Creep Player Ruins Multiple Campaigns
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 дек 2022
- creep D&D is bad. he's all into that creep stuff. we know he's a creep. Nathaniel 😡
Thanks to u/Only2Megabytes for the story!
Join the Discord! / discord
Submit Your Story! / critcrab
join the CRUSTACEAN LEGION / @critcrab
Follow me on Twitter! / crabcrit
MERCH! teespring.com/stores/critcrab... 
Развлечения
“He looks at you with his doll like eyes, and does not say a word” truly, a phrase that can be repeated to the end of time
I remember Fauxnor.
Doesn't he need to make a "Doll-like Eyes" check?
I literally was thinking this the whole video
All.
Except
Faikhor.
A true CritCrab classic.
NOW THAT'S A THROWBACK
Nathaniel (to himself): "The worst thing she can say is no!"
Nathaniel: "Hey, so what about our characters in the DnD entering a lesbian relationship?"
Alexandra: "Ew."
Nathaniel's life: "Ight, imma head out."
I mean it was more like teleporting da fuck outta there. lol I wonder if he was hitting on the player too because it sounds like a bit of an overreaction to just blatantly asking for their characters to be in a relationship.
EMOTIONAL DAMAGE!
Alexandra: *gigachad female wojack*
Reminds me of a story where a guy asked out his crush and she said she’d rather kill herself.
I find it kinda funny how OP says several times "and THIS was the end of Nathaniel's creepiness" and then goes on to say something even worse 2 seconds later.
Nah OP does state for awhile, so Nat wasn't being creepy every session all session, just every few sessions he would do something creepy.
Honestly, Nathaniel has problems sure, but that DM sounds terrible, too.
ya he sounds boring compared to the other storys I have heard
Another dude: "I want to seduce a woman in a bar"
DM: "She's drunk, but never mind, let's make her not-drunk so you can have fun!"
Nathaniel: "I want to seduce a woman in a bar"
DM: "HOW DARE YOU! They are all drunk and if you dare try, I will smite you!"
The whole “he constantly described doing menial tasks” is usually how a player tries to add to the scene and possibly establish a pattern that might benefit the party later. I think this gm just lacks basic pattern recognition and dislikes rp
He probably did it WAY too much
4:28 If I had to guess why OP gave Nathaniel that as his secret, it's probably because the Hermit Background allows you to know a secret about the world from your time meditating in solitude, and the OP, being a brand new DM, didn't have any other worldly secrets that he could think of, so he probably just gave up what he could think of as Nathaniel's secret. It's just simple lack of prep/world knowledge on the DM's part, not really anybody is at fault for it.
Yeah the Hermit background is the why he got a secret, it's just unfortunate that the new DM didn't have the experience to realize how to utilize the feature to the benefit of the game.
@@WolforNuva how detailed does the secret have to be?
@@Nerobyrne don't recall off the top of my head - I believe it's one detail or fact about the world that most people believe a falsehood about, not sure how much detail is implied. It's in the phb though, should be easy enough to check (I don't have access to mine right at the moment).
@@Nerobyrne When I was playing a druid hermit, I got the secret that the world's magic was dying and some clues to how it was, which was why plants and animals were acting irregularly. I got the hint it wasn't occuring naturally and it tied into my characters big question/backstory so I had a reason to seek out answers/solutions. It was a small secret of what was happening in the world at large and tied into the story without outright telling me what was happening. But it gave incentive to try to fix it.
OP changed one NPC being drunk to sober for other player, but not for Nathaniel.
No wonder dude got pissed off - he just saw how it worked for other player. "If you flirt, npc sobers up" - instead he got smited
Unless I misheard it, it sounded like they changed the npc Nathaniel originally wanted to flirt with from drunk to sober? As like a courtesy, but it was just a one time deal and so didn’t do it for the other drunk npcs he tried to flirt with
@@bluebay1031the dm did it for the bard. Because the bard seduced the DM I guess.
@@DaddyHensei Yeah, I sucked off the DM so my character could get a pirate dommy mommy gf
Have to agree with a lot of other comments here that something about this story is off. The op seems like an unreliable narrator with a lot of double standards and bias against nathaniel. The biggest issue i had with nathaniel was his repeated attempts to seduce a female player into a lesbian relationship with multiple characters
But with how hand-wavy op was with people dropping the campaign, describing situations that was not ok for nathaniel to be doing despite other players doing the same thing, retconning situations for other player benefits, and death being their go to consequence for situations despite claiming to be a pushover, i really think this is a story that needs context from other players at the table before i'd classify it as a horror story. I could just as easily see op being the villain here just as much as i could see nathaniel being the villain.
I mean, the DM can be trash and Nathaniel can be a weird pervert at the same time, it's more than likely.
@@MP-fc7qt oh i wasn't arguing that nathaniel wasn't bad. His pursuit of the female players pc across multiple characters was a definite creep moment. But the dm definitely sounded off through this whole thing; and unreliable at best. My thought is nathaniel is perverted and weird, probably not well liked in the group and definitely needs to take social queues, and the dm is an asshole.
@@caosisaac My thoughts exactly! There's enough cringe in the community to go around, unfortunately.
oh glad to see this. Everyone gets a relationship but natheniel? It also seems like he never got mad that much? So yea nathaniel was probably creepy to some degree but it seems like it only went that far cuz the the dm wouldnt let his character be happily in a relationship. I have a feeling most of this wouldnt have happened, or to a lesser extent, if the dm just let him have a dam gf in the game like every other character. It literally just seems like a bully.
Also instead of just rejecting a character and resorting to suicide was kinda weird. I feel like there must have been more to that for such an extreme reaction. If there was more to that story then I feel like OP would have mentioned it.
And yea weirdly how so much people leave. Honestly seems like OP is a nightmare and picked on Nathaniel for being a little weird and lacking social skills. The people that left probably cued into OP and left but OP probably lack self confidence and social recognition. How many play actually stayed playing?
100% there really feels like some bias here. The OP literally omits some details, and then puts events that even whilst fishy, look bad on them.
Nathaniel sounds like a guy who was shitty with his social skills above all else. Hanging away from the group, constantly trying to flirt with everything, and in general being pushed back by the group. I do think Nathaniel did this to himself, and his lack of self control along with ability to work in cohersion with the group put him at a disadvantage. Overall a mid story IMO, and I don’t think Nathaniel came across nearly as bad as the OP thinks they did, or as bad as most of the problem players on this channel.
I think missed a detail, because it seems like the DM was deliberately setting up situations where Nat was not allowed to rp in the same way as the other players. Like, i understand that he was creepy with the PCs, I'm not dismissing that. But there's two instances where they allowed romance or sex rp for another player, then immediately shot Nat down for wanting the same thing. Retconned a drunk sober so a player can flirt with them, then turns to Nat and says, "no, everyone's drunk, get bent." Then won't let him do anything in a BROTHEL, that they allowed him and another player to go to. Also, playing an 8 foot character, every woman is "small." Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a contradicting horror story somewhere, where Nat laments being singled out and denied the same opportunities as other players, because he played a woman, but wasn't comfortable rping romance with male characters.
