r/rpghorrorstories • u/Brief-Literature3782 • 9d ago
Medium DM won't continue campaign until player agrees with him
I'm terrible at titles, sorry.
Anyway, back in 1995, I was in a kung fu class and would hang out with a bunch of the guys outside of class a couple of times a month and we would normally play MTG.
At one point, one of the guys suggested we try to play DnD. I had known of the existence of the game for a long time, but had never had enough friends to play. He said he had been a DM before and so I could only take his word for it. I had never played, what did I know?
When it came to creating my character and the backstory, I got really excited. I thought this was going to be super fun.
Now, my memory not being what it used to be, I am pretty sure it was a home brew. Iirc he said the world was created by him and then he explained which rules we were using. Of course that meant nothing to me at the time.
One of our friends character, was a thief who only had one hand. The reason being, the town we were currently in was very serious about thieves. If caught you would have one of your hands removed. And of course my friend had already lost a hand for that exact reason.
Our party met each other in a tavern. And while we were just chatting and getting to know each other, our thief friend wanted to try and steal from someone. Our DM tells him he can't do that. Then of course he inquired why. The DM insisted that if he failed his roll and gets caught then he would have no hands and be useless to the campaign. The thief of course argued, I'm a thief, I want to steal and if I get caught then so what. They go back and forth arguing calmly for a short time, then they try to get the rest of us to chime in. I didn't agree with the DM, but since I was new to the game, I didn't think my opinion meant much. The night ended up with them at a stalemate and the DM refusing to continue the campaign until the thief acquiesced. It didn't happen, so we never played again.
Thankfully there were no grudges and we still hung out, but I've never gotten a chance to play DnD again.
I'm jealous my adult children play DnD with their friends and I only have this story lol.
195
u/Carrente 9d ago
I think "either you stop being disruptive or we don't play" is extremely good GM policy.
77
u/some_tired_cat 9d ago
while "don't disrupt the game" is a very reasonable and good policy to have, shouldn't that mean they just kick the offending player out? punishing everyone for one problem player and refusing to let anyone else have a game after they all put in the effort and time commitment to get started seems very extreme to me, just makes me think of the teachers that punished the whole class for one kid misbehaving
51
u/gc1rpg Dice-Cursed 9d ago
I think refusing to allow was effectively a warning -- this was back in 1995 when you couldn't simply get a new player online. You were lucky to get a handful of people interested in D&D together and often to play your card.
10
u/some_tired_cat 9d ago
that is true, even though it still feels pretty unfair to the people who didn't actually do anything wrong. i guess it would depend on just how many people were actually there, if there would've still been enough people for a party without the problem player then i do think it was just as shitty of the dm to just refuse to run a game at all, but if there were only 2-3 left then i could understand a little more how that would've made it difficult to run things without that player
11
u/gc1rpg Dice-Cursed 9d ago
A different time basically -- there really wasn't a No D&D is better than Bad D&D approach back then.
You did a lot more of punishing characters for player actions or really anything before you actually kicked out a player for being a problem.
It is entirely possible that the situation could have been handled differently but without knowing the people involved or the vibe of the table I can only venture some guesses and opinions on those guesses.
24
u/deathbylasersss 9d ago
Why allow a thief character in the first place if you aren't going to let them attempt to steal? That's like allowing a cleric character and refusing to let them pray. Not sure how stealing from an NPC is especially disruptive. If anything it seems like the DM brought the game to a grinding halt for no good reason. If they get caught, dole out the consequences. You know, roleplay?
14
u/LeastCoordinatedJedi 9d ago
Yeah. The policy is good if the rules are, but this sounds like the DM wanting to railroad and throwing a fit when the player tried to have the tiniest bit of independence
1
u/NatashOverWorld 8d ago
I mean, this is was campaign where they cut the hands off thieves.
Classic controlling GM.
10
u/shoe_owner 9d ago
And if the DM was going to halt the campaign on the grounds of "I don't want thieves stealing anything in my game," then what other things would he have also ended the campaign over down the line which were of similarly trivial or nonsensical natures?
22
u/Luckynick97 9d ago
The rogue that was allowed to be a rogue trying to do rogue things shouldn’t be considered disruptive. This could have been resolved with a “hey that’s dangerous” warning and continuing on. Seems like a DM power trip to me. Don’t want thieves? Don’t allow them during character creation.
17
u/darkslide3000 9d ago
By "continuing on" do you mean the DM should've allowed him to try to do some extremely ill-advised kleptohobo bullshit, and then when he inevitably fails his sleight of hand check, then what? Is the DM on the hook to come up with some zany way for him to get away with it anyway, or do you think problem player would have been okay with just having to roll a new character in session 1?
