To my fellow LGBT siblings - equal rights does not mean taking agency away from others. Gay and straight still both exist, and not every dnd character is going to be sexually interested in every other dnd character. Calling someone a bigot because their character isn't gay only makes you look like a hypocrite.
The fact that this has to be said is absurd. I really hope that the player in this story is only one of a few who would do this. They probably are but still
@@PunishedMushu 2 things. 1. The left hasn't called themselves "liberals" in a long time, because wishy-washy doormats started using it to describe themselves when "centrist" became a negative descriptor. 2. I've yet to meet one reasonable person on the left who outright claims that straight individuals are bad. I have met people who have claimed that but they always end up all the way out on the fringe in other ways too (they usually end up being either tankies or some form of ultra-radical "exterminate men and genetically engineer women into hermaphrodites" quote-on-quote "feminists"). But most people on the left just want equal rights, equal treatment and _equal respect._ The whole reason why "straight" isn't recognized at Pride, if that's really what you're complaining about, is because Pride is first and foremost an awareness movement. Straight individuals aren't demonized by religious groups, they're not treated as second class citizens by politicians, and they're not subject to abuse and violence like LGBTQIA+ individuals are.
I still strongly dislike how this played out. She harassed, shamed and meta gamed because she did not get what she wanted. All she cared about was projecting her sexual prefs while actually ignoring OPs. And she is rewarded with that bad behavior. Being gay or bi should not be a free pass to be a problem player. No means no.
But I get that she accused OP of cheating at first because character his level should be able to do that and she noticed it. But after she pointed that out to DM and OP she should have dropped that after DM said it was cool.
@@realdragon The DM would have been justified in simply calling it deus ex machina. Her insistence in automatically labeling it cheating was deliberately insulting and there is little doubt she wouldn't have said anything had the OP bowed to her demands of inappropriate and irrelevant sexual behavior between their characters. To call someone a bigot for refusing sexual advancements says everything about her anyone ever needs to know.
@@reverendmorgano9659 If someone used way more spells than they should what would be your reaction? How many horror stories are there about cheaters? What is more likely, that one character is actually higher level than others or person is cheating? As I said at first it wasn't problem, person pointed that out because it wasn't normal. The problem was when DM said he knows it and despite that problem player pressed on
@@realdragon Actually there was literally only one extra spell used on rare instances, granted it was more powerful than normal and was technically cheating, but also you are wrong because she clearly wouldn't have had an issue with it before her advances were rejected and didn't until then. Even the other players didn't have an issue with it and gave her legitimate reasons for the discrepancy and as was explained, it wasn't something happening constantly but just a couple of instances with the hope the players actually would pick up on it. Given the same scenario I would have resolved it in game by having her role for discern deception checks and such but otherwise it's not as big of a deal as the sorceress made it out to be. As I said, deus ex machina is as legitimate a reason as any in this case. The character is a warlock, and the patron of a warlock is not forbidden by the rules to intervene on behalf of the warlock. I think it should have been more subtle than it was, but no the sorceress was out of line with all her meta gaming, accusations, and demands. The other players had no issues with it. She only did because she was mad about not getting her way.
I get that she maybe thought there was favortism going on with that spell cast, but your communication, and the DM's were breathtaking. A more experienced and less toxic player would probably have just sat down and shut up. I especially love that measured, vague response where DM told her this player MIGHT have shit going on she don't know about.
I think my biggest issue with this whole thing is that they failed the insight check, and was still allowed to believe that they're lying. If for metagame reasons you know there is a secret button to open the wall, and you fail perception. Shouldn't be able to keep looking and find it because of meta. I'm sure there is a player agency argument here. Why make people roll if you ignore the outcome?
Haven’t played DnD. Do you think the DM should’ve shut the sorceress down? Stopped the fight from happening because the Sorceress shouldn’t have wanted to fight?
I feel like letting the sorceress have the final blow and letting her have her "I still love you" moment just validated her terrible behavior (the player's IRL behavior, not the PC's in game behavior). Anyone who screams about "you're invalidating my sexuality" when they conversation was about the hypothetical feelings of a fictional character that wasnct even hers has some serious issues to work through, and letting her have her way only makes things worse. When a toddler throws a tantrum because they want to color on the walls, you don't let them keep drawing on the walls to make them feel better.