Honestly, if you aren't going to kick him, then give him a scenario where he gets what he wants, in a non creepy context. Just give him a girlfriend. Don't keep him around, and passively aggressively deny him the same things you're giving to other players.
it does really come off like the DM had something for the guy beforehand. Right from the get-go he writes: "he never tended to listen, if he did..." I mean, maybe? ok. Then picks an item from a guy who he thought was related to the clue the DM gave, and the DM did not entertain it at all, even though this misleading thing was his crappy clue in the beginning not an intentional roleplay misdirection.
Also the DMs answer to problems is killing of characters, which is never going to work. Players will come with a new one, even though this one didn't. If you have a problem you need to talk to the player. Killing off a character achieves nothing.
The bandit situation: He sees an unconscious enemy loots them. Clothes on a bandit can be easily mistaken as armor, which are usually looted and sold. He sees his friend get into an rp situation that he also wants himself in, and tries. I understand this woman not being friendly to his character, just killing off this bandit instead of roleplaying that is not the best solution once again.
The bar situation: Him trying for the main npc after another party member's failed check, totally reasonable. Insisting to sleep with a drunk sailor... (while not acceptable are there any other kind of sailor in these fantasy fictional universes I wonder...) also again denying an rp situation the guy clearly wants and is ok for other players.
Generally we see the guy's attempts getting rejected because the DM doesn't like the guy's behavior and style of roleplay. Some people try to do the most with whatever they have (like a starry map) if they can't connect with anything else and are being ignored from the game otherwise. Please do not invite people you don't want to play with into your table. Inviting them and then denying them continuously is as much a horror story topic as this perspective we are given.
@MirageOwl i was contemplating the bandit encounter, and to me, it sounds like an inexperienced player, and the DM sending mixed signals. First, wanting to loot the bandit, Skyrim style, where you just take all the clothes. Then, trying to flirt with a living ENEMY he just stripped, only because he heard another player could flirt with npcs in the middle of a combat situation. He comes off as more inept that deliberately creepy.
Second, the DM allowing him to strip an unconscious person in the first place. That's signaling that his action was acceptable, so why can't he then flirt with her? The DM describes themselves as a pushover, except, no. The rest of the story says different. They repeatedly tell him no, and even kill characters.
I dunno, this is one of those stories where there's just enough discrepancies that I feel like this is an unreliable narrator. Or, their personal bias against Nat, colored how they saw his behavior.
I agree. The whole story felt a bit off. I think it was one of those ‘everyone is the arsehole’ things.
The other red flag was they mentioned a lot of other players were leaving.
I don’t know, I mean you can cut some slack with the GM being new, but it sounds like they had double standards at the very least.
Another one you’d like to hear from the point of view of a few other people at the table.
@@PaladinGear15 I mean, I've talked to plenty of lesbian transwomen who loved rpg and played a lot of lesbian women BEFORE realising they were trans, so I wouldn't even so hurriedly categorize Nathaniel as a fetishist. And even if he is actually a cis guy, I don't feel like the DM has such a moral high ground in this situation.
@@PaladinGear15 I mean... Not really? The OP only insists on Nathaniel going after girls because it's the main thing they hold against him, but they mention him doing other stuff and to be honest if all of Nat's action toward this goal are summarized in this post, I don't think it would constitute most of his in game actions, let alone "everyday all day". But I think it's beside the point, because as I said those behaviours are not necessarily contradictory with those of a lesbian transwoman in the closet who can't or don't dare yet to come out of her shell and has no other way to act according to her actual gender and sexual orientation. And if it's what's at play here, then it would be pretty damaging to categorise it as just lesbian fetishism.
Now I have no way to be certain myself that Nathaniel is anything else than a straight cisdude with lesbian fetishism, but it may be quite harmful to default to this conclusion when facing this kind of situation, especially with only one, quite possibly biased side of the story.
"DM shuts him down time after time"
DM unfortunately gave wiggle room by RetConning an NPC so bard can get with them.
But no. Not Nath. Who obviously saw this.
Nath is still a creep but DM gave the opening. Nath probably saw it as a direct thing to him. TBF.
Aiden gets to BANG! Nath. Nope.
Problem: Party might not have a problem with relationships, but DM seems to have solid beef with Nath.
Or lesbians. It comes across as either one. Or both.
Yeah that was pretty odd to me
@@Dice-Z Funnily enough I for some reason have the impression that DM is not particularly LGBT friendly. From the staunch refusal to give nath a lesbian relationship for no well-explained reason and the seeming constant need to point out how lesbian his characters were every 2 seconds (I know this is a tactic designed to make it seem like Nathaniel was fetishising them but to me it feels a lot more like DM is the one making a big deal out of it) to the speculation in this comment section, that I happen to find very plausible, that Nathaniel was dealing with and trying to find ways to express some transgender feelings, I do get some lgbt-hostile vibes from the story.
Couple this with the fact that around the time they got rid of Nathaniel, they also seemingly lost most of the newer players they brought in that weren't the old guard and it leads me to think the others were more sympathetic to Nathaniel than to the DM's behaviour/point of view.
This could of course all be completely wrong, it's wild speculation based on vibes, but that's my hot spicy take.
@@Person01234 The thing is, as someone else mentioned too, even if Nath wasn't coming to terms with his hypothetical status as an egg, it's not inherently wrong, either. A lot of people are comfortable playing characters of the opposite gender, but not comfortable writing a romance with one of their own.
Your options at that stage is "The character is ace" or "The character is gay". Whether it's fetishizing comes down to how he handles it. Is it a character who doesn't have any defining personality traits, and is usually mild mannered or meek but constantly talks about how many barmaids they sleep with every night? Or is it a normal character, be that relatively private about their intimate life OR a braggart bard style who thinks they're the greatest thing since sliced bread and talks about how AMAZING they are in all things, including sex?
As you guys say. DM strikes me more as someone who just hates gay people/characters.
@@Raiden777ify There is a third option which is simply not to engage in sexual roleplaying "onscreen", which is probably what you meant by "the character is ace" though being canonically ace and being canonically straight (or gay, or bi) and just not getting involved with that stuff ""on screen" is a distinction.
I'm like 4 minutes in an the DM saying the player was going to ruin the entire game by ... using information they were given to try to solve problems they encountered because they were actively pursuing the plot.
Yeah... OOP doesn't come out of this smelling like roses.
4:30 honestly the restraint of Nathanial not to just blurt out the secret and to politely inquire whether or not it would work is admirable
This player does seem really bad. But OP really gives me serious "bad DM" vibes all around
He did say it was his FIRST game
Agreed. Would have loved to know the Charisma throws in this or if they told the guy "knock it off". This just honestly seems petty and like the actually important info is missing.
You gotta start somewhere.
Unfortunately DM'ing has so much less to do with helping construct an immersive story or game, and often is much more babysitting people and handling delicate and uncomfortable social situations.
A session zero is useful to discuss and workout all the shit you shouldn't have to tell people in game.
