranks on his friends, especially his sister and Grog, but he did so knowing that Laura and Travis thought it was funny as well and knowing that Vex and Grog would eventually get their revenge on Vax.
If Liam would've had even the slightest feeling that his actions made anyone at the table uncomfortable, he would've stopped that behavior immediately and talked to his friends.
@@CapnJigglypuff "A meteor comes out of nowhere and lands on top of you, leaving a sizable crater and no trace of you whatsoever."
Was I the only one who was expecting a video about the heroic defense of the city of Wangrod?
Pronounced Wan-grod of course
Sir Quest Giver honesty assumed that for a second.
I thought it was a chess maneveur he was gonna incorporate into DnD
Lol
no. c:
My natural response to "I'm going to steal from the party because it's what my character would do" is just "well, if you do that we're going to kick your character out of the party because that's what our characters would do".
Of course having *planned* party conflict is no problem, but lone wolf party conflict should be responded to like a party would respond to a lone wolf. Don't play a character that wouldn't actually work as part of a group unless you've talked about it with your group (or even just your DM in some situations) and they're on board.
If someone says that they don't care if the party kicks them out, because "I'm a lone wolf", feel free to remind them that lone wolves in the wild have a very low survival rate. You can elaborate that this is because wolves are trained *from birth* to work as a pack, or simply point out that when wolves expel one of their own, they inflict enough damage on them to keep them from ever bothering the pack again.
@@Oddmanoutre
It's more basic than that: the game follows the adventures of the party. PCs are, by definition, party members.
Your character gets kicked out of the party, _they aren't a PC anymore._
Bet the "lone wolf" cares now.
Exactly! Your just not in the story anymore. And if your not in the story, your not in the game.... make a new character and try again.
Exactly. Stealing from the medieval equivalent of a SWAT-team in a place without law always struck me as rather short-sighted.
@@torin725 make a new character? more like find a new group
I like to call it "The Character Nuremberg Defense".
"It's not my fault, your honor. I'm just doing what -I was told- my character would do"
That's...absolutely amazing. Definitely going to steal that!
I'm glad that it wasn't just me that thought that. I think I've explained the Nuremberg Defense to almost all of my friends, funny because I'm not the history buff.
"That's the video folks"
_only 70% of the video is completed_
Wadsworth constant, inverted.
I love him for this. He tells you when the information you were here for is done, and then spends the rest of the video talking about stuff that people who aren't subscribed wouldn't care about
I'm told commenting improves RUclips metrics. So here it goes:
Good job Matt. Keep videoing.
Keep On Keepin On!
See Ya When I'm Looking Atcha!
Strawberry Poppies Forevah ...
I hope that helped =)
It’s all about the “social contract” (I.e. - don’t be a d!ck).
ragingowlbear.blogspot.com/2018/08/gm-101-problems-players-and-social-contract.html
"Well i'm just playing my character!"
"Well then play a different character."
This. A thousand times this.
@Beep Boop Usually if the situation comes up, where the wangrod defense is used, there was likely insufficient communication before. If a session 0 was had and everybody knows what to expect of the other characters, you can either prevent a group from not matching by adjusting characters, or if you are into that, at least everyone agreed.
That is why it is so important to have a Session 0, after all.
Toxic player steals the cleric’s holy symbol. Next combat... toxic player says, “quick! heal me! I’m down to 1 hit point!” Cleric: Sorry, too busy fighting monsters.
Sorceror sets fire to a bridge to prevent party from being overtaken, before all party members have crossed it. After everyone is pulled out of the river the Cleric says "I'm not healing stupid people any more!"
Audrey Seddon but then they die next combat with the rest of the party😁
@@Fruitbat-tb3lg Even better would be...
Thief: I steal the cleric's symbol
GM: Fine, roll
Thief: Success!
GM: Lightning strikes you out of nowhere - cleric, roll (number of thefts)d6 damage - (god/dess) does not approve, you should probably return the symbol to its owner
Cleric: "I would but I seem to be missing my holy symbol."
@@Fruitbat-tb3lg the god could just curse the theif the moment they steal the cleric's holy symbol.
Only one who is a River to his people can truly change the wangrod.
True story, one game, back in those halycon days of 1st edition AD&D, a DM who had enough of his party's wangrod conflict had me (Mr I always play a LG Ranger or Paladin), bring an assassin to the table...guess who my contract was on?
....I want to hear the rest of this story
@@dave1411 same ahahaha
"I'm playing my character, too!"
(Casts Sleep on the rogue)(Coup-de-graces the rogue)
finally someone
Looool
_LG Paladin cuts off dominant hand_
This reminds me of this one time in my earlier years. Like 8 or 9 years old. I was playing with older kids. 1 player a rogue stole all my stuff. They thought it was hilarious that I a lawful good fighter had to go through the next several encounters in the buck. I barely survived I dont remember how much hp I had. Later in the campaign when they were asleep a ran them through. They got upset cuase they'd been playing that character for over a year and i a new player to their table just killed him outright.