I've actually heard this story before, and I stand by what I said then. The author of the story made a fatal mistake that only served to escalate the situation when he apologized for his character not being a lesbian. His response should have been "I will play MY character as I see fit and you can do the same." NEVER apologize for not appeasing someone's narcissism. The behavior of the player controlling the sorceress was childish and creepy. Her statement about sexuality not existing in a fantasy world wasn't a legitimate defense for her or her character's actions, if anything they only proved her wrong. Calling someone a bigot because they refuse to engage in sexual acts, even imaginary ones, is not only horrifically bigoted itself but also sexual harassment bordering on sexual assault, and it absolutely does make the perpetrator a sexual predator. Sadly, there is an increasing trend of this sort of behavior occurring today and worse it is often encouraged.
I think that’s a good call out that even if the other person in the story did a lot wrong that sometimes you can take steps to prevent it from escalating to that point. The author definitely should stand firm and shut down this behavior quickly. Giving ground and admitting fault (where there wasn’t one) sometimes allows people to keep on going because they think you’ll fold completely. I’m sure it came from a place of trying to be agreeable and avoid conflict, but if someone comes seeking conflict it is likely this approach will only embolden them.
@@lootgoblinmarketplace I agree completely. No doubt the author meant well but it is a common mistake made by a lot of people in the name of trying to avoid further drama but in the end, it only creates and encourages more because it sends the message that someone is not as sure of their convictions as they claim. He messed up on a lot of other points as well, but I do believe it was a good call to not come back to the game, especially knowing she was still there. In the end it could have ended worse but definitely could have been handled better.
We've raised a generation of them. If you're not into them, you're a bigot because they've been taught that calling someone that is the ultimate blackmail and will always get them what they want.
It wasn't until I started listening to stories on RUclips that I realized weekly all nighters (we sometimes played from 5 pm to 5 or 6 am with 2 am or 3 am being the norm) was abnormal.
Hell has no fury like a woman scorned. I had something like that happen DND game with a woman who had a female character and I had a male character. After my mail PC politely said no, she basically became my enemy and both the game and in Real Life. The game actually broke up a few seconds later and I'm sure her passive-aggressive Antics contributed to it
I think the DM was mistaken to let the questioning go on and devolve into PVP. People need to just be straight up with metagaming players and say, "No, you have no reason to think this. She seemed honest and presented multiple plausible explanations." and then force the game to move on from it (at least for the moment). Even as a player I get annoyed when players metagame stuff so severely. If the DM says something is as it should be, you should trust them and roll with it rather than get stubborn and petulant.
I don’t allow PvP, because I agree with the sentiment that it never goes well. I think everyone likes the idea until their character dies in a cheap way that seems like metagaming. If characters want to do some performance or something to off a character that the players/DM coordinate that’s another story, because everyone agreed ahead of time the outcome.
The person who was mad because their PC wasn't able to force another PC into a sexual relationship. Since most PCs are extensions or at least avatars to some degree of the player, they were trying force that onto the player. My reaction as a GM would have been an instant "I will not have harassers or rapists at my table- leave immediately or you will be removed". I've been out longer than many of my current players have been alive, and this is unacceptable, I"ll end a campaign before I tolerate this kind of player behavior. The GM flubbed it, they shoudl have sent the friend on the pizza run, and had this conversation with the player who wouldn't take no for the answer.
The DM didn't know this stretched any further than character on character drama. Even if the in-game metagaming incident occurred before the pizza run argument nothing about the metagaming incident itself indicates things should have gotten this bad. The DM had no reason to believe anything bad was happening or that they're adult friends needed a damn babysitter for some reason. The idea that this is the DM's fault is uncalled for and seems like an attempt to justify your own controlling DM behavior if you think needing to manage adults like toddlers is normal you have some serious issues and I want nothing to do with you good day.
No supporting those actions but it would have been funny as hell if the twist was that the warlock starts to fall in love with the soccer and then now the warlock gets conflicted with what he wants or the only love he ever felt
the term separate the art from the artist. this woman it seems could not separate herself from her art/character. bad move. also if anyone has a problem player that does this, the oddest reply you can give in character is " I'm sorry, but I am spoken for and you are not that attractive enough for me to even consider cheating on my beloved"-insert character name here. afterwards to tell the dm that you are not interested in have a player romance in the game and that you are not comfortable with it. this is even more so if you are doing a virtual table top game. communication is always key
PvP just never seems like a good idea. "That's what my character would do" can only go so far when your cooperative game stops becoming fun. I like the idea of pulling the rug out from under the players, making them believe they have a new friend before that friend becomes a major antagonist to them. But keeping that guest around for an extended period of time is what ruins the rug pull, because eventually something like this happens.