Okay, but Ayden gets to do what he wants because he's a bard? Like, if you are setting up lines and rules, they should apply to everyone.
this is my primary concern with the post. it might be difficult for a problem player to understand that they are doing something wrong when gm just changes the situation to fit another player but not them.
Yeah, sounded like some serious double standards.
Yeah, this didn't sit well with me. Something seems off in that whole story, when you look at the treatment Ayden's given vs problem player.
to be fair, unlike Nathaniel's character, the moment Ayden was told by the DM "Hey, this woman is drunk" or "Hey, don't do that", he backed off. yea, the DM shouldnt have retconned, but you could say it was a means of rewarding Ayden for following rules and listening to the DM
@@Mariewolf_94regardless of that, its still clearly a bad dming decision, shows favoritism. And if he set rules like "no sleeping with drunk NPCs" then follow through. She was drunk, that player doesnt get the girl either. Simple as that
Seshie reminds me of a previous Player Character that always said something along the lines of, “He looks at you with his doll-like eyes, and says nothing.”
that's what i thought as well.
Seems like there is some favoritism might just be because he was already annoying the DM. When the bard hit on a drunk girl the DM retconned her to be sober. When the one guy did the same thing DM just called it rape.
Thanks for spending 2022 with the Crustacean Nation! 🦀👑 Cya next year
Your walking animation seems not working at all in your recent videos.
Im dumb af i read "cya next year" and my brain was like why, where are u going? then i realized its new years today =_=
Happy New Years, man. Here’s to a new year of horror stories because people don’t learn or learn the wrong lesson.
Happy new year crab king :3 I think we're all looking forward to what 2023 will bring :3
I love seeing your D&D stories and I can't wait for a new year of stories going forward. Happy new year everyone!
Upon coming into the brothel, Nathaniel asked if he could find Little Women. Fortunately the establishment, being a quite sophisticated venue, had a copy of Louisa May Alcott's iconic novel.
"He looks at you with doll like eyes and does not say a word"
Exactly what I was reminded of!
Vietnam flashbacks, man
And literally, what is a description like that supposed to do for the character? Fuck, I hate that story.
I feel like the OP is either blowing Nathaniel's antics out of proportion, or he's vastly downplaying them... but nothing in between. All in all, the situation reeks of DM favoritism. Maybe even bilateral favoritism where some players are favored for one thing while others are favored for others... I guess the OP is bringing up the other player that he's allowing to do the things that he shuts down for Nathaniel, as a contrast to say that "See I'm not an uncool DM. The problem player just doesn't understand the nuances of how to approach these things." But OP actually fails to establish that Aydin actually had a better approach, so it comes off more as having the same energy as the "He's so dreamy/Hello! HR," meme. Hence my assessment, OP is either overplaying how bad the problem player actually is, or leaving out vital context for establishing how problematic the problem player really is, and in both cases potentially hiding the favoritism.
I played with a person who played a female bi Monk. Their Monk had a sex friend relationship with the (also bi) female Bard. Judging from their dynamic, it had been discussed in advance and no one felt bothered including the party. They kept the flirting pretty low and anything steamy happened in a separate chat in-between sessions, not in our general chat. Decent people, handled the pc to pc RP like respectful adults.
14:58 the text box ‘crab’ over the naughty word is absolutely incredible that shit slapped
The real horror story is is the OOP GM. They sound terrible and Nathanial sounds mildly annoying to semi creepy but the way the GM handled other players basically encouraged Nathanial behavior because other players were allowed to do it and even got special treatment to be allowed to do it on top of the GM never once speaking to Nathanial outside of game where other were allowed to do what he tried.
The GM is the issue here.
Exactly. Nathaniel was definitely a creep and a tool, but he honestly sounded worse BEFORE context was given to his actions. As the stories unfolded and context and perception was added, while Nathaniel remained a creep and a tool, he still come out preeeeety low on the spectrum of "that guys" featured on this channel. Low enough that it felt fixable. Like straight up 100 percent. Now people could argue that it's not anyone's job to "fix" other people, but Nathaniel was supposed to be a friend of the GM and some of the players before they started D&D. And generally speaking, you would want to prevent your friendship from being ruined. The GM never mentioned issues with Nathaniel prior to D&D so their reaction to everything he did in it just seems really out of left field. The GM handled everything awfully, by either straight up brushing off Nathaniel's BS right in the moment, ignoring blatant flashing neon signs of future issues, and as you said; directly encouraging his bad behavior in a roundabout way by rewarding players for doing some slightly similar things with some different context but then immediately punishing him for doing what he believes is the same, without giving him proper explanations. And as far as was NOT mentioned, no one was taking the time to talk to him about these issues BETWEEN sessions, instead just handing out instant arbitrary punishments mid game. The whole smiting him in the pirate bar seen was avoidable and an awful reaction regardless. For one, it's a pirate den. Pirates are VIOLENT CRIMINALS, not upstanding civilians. Normal morals do not apply to them in many situations. To a pirate, male or female, a night of drunken sex with a person you can't remember in the morning would just be par for the course. Un-impeded consent wouldn't really be a big factor for them. This is a perfect example of applying modern morals in the wrong place and time. But to argue in favor of the consent, I agree by current modern moral standards a drunk person cannot give consent to a sober person. That is a major imbalance in cognitive abilities right there. HOWEVER, two drunk people can give each other consent. Both made the choices leading to their impairment, and both chose to engage in consensual acts of intimacy while under said impairment, which puts them on EQUAL footing. That would have been all the GM needed to give Nathaniel an put (while giving reasons to make it more difficult with disadvantage on rolls for persuasion etc.) But instead, they instant smited them because "rape", which is a pretty heavy thing to throw around. At this point and onwards, it felt like the GM was looking to actively punish and hurt Nathaniel at every turn without giving him proper explanations as to why. So to end my rant, Nathaniel and OP/GM BOTH came out of this looking like great big stinking turds. Also felt like CritCrab was really phoning it in on this one. Felt like he spent too much time focusing in Nathaniel being an idiot, while ignoring GMs blatant idiocy.
GM is based. End of convo
as bad as Nathaniel is the DM seems really bad here
to be fair, it was the dm’s first game and they seem to be pretty aware of how terrible they were, calling themselves a bad dm multiple times
Did she ever bother talking to the guy ooc about his behaviour?
Ok I have never played DND or any TTRPG (I just really like these stories) and I get that Nathaniel is doing some creepy things during the game, but…idk, it feels like the DM is also kind of an awful person? Like, yea, retcon so bard can flirt and sleep with a succubus, but smite Nathaniel for trying to flirt? Again, I see that the guy is kinda creepy about it, but he is only trying out things that he sees the other players do first, and some of those examples never even got the chance to prove themselves as bad because DM immediately things “oh, I bet he’s gonna be weird” and stops it from ever starting?