I think "I'm just playing my character" is fair only if you were ASSIGNED your character. If you CHOSE to make your character this way, then by extension you chose everything that you character would do, and if it's disruptive then you're disruptive.
There’s also if It’s clear to the other PLAYERS from the beginning what your characters going to be. Some of the truth probable responses are momentous enough that that should be clear from the outset as well.
The characters may be completely in the dark till the thief betrays the party, the paladin leaves him short handed and the cleric suggests he find a priest to pay to grow that hand back next time they’re in town.
"Here is your character, they cant help but steal from its most trusted friends while they sleep..."
could happen tbh, ngl, thats what getting assigned a character is like.
@@elgatochurro It's like getting assigned to be the traitor in a hidden-role game at that point.
@Beep Boop it's a cooperative game, and anyone being a toxic player can range from insulting other characters to trying to kill them or other horribly sadistic shit
This is what I always say. Your character did not spring out of the ether; they are the result of decisions that you made. Therefore, you are responsible for anything the character does. If the character's a wangrod, it's because the player made them that way, and the player's probably a wangrod too.
This does not, of course, apply to situations like dopplegangers or mirrors of opposition or possession when a player is being a wangrod under the gamemaster's orders, but those situations are rare (and, in my campaigns, basically nonexistent, as the number of players who hate that is far greater than the number who enjoy it).
"I steal the clerics divine symbol"
ok
"I then wake him up and tell him I found it on the ground and I knew he should have it. Hoping to get myself on his good side"
This is why my Cleric's holy symbol is a tattoo on his arm. I suppose a thief could still steal it, but I would definitely notice.
8:26 - "I'm not going to become one of those people who says 'if you liked this video, blah blah blah'"
9:01 - "If you liked this video..."
😂
5:25 "I guarantee you there is a character you could play in this game that you would really enjoy and that would not cause the rest of us to be unhappy." Excellent point, a fantastic response to someone "playing their character". You *chose* to play that character and be a wangrod, try something else.
I would add "...or, there's a different way you could play your character...."
@Beep Boop The importance of a Session Zero is another issue that is often overlooked. That said, if someone is complaining about the behavior it is unlikely that the behavior was cleared with the party ahead of time, whether it was unclear or perhaps there was no Session Zero.
It's also valid to have that discussion if the party no longer feels the same about such behavior. Just because it sounded fun or intriguing at the start doesn't mean they have to allow it to continue if it is now unpleasant.
Some years ago I was in a campaign where the DM himself used what you call the Wangrod Defense. The players were becoming increasingly fed up with their characters being treated badly and it was clear that the DM was power-tripping and being intentionally manipulative. When confronted about it the DM simply said that the NPCs were doing what they would have done regardless. (In the end one PC was killed after being railroaded into an inescapable situation and in protest all the players quit.)
How to solve the thief stealing the Cleric's holy symbol:
Step 1: Refuse to pay for the return of the holy symbol (bonus points if you tell the thief it would serve them better and they should keep it!)
Step 2: Continue on with adventure as normal
Step 3: Next available combat, fight as well as you can without your holy symbol
Step 4: Once the thief enters melee or gets into a vulnerable position, tell the other members of your party to leg it and leave him exposed
Step 5: Return to combat and retrieve holy symbol from his body. Revival post-battle optional
Or the GM can not allow it to happen.
That seems like a whole session worth of trouble that isn't fun and could've been avoided with a simple (but slightly confrontational) 2 minute conversation with the problem player. I swear I see similar comments like this so often, TALK TO YOUR PLAYERS. I get DnD tends to attract the more anti-social nerdy types but just talk to each other as humans, know most people will understand.
@@taserrr frankly, a good GM will not allow it, and gently remind the player that the characters will find out eventually and it will be up to them as to whether their character remains in the party. as a GM I would kick the player from the group if they persisted in such behavior after the friendly reminder
@@TheRockinDonkey Another option is to point out that the thief has basically no chance of getting away with it if the cleric turns to the authorities. Everyone has most likely seen the cleric with his holy symbol, so they would know that the thief shouldn't have it, and in most settings magic can be used to prove without a doubt that the thief is guilty. It's like, blackmailing the cleric sounds like easy money until you realize that they don't need a holy symbol to cast Zone of Truth lol.
Usually that action, the thief stealing from the party, ends the first time the lawful good player hacks off the hand of the thief for stealing. Works best with a Paladin, but a noble, or cleric of lawful deity.
"That is the law; my character would not stand for such actions."
Yes, discussion after that strongly helps to actually resolve it.
Hm. Lawful Good and hacking hands off does not seem to go together well. Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil maybe.