I've done 12 hour sessions before, it's hectic especially when you go into another game for an extra 4 hours so I'd be playing for 16 hours overall the entire day. I'm glad I didn't do that anymore good god.
Every group I played with, as DM and Player, we always did atleast 4~6 hours sessions. mostly 6~8 and sometimes even 8~10. Also pretty sure atleast a dozen times (as teenagers) I had ~12+ hour sessions.
I get it, half the reason I cover these is because they are like a train wreck in slow motion. You can’t look away. The bonus is sometimes we learn a life lesson without having to deal with the aftermath of these situations personally!
I don't watch dnd horror stories, but I read the title and description, they don't think he's a bigot, they're mad that they can't be weird and creepy towards someone
This reminds of a funny incident a few years ago during the covid lockdown crap. I had a situation very similar to this, I was playing a female barbarian character and another player was trying to force mine into a lesbian relationship and basically trying to project their fetishes in the game. At first I was trying to be polite and explained that my character isn't a lesbian but the other player through a tantrum said I was a "bigot, phobe and a few ist's" at this point I had decided I didn't care if I burned my bridges so I pretended to play along with that players fantasy got their character really drunk lured them to bed and then killed them in their sleep. The DM and other players who had also been growing annoyed with that person came in clutch and helped me dispose of the body making it a perma death. They through a tantrum and left while we enjoyed the rest our campaign in peace.
lol didnt even blink at the 8 hour session my current group runs a usual 6 hour session (although it tends to be 4-5hrs of dnd and 1 hr of just hanging out) which can bleed over into 7-9 hour sessions if we need to wrap something important up or are having to much fun, i believe on a campaign finale we finished at the 11 hour mark.
What a weird thing to do. To militantly force a sexuality on another person’s character while claiming that their own sexuality is being invalidated. Your sexuality needs to be like mine or otherwise you are oppressing me…..what?
In all honesty, what I think is that that furious sorceress player ought to slap herself both for not checking her priviledge and not leaving her entitled, spoiled to rotten attitude at the door. Freakin' special daddy's lil' snowflake. She really strikes me as the type who expects to get things her way, always, and when things don't go her way, throws a big damn hissy fit about it. This world, and the people in it, are not just footstools for her to use, and she really needs to learn that. What she tried was to essentially bully the player with accusations of bigotry and invalidating her, into doing as she wanted, and when she didn't get things her way yet again, doubled down on being petty, vindictive and just so sad of a person... Really, the only right choice here for her to have done would've been to keep rational understanding about the situation and just say "alright, fair enough" rather than puff up with hot air at some imagined, perceived slight to her person because another player just didn't wanna do things her way and kept to their choices instead of allowing her to force them into something they didn't want but she very much did. I mean, freakin' hells, it's almost like she expects she's the only person whose opinions, ideas, thoughts and personality are real and the only things that hold value there. Invalidating her sexuality, as if! She's invalidating THEIR personalities. The warlock players, and just about everyone elses, but especially the warlock players specifically. I'm so done with half-brain bints like that, y'know? They're too damn common nowadays, a dime a dozen.
This could be a cool story. Someone who fell in love with an elder god realising that their crush is actually a monster. Trying to convince the party, plus that character arc potential. Could be cool.
To be frank with you. Playing rpg starts with getting a group of players. You always have to be exclusive. I know that wasn't your own group, but your GM should know who sitts at the table (or floor, because you don;t need a table, right?). His filtering, excluding capabilities are pretty lame. I wouldn't allow people of other "preferences" to play with me. Simple as that. It took one non straight whaman to ruin fun. A time that people try to use for escapism and entertainment. xD Ideologues and honny. xD It never ends well. And on top of that you apologised. For what? For her unwise nature? For her being toxic?
People that are instantly on EDGE because of their own misinterpretation ... wtf The person needs to chill omg Hopefully the person (dunno if it is okay to use the word "she") became a better person in those 4 years
PvP nearly ALWAYS a bad thing and does lead to very easy misunderstandings and hurt feelings. Even with an old stable group this will happen. So points of the story: 1) Never allow PVP or unlimited player bs. Sure it's fiction, but unless the entire group is in it for the Murder hobo... do not let it be. 2) Don't Mary Sue your character. Again yeah it's fantasy, but it's an RPG. Keep You & The Character separate!