Also, Nathaniel is pretty quick to stop if scolded once. And about making his character evil…yea, he shouldn’t have, but I mean, DM allowed it. If you prove you are loose with rules then there is literally no reason not to test and see what will be allowed, which he did. And again, Nathaniel has proven to be a person who will stop if you tell him to. He seems less like a bad player and more like an awkward one who’s a little too excited about RP playing with a DM who never liked him to begin with. DM sure wasn’t making a strong case for themselves here. I honestly don’t think he’s a bad guy. Instead, if the DM didn’t wanna play with him, they should have just said so…
Again, I don’t play TTRPGs, so I may have misunderstood something, but that’s just how I see it.
I tend to agree, the DM change ruling or canon several times for other players out of a whim, but not for Nathaniel. I feel like the DM was helbent on not giving him romantic opportunities as a lesbian characters because it would be fetishism, but... I mean... According to my experience as someone involved in several queer AND nerdy circles, a guy playing a lesbian woman three times in a row hoping to live a fantasy may very well not actually be a cis dude, and this story reads very differently with this in mind.
Nathaniel wasnt trying to flirt w/ the woman in the bar (or brothel, whichever) scene, he was trying to R*PE them. the only time Nathaniel ever stopped what he was doing was when there was a negative consequence: rejection, getting smited, etc. the DM told him over and over again not to do certain things and he did it anyway.
i'm not saying the DM was a good one, but they were inexperienced and meek, they didnt know what they were doing. the DM never did anything that was out of line. they warned their players that if they attempted to be forceful w/ women (and maybe men) and trying to r*pe them, they would kill them on the spot. they also had other rules set that everyone BUT Nat respected and kept trying to do whatever he wanted
EDIT: the r*pe attempt was the brothel scene. the two bar scenes was the pirate captain then Nat trying to flirt w/ other girls and the DM claimed they were all drunk and shut him down
@@Mariewolf_94 I wouldn't usually insist on the nuance, but it was rape in the sense that the women were in no state to consent because they were too drunk... Because the DM wanted them to be. When it was the bard trying to seduce the npc, the DM got her undrunk after thinking about it, but when Nathaniel tried to find a match, there was absolutely no way to do the same in this case, every single remaining npc (patron or employee alike) HAD to be drunk, and this time there was no possible retcon. So the DM very consciously put a PC in a position in which the only way to get laid (which was apparently allowed at this table, at least for the bard) was rape.
Nathaniel certainly chose poorly on this situation (although we don't have his side of the story, and considering he knew it would mean death for his PC there's a real possibility that he just saw it as an opportunity to get out of the campaign) but I don't think the DM was without fault here.
@@Mariewolf_94 yes, that is the one point I knew someone was gonna bring up, which is why I mentioned the retcon. I probably should have talked about that one in greater detail. I said that the DM retconned the pirate lady being drunk so that the bard could flirt. Again, the pirate lady was DRUNK, which meant that the bard, who wanted to flirt with her FIRST and while she was STILL DRUNK, was doing the same thing that Nathaniel got in trouble for, but DM went out of his way to retcon it for bard.
Again, I say that Nathaniel only tried things others did FIRST and were allowed to do. Rather than retconning like he did for bard, he just smote Nathaniel’s character. So the “that’s r*pe, he’s bad” argument doesn’t work because bard was given a pass FIRST. Bard and DM made it clear that if Nathaniel wanted a relationship with an NPC, it could be changed so that she wasn’t drunk and he could flirt. So why was bard given a pass to do the bad thing first but Nathaniel was punished?
And yes, Nathaniel IS someone to stop and behave if called out. He only acted out once or twice per session between three sessions, with all of these behaviors having different circumstances so they weren’t him doing the same thing over and over. They were him doing something, seeing that it wasn’t allowed and stopping, then doing a different thing that he wasn’t allowed to do and stopping when told, rinse and repeat. But some of his “creepy moments” never actually happened and were the DM imagining a scenario then scolding Nathaniel for something he hadn’t even done yet.
Sorry, but I still don’t see him as bad.
@@UltimateHalG thats just it though. yea hes not the worst of the worst when it comes to other creeps we've seen from CritCrab's horror stories because he actually stopped instead of plowing on like a hardheaded idiot, but that doesnt change the fact hes in the wrong.
when it came to flirting w/ Alexandra, he tried to force a lesbian relationship and, when he was rejected, he offed himself. then w/ his new female PC, he YET AGAIN tried to force a lesbian relationship a bit more subtly this time and got rejected by Alexandra again; it wasnt until the second attempt he stopped bothering Alex. literally this couldve been fixed if he just asked her if it was ok if their PCs can have an in-game lesbian relationship, but no he didnt ask he just attempted to force it.
when it came to the incident w/ the bandits, the bard was genuinely trying to help the NPC and was hoping to kindle a relationship w/ her whereas, for Nathaniel, he stole her entire inventory, including her clothes, then tried to pull the same manuever the bard did by claiming he was going to "help her" to also get his lesbian relationship fantasies but the DM rightfully denied him because he was being dishonest and creepy. yet again he, thankfully, dropped the attempt.
then we have the two bar incidents. the first incident was when the bard asked if he could flirt w/ the pirate captain, but, when the DM relayed the info she was drunk and not in a good mental space, he respected the rules the DM stated and bowed out. as a means, i would assume, to reward the bard as well as give him an opportunity to RP the DM revoked their previous claim and said she was still sober to give him a shot. when the bard was rejected at first, Nat swooped in to try and steal the pirate away, also got rejected and she went w/ the bard again. yes, the DM denying Nat to mingle w/ other girls at the bar was a bit mean by claiming theyre ALL drunk, but given Nathaniel was supposedly super disruptive and made the other players uncomfortable while he played at the table, maybe the DM was just trying to avoid more incidents.
finally the brothel incident. yes, it's a brothel and youre suppose to get your giggity on w/ the prostitutes, but Nat was yet again acting like a creep and getting rejected, so he opted to break DM's rules and force his character onto a female NPC...then, when he gets smited as the DM warned would happen, he throws a fit and gets all huffy. like bitch, wtf did you think was going to happen??? the DM is a bit of a pushover, but they stick to their rules and holds them to a high standard, so why Nat threw a fit when he was killed on the spot for trying to r*pe a woman is beyond me.
like i said, hes certainly not the worse creep we've seen, but hes not a good player either
I'm sorry but someone being smited for trying to hit on a drunk chick is beyond ridiculous. Why not just have the drunk chicks turn him down? If the npc was so drunk they were practically unconscious then sure, we're going into sexual assault territory. But the implication the nobody ever has consensual sex with strangers when drunk (or that it's something a god would smite for) is ridiculous.
Yeah, I did a bit of a double take at that moment as well.
Nathaniel's intentions were different from the bard who had just managed to sober a women up _just_ so he could bed her mere moments before because... reasons.
Or... Don't have your players encounter super drunk characters in the bar to hit on...
@@10thletter40 I mean sure but also I feel like player should be trusted ya know to not do anything horrid
@@AStrangeWindmill there are good reasons, bad reasons, and bard reasons, the bard at least is trying to do things right, maybe...
Ok about the cure wounds thing. You do know you have to touch the character for it to work. 😂
My GMs group where she is a player has the heal grope people to heal them. It's a joke among the group.