@@johnnybigbones4955 so I guess Lawful Good Paladins of the past never killed a single thing just cause good and hacking things don't go together? If the law states you cut the hand off a thief caught in the act, I don't see why a Lawful Good Paladin would not resort to do that without being considered evil, as he exacted justice by the law and as expected by society on one caught in a criminal act which was both thievery and treachery. Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil might as well just kill the thief.
@@johnnybigbones4955 If the law says to remove the hand of a thief, then what is unlawful about carrying out the law? And, how is punishing evil not good?
I suppose it would be in part a matter of the law of your world, but playing with history as inspiration and basis, prisons are a very modern invention. Throughout much of history, public shaming, mutilation, torture, and execution were normal punishments.
Granted, I would argue torture and painful executions would not fall into a "Good" society, but flogging or removing an ear, finger, eye, or hand would not be outside the realm of possible punishments for thieves. Alternately, fines or forced labor may be the law of the land.
The price of theft is your hand.
Honestly, "Hacking off a players hand." is an even more of a wangrod-move than "Stealing holy symbol." Both actions ruin the fun of a player, because they limit his options drastically. One of them does it permanently.
Stealing from the party isn't a big issue and can even cause a lot of fun situations. As long as the party finds a way to work together, inter-party conflict can enrich roleplay.
I've heard the "Gee goiz I'm just roleplaying a thief" excuse before, usually, the veteran fighter would reply " I TOO AM PLAYING MY CLASS" before he lops off the theifs head. metagaming all around and not a drop to drink.
be warry kids, always practice safe drama with player's consent!
Soo many obstacles to great D&D are overcome by group character creation and introduction of the campaign at Session 0. It's not a railroad, it's group focus. How do you want to play your D&D within the scope of the fantasy realm provided?
Love waking up to a new Matt Colville video
@Alien Alien Wangrod mad
@Alien Alien Sorry I can't hear you over the noises of the soy milk I'm slurping down in my designated soy cup.
A) What grounds do you have to think Matt alters his voice?
B) If he does then would it be for any other reason than audio clarity?
C) Hair dying isn't uncommon today, why is it any different in his case?
D) Wangrod still mad. Listen to Matt and be a better player.
@Alien Alien Haven't read anything of that nature saying he changes his voice (doesn't sound any different when he's playing D&D). Your response to his hair dying is utterly moronic; just because you've decided what men ought to do, it does not follow that they ought do (or refrain from) said thing. Would I dye my hair? Probably not because it's not in my interest. Is it in Matt's interest if he's doing it? Probably, because he is doing it. Do you or I know why it's in Matt's interest? Most likely not. A refusal to answer any part of my question just goes to show....
That wangrod mad.
Alien Alien It’s certainly possible he doesn’t give two shits what the Alpha Male😂🤣😂🤣 with a pussycat avatar thinks of his personal choices. Maybe he likes the way he looks, maybe his wife likes the way he looks(which any Real Man®️, who likes not being a virgin holds as far more important than the fashion advice of “Mr. Kitten Avatar, Lord of Outer 4Chan”). Whatever. It’s really none of your business, but you do seem obsessed with other men’s looks in a way that makes everybody around here think that maybe you should find one of those Alpha Males you keep talking about and get yourself laid.
In my first ever campaign, I was playing my Ranger, and somehow ended up as the only character that could heal. As such, I carried the potions, and had what few healing spells the Ranger table allowed.
And he was murdered by a Tiefling rogue duo of "veteran" players, one a thief, the other an assassin.
I fell from the battlements of a castle we were scaling, and instead of helping me up, or even leaving me to fate, they jumped down, stole my inventory, and stabbed me in the neck quoting "Something wrong with your leg, boy?"
It was our third session, and I almost gave up on D&D in general after that. I was miserable. I loved my character, and everyone told me I should be prepared for them to die. But I wasn't prepared for the death to be at the deliberate hands of the rest of the table.
Tiefling rogues that gank the new guy who was the only one with healing? Sounds like they were being MASSIVE cockwombles.
that SUCKS, oh man this story made me sad :( i'm glad you didn't let them drive you out of the game!
In 1st & 2nd ed you did not want to make enemies with the cleric, about the only person who can heal your wounds.
I have always thought a good response to “I am only doing what my character would do.” Is “So am I roll for initiative.”
I love not only that you identify this problem so thoroughly but also that you present such a practical solution. All of your content is really good. But this is REALLY good. Game on.
The story from the beginning actually happened to my group a few sessions ago. We had a new player, who was playing a Paladin, and the group Rogue decided to pick the pocket of the paladin. The Paladin's player, my little sister, was nervous, but the Rogue's player has been a family friend for years, so there's trust. What happened with the characters? My other friend plays a loud, outspoken monk who was looking for the rest of the party. He happened upon the two and loudly chastised the Rogue for stealing from a fine, upstanding Paladin. Laughs all around the table.