Yeah, it’s super hard to do PvP because even if both parties are excited and seen in good spirits participating… that tends to change when their character loses or dies. Then suddenly that changes real fast, I’ve found.
I wouldn't say always. I've seen people do some silly free-for-all type stuff that works out. But when they do that it's always done as a silly one-shot either without any story or with at most an excuse plot, not as part of a massive, serious campaign.
PvP would have happened even if OP didn't play the character as a secretly sealed monster. The other player just wanted an excuse to attack a crush that had different feelings.
I know the OP called their character straight and probably intended them to be so, at least in their humanoid form, but honestly their character comes off more as asexual/aromantic. The character didn't say she was interested in men, she said she "wasn't interested in being distracted by such things". As someone who's ace/aro myself, this story really hits close to home.
Straight probably would be what an entity that sides with majority would go for regardless what feelings they do or don't have. Most people are straight, it needs no explanation or looking further. She is after all trying to blend in so going with whatever is the most common unless you have strong reasons not to would be the most logical thing to do.
@@idaaho You can't just _choose_ your sexuality like that, because it's part of your brain's wiring. It's not a matter of what's common, it's a matter of whether the _individual_ feels any form of attraction. Someone who's asexual may still be able to "go through the motions" and play along, but there's no attraction involved. Doing so doesn't change the fact that they're ace. It doesn't make them straight. An otherworldly eldritch being that doesn't even have a built-in concept of sexuality is going to be asexual by default, because they're going to be incapable of feeling any sort of sexual attraction. And even if that being is trying to fit in, again, they're just playing along.
@@VestedUTuber The otherworldly eldritch is pretending everything about their humanoidity. So to them sexuality is a choice because it's just a part of a fictional character in universe. Therefore straight is the most likely the easiest thing to go with when their current goal is to blend in.
@@VestedUTuber You are right, OP character is most likely asexual/aromatic, especially with mere mortals they were manipulating in the first place. OP was trying to keep up the ruse that his character was a plain female mortal, so he tried to reach for a reason from a plain female mortal's perspective. Sure, OP could of said the character was asexual/aromatic, but he was just having a conversation with someone while trying to lie casually. Sexuality probably wasn't even a moments consideration for him at any point until around that moment and OP wanted to act natural to keep the ruse, so he thought fast and spoke it. Then hostility. Ultimately the "straight" comment was a lie in-character and out-of-character. The character saw intimacy as a meaningless at best, and a risk at worst.
ttrpg fan: "ha how silly that some people try to make a table top game like dnd political and get angry at people that don't side with their side of their made up spectrum". the same guy while playing magic the gathering: "omg ur using a red deck u filthy casual?!?!"
Well. There's one simple solution to that. Role playing games are about role playing. In many of them you earn XP not only for overcoming obstacles, but also for... Roleplaying. I would create a character that butchers, in most gruesome ways gays. (: And that character - straight, white, blue eyes, blond hair, muscles, hard jaw (GIGA CHAD) - would be a follower of a deity that grants help for "cleansing the world". PS. From description. "This player really just said "You're a stupid bigot" because another player wouldn't date them in-game." Him or her. Them is plural. Kids these days. With nose in smartphoine and no knowledge or common sense in head.
![[TF2] The Russian Bear Trap](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YFNSwz2_rOA/mqdefault.jpg)
You Can Check Out More Stories Here!
ruclips.net/p/PLs2SsEFbEIfauDCJ2BODA-hGVuSjTj02K
"You're invalidating my sexuality"
(Proceeds to invalidate their sexuality)
To my fellow LGBT siblings - equal rights does not mean taking agency away from others. Gay and straight still both exist, and not every dnd character is going to be sexually interested in every other dnd character. Calling someone a bigot because their character isn't gay only makes you look like a hypocrite.
What
The fact that this has to be said is absurd. I really hope that the player in this story is only one of a few who would do this. They probably are but still
@@teamtundra2619If gay people are allowed to be gay, then straight people are allowed to be straight.
@@ZeoffArcaneOfficial not for modern liberals
@@PunishedMushu
2 things.
1. The left hasn't called themselves "liberals" in a long time, because wishy-washy doormats started using it to describe themselves when "centrist" became a negative descriptor.