Most of what Nathanial did is very mild and something other members of the party were being allowed to dpneith help from the GM or way way way over reacted to, I mean killing your PC because another player asked if the two character could be in a relationship is just....what?
@@scorch2155 Some people seem to have it backwards, the character that died in the first camapign was nathaniels character, after being rejected (though at an uinspecified time afterwards). But it should be noted, even the uncharitable OP only uses the word "died", not the big S. The situation in which Seshie died could very plausibly have been an accident, "we're gods" style, and given the DM's behaviour I wouldn't even put it past him for it to have been a deliberate character kill. Nathaniel just then did not want to make another character.
The implication that the DM wants you to get is that nathaniel got rejected, killed his own character and refused to make a new one in a hissy fit at being rejected. However, the fact that he almost seems to go out of his way not to say that's what actually happened makes me suspicious and not willing to jump to that conclusion.
Personally, I think both OOP and Nathaniel are in need of significant coaching, and I don't think it'd be fun playing with either one.
Ok to be clear the story doesn't say his character committed deliberate unlive. This is reddit, not youtube, so you're allowed to say the s-word, but this story seemingly pretty intentionally does not. It says "seshie died", plus teleporting off a cliff (rather than just idk, jumping or stabbing yourself or drinking poison) seems like a bit of a weird way to go about it. When I read that I was assuming it was a hilarious accident, but that nathaniel didn't want to make a new character. The way it's written it's honestly unclear if refusing to make a new character even had anything to do with being rejected (it would be a tad extreme of a reaction as people have said) or if he was just really invested in seshie. Rejection related is the implication but as other people have noted this story is a bit sketchy in other ways too and since it doesn't outright state that or even state the proximity of the two events it comes across more to me like a way to tie these two things together in people's minds whilst avoiding being called a liar later.
11:56 I'm so glad Crab censored the word "rude". Because what else could be a 4-letter way to describe such behaviour...
Role?
@@solouno2280 Good mister, how would that word match the sentence?
****** is always a good choice
@@zzzzz329 Huh.
Please bring back Shell in 2023!
For you silverlight, I will.
@@CritCrab Much gratitude to my benevolent and gracious crustacean overlord!
@@CritCrab 🦀
❓ Anyone remember that viral video of that stalker who called the police on himself because the girl he was stalking's dad threatened him? Well it turns out that girl he was stalking was a lesbian and that's who this guy reminded me of 🤣 Stalker was literally chasing a LESBIAN down the street who was fleeing from him to try to force her to listen to his music. Like bro your below par mixtape isn't going to suddenly turn her straight 🤣 if anything it's going to make her even gayer than she already was
I mean, depends on how good the songs were
Ngl I sense some DM bias in this one, I feel like there's some unmentioned shit that's left out intentionally
Mm this is kind of a mixed bag, on the one hand d&d is supposed to be about being whatever you want to be. It isnt like the dm had a problem with sex as everyone else seemed to be hooking up left and right abd just seemed to have an issue with him because he wanted to play a lesbian.
Sure he could have gone about it better, but maybe he's just that awkward irl and saw everyone else hooking up and was a little to impatient that his character couldn't find romance too.
In multiple occasions through out the post you hear the dm brushing off other pcs hooking up but then getting super defensive whenever he so much as breaths around a woman because they dont want him "fetishising lesbian relationships." if i was playing a girl i'd probably play a lesbian too (i have issues viewing men sexually due to childhood stuff i dont like talking about) the point being why judge someone for a preference.
I played a lesbian once. Well, not a lesbian so much as a demisexual (a term I actually learned while playing her and describing her situation) attracted to a female NPC. An NPC whom she accidentally betrayed and caused some really fun character drama. She really wasn't attracted to most people, which made for a hilarious moment when I passed a save against a succubus' charm, and I got to play her as awkward and oblivious to the fiend's advances. The succubus got really frustrated lol It was fun.
My point is, play whatever characters you want, just treat them as actual people. Don't fetishize them, that's creepy. You're not playing porn. Maybe it helps that I actually have had a few lesbian and other LGBT+ friends, while I'm guessing this guy doesn't? idk.
EDIT: wow, wtf happened to these replies? Damn people are dumb. Some of you folks have never looked up the history of left-handedness, and it shows. Yeah, it turns out that when people aren't being murdered and forced to conform, they display a wide variety of traits! Some traits that we previously had no name for due to being ignored or misunderstood suddenly get named, and then people discover that thing actually applies to them! The same applies to the autism spectrum, where conditions that previously had no name are being studied AND NAMED.
Demisexuality is a meme created on Tumblr.
@@KuonilerariLoufanwald no one asked.
@@ramirezthesilvite Yeah, that's how a comment section works. No one asked for us to say anything and yet, here we are.
I am playing as a pansexual. She only cares about doing it (She is also half animal, and the only animalistic trait we found of foxes was their drive in winter). How the GM does it is that I just mention that she goes to the red light district on her free time. We generally fade to black after that, unless the GM has a story hook (being that she only cared about doing it, this often means selling the party out).
Now that I am writing it down... she sounds awful (but very good for creating trouble). I just wanted to see if/how I could play a character that only cares about doing it. I'm surprised it has lasted this long.
@@icarue993 lol As long as you're not making things super creepy and uncomfortable for the group, I guess
As far as how the OP did as DM, it depends if his players complained about Nathan or not.
Brian gang, rise up and respect people's identities, and I mean actually respect them!
Hell yeah, brother. As a fellow Brian I can respect that.
I am not a Brian but the Ken gang is with you.
I see you in critcrabs comment section all the time
On behalf of the Ben gang I say we shall unite in a brotherhood of respect.
Only if you identify as a llama.
The DM is the problem player here.
I currently play a lesbian. She's married to one of my other PCs because I'll ship my characters if I want to.
Her being gay is probably the least important part of her character. It's also the least chaotic part of her character.
I was fine with everything up until the dm said that he didn't let his player try to get together with drunk people, sure if the dm isn't comfortable with rping it, thats fine, but up to the point where he kills pc for it? A step too far in my opinion, and not someone i would play with.
agreed, woke BS
Like they’re the dm, just rp the drunk people turning him down for whatever reason like they’re straight/married or something. Not that hard tbh.
As someone who was date raped (cannabis, not alcohol) I strenuously disagree. Rape isn't cool, and exploiting diminished capacity is rape.
And then rectonning a character not drunk for another player
@@cody-adricharper5848 I'm truely sorry this happened to you, but this feels like a very hard comparison. As a DM, you have thousand ways of handling a situation like that. For one, you can decide the level of intoxication. "Drunk" is a super-broad term. Secondly...it is a brothel, use security. And thirdly, you can always stop the game and say "sorry, but this is not happening. This is something I do not want in my games and apparently no one else wants it either".
I don't see how you can side with the DM on this one, All the stuff Nat did was weird or socially awkward, but none of it was that bad.
You're going to dislike him for trying to use information about the plot he knows about, but he's also a bad person for not sharing other information about the plot.
You're going to basically punish him for trying to get in game relationships when you allow others to do it and go out of your way to kill his character for doing so, while at the same time retconning the exact same situation so another player can do what he wanted to do?
