I feel like half of these AITA or horror story situations come about because someone said "You know what would be a fun character to play in this cooperative storytelling game with my friends? A loner douchebag who hates everyone and starts arguments!" I've seen SO many people gravitate to this archetype and I've personally never seen it done well, I sincerely don't understand why it's such a commonly used character archetype.
people forget that the only time these characters work is when its a mask, when they actually do care but cant face that. but people who wanna play that dont wanna play, well, *that*
Yeah. My group had a fun time with a character that was cold and aloof but after an almost tpk they freaked out and we found out that they had a monster destroy their last party and they had survivors guilt and didn't want to see anyone die like that again. We all cried and it was amazing. After that revelation, the party would check in on them after fights, and he slowly became very cuddly, and we found out they had notes on everything the party liked/disliked and noted them during down rp time. But long story short, you have to have growth to make them impactful and lovely!! Just being an Ass is not a good personality trait for this game.
36:26 AITA for my personal problem with a player getting them booted from the group 42:05 I am the asshole, how do I fix it 51:36 Should we do our final session without the problem player? 59:10 AITA for leaving the party and lying about the reason 1:11:30 AITA for killing a lying player's character
My thoughts on AITA 2... ESH and I think it might be best for OP to move on. I'm actually in a somewhat similar dynamic of the OP & Artificer in my current Stormking's Campaign. I play a Rogue that values the well-being of the party very highly and gets very frustrated with the Cleric whose impulsive and free-spirited nature gets us into trouble and derails plans. Despite the arguments we get into IC, we keep an open line of communication OOC and have discussed the conflict at length and have made sure nobody's feelings are getting hurt. They've even offered to tone down their self-destructive behavior but I declined the offer. Truthfully, I really appreciate the Cleric and the chaos they bring, I admire their ability to fully engage with the flaws they've given their character. They're the catalyst for some of the most exciting moments in the campaign and it wouldn't be the same without them. This kind of character dynamic wouldn't be possible if we weren't on the same page. I can see that It's easy to paint OP as the sole asshole in this situation because they're the playing the cold and anti-social character who no doubt started every argument but I'm also side-eyeing the Artificer. Routinely touching potentially trapped objects and starting extraneous fights is dangerous, there's no denying that. Putting the lives of your party at risk for no reason is still being an asshole, no matter how nice your character is otherwise. It can come across as deliberate sabotage of the group or an attempt to undermine a specific player. You may not be saying anything mean, but you're still being disruptive. OP was quite rightly called out for being too argumentative, but I think the Artificer owed it to OP to tone down the needless risk taking too since it was clearly bothering them.
Second Story: Maybe a happy medium could be that they leave the table for this campaign, or even for a few sessions, and come back with a different character that isn't going to be so tough to deal with for the rest of the party. I do like the idea of sending a message to the DM and the table where OP states that they understand the issue and were trying to change it, so if they do that and maybe give the table some time without them just to sort of not deal with OP's attitude for a while, that might calm everyone down and make them take OP back.
Final Story: I'm genuinely curious about why they wanted to leave town so badly. Like, were they hoping to go on a private personal adventure to explore Barovia? We had a new player in a CoS game that basically wanted to do that, and we all, players and DM, told him not to do that, both for the reason within this story and because had he done it, he was expecting the DM to run a totally separate single-player campaign just for him, and we all told him that wasn't happening. So I wonder if that's what this guy was trying to do; if he's new, it could be that he views D&D as a video game where he's the main character, so he wants to start "his" adventure by going off into the wilds on his own.
Third Story: I mean, the solution is good, but they could even say, "We're planning on doing this one last session without you, but if you want to come just to finish things off, let us know." Open the door for them to come in for one more session, so that way it doesn't feel like you're purposefully excluding them, and if they aren't interested, it's on them for not having joined. Worst case scenario, they show up for the final boss encounter, are disinterested, the boss is defeated, and then they leave with the understanding that their character is going to be retired after this session. Then the rest of the table can continue, in secret or not, having given the problem player's character closure instead of just phasing them out of the game. Or they could just not come at all, which would be their choice, and would alleviate a lot of the guilt from the table since they'd be making it clear that they are leaving due to their own disinterest.
23:42 I really respect this retraction and take because a lot of internet boycotts I see often come from a very privileged place. A creator I follow on the clock app was posting vids about their mental turmoil about the whole situation and ultimately decided to go because they had panels and events that they paid for out of pocket, and I really hated seeing them in that state. And I think for this year, at least, the money has already been spent, GenCon doesn’t care, I know that next year is the time to strike
Fourth Story: If OP is worried about them explaining their feelings towards the game or players as something that will result in a confrontation, then OP isn't the asshole. It's everyone else at the table that's the asshole.