2. I've yet to meet one reasonable person on the left who outright claims that straight individuals are bad. I have met people who have claimed that but they always end up all the way out on the fringe in other ways too (they usually end up being either tankies or some form of ultra-radical "exterminate men and genetically engineer women into hermaphrodites" quote-on-quote "feminists"). But most people on the left just want equal rights, equal treatment and _equal respect._
The whole reason why "straight" isn't recognized at Pride, if that's really what you're complaining about, is because Pride is first and foremost an awareness movement. Straight individuals aren't demonized by religious groups, they're not treated as second class citizens by politicians, and they're not subject to abuse and violence like LGBTQIA+ individuals are.
I still strongly dislike how this played out. She harassed, shamed and meta gamed because she did not get what she wanted. All she cared about was projecting her sexual prefs while actually ignoring OPs. And she is rewarded with that bad behavior. Being gay or bi should not be a free pass to be a problem player. No means no.
But I get that she accused OP of cheating at first because character his level should be able to do that and she noticed it. But after she pointed that out to DM and OP she should have dropped that after DM said it was cool.
@@realdragon The DM would have been justified in simply calling it deus ex machina. Her insistence in automatically labeling it cheating was deliberately insulting and there is little doubt she wouldn't have said anything had the OP bowed to her demands of inappropriate and irrelevant sexual behavior between their characters. To call someone a bigot for refusing sexual advancements says everything about her anyone ever needs to know.
@@reverendmorgano9659 If someone used way more spells than they should what would be your reaction? How many horror stories are there about cheaters? What is more likely, that one character is actually higher level than others or person is cheating?
As I said at first it wasn't problem, person pointed that out because it wasn't normal. The problem was when DM said he knows it and despite that problem player pressed on
@@realdragon Actually there was literally only one extra spell used on rare instances, granted it was more powerful than normal and was technically cheating, but also you are wrong because she clearly wouldn't have had an issue with it before her advances were rejected and didn't until then. Even the other players didn't have an issue with it and gave her legitimate reasons for the discrepancy and as was explained, it wasn't something happening constantly but just a couple of instances with the hope the players actually would pick up on it. Given the same scenario I would have resolved it in game by having her role for discern deception checks and such but otherwise it's not as big of a deal as the sorceress made it out to be. As I said, deus ex machina is as legitimate a reason as any in this case. The character is a warlock, and the patron of a warlock is not forbidden by the rules to intervene on behalf of the warlock. I think it should have been more subtle than it was, but no the sorceress was out of line with all her meta gaming, accusations, and demands. The other players had no issues with it. She only did because she was mad about not getting her way.
What
I get that she maybe thought there was favortism going on with that spell cast, but your communication, and the DM's were breathtaking. A more experienced and less toxic player would probably have just sat down and shut up. I especially love that measured, vague response where DM told her this player MIGHT have shit going on she don't know about.
I think my biggest issue with this whole thing is that they failed the insight check, and was still allowed to believe that they're lying. If for metagame reasons you know there is a secret button to open the wall, and you fail perception. Shouldn't be able to keep looking and find it because of meta. I'm sure there is a player agency argument here. Why make people roll if you ignore the outcome?
That's why I prefer to make perception/persuasion/deception checks behind the screen. That way the players can't know whether they did well or not.
Absolutely. Any check where knowing the roll(s) would by itself impart knowledge should be done by the DM.
Haven’t played DnD. Do you think the DM should’ve shut the sorceress down? Stopped the fight from happening because the Sorceress shouldn’t have wanted to fight?
@@reginlief1 probably he should have stopped her yeah, she was metagaming.
I feel like letting the sorceress have the final blow and letting her have her "I still love you" moment just validated her terrible behavior (the player's IRL behavior, not the PC's in game behavior). Anyone who screams about "you're invalidating my sexuality" when they conversation was about the hypothetical feelings of a fictional character that wasnct even hers has some serious issues to work through, and letting her have her way only makes things worse. When a toddler throws a tantrum because they want to color on the walls, you don't let them keep drawing on the walls to make them feel better.
I've actually heard this story before, and I stand by what I said then. The author of the story made a fatal mistake that only served to escalate the situation when he apologized for his character not being a lesbian. His response should have been "I will play MY character as I see fit and you can do the same." NEVER apologize for not appeasing someone's narcissism. The behavior of the player controlling the sorceress was childish and creepy. Her statement about sexuality not existing in a fantasy world wasn't a legitimate defense for her or her character's actions, if anything they only proved her wrong. Calling someone a bigot because they refuse to engage in sexual acts, even imaginary ones, is not only horrifically bigoted itself but also sexual harassment bordering on sexual assault, and it absolutely does make the perpetrator a sexual predator. Sadly, there is an increasing trend of this sort of behavior occurring today and worse it is often encouraged.