As far as non-con goes, there are varying levels of drunk and I wouldn't say someone slightly drunk having sex with someone who isn't is non-con, also, they could have encouraged him to drink, or does any sex while drunken mean non-con, rather then just smiting him on the spot to punish him because you clearly have an issue with him.
also this "creep" that we are shunning, with proper learning will probably come to respect the identities of those who he is fetishizing as opposed to a lot of other people who want them to stop existing.
@@mirageowl I agree, I dislike the term "fetishiser" when it comes to peoples sexualities. I am attracted to and have had relatioships with trans women in the past, and so someone like me is seen as a "fetishizer" or a "chaser" to some in the trans community and it's wrong to use this kind of language to people just because of their sexualities, so I have empathy towards the supposed problem player in this situation.
So what if he's attracted sexually to lesbians? Why should he be allowed to roleplay as one when others also get to roleplay sexuality? Obviously there's a line where he shouldn't try to force someone into that, but when he was turned down by a player, he respected that and didn't keep going at it, which if he would have done that, would have crossed the line. Assuming he killed off his own character(the storyis a bit vague) he shouldn't have done that, but he didn't keep trying to push his sexuality onto others.
@@swag9894 He shouldn't have killed his own character, but I can also see that as a way out of this campaign. He might have wanted to leave the campaign and as an inexperienced player, he might have thought killing his character was the way to leave the campaign. Or it could be completely irrational, we just don't know.
i agrtee with you but they are trying to teach people any impairment no matter how little is non con. I know I know but people meet at parties all the time or at bars.
@@swag9894fetishization should be defined as ppl who like seeing gay romance or sexual content, but do not support the LGBTA community, or has a double standard (ex: MLM bad, WLW good), or not respect the individuals within the community and/or not see them as people.
There’s plenty of ppl, like lesbians who like BL, ppl who r wrongly accused of “queer baiting”, bisexuals/pansexuals, closeted ppl, etc. who are accused of fetishization. This is wrong.
That BS with the drunk girls was just that, BS. It isn't [[redacted]]. Damn PC groups.
As a Nathaniel, we do not claim him
I know nathaniel is supposed to be the bad guy and probably was a super creep, but man is OP bad at showing how bad nathaniel was. From that story it sounds like a person seeing everyone else dating and then getting shut down every time they try. I mean OP actively let helped to the point of retconning to allow Ayden to get with NPCs, but Nathaniel somehow is the one getting called out?
Also, what the heck is this short people hate? Why are people discriminating against halfling, dwarfs, gnomes, goblins, etc.? Banging a succubus (a literal demonic creature) is fine, but a short person is wrong?
The whole thing sounds super sus.
Uhhhhh.....if you aren't seeing how creepy he is, that's saying a lot more about you, dude.
@@WobblesandBean excuse me when did I ever say that? I explicitly said that nathaniel was clearly creepy, but that OP was:
A) Bad at actually showing why nathaniel is creepy.
B) Just as creepy given how they help one player do romance stuff while actively denying it for another.
As writen it reads more like "person I don't like sometimes did some minor annoying things".
Smiting a PC for just hitting on a drunk NPC is needless overkill and just takes away any agency the players have with their characters. Yeah Nathaniel was being creepy, but I feel there are better ways to handle the matter than just insta killing the character. Have the women turn him down, have the women be their with their partners, have the bouncer throw the PC out for harassing the NPCs. Smiting a PC because they aren't behaving by your behavioural standards is one of the most Rail Roading things you can possibly do
Honestly, there are a lot of red flags that are telling me that entire table might've been one major 'Nope'. A lot of double Standards, especially from the DM. Feel like this might've been a gathering of creeps that decided to start pointing fingers at eachother when things went sideways.
The creep's acceptance of being shut down without a meltdown about everyone else getting relationships while he isn't, shows that he is aware that he's being a creep and not seeking normal fulfilling relationships.
I have to counter. Not defending every action he did, because he did do some not even questionable acts of perversion, but maybe he didn't realize what he did wrong. OP stated it was her first campaign. It could have been his too. Some don't recognize that people are paying attention to some actions while in the moment. I still have players who threaten sodomizing evil NPCs. I even had a friend tell me about a campaign he ran where everyone had taken to a cooking school and while hired for jobs of the adventurous type, those players would chop up and take random body parts for "stew", then got confused when the GM (Friend) told them no and replied with "No one will ever know."
In short, I don't think he totally understood what was going on in game. There wasn't mention of out of character contact that drove him to actual fetishization. He played in a group where no one approached him for acting weird and helped correct his behavior.
I enjoy most of CritCrabs content because more often than not it shows the growth of GMs as they learn to communicate with players and set boundaries, or some genuine karma for bad people who play. This was not one of those videos and honestly felt like Joey Swoll was going to interrupt and talk to us about how Alexandra could have gotten him to stop "being weird" but instead she posts it to reddit for clout.
@@The_Elara_Story Man that stew sounds like it would have been fun. Honestly if it was more than just the one player doing it, I think the GM should have done it.
also imagine you join a game with that profile picture. your rando dm has prejudices about you just because you have a furry pfp, and then their prejudices affect the game in ways you are wronged. next thing we know we are hearing about a creepy furry in one of these stories. we just have no context for these stories and we don't know how much of their story is affected by their perception of this person that they didn't like.
@@mirageowl I'm in a campaign, the only "furry" everyone is having fun, no one is being prejudicial. It all comes down to session zero laying down the rules and boundaries, and everyone is abiding by those guidelines. 🤷♂
@@The_Elara_Story If all the players are fine playing around gore is perfectly fine and fun, if the DM didn't want such thing, they have to lay it down at session zero or when it starts happening. What you describe is a group having a good time being horrible in their fantasy setting similar to going on a rampage in Skyrim, because it is a game, and it's VERY different than pushing fetishes and sexual content. This guy was absolutely aware that he was crossing the line, that's why he accepted it without a big fuzz. The DM still was at fault for letting that happen more than once without laying down clear boundaries, that's why the pervert kept trying for it.
So did Nathanial's OC look at them with their doll like eyes too?
If you're going to ban Evil alignments you need to also ban the "I can do anything I want because my alignment allows it." Alignment of Chaotic Neutral.
For the bar scene
If the problem player also got drunk, then he could try to get with a drunk pirate girl, but also have to do tons of saves. Possibly getting a disadvantage the more you drink.
Dex - you drop something, stumble, fall over
Con - you have a dizzy spell or puke, etc.
Wis - you agree to a suggestion, have an emotional moment etc.
Int - you think you know all the right answers, you think it is a good idea to dance on the bar
Cha - you say something really stupid, you burp in their face, etc.
For the little women that is the obvious time to introduce an absolutely spectacular drama queen bearded dwarf lady of negotiable affections.
You know it’s going to be good when the problem player ruins multiple campaigns.