Idk yall. Some folks (myself included) wouldn't want to know if their friends or old group started up a new campaign without them. I'm of the opinion that if I'm not invited I don't need to be told about it either and I wouldn't want folks to feel guilty about it! It's like if you were having a party. You wouldn't go round to everyone you've ever invited to a party and let them know...that they're not invited. How awkward would that be? On both sides! It gets a little stickier when it's an ongoing campaign where the uninvited person had played a character before, but I really think the same applies. Just pretend that their character is off doing something else. You don't have to feel guilty about it. It wasn't working, but that doesn't mean you can't finish your story and have fun. More personally, I don't want to know about the good time I'm not having either lmao. Like why tell me?
Feelings on Story 3: It really depends of what kind of problems X was kicked for. If it was just “he wasn’t a decent player” fine but if it was more of a racist,sexist, bigot … no. You don’t get grace if it’s THAT big of a problem.
making a second comment here about AITA 4, I actually really expected better from the two of you than to dump on different play-styles. There's literally nothing wrong with making short rest a day and long rest a week, and I'm actually super disappointed to hear your negative takes on those. I don't think you understand the style of campaign that those rules thrive in, you're picturing a "typical" campaign with a villain and an overarching story, like one of the published adventure paths. Those rules are excellent in an exploration focused campaign with player driven motivations and lower stakes (no villains with world ending plots), and this is the way the game was played for literal decades before the more modern style these rules don't work well in was developed. I'm actually kind of upset that you would just outright call these rules bad across the board, I expected better from this podcast.
As they always say, if it works for your table, then it works with your table. Nothing wrong with that either, but their opinions are their opinions and for their table. Sorry you're that disappointed though, hopefully it dissipates and allows you to enjoy the videos/streams/community. Cheers.
@@JaySpotTx They always say that, except in this case where they flat out said "these rules suck". That's why I was so disappointed, there was no "if this works for your table" or "some people play like this but we personally don't", they just said flatly without any consideration of other play-styles that these were bad rules.
They do suck. Like, 99% of the time with modern modules, campaigns, and player availabilities, making rests take forever absolutely sucks. It turns a week into what is in essence, a filler arc. The game is different now and those rules are not what it's built for anymore
I feel like half of these AITA or horror story situations come about because someone said "You know what would be a fun character to play in this cooperative storytelling game with my friends? A loner douchebag who hates everyone and starts arguments!" I've seen SO many people gravitate to this archetype and I've personally never seen it done well, I sincerely don't understand why it's such a commonly used character archetype.
people forget that the only time these characters work is when its a mask, when they actually do care but cant face that. but people who wanna play that dont wanna play, well, *that*
Yeah. My group had a fun time with a character that was cold and aloof but after an almost tpk they freaked out and we found out that they had a monster destroy their last party and they had survivors guilt and didn't want to see anyone die like that again. We all cried and it was amazing. After that revelation, the party would check in on them after fights, and he slowly became very cuddly, and we found out they had notes on everything the party liked/disliked and noted them during down rp time. But long story short, you have to have growth to make them impactful and lovely!! Just being an Ass is not a good personality trait for this game.
36:26 AITA for my personal problem with a player getting them booted from the group
42:05 I am the asshole, how do I fix it
51:36 Should we do our final session without the problem player?
59:10 AITA for leaving the party and lying about the reason
1:11:30 AITA for killing a lying player's character
My thoughts on AITA 2...
ESH and I think it might be best for OP to move on.
I'm actually in a somewhat similar dynamic of the OP & Artificer in my current Stormking's Campaign.
I play a Rogue that values the well-being of the party very highly and gets very frustrated with the Cleric whose impulsive and free-spirited nature gets us into trouble and derails plans. Despite the arguments we get into IC, we keep an open line of communication OOC and have discussed the conflict at length and have made sure nobody's feelings are getting hurt. They've even offered to tone down their self-destructive behavior but I declined the offer. Truthfully, I really appreciate the Cleric and the chaos they bring, I admire their ability to fully engage with the flaws they've given their character. They're the catalyst for some of the most exciting moments in the campaign and it wouldn't be the same without them. This kind of character dynamic wouldn't be possible if we weren't on the same page.
I can see that It's easy to paint OP as the sole asshole in this situation because they're the playing the cold and anti-social character who no doubt started every argument but I'm also side-eyeing the Artificer. Routinely touching potentially trapped objects and starting extraneous fights is dangerous, there's no denying that.
Putting the lives of your party at risk for no reason is still being an asshole, no matter how nice your character is otherwise. It can come across as deliberate sabotage of the group or an attempt to undermine a specific player. You may not be saying anything mean, but you're still being disruptive.
OP was quite rightly called out for being too argumentative, but I think the Artificer owed it to OP to tone down the needless risk taking too since it was clearly bothering them.
The Entity is now satiated w/the launch of Patreon. . . For now
Second Story: Maybe a happy medium could be that they leave the table for this campaign, or even for a few sessions, and come back with a different character that isn't going to be so tough to deal with for the rest of the party. I do like the idea of sending a message to the DM and the table where OP states that they understand the issue and were trying to change it, so if they do that and maybe give the table some time without them just to sort of not deal with OP's attitude for a while, that might calm everyone down and make them take OP back.