I think that’s a good call out that even if the other person in the story did a lot wrong that sometimes you can take steps to prevent it from escalating to that point. The author definitely should stand firm and shut down this behavior quickly. Giving ground and admitting fault (where there wasn’t one) sometimes allows people to keep on going because they think you’ll fold completely.
I’m sure it came from a place of trying to be agreeable and avoid conflict, but if someone comes seeking conflict it is likely this approach will only embolden them.
@@lootgoblinmarketplace I agree completely. No doubt the author meant well but it is a common mistake made by a lot of people in the name of trying to avoid further drama but in the end, it only creates and encourages more because it sends the message that someone is not as sure of their convictions as they claim. He messed up on a lot of other points as well, but I do believe it was a good call to not come back to the game, especially knowing she was still there. In the end it could have ended worse but definitely could have been handled better.
It really does blow my mind how people just can't handle rejection and will scream bigotry.
We've raised a generation of them. If you're not into them, you're a bigot because they've been taught that calling someone that is the ultimate blackmail and will always get them what they want.
@@tenchraven True dat!
Yeah, it seems there is a ton of people regardless of their personal beliefs that turn absolutely vicious when they get rejected.
i think perhaps the problem lies with the person rather than the sexuality, much like how people use religion or trauma to deflect criticism
@@supercharliegalaxywhat
It wasn't until I started listening to stories on RUclips that I realized weekly all nighters (we sometimes played from 5 pm to 5 or 6 am with 2 am or 3 am being the norm) was abnormal.
I’m jealous. You can really experience a full adventure arc in that kind of time
That's not a bad player. That's a stalker.
It’s at the very least harassment!
Hell has no fury like a woman scorned. I had something like that happen DND game with a woman who had a female character and I had a male character. After my mail PC politely said no, she basically became my enemy and both the game and in Real Life. The game actually broke up a few seconds later and I'm sure her passive-aggressive Antics contributed to it
so you had a mail man pc AND a male pc? kinky /s
women ☕
@@skywoofyt5375huh?
I think the DM was mistaken to let the questioning go on and devolve into PVP. People need to just be straight up with metagaming players and say, "No, you have no reason to think this. She seemed honest and presented multiple plausible explanations." and then force the game to move on from it (at least for the moment).
Even as a player I get annoyed when players metagame stuff so severely. If the DM says something is as it should be, you should trust them and roll with it rather than get stubborn and petulant.
I don’t allow PvP, because I agree with the sentiment that it never goes well. I think everyone likes the idea until their character dies in a cheap way that seems like metagaming. If characters want to do some performance or something to off a character that the players/DM coordinate that’s another story, because everyone agreed ahead of time the outcome.
@@lootgoblinmarketplace Agreed
@@lootgoblinmarketplacei allow it but only if both players consent to it ooc, and/or we plan it out, yeah.
The person who was mad because their PC wasn't able to force another PC into a sexual relationship. Since most PCs are extensions or at least avatars to some degree of the player, they were trying force that onto the player. My reaction as a GM would have been an instant "I will not have harassers or rapists at my table- leave immediately or you will be removed". I've been out longer than many of my current players have been alive, and this is unacceptable, I"ll end a campaign before I tolerate this kind of player behavior. The GM flubbed it, they shoudl have sent the friend on the pizza run, and had this conversation with the player who wouldn't take no for the answer.
The DM didn't know this stretched any further than character on character drama.
Even if the in-game metagaming incident occurred before the pizza run argument nothing about the metagaming incident itself indicates things should have gotten this bad.
The DM had no reason to believe anything bad was happening or that they're adult friends needed a damn babysitter for some reason.
The idea that this is the DM's fault is uncalled for and seems like an attempt to justify your own controlling DM behavior if you think needing to manage adults like toddlers is normal you have some serious issues and I want nothing to do with you good day.
No supporting those actions but it would have been funny as hell if the twist was that the warlock starts to fall in love with the soccer and then now the warlock gets conflicted with what he wants or the only love he ever felt
the term separate the art from the artist. this woman it seems could not separate herself from her art/character. bad move.
also if anyone has a problem player that does this, the oddest reply you can give in character is " I'm sorry, but I am spoken for and you are not that attractive enough for me to even consider cheating on my beloved"-insert character name here. afterwards to tell the dm that you are not interested in have a player romance in the game and that you are not comfortable with it. this is even more so if you are doing a virtual table top game. communication is always key
PvP just never seems like a good idea.