2 campaigns and a one shot, to be exact 🦀‼️
yo its fuckin kopaka
@@YukiKurosame your the first person to know the character in my profile picture, congratulations!🎉
@@ShadeTheghazt It's a sick profile pic, big kanohi Akaku fan here too
Bionicle fans in the CritCrab Comments, unite!
the intro is so funny 😭 you deserve a gold star for that one
So Op has no right being a DM
found this channel like 4/5 hours ago and i love it because i can sit here drawing my dnd characters and just listening, its great!!!
Just a thought I had about giving secrets to your player. If you do, give an equal part of a bigger secret to each player. Doing so everyone feels included and add some fun situation to play. Something in the line of:
1. The king was once a powerful sorcerer named EvilWizardGenericName
(Give this to the mage of the party)
2. A group of elf want to murder the king (give this secret to your elf)
3. A sorcerer named EvilWizardGenericName wants to corrupt the sun in a ritual to ascend to godhood (give this secret to your cleric)
4. The king is looking for a mythical jewel named the great sun of ElfNationGenericName
(Give this to the human fighter of the group)
Nathaniel knew what he had to do. He had to find a way to cause some pain.
I just find the concept of someone going to boink someone else and getting fucking SMITED by Zeus himself hilarious
the best thing you can do if you accidentally reveal the plot twist is to flip the script so the original twist is a red herring
cool video! i liked this one. keep it up and youll be as big as critcrab one day!!
"the worst she can do is say no"
or hit me with a spell that swaps my ear and mouth holes around cause she is a wizard with a short temper and zero ethics
Yeah, I agree with some of the comments: DM is either weird or just a really, really bad writer.
For one, he just massively fails to edit himself down and spends way too much time telling about the campaign or stuff other people did instead of talking about the problem player. And when the DM talks about the problem player, it is always something mildly annoying or weird...finishing with "luckily this was all of his creepiness for now, but he was also was a bad person the whole time!". Horrorstories work like every other story: Show don't tell. Don't tell us that a player is problematic, give actual examples when the player is terrible.
I love how the bard gets to flirt and sleep with npcs but nathaniel's pc can't
Hey, Happy New Years!
Here's a plot set in 1800s Japan:
You play as a bunch of characters as kids. One (you can change this) of you gets stranded during a storm, and is swept away into the sea.
The rest of the party that stays in Japan, plays in Japan. Where the stranded goes, well...
The stranded wake up in the Occidental Lands of California (Not Texas). They're basically stuck here for a while, and can do a lot of things in America. Big changes for sure.
After a set amount of time, the Stranded can actually come back to Japan to show off how much they've changed, depending on IF they would want to go back home.
Japan... Texas... ... ...huh?
This doesn't quite make Sense geographically. Did you confuse Texas and California?
@@enderkatze6129 I haven't seen a US Map in a while, so sorry. California, perhaps.
Honestly I can empathize a little with Nathaniel here. Being creepy is never okay and is 100% taking it too far, but his desire to roleplay a wlw relationship kinda makes it sound like he’s an egg. I know a lot of trans people who thought that they fetishized wlw or mlm relationships from the outside before they realized they were trans and that they actually were a lesbian/gay and just didn’t know how to express it before
That dude is 100% an egg and even tho he did a few questionable things, OOP did worse. Retconning, denying what was ok for other players etcetc.
As a starting DM, I do tell my players a bit of information about what's to come in the story. I kind of make use of the fact that since they're starting off, they wouldn't know what to connect my information to. I also tell them information about prior encounters that is either just interesting to know or silly in nature (ex. The goblins that attacked the party after they escaped a prison wagon were actually the remnants of a goblin clan of isolationists, who felt threatened by the presence of humans)
I don't know if that's something I should do as a DM. I feel as if adding a visually useless bunch of information that *could* be important to the story later on would get my players to focus on the story more, and that I'm giving them to pieces to solve the puzzle of my world
My world building is something I definitely have to work on. We're already on the 6th-7th session, and I don't have any minor factions or even many towns they could visit that I have prepared
My advice would be either to tell the players common-knowledge things their _characters_ would know and/or have a character around for exposition.
Still, your players won't know your setting so you'll need to keep them up to speed.
guess it's easy to be skeezy (Ayden) when you've got Lord Incel (Nathaniel) being the out-and-proud mega perv, distracting everyone from your own problem character.
also with a bad DM with deus-ex machina rules instead of handling things in roleplay? I understand stopping the game to address problem behaviour. Rocks fall and you die? not so much
If we take the CritCrab-scale of thins we heard on this channel...is anything Nathaniel did really "mega perv"? OP basically did a "Nathaniel is like SUPER creepy, just trust me"-move...with is really sketchy considering you actually can make up any creepy situation when you post a story like this anyway.
I mean if She was 8ft tall turf wouldn’t everyone be “small women” ? I would have kicked him a ways back but without context idk if that last one was a weird joke or not.
I know all about that-guy players wanting to play evil characters in a mostly good/neutral party. We put up with one for ages and he started doing the lone-wolf thing when he would go off to do missions for the local thieves guild to try and impress them to gain membership, so our DM would have to split between us and him. His dickery finally caught up with him when he decided rather than try to slip away when he woke someone up he decided to start a fire, and he ended up killing a bunch of servants and their families. So we left him to the mercy of the local courts and he got permanantly polymorphed into a fireplace. He threw a hissyfit because he didn't like the fact he couldn't do whatever he wanted and not suffer the consequences of his actions.
Happy New Year, my favourite youtube crab! 😊
As someone whose name is Nathaniel I am so embarrassed by this guy.
Is your last name Hawke? If it is, another settlement needs your help, I will mark it on your map
What a hell of a way to begin the episode!
There is exactly one person I entrust with my DM secrets, and it's because I had played with him for a year before I started. I knew he would always act as his character and could keep a secret, but never, EVER show someone new your cards.
Cool! New Crit Crab video! Happy New year to us!
So... let's say you have a... orange flag player. Lots of red flags, but for the most part they are trying to learn. ...And this player... messages and asks for a love interest. Very specifically. Being vague, I know. It's a work in progress, and I was hoping things would just progress naturally during the campaign with exsisting characters, but we are so early in the campaign... I just want to know if I'm going in the general right direction. How would you handle something like this?
I’d say to give them the love interest and see where it goes from there. If it starts to get weird then scold them a bit and tell them what was off (if they want to learn they need to know what to fix). Keep this up until it finally turns out well or it is weird enough for the player to be kicked.
I GET wanting to give a friend the benefit of the doubt, but it is pretty clear that Nathaniel just used this generosity over and over.
D&D muscling in on that Monopoly friendship sinking clout.
So the bard played a note so hard it sent everyone flying
Nathaniel: Hey, wanna be gay with me?
Seshie: *teleports herself to death*
1:47 Pausing here for a moment. Blocking players out of "alignments" is not going to stop them from playing what you perceive as good or evil or lawful or chaotic.
I understand that there are many GM's who blanket ban evil-aligned characters from their campaigns. And, I am left wondering, why? You aren't blocking bad players from joining your table with this blanket ban. Players and characters are two separate entities. All you achieve is stifling creativity and possibilities. Bad players are going to play badly regardless.