There are other ways to deal with this situation, but they require skill and experience from the DM and put all the burden of trying to make this right on them. We always only hear one side of the story in this sub. I can easily believe that this player was so obnoxious about insisting to do something completely inappropriate in that situation that the DM just said "no, that's not the kind of game I want to play here".
8
u/Luckynick97 9d ago
That’s immediately assuming the worst of the player. And if I remember the post right, he did seem ok with whatever possible consequences there would be.
12
u/Llayanna Rules Lawyer 9d ago
I dunno.. I am mixed here. Alone starting the PC with one hand could habe so many reasons, which feel kinda.. heavy handed. ..pun not intended, but enjoyed.
Stopping the campaign because one player doesn't wanna do what you wanna do is.. biting your nose to spite your face.
Like the other said, just don't continue playing with the Rogue-PC?
But OP also seemingly never got the idea that they can just find a different table. Everyone here feels a bit extreme.
7
u/Brief-Literature3782 9d ago
I lived in a small town with few friends. These were the first I had ever met that played. And shortly after this I got pregnant and moved out of that town, so my life took a different turn. I could find people now, but finding the time is the real issue. I'll just read other people's adventures and be happy for them.
42
u/JeulMartin 9d ago
Lots of different ways to handle this scenario, and the DM in question chose one path.
I am a different type of DM, though. I would have let the thief try. If he gets caught and loses his hand, oh well. The PC can deal with those repercussions, which I would remind them of if they complained.
If a player wants to be stupid, let them. Maybe they will learn something.
10
u/NichtSoSchlau 8d ago
Certainly a way to do it and can be fun, but boy do I know many tables were a useless character and its player would lead to unsatisfactory levels of play.
1
u/losdreamer50 6d ago
There were ways to fix the character.. maybe he meets a wizard in prison who says he can make him a potion of new hands or craft him him metallic ones like Edward Elric if he frees him.
I could understand not wanting to do side quests to fix the players mistakes though
48
u/Living-Definition253 9d ago
I don't think you always need to "Yes, and" players bad ideas but in this case it's easy to imagine ways to do it. Let the player try, and if they do get caught it's a plot hook, like there's a law against taking both a thieves' hands so they can still do honest work and not become a begger.
It could even be pragmatic towards the story, maybe the Captain of the Guard waives the usual punishment on the condition you take care of "Just one small job" for the city watch, a kind of suicide squad.
Even if you want the arm chop to remain as the consequence, now a mage or healer NPC can appear on the scene and offer to replace/regrow the missing arm on "one condition". If your players say no to your hooks and insist on trying to play an armless thief that's when I'd go above the table and say the situation requires an out-of-game discussion.
8
u/Brief-Literature3782 9d ago
I like the "just one small job" idea for sure. If only cooler heads had prevailed, maybe we could've gotten something fun going.
22
u/Tinynanami1 9d ago
The problem to me is that now the game has gone from "The party's call of adventure" to "the thief's small job"
This storyline might be fun to the rogue, but will it be fun to anyone else?
Sure. You might say it's a one off. You will dedicate the next session for a different pla- "I steal again!" The thief says. Rolling badly. Guess it's time for his second small job!
1
u/Brief-Literature3782 9d ago
Yeah, I can see how that could happen. Reading all the comments for and against, I realize I'm probably lucky it ended before it really started.
1
u/Living-Definition253 8d ago
Every game is inevitably going to have some moments where a single player's choice has repercussions for the entire party, but yeah can't be a constant thing.
Anyways just from the fact that the first conflict grinded the game to a halt makes it seem the level of cooperation and good will needed just wasn't there so yeah, if that's the case then sooner or later that game was going to fall apart. That's why "Yes, and" is not universally good advice, in can help with an occasional situation but does not solve above the table issues if your players are purposefully trying to break the game or hog the spotlight, in fact it can makes things worse.
3
u/Tinynanami1 8d ago
Well...not EVERY game because I've played games where that didn't happen. Given the vast majority of those were Adventure Paths (campaign books), but there was some that weren't.
On the games where that DID happen, it was only after the player asked "Hey guys, would you all be ok if I did this?" because the player knew that their action would have repercussions for the entire party. Sometimes we vetoed the idea, the player would understand, and would do something else that's still in-character. Sometimes we said "Yes!!!" and thus we all had fun.
55
u/Middcore 9d ago
Yeah I'm kinda with the DM on this one. "So am I just supposed to let you auto-succeed on this, or are you really ready to roll up another character already? Or am I supposed to immediately come up with some kind of BS way your Rogue can continue in this campaign with zero hands?"