"That's what my character would do" can only go so far when your cooperative game stops becoming fun.
I like the idea of pulling the rug out from under the players, making them believe they have a new friend before that friend becomes a major antagonist to them. But keeping that guest around for an extended period of time is what ruins the rug pull, because eventually something like this happens.
I've done 12 hour sessions before, it's hectic especially when you go into another game for an extra 4 hours so I'd be playing for 16 hours overall the entire day. I'm glad I didn't do that anymore good god.
Every group I played with, as DM and Player, we always did atleast 4~6 hours sessions. mostly 6~8 and sometimes even 8~10. Also pretty sure atleast a dozen times (as teenagers) I had ~12+ hour sessions.
“You won’t love me so your a bigot!”
Okay i know this is a horror story but this would have been rather entertaining to watch in a sad im not proud of it type way
I get it, half the reason I cover these is because they are like a train wreck in slow motion. You can’t look away. The bonus is sometimes we learn a life lesson without having to deal with the aftermath of these situations personally!
I don't watch dnd horror stories, but I read the title and description, they don't think he's a bigot, they're mad that they can't be weird and creepy towards someone
This reminds of a funny incident a few years ago during the covid lockdown crap. I had a situation very similar to this, I was playing a female barbarian character and another player was trying to force mine into a lesbian relationship and basically trying to project their fetishes in the game. At first I was trying to be polite and explained that my character isn't a lesbian but the other player through a tantrum said I was a "bigot, phobe and a few ist's" at this point I had decided I didn't care if I burned my bridges so I pretended to play along with that players fantasy got their character really drunk lured them to bed and then killed them in their sleep. The DM and other players who had also been growing annoyed with that person came in clutch and helped me dispose of the body making it a perma death. They through a tantrum and left while we enjoyed the rest our campaign in peace.
lol didnt even blink at the 8 hour session my current group runs a usual 6 hour session (although it tends to be 4-5hrs of dnd and 1 hr of just hanging out) which can bleed over into 7-9 hour sessions if we need to wrap something important up or are having to much fun, i believe on a campaign finale we finished at the 11 hour mark.
What a weird thing to do. To militantly force a sexuality on another person’s character while claiming that their own sexuality is being invalidated.
Your sexuality needs to be like mine or otherwise you are oppressing me…..what?
In all honesty, what I think is that that furious sorceress player ought to slap herself both for not checking her priviledge and not leaving her entitled, spoiled to rotten attitude at the door. Freakin' special daddy's lil' snowflake. She really strikes me as the type who expects to get things her way, always, and when things don't go her way, throws a big damn hissy fit about it. This world, and the people in it, are not just footstools for her to use, and she really needs to learn that. What she tried was to essentially bully the player with accusations of bigotry and invalidating her, into doing as she wanted, and when she didn't get things her way yet again, doubled down on being petty, vindictive and just so sad of a person...
Really, the only right choice here for her to have done would've been to keep rational understanding about the situation and just say "alright, fair enough" rather than puff up with hot air at some imagined, perceived slight to her person because another player just didn't wanna do things her way and kept to their choices instead of allowing her to force them into something they didn't want but she very much did.
I mean, freakin' hells, it's almost like she expects she's the only person whose opinions, ideas, thoughts and personality are real and the only things that hold value there. Invalidating her sexuality, as if! She's invalidating THEIR personalities. The warlock players, and just about everyone elses, but especially the warlock players specifically.
I'm so done with half-brain bints like that, y'know? They're too damn common nowadays, a dime a dozen.
Why isn't this channel bigger? It's goblin themed.
Edit: Channel for bigger!®
I’m still very new to the party! I appreciate everyone that is early to the party 😁
Am I going insane? I can't find any of my old comments. I've been watching these before you even did long form content
Even with OP gone I wouldn't have let the Sorceress keep playing in my games I have no patience for that kind of possessive creepy s***.
I'd have at least denied her the in-game closure she didn't deserve.
This could be a cool story. Someone who fell in love with an elder god realising that their crush is actually a monster. Trying to convince the party, plus that character arc potential. Could be cool.
That story happened. Just with an unrequited crush the horny character wanted to spite.