We were once playing an evil campaign, and as often happens in an evil campaign, one of the players was playing Chaotic-Evil as Chaotic-Stupid. If he didn't like what the group was doing, the plans we made to tackle a given encounter, he (a Psionicist) would say "I mind-blast the room". It got to the point where if we were going to keep playing with him, we as _players_ would need to make sure _he_ was happy with our plans, our our characters would fall victim to his pretty OP power. Suffice to say the campaign didn't last, and we never played with him again. And, no, I don't think he would have acted differently if we'd not been playing an evil campaign.
I've done something similar to this though it was in a game where everyone agreed to SOME degree of PVP in the game so it was no big deal. That being said PVP is only fun when everyone is in on it.
I’ve responded to this defense with “in a world with magic, dragons and secrets temples, with wizards and warriors, the thing you wanted to be most was a run of the mill jackass?” I should note I said this in a game I wasn’t DM, as when one is DM you need to have more tact. It was also to someone I knew well enough to be extremely blunt with.
It's the two phrases I always tell people in TRPGs: "You are playing your character. Your character isn't playing you." Simple and to the point.
I had an experience once where another player in a campaign was “role-playing” a character who would aggressively flirt with other characters in the game, including player characters. My character ended up being one of the ones most constantly “flirted” at, and it made me extremely uncomfortable almost every game. I tried bringing it up with our dm, who did talk to her about it a few times, but neither of us wanted to make things uncomfortable (ironically) and wanted to be nice to her. But she didn’t stop, and eventually it led to me leaving the game. I ended up starting a new game recently with a few friends from that group, but I always felt bad about the experience when it wasn’t even my fault. I regret not directly addressing her about it during the first game or getting out of the group sooner, because it was several months of harassment and I felt so gross through the whole thing. I don’t know if this is common at tables with problem players, but if anyone else out there is having this issue, please please PLEASE address it the moment it comes up. If it’s not consensual (which it wasn’t with us) it’s harassment whether they’re “role-playing” this type of character or not.
"It's what my character would do!"
"Then your character is a jerk and not trustworthy and therefore was never welcomed into the group. Would you like to try to NOT ret-con your character out of existence?"
Seriously, though: tales and experience with this has led me to setting that expectation of not screwing each other over unless they intended their character to become an NPC villian.
Theif: "I'M the jerk that isn't trustworthy?! What about that church that you stole all the tithes from?"
Fighter: "Well what was I supposed to do? The priestess wasn't putting out ..."
Thief: "ಠ_ಠ You aren't making a strong case for yourself, you know that?"
Fighter: "See? You're being a jerk right now."
@Charles Edwards
Yup. Setting expectations ahead of time is the best way to prevent _so_ many problems.
D&D is a team sport. Players are expected to create PCs who want to adventure with the party and whom the party would want as a member.
Since making some variation of this part of my standard Session Zero spiel, I just haven't run into the vast majority of wangrod behaviours.
Thanks Matt. This is an ongoing problem at my table. One particular player is a problem regardless of the number of times and manners of communication. Yet, no one is willing to kick him... That’s our fault, I guess.
Just decide to stop helping his character in combat and he will quickly die or get the message.
Alien Alien hey if you don’t want the DM to fudge the roll occasionally to keep you alive that’s up to you
@Alien Alien, nope, it's NOT at our Table... ;o)
One of my first games was in 2e ad&d. I was afraid of this happening to my brother when he came to me saying he wanted to play a cleric. He turned it around by saying that the holy symbol on his neck was just a superficial distraction, that the real one was branded on his chest. When the thief tried to ransom the fake holy symbol back, my brother said his cleric tore his shirt at the neck revealing the one on his chest, and said "Go to hell." to cast banishment. At the time I thought it was so brilliant that I allowed it, saying that the gods smiled upon him and sent the thief to hell for a few minutes. The thief player was stunned, he didn't even know that was possible. After that session the thief player admitted that it was pretty awesome and promised not to steal from the casters again if it meant they could do stuff like that to the bad guys.
that's an INCREDIBLE story, i admire the clever setup and the triumphant energy of that payoff so much, your brother's my hero
I hate the wangrod defense and it's addendum "my character is chaotic neutral"
Oh God yes.
Alignment is a _description_ of the character's morality, not the _motivation_ for their actions.
The villain doesn't want to murder the King because he's Neutral Evil; he's Neutral Evil because he ants to murder the King.
"My character is chaotic stupid." I fixed your typo.
@@leatcanned I had to do a double read because I failed to notice the difference at first. 🤣
Even Chaotic Neutrals can still have friends. Heck, even Chaotic EVILS can still have friends. How one views the world does not mean you have to treat your friends the same way.
As a DM I say "You're just playing your character? Okay, and what if I make an all-powerful god character that hates you specifically and kills you right now? I'd just be playing my character. People shouldn't make characters that ruin the fun of someone else in the group."
"I'm just playing my character!" Yeah, and our characters don't want to adventure with an asshole who keeps stealing our stuff. Have fun on your own.