Final Story: I'm genuinely curious about why they wanted to leave town so badly. Like, were they hoping to go on a private personal adventure to explore Barovia? We had a new player in a CoS game that basically wanted to do that, and we all, players and DM, told him not to do that, both for the reason within this story and because had he done it, he was expecting the DM to run a totally separate single-player campaign just for him, and we all told him that wasn't happening. So I wonder if that's what this guy was trying to do; if he's new, it could be that he views D&D as a video game where he's the main character, so he wants to start "his" adventure by going off into the wilds on his own.
Third Story: I mean, the solution is good, but they could even say, "We're planning on doing this one last session without you, but if you want to come just to finish things off, let us know." Open the door for them to come in for one more session, so that way it doesn't feel like you're purposefully excluding them, and if they aren't interested, it's on them for not having joined. Worst case scenario, they show up for the final boss encounter, are disinterested, the boss is defeated, and then they leave with the understanding that their character is going to be retired after this session. Then the rest of the table can continue, in secret or not, having given the problem player's character closure instead of just phasing them out of the game. Or they could just not come at all, which would be their choice, and would alleviate a lot of the guilt from the table since they'd be making it clear that they are leaving due to their own disinterest.
23:42 I really respect this retraction and take because a lot of internet boycotts I see often come from a very privileged place. A creator I follow on the clock app was posting vids about their mental turmoil about the whole situation and ultimately decided to go because they had panels and events that they paid for out of pocket, and I really hated seeing them in that state. And I think for this year, at least, the money has already been spent, GenCon doesn’t care, I know that next year is the time to strike
Hope things go well with you in the CRIT awards and you guys are awesome for standing by your beliefs through and through!
Righteous anger on issues that were discussed really doesn't need an apology. Agree with what you both said, plain & simple.
Fourth Story: If OP is worried about them explaining their feelings towards the game or players as something that will result in a confrontation, then OP isn't the asshole. It's everyone else at the table that's the asshole.
Idk yall. Some folks (myself included) wouldn't want to know if their friends or old group started up a new campaign without them. I'm of the opinion that if I'm not invited I don't need to be told about it either and I wouldn't want folks to feel guilty about it! It's like if you were having a party. You wouldn't go round to everyone you've ever invited to a party and let them know...that they're not invited. How awkward would that be? On both sides!
It gets a little stickier when it's an ongoing campaign where the uninvited person had played a character before, but I really think the same applies. Just pretend that their character is off doing something else. You don't have to feel guilty about it. It wasn't working, but that doesn't mean you can't finish your story and have fun.
More personally, I don't want to know about the good time I'm not having either lmao. Like why tell me?
You are both so goofy I love it lol 😂
(Just to clarify I meant that because of the funny patreon bit)
Feelings on Story 3: It really depends of what kind of problems X was kicked for. If it was just “he wasn’t a decent player” fine but if it was more of a racist,sexist, bigot … no. You don’t get grace if it’s THAT big of a problem.
41:53 there is a noise in the background that sounds like the bonk emote from stream. I got horny jail flashbacks 😅😂
Thanks for putting the timestamps back in the description
We get to meet the cast omg!
Just bought some AWESOME spell-cards from their Etsy Shop!!!
12:05 Certified HFS (Hot Fresh Sexy)
Was this the first time Hweel mentioned on the pod?
a cheater doesn't deserve friends, let alone a dnd group to play with. NTA to the first AITA, for sure.
Wait, what’s wrong with Gen con?
Love and appreciate this thoughtful, direct and firm statement regarding 🍉 and boycotts associated.
DID SOMEONE SAY PATREON?!
*me with me penultimate snipper rifle* it's a cheap penultimate .... But I'll let it slide because of the patreon! Entity, take my money!
Take my 💰🎉. Seriously though. Thank you 💜
making a second comment here about AITA 4, I actually really expected better from the two of you than to dump on different play-styles. There's literally nothing wrong with making short rest a day and long rest a week, and I'm actually super disappointed to hear your negative takes on those. I don't think you understand the style of campaign that those rules thrive in, you're picturing a "typical" campaign with a villain and an overarching story, like one of the published adventure paths. Those rules are excellent in an exploration focused campaign with player driven motivations and lower stakes (no villains with world ending plots), and this is the way the game was played for literal decades before the more modern style these rules don't work well in was developed. I'm actually kind of upset that you would just outright call these rules bad across the board, I expected better from this podcast.
As they always say, if it works for your table, then it works with your table. Nothing wrong with that either, but their opinions are their opinions and for their table. Sorry you're that disappointed though, hopefully it dissipates and allows you to enjoy the videos/streams/community. Cheers.
@@JaySpotTx They always say that, except in this case where they flat out said "these rules suck". That's why I was so disappointed, there was no "if this works for your table" or "some people play like this but we personally don't", they just said flatly without any consideration of other play-styles that these were bad rules.
They do suck. Like, 99% of the time with modern modules, campaigns, and player availabilities, making rests take forever absolutely sucks. It turns a week into what is in essence, a filler arc. The game is different now and those rules are not what it's built for anymore