Yea this is just sad
To be frank with you. Playing rpg starts with getting a group of players. You always have to be exclusive. I know that wasn't your own group, but your GM should know who sitts at the table (or floor, because you don;t need a table, right?). His filtering, excluding capabilities are pretty lame. I wouldn't allow people of other "preferences" to play with me. Simple as that. It took one non straight whaman to ruin fun. A time that people try to use for escapism and entertainment. xD Ideologues and honny. xD It never ends well. And on top of that you apologised. For what? For her unwise nature? For her being toxic?
Nah sorceress meta games should have been insta kicked from the party and trying to push her life style on you is bs
People that are instantly on EDGE because of their own misinterpretation ... wtf
The person needs to chill omg
Hopefully the person (dunno if it is okay to use the word "she") became a better person in those 4 years
I always hope the people in these stories change for the better!
PvP nearly ALWAYS a bad thing and does lead to very easy misunderstandings and hurt feelings. Even with an old stable group this will happen.
So points of the story:
1) Never allow PVP or unlimited player bs. Sure it's fiction, but unless the entire group is in it for the Murder hobo... do not let it be.
2) Don't Mary Sue your character. Again yeah it's fantasy, but it's an RPG. Keep You & The Character separate!
Yeah, it’s super hard to do PvP because even if both parties are excited and seen in good spirits participating… that tends to change when their character loses or dies. Then suddenly that changes real fast, I’ve found.
I wouldn't say always. I've seen people do some silly free-for-all type stuff that works out. But when they do that it's always done as a silly one-shot either without any story or with at most an excuse plot, not as part of a massive, serious campaign.
PvP would have happened even if OP didn't play the character as a secretly sealed monster. The other player just wanted an excuse to attack a crush that had different feelings.
W dm
I know the OP called their character straight and probably intended them to be so, at least in their humanoid form, but honestly their character comes off more as asexual/aromantic. The character didn't say she was interested in men, she said she "wasn't interested in being distracted by such things". As someone who's ace/aro myself, this story really hits close to home.
Straight probably would be what an entity that sides with majority would go for regardless what feelings they do or don't have. Most people are straight, it needs no explanation or looking further. She is after all trying to blend in so going with whatever is the most common unless you have strong reasons not to would be the most logical thing to do.
@@idaaho
You can't just _choose_ your sexuality like that, because it's part of your brain's wiring. It's not a matter of what's common, it's a matter of whether the _individual_ feels any form of attraction. Someone who's asexual may still be able to "go through the motions" and play along, but there's no attraction involved. Doing so doesn't change the fact that they're ace. It doesn't make them straight.
An otherworldly eldritch being that doesn't even have a built-in concept of sexuality is going to be asexual by default, because they're going to be incapable of feeling any sort of sexual attraction. And even if that being is trying to fit in, again, they're just playing along.
@@VestedUTuber The otherworldly eldritch is pretending everything about their humanoidity. So to them sexuality is a choice because it's just a part of a fictional character in universe. Therefore straight is the most likely the easiest thing to go with when their current goal is to blend in.
@@VestedUTuber You are right, OP character is most likely asexual/aromatic, especially with mere mortals they were manipulating in the first place.
OP was trying to keep up the ruse that his character was a plain female mortal, so he tried to reach for a reason from a plain female mortal's perspective.
Sure, OP could of said the character was asexual/aromatic, but he was just having a conversation with someone while trying to lie casually. Sexuality probably wasn't even a moments consideration for him at any point until around that moment and OP wanted to act natural to keep the ruse, so he thought fast and spoke it. Then hostility.
Ultimately the "straight" comment was a lie in-character and out-of-character. The character saw intimacy as a meaningless at best, and a risk at worst.
ttrpg fan: "ha how silly that some people try to make a table top game like dnd political and get angry at people that don't side with their side of their made up spectrum". the same guy while playing magic the gathering: "omg ur using a red deck u filthy casual?!?!"
Well. There's one simple solution to that. Role playing games are about role playing. In many of them you earn XP not only for overcoming obstacles, but also for... Roleplaying.
I would create a character that butchers, in most gruesome ways gays. (: And that character - straight, white, blue eyes, blond hair, muscles, hard jaw (GIGA CHAD) - would be a follower of a deity that grants help for "cleansing the world".
PS. From description. "This player really just said "You're a stupid bigot" because another player wouldn't date them in-game." Him or her. Them is plural. Kids these days. With nose in smartphoine and no knowledge or common sense in head.
I’m ngl this sounds like a fake story
What story doesn't?