Pretty much. Yeah.
Of course, this amounts to telling the player that they can't play D&D anymore, which is how the wangrods keep getting let off the hook.
The best thing is preventative measures taken before the campaign begins.
Simply point out that players are expected to create PCs who want to adventure with the party and whom the party would want as a member. Use the example of stealing from the party to explain this concept.
Since I started doing this, I have not had someone try to pull the "wangrod defence" on me.
@@CrashSable You misunderstand me. These players are "let off the hook" when DMs _don't_ pull them up on their behaviour and tell them to stop ruining the game for everyone else or they can find a new game. It's a pretty confrontational thing to do to a friend; tantamount to telling them they can't hang out with you anymore.
Which is why you'll see so many people advocating trying to police wangrodism with in-game consequences instead in the hope of "teaching them a lesson".
Far better to set clear boundaries and expectations in Session Zero.
One of which is the concept that D&D is a _group activity,_ a team sport if you will. Players are constrained in the kind of character they can play by the need to keep the party together so the campaign can continue. If they don't observe this rule, the other players can't RP _their_ PCs.
Thank you so much for keeping the MCDM and live D&D stuff on another channel, I love these smaller digestible nuggets of goodness about D&D and the science and art of DM'ing a game or playing a game, and really don't have a desire to see the live D&D stuff, but I wish you the best on both channels!!
"I roll to attack the thief after paying for the holy symbol."
"Wha-"
"IT'S WHAT MY CHARACTER WOULD DO."
Rogue steals clerics holy symbol
Rogue wants to ransom it back
Cleric goes maze to the face
Which side would the rest of the party choose?
Go to a blacksmith to collaborate with your church to make a weapon that is your holy symbol. My cleric's shield was one.
@@KaminaCicada that's alwys cool.
Holy symbol tattoo.
@@KaminaCicada My cleric's holy symbol is emblazoned on his warhammer. Although I guess he'd be doubly as screwed if *that* got stolen...
By and large, a character who steals from a party member at best gets beat down, tied up, and returned to the local authorities. Or they get killed and looted. Or beat down, stripped, tied up, and used to distract the next carnivore...
"Our Universe" Book on the top shelf in the back. I got that book too!
For me, what was annoying and or hypocritical about the "I'm just playing my character" defense is that I have had my aggrieved character say "guys, we cannot have someone we cannot trust in this party. Our lives are way too dangerous to have to watch our backs from our own party. Let's just find someone else". The player of the thief / chaotic character loses their mind and responds with outrage. Turns out that "I'm just playing my character" defense only goes one way.
Player: I roll for intimidation
Roll: Nat 20
DM: "The goblins screech as they use their short bows to shoot themselves", attack roll
Roll: Nat 20.
Damage : 6 + 2
DM: "The Goblins are dead, what did you do to intimidate them"?
Player: I eat the sandwich with crusts.
Funny moment in the game I'm in came out of intimidation, party is being ambushed by goblins, I kill a goblin, roll well on intimidation so the other goblin tries to escape by jumping off a roof and then died from fall damage
@Alien Alien That's nice, but do you have any funny DND stories to tell other than how real men are better than SJWs.
@Alien Alien like what did that have to do with a d&d comment?
I feel the full statement is 'Im just playing my character, and I'm not expecting any in game consequences from anyone else just playing their characters".
When the thief gets no healing spells because he hasn't offended the cleric, he's offended the clerics actual *God* and the god refuses to help him, that drive the roleplaying issue home.
I’m glad that Matt is stressing the “talk to your PLAYERS” bit rather than solving things in-game. Player problems can’t be solved by in-game mechanics because the problem players don’t believe the mechanics have any consequences. Killing a fake npc or stealing a fake holy symbol is just make believe to them, so why get angry? It’s important to pull out of the story, talk to the player, and connect the in-game mechanical actions with real-world feelings and attitudes. Yeah, all sand castles are just sand to you, but smashing someone else’s sandcastle may be more hurtful to them than it would be to you. Gotta teach empathy, folks.
my dungeon master would always look to the victim and ask "do you consent to this happening to your character?" which i found to be smart because if they said no, it wouldn't happen, but if they said yes, the wangrod immediately understands that they only got to do something because the victim LET it happen. It immediately takes the mischievous wind out of their sails, and makes them play more fun for everyone, while still allowing interparty conflict.
I started watching through running the game again. It's really wonderful. It reminds me of how much I love playing d&d and how wonderful the story can be. Thank you for being an inspiration and a mentor to me Matt.
Great Video Matt. As a community, we have issues with handling his sort of thing at the table and this is probably more valuable than you know as a tool for helping your fellow Dungeon Masters sort out their table.
I paused the video when the concept for the topic was introduced (I'm just playing my character!) I was really pleased that he hit pretty much every point I came up with myself, and came to similar conclusions!