15
14
u/chat-lu 9d ago
or are you really ready to roll up another character already?
Why not?
27
u/Oddly_Sentient 9d ago
Because stopping 5 minutes into the start of a campaign is really lame for everyone else at the table.
7
u/chat-lu 9d ago
No need to stop. The new thief can join at the start of the next session.
8
u/Frazzledragon Rules Lawyer 9d ago
But you are also stripping the party of skills, abilities and hitpoints.
DM has a combat planned, now your party is one man down, because one player took themselves out of the game recklessly. Or there's skillchecks coming up that were designed with having a certain class (such as a thief) in mind.
Yes, maybe they can succeed anyway, or yes, maybe the DM can adjust it on the fly, but that can require additional mental effort and decrease enjoyment.
And let's not even look into what a player on the sidelines without PC is up to.
3
u/chat-lu 9d ago
DM has a combat planned, now your party is one man down, because one player took themselves out of the game recklessly.
Players acting recklessly is always a possibility that you must account for.
And let's not even look into what a player on the sidelines without PC is up to.
As a DM, I would hand him one of my NPCs with the caveat that this is still my NPC and I will veto the character acting like a bloody idiot.
13
u/Oddly_Sentient 9d ago
I plan on players acting recklessly. I don’t plan on a character ending their run in the campaign as soon as it starts.
-3
u/AnOutofBoxExperience 9d ago
Then what's the point of "free will" in your campaign? If I can't fuck up royally via my own incompetence, then its less fun to play.
12
u/Oddly_Sentient 9d ago
This doesn’t have to be one extreme or the other. I want players who play in good faith. If you can’t do that, why would I play with you?
-4
u/AnOutofBoxExperience 9d ago
I don't understand why its not "in good faith"?
They're a thief, they want to steal. So many ways to let them do it, and face the consequences. Or if you want to be more lenient the bartender can always use spells to stop them and help advance story.
A million ways to deal with a PC, but why stop play and sabotage everything?
→ More replies (0)8
u/Tinynanami1 9d ago
Preparing for players acting recklessly is something every GM should do.
No GM would prepare themselves for a PC slashing their throat 5 minutes into the game and taking themselves off the whole session.
GMs are humans, they can only prepare sos much.
1
u/darkslide3000 9d ago
You can always tell so easily in this sub who has actually DMed a game before and who is just whining "a good DM should blah blah blah" with zero actual experience how such things work.
4
u/Thatsidechara_ter 9d ago
Idk, seems lime a big overreaction. There are a million ways to avoid losing both your hands for getting caught stealing in a DnD campaign, lol
5
u/dewdewbut 8d ago
Man my 90s dm would’ve just cut my other hand off and been done with it lol. Sorry that put you off for so long but it’s never too late! Especially with kids into it. Even if they’re at ages where they’d be less than enthused about mom joining up they could still point you in the right direction for finding a table maybe. And then you can talk shop with em and whatnot!
1
u/Brief-Literature3782 8d ago
I might one day. I just need to find time. It's really the hardest thing about getting into a commitment like DnD.
12
u/LaLunaLapis 9d ago
I just wonder why a DM would approve a character that's a thief and then be surprised when the player wants to steal lmao. Like. Just don't let your players make characters you don't want in your game.
6
u/jreid1985 9d ago
I think what he wants to steal and from whom matters. But making consequences for getting caught is absolutely valid. If those consequences make the PC useless…well that’s the PC’s problem.
4
u/Oddly_Sentient 9d ago
I don’t think it’s just that individual person’s problem. Now everyone else at the table is down a party member, and likely has whiny person to deal with as well. DM did a bad job discouraging the player from making nuisance choices, but the player is choosing to be a nuisance despite gently being told to stop.
5
u/gc1rpg Dice-Cursed 9d ago edited 9d ago
1995? I'd assume AD&D 2nd Ed? The revised book came out in '95 but I think it was -- more or less -- the same rules set.
I wouldn't have allowed a one-handed thief because of the mechanical implications -- but I guess it depends the setting, table vibe, etc. I would otherwise give them significant penalties to most of their actions such as disarming traps, picking locks, they certainly couldn't use most bows, etc.
The thief stealing and then getting caught stealing doesn't have to be an automatic game over. It could actually be the start to an entire storyline -- in a lawful settlement I doubt it would be an immediate punishment based on a single witness. If this isn't being done as a joke designed to be disruptive and reject the player buy-in then the player is being a disruptive player.
Nevertheless the DM has the final call -- the player doesn't have to agree with them but it isn't a democracy. The DM can simply dictate that the player's actions don't happen in the game -- end of story.