7:49 Another pause-worthy moment. The saying, don't put your eggs in one basket, applies to TTRPG's. Dear GM's, DO NOT allow ONE party member to discover all the valuables in any one situation. Distribute loot individually based on player wants and needs. It may not make sense, but who is going to question getting the thing they wanted for Christmas from dear old sugar daddy DM? That's right, almost no one. Your players will be too busy happily celebrating the imaginary bull shite you awarded them that exists purely in your collective imaginations.
Clearly a session zero would have solved a lot of these issues. It is clear to me that this player wanted to role-play and have romantic and sexual interactions. But I get the feeling that there was no session zero as this is never brought up and clearly the others were not looking into this type of dnd. One guy in the game got a girl, but this guy didn't do things like rub themselves onto another's back, nor strip a lady naked or try to take advantage of a drunk one.
I would've kicked Nathaniel out almost immediately. That behavior could carry to IRL people.
OP also had some errors, and that caused issues too
"attempting to sleep with a drunk woman means rocks fall"
Gentlemen, the youth of today.
And why they will never get laid.
Happy new year Crit!
"He was a creep.
He was a weirdo.
What the hell he doin there?
He dont belong there."
After the incident with the pirate story I would have thought that maybe the player just didn't get the memo. The next step should have been to have a serious out of game discussion, preferably one on one.
Holy shit I thought my story was just lost to time. I was just listening while playing Skyrim and stuff started to get too familiar too quickly. After reading through some comments, I found some good criticism and some weird ass takes which I will liken to my writing of that post being fucking awful.
I definitely did show some favoritism towards the others after him being a problem player, retconning a drunk character being the perfect example of that. With the whole "menial tasks" issue, it wasn't about him interjecting during casual rp, or saying that same thing when I asked, it was that he would cut off other people during said casual roleplay, or serious moments between party members to describe how he was looking at his map. To the people who find me to be iffy in this story, you're goddamn right, I was an awful dm during this, and wrote this terribly. To the few of you who find Nathaniel to have only been "mildly creepy" or were actively defending SA, what the fuck is wrong with you.
"I don't know why we kept him around as long as we did" is the tragic refrain of so many of these stories 😐
Seriously, the instant he started hoarding ALL of the loot, I would've gotten everyone else to step back, "You want all the loot? You can clearly handle all of the work." Next few encounters, everyone would wait for him to die and then act or wouldn't assist him in any way.
After listening to the whole thing, I just think the DM is a bully. Yeah, Nathaniel sounds bad, but we're hearing the story from someone who is just seems to hate him. What does he ACTUALLY do? Uses lay on hands (for which he is hit for), wanting to hit on drunk ladies at a bar, looks for people who he is attracted to (in a fairly horny little party it seems) and tries to get into a relationship with another character. Every time, he is rebuked and takes the clue (except for the time they killed his character) and stops behaving like that.
So, sometimes he does things you don't like and when you politely ask him to stop, he does? What an awful human being. Be sure to banish him immediately. It doesn't add up. DM is a bully and is using internet to be cruel.
Sure. He deliberately goes against the rules DM set up beforehand, attempt to ruin the entire game by giving the twist away, being generally selfish and annoying in his playstyle, insisting on doing the action of *rape* when the entire party is feeling uncomfortable and even being pissy about it when he’s punished, and despite being turned off multiple times still repeats his actions over and over and over again.
_Yeah, sure, he definitely took the clue, DM is the true bully here._
@@nondayz593 1. The DM seems pretty selective with those rules and will retcon the situation when they want character to hit on drunk people. 2. The player was told information that the character knew. The Hermit background is not told information so it would be a fun secret. They are told information for them to use it. 3. By rape, you're referring to imaginary people with diminished capacity. Which the DM retcons away if they're into it, see point 1. Addendum: you don't know how the party felt, you only know how the DM says the party felt. They aren't here. They did not say this. 4. He didn't repeat his actions again and again. Every time he's asked to stop he does. Every 'offence' is a new, unique action.
i personally don't think i'd have issues with players not sharing stuff, but i always tell say "you find [ X amount of money] then if they find any item that are meant for some one else " it would be good for [ X person] if it's up for grabs i say it's up to them who want's it.
"Nathaniel likes lesbians." same here Nathaniel, but probably for different reasons
A rule to make no evil characters? Depending on how it's done, you could easily do an evil character and have them go through their redemption. For instance, have them set into a magical contract where they have to help the party or where they have to keep a certain person alive and their alignment changes as time goes on
You can do that but you will have to discuss it with the player. I had a DM prepare a whole redemption arc for my evil character assuming I would just go along with it, I didnt since I didnt want to get railroaded into changing my characters alignment.
@sanserof7 I'm a player myself. Thankfully got a dm who's pretty chill with how wacky and chaotic our ideas are.
even outside of this, chars don't have to be partying up for moral reasons. a marauding pirate could team up with a saintly paladin in the pursuit of treasure, the pirate for their own greed and the paladin as offerings to their god, and they can grow along the way. there's a big misconception among evil characters that they can't have friends or that their only character arc has to involve them becoming not evil. maybe their growth can be that of realizing there are consequences to their evil actions rather than changing morally.
"No evil characters" is a very common rule among DM's mostly because some people have a tendency to play evil characters in a very disruptive way, making them effectively cartoonishly evil, attacking anyone and everyone for no reason.
The problem is that for the most part, being evil (at least in D&D, not opening a whole can of morality worms) is defined by being fundamentally self-serving. Such a character can work with others (even good characters working towards good ends) just by having selfish motives and realizing that having allies is practical. D&D heroes have a weird tendency to find themselves inordinately rich and famous, after all.
I hate the fact I share the same name with the creep.
As a dm I'd have had the drunk pirate ship lead him into the cellar/basement where a group, of the pirates they were messing with, were waiting and smite Nathaniels character. Then the group can find his corpse later and try to solve the mystery.
"This is Nathaniel, he likes lesbians, like: REALLY likes lesbians."
As someone named Nathaniel, on behalf of all Nathaniels, we do not own him.
I expect to see a document from the council of Nathaniel soon
@@filthyblighter Damn he really screwed up if the Senate is getting involved.
but your name is funky
Man teleported his character off a cliff cause he couldnt romance his waifu 💀
I really need to write up my story.
This man does not represent us. He is excomunicated.
I have a bit of a D&D mechanical question involving “thunder wave”
Say your character is sitting at a bar table, and some thugs are on the other side of the table.
You cast the spell and the thugs are not pushed back about the table is.
The spell says objects are flung 10 feet,
Which means the table is going to hit the thugs.
My question is basically; will the table cause any damage to them? or hinder them in anyway?
Or with this basically need to be a DM ruling?
My instinct is it requires a GM ruling. That said. as a GM I would have it smack the thugs in the face for maybe 1d6 or 1d8 damage and break, causing difficult terrain in the vicinity.
It's reasons like that, as why I always have my characters happily married in their back stories. (Or not interested in dating and out for the thrill of adventure)
The DM allowing Nathaniel to stay as long as he did was enabling at best and being an accomplice at worst. Shame on that DM.