Thank you Matt, great video, similar case has just happened in my game, now I have something to suggest to my players and, hopefully, solve the situation
Other than Alarm, there really aren’t a lot of creative or interesting mechanical counter measures to theft either that is accessible to players.
And even if a target victim player were creative enough to prepare for this, it’s likely a thief player would meta-game around not knowing.
Solution for my group would be high perception guard pets. Especially venomous ones.
rogue: steals holy focus
cleric: ok.
later in combat
rogue: i NeEd HeAlInG
cleric:
"Opt-in" for the win!
I really like the collaboration idea, that way it can be an in-character conflict without making people uncomfortable out of character.
Even better, it can make the other character/s part of your character's development, increasing party's bonds and player's solidarity
Great discussion.
Two other things to put into the mix are 1) It's not the ONLY thing your character would do: You're not being forced into choosing the toxic path. There are many things your character might do, and you're responsible for having chosen the toxic one. 2) The system is not holy, consequently following the system is not a justification for ALL behaviors. All systems are vulnerable to abuse, and the agents within that system are responsible for the abuse of it. Yes, we're all here for some degree of verisimilitude in our collaborative roleplay, but such verisimilitude is not sacred enough to justify abusive or toxic behavior.
Some of the most fun I've had in D&D was when every player was a toxic backstabber. We all knew this going into the game though. When everyone is in on it, it's good banter and fun.
This video is so important! Especially for folks who have been playing for a long time and can end up not even seeing this sort of behavior.
(When I tried to sign up for a notification for your next Kickstarter, I got a 403 Forbidden error)
My response:
"Ok we're gonna turn you in for the bounty on ya"
"What? You can't do that?"
"Why not? It's what our characters would do."
"I'm the lawful good paladin, it's just what my character would do" *smirks*
The classic defense to the thief stealing your holy symbol is refuse to heal them. That is until they give you twice the gold they took earlier. Then the cycle of griefing continues.
Sort of related story that happened to one of my characters.
It was the first or second session of a campaign and I was playing a ratfolk thief. I was a prisoner and part of a chain gang with the rest of the party being transferred downriver through a swamp. After a surprise assault on the transport threw everything into chaos, my character managed to free everyone else in the party from their chains but could not pick his own wrist shackles. So the next highest disable device check in the group took a stab at it. The human fighter needed a decently high roll but totally miffed with a nat 1, breaking my shackles permanently. Everyone else could move freely but the poor small rat man had to swim to shore and clear the swamp while dragging 20 lbs of chain.
Call me crazy, but I really enjoyed this. Granted, it was a setback and I was playing my character as pissed off as I could, but I was super grateful that my character got to have a unique moment of development so early on in the game. It might not have gone over so smoothly with me had it been a purposeful move on the fighter's part for some kind of ransom, but I think I'd still have enjoyed the opportunity for a somewhat grating, almost hazardous dynamic in the party. Specifically, such a scenario would probably fit best in the opening sessions of a campaign where all the PCs were un-introduced criminals.
Thank you for bolstering my confidence in running D&D. It is always something I look forward to and the friends I have made are in part due to the work you've put into this channel. You are a hero of mine
What I'd do to counter that specific problem is quite simple. Stealing a holy symbol is stealing the focus of a god's power. The god generally chooses the cleric, so having that focus stolen by a thief would result in the god intervening. Whenever the cleric tries to reach out to the god, have the thief roll 1d6 damage against themselves. Then tell the cleric and the thief that the cleric can no longer heal that thief, until the thief atones to the cleric AND the god.
Yeah you need to be a DM to do it, but it shows the players that cruel actions aren't harmless, to the players or to the characters.
Another one knocked out of the park. this one goes on my list of videos to show new players.
This video: Truly a priceless work of art.
In any situation, there are a number of different ways any given person can choose to act. Just like you have free will, your character isn't on a "rail" with only one possible thing they can do in every situation. There are always other things your character would ALSO do, which won't ruin the fun of the other people at the table.
This goes hand in hand with Matt's stance of generally not letting players use their skills on other players, which he's stated in past videos. I haven't been able to fully adopt this, but I want to. There's always been one or two players that enjoy that type of mischief, unfortunately. It simply leads to a lot of potential harm, with barely any gain or positives at all.
This has definitely been relevant to my experiences playing D&D. We didn’t know how to deal with it at the time, and it caused a lot of issues and tensions outside of the game. But you’re right that people mature! Thankyou for the insightful video, I’m very much looking forward to next week’s video on The B Plot!
I used to deal with this quite a bit at an old table. The rogue character had insane sleight of hands and kept pick pocketing gold or items. The DM took it one step further and reminded us that we didn't know we were robbed, so we had to trsck what we had and what we thought we had. It was a nightmare when we were saving for anything or had just gotten a good item. The entire reason I rolled a new Blade lock was so I could stash my weapon where it couldn't be stolen from me on any given day
Matt! I love your content! Thank you! My players and I have just started using Strongholds and Followers - they decided to build a keep and everyone is very excited! Thank you for writing such an awesome book, making such awesome videos, and running such an awesome game that we can all follow and watch! Keep up the great work!
Sooo...... I assume in strongholds and followers, you design you stronghold to protect yourself against the wangrod?????
only had one player like this. He'd hire bandits to attack some of us while he was away, "consorting with his contacts." It was, admittedly, decent roleplaying but got old fast. Even the DM was tired of every other session revolving around this one narcissistic player's need to detract from the main plot/quest/etc...
As soon as the party captured one of these hirelings alive and interrogated him into naming Tristan, our thief, as the one pulling the strings, we cast Sleep on him after getting him drunk, collected all of his stolen goods, and handed him over to the city magistrate.
There was a trial, we all condemned his actions and implicated him in not only the string of thefts, but some assassinations too (that he didn't do, but was away when they happened) as well as hiring essentially bandits to attack his "friends", and he was hanged for his crimes.
He got mad and left,but about a month later, he wanted to rejoin the group with an actual useful character, who ended up being much more fun and memorable for everyone.
What you call "toxic players" are what I call "every player I ever have at the table when I DM". It actually works great, since they're all "wangrods" it keeps things balanced. They're all stealing from each other, playing pranks with alchemist's fire and transmutation spells, and generally screwing each other over. It gives me lots of time to get DM prep work done.
I think there's a strong distinction between "playing your character" and "playing the game". Remember, everyone at the table is there to play the game before they're there to play their character. I never liked the idea of people simply disallowing inter-party conflict, because it IS in character. However, you should never allow it to get out of hand to the point that it's greater than the GAME. I think the idea of talking out inter-party conflict, of setting it up works really well. I also think it takes a rather mature play group to make that happen. I've seen some groups who do this regularly, and they have some incredible stories to tell! For new players, I find it best to lay out some of the unspoken rules of table top roleplaying, namely that there's an unspoken pact between all players in a party, that you are, in general, working together for the goals of the game. This goes for players and the DM too! Players should work to cooperate with their DM's game, and not attempt to just derail the whole thing.
As always, communication is king in roleplaying games. If you haven't already definitely try it!
My friend just had their first dnd session tonight and she said she felt excited rather than daunted by it because of your intro to dnd video.
Also just finished Priest and Thief, great books and have sparked some nice ideas for the campaign i'm trying to make now.
Thanks Matt!
Having a rough time right now (outside of ttgames thing) and this video is really helping me right now. Thank you
@Alien Alien ? what are you talking about? Im afraid I dont get the reference.
@@LuckyMari878 He's a troll who's been running around the comments of this video. Just ignore him.
This really is a conversation that has been ongoing for decades. And I think it is fair to say that most of have been wangrods at one point or another. At least in regards to "Its what my character would do." Certainly there is a case to be made for being in character and having a degree of consistency in behavior from session to session. However, most of the time that defense is used, it is done to defend bad or childish behaviors.
I personally was the victim of the old Assassin rules: roll % and if the roll is under, the Assassin gaks you. No save. Always fun. But I can laugh about it now. Mostly.
"I'm just playing my character. Thieves steal, that's what we do!"
"Okay, I'm just playing my character too. Fighters beat down people who steal from them; that's what WE do."
It's amazing how fast they change their minds when it's THEIR character getting victimized by other PCs.
I would eat this up as a cleric. "Through you, my god is testing my faith. I must go without my divine powers to pass this test" then when the party forces them to give my holy symbol back because I havent been able to heal, that rogue is no longer worthy of my divine touch. Just playing my character.
Gosh Matt, I watch this video and thought you were sitting next to me in one of the recent games I was playing and just describe the situation you saw in our game. Like step by step.
-A dragon appears and burns you alive
-What? That's not fair!
-Well, that's what a dragon would do
I feel like robbing the cleric is a bad move considering that the gods are watching. Steal from the dragon and you'll have enough for your tithe and yourself.
One thing I say when I start a new game, or have new players, is that this is a social game. We are playing together, you can have your edgy, anti social characters (that seem so common), but if you choose not to cooperate, if you choose to be anti team, especially in a mechanical way, neither I the DM, nor the players need to go there with you. If you don't want to go on the quest, I will leave you as the other players do. If you play in a way that the other players and their characters would not want to be a group with you, when why would they, and again I encourage them to leave you behind. I want you to have your character, play that type of character, but do it in a way that it works in group.
I used the "I'm just playing my character" defense a few times, but the only examples that come to mind are from my first D&D character a LG stick-in-the-mud Triton Soldier. Some of the party was trying to be shady and my character was being a goodie-two-shoes, I felt that she was the party mom at times. Then she went insane gaining a long term madness and instead of being an equle member of the party she believed she was a soldier again that followed orders from her "Commander". At that point it was less "This is what my character would do" and more "This is what my character is doing".
Normally, I would bring up kender at this point as a negative example. But not this time. This time, Matthew Colville led me to realize something: in the original books, Tasselhof Burfoot usually only stole from Flint Fireforge when he swiped stuff from others in the party, and the two regularly played off of each other. Behind the scenes, in the gaming sessions that inspired the novels, I find it likely that the players did communicate with each other to set up this silliness, or at least had some sort of prior understanding. So even a kender could indeed be a workable player character, as long as people keep up those lines of communication.
I consider myself lucky. The only wangrods I've run for or played with stole everything that wasn't nailed down, but they only stole from NPCs. And sometimes it was absolutely hilarious to describe how they steal a church pew while the priest was in the room.
I had this happen in a campaign last year. I made a triton warlock who's main schtick was that he was a snarker with a heart of gold -- he verbally taunted and berated other party members and NPCs, and frequently complained or accused others, but in the end he would never leave a party member in trouble.
At first, this worked out really great. The party was fine with my warlock, and he created a fun contrast with another character -- a catfolk rogue who was always friendly, but willing to do terrible things in the interests of whoever would be his friend. However, by around 3rd level, the campaign was putting a lot of pressure on the players, and I realized my PC was putting a lot of stress on another player with his paranoia and verbal barbs. The player said everything was fine, but he also made it clear he wasn't having fun in the game at the moment, and I knew dealing with my warlock was not helping that.
So the DM and I ran a little scenario where my warlock chartered a boat in secret to escape the party's problems. My lock confronted one of the other party members one last time, warning them that if they were smart, they'd leave with him, and then he made his escape, avoiding Xanathar's ire with some lucky rolls and planning. Then I brought in a new character that was much more friendly and openly cooperative. The DM also dialed back the game's pressure a little and we've since continued on much more amicably, but I'd love to play that acerbic warlock again in the future.
Jeez, I love the way you describe things. Best DM advice & insight in the world.
For a brief moment before clicking on this video, I thought to myself "What epic battle tale will you regale us with today?"
...that was a better moment than the one immediately after.
Ah, im just now catching up to your recent videos. As a new dm I found you basic rules videos so informative on better ways to run the game, and now I'm getting more niche or interesting tips and opinions, which is even cooler!
Had this happen in a game I was playing. Happened for good reason though! It was a fighter however, not a cleric.
Rogue caught wind that the Fighter was a pretty rich girl playing at adventuring, meanwhile the rogue was essentially an ex conman. To be fair though, they were both role playing, and the general party consensus was that the rogue was in the right. HOWEVER, the fighter was a scaredy cat type, adventuring through Barovia of all places, and the player would make self imposed rolls for "fear" every few minutes, from a hearing a thunderclap to fighting ghouls. Fought a swarm of beetles, they rolled. Fought a magical broom, they rolled. It'd be one thing to do it maybe, every couple days or so, but every combat, there was at least one roll.
TL;DR - There's always a limit to how strong your "Role Playing" needs to be.
New video - best sight just after coming home from work
Thief: d6 HD, leather armour, no shield, a shortsword and a decent THAC0 and a gygaxian percent chance to maybe disarm a trap.
Cleric: 1d8 HD, heavy armour, shield, a mace, a better THAC0 and spells that the party needs to survive.
Don't mess with the healer.
This has been a PSA brought to you by common sense.
Communication is always the key. Thanks for constantly remind us of this.
I'm so glad you made this video. I wish I could have watched it a year ago when I was struggling with this at my table.
Thief steals from the party and tries to ransom the stuff back to them.
Paladin: "Did you just steal from us?"
Thief: "Well, yes ... obviously!"
Paladin: "Why? We are your companions!"
Thief: "It's what my character would do!"
Paladin proceeds to cut off the thief's little finger.
Thief: "WHY, I AM ONLY PLAYING MY CHARACTER!"
Paladin: "So am I! Next time you'll lose an entire hand!"
I can't argue with history; but it seems odd that the Thief can have thief skills and feels they can "play their character" and steal from party members, while the Fighter has fighter skills yet wouldn't consider stabbing party members as "playing their character" and Wizards have wizard skills yet wouldn't consider casting fireball on party members as "playing their character"...
HEY MATT~~ I just bought my first copy of Strongholds and Followers + the PDF. Thanks again for being awesome!!!
I will forever call the description box the dooblydoo, Matt. Thank you for that.
Waking up at 3-4 am sick as a dog. Happy to have a new matt video to keep me somewhat sane.
I read that "wan-grod" defense
new character name haha. Hello, I'm Wan Grod :)
@@lordneg1 HAHA i have a slot ive been meaning to fill on bdo!! Thank you!
Last session a player (Rogue obvs) literally said "Dude stop complaining, I'm just playing my character" as he proceeded to annoy the heck out of the rest of the party. This video gave me some ideas on how to deal with those kind of players.
Btw: miss you doing longer videos!