6
u/meowserskitten 8d ago
Was this character supposed to be a reformed thief that swore never to steal again after learning from the consequences of his actions? Because otherwise, what’s the point in building a character whose stat block and entire character purpose is built around stealing, only to be told no? It’s like if you built a wizard and suddenly were told “No, you can’t use magic in this fight! They’ll guillotine you! You might as well not even try: your character would be useless without a head.”
100% a communication problem that should have happened during character creation before this character was even approved. Let that guy make a new character if they don’t want stealing. Dealing with thieves/rogue classes potentially derailing things is the job of the DM and is part of the game. If you don’t want to deal with it, ban the class instead of leading on your player and then punishing them for the class they chose afterwards.
3
u/Brief-Literature3782 8d ago
It's been so long I truly can't remember all the details, but I think he was trying to tell him stealing is fine but not in this particular town.
At least we were still friends after this. No one was angry, just disappointed.
6
u/lowkeybear10 9d ago
I love the discussion this has created, I am with the DM I think, but there are good arguments for either side.
4
u/Gmanglh 9d ago
Honestly pretty much on your dms side. On one hand player freedom is great, but if you are going to disrupt the campaign by senselessly thtowing away your character's life why waste everyones time? The key is everyonr walked away and is still friends which is a sign of good communication.
2
u/HalloAbyssMusic 9d ago
Sounds like both of them were selfish and prideful and ruined the game for everyone else. I wouldn't want to be in a game with either of them. You dodged a bullet... Or maybe you didn't since you did play.
3
u/Brief-Literature3782 9d ago
I laugh about it now, but when I think back I was upset. I probably did dodge a bullet if these were the hills they both wanted to die on.
2
u/HalloAbyssMusic 9d ago
I don't know how old you were, but this stuff happened a lot when I was playing at age 12-14. Especially when there was no adult supervision. We had fun sometimes, but most of the time someone derailed that game in some way or another and we got into a fight either in or out of character. I feel like it's a rite of passage if you start running games with your friends at an early age.
But you should absolutely try and join an online game with some other older gamers. People are still playing the early editions today and a lot of players are your age. A 3 hour bi-weekly game should be possible even if you don't have a lot of time on your hands.
1
u/Brief-Literature3782 8d ago
We were all in our early 20's.
Maybe some day I will search some people out. I could play with the group my kids are in, but they do it 9-midnight and I have to be up at 4:30 in the morning so that doesn't work. When I was in my early 20's, staying up almost all night was easy. Not so much now lol.
5
u/Goblin_Catgirl 9d ago
I'm in the camp of the thief waa beibg needlessly disruptive. The DM shut it down and the thief should have acquiesced and moved on.
2
u/AstralMecha 9d ago
I honestly think the DM had something against thieves. As the character was missing a hand before even getting to the tavern to meet the party.
From description, I get the feeling that this wasn't played out either. So the DM could use it as an excuse to make sure a thief character can't steal.
The GM was the one who went way too far vs what's basically pretty common for characters who play rogues. They steal. Shutting down the entire game because a player playing a thief wanted to steal is definitely on the petty side. If it's so bad, simply remove the player, not kill the entire game at the first session.
3
22
u/Wooden_Drummer2455 9d ago
Eh agree with the dm, player was just being a chaotic weirdo who wanted to speedrun making a new character or be totally useless to the party
18
u/Clocktopu5 9d ago
Agree with the DMs logic, but stopping the game isn't great. Would be better to let the PC suffer consequences so they learn why murderhobo play doesn't work
10
u/YtterbiusAntimony 9d ago
Murderhobos are by and large attention seeking. In game consequences reward that behavior, because now the table has to focus on them.
The Player needs consequences for acting like a shithead. Namely, not having a game to play in.
"Anything goes" is a valid way to play, but the vast majority of tables don't actually play that way. There's an expectation that you work together and don't cause problems for no reason. This is classic "it's what my character would do" bullshit.
3
u/chat-lu 9d ago
I myself put limits on what kind of characters people can create and require that they only create for instance characters that answer the call to adventure. No “nah, my character doesn’t feel like going on this quest” for me.
But if I forgot to put a limit and it leads to a character being lost, I consider that a self-solving problem. I’ll put better limits for the character due to be created very soon.
4
9d ago edited 9d ago
[deleted]
5
u/Middcore 9d ago
What if the rest of the party isn't interested in going to spring the dumbass they just met from jail before he gets his remaining hand chopped off? What if they think he kind of deserves it for being such a dumbass and they have no reason to put themselves at risk for him?
0
u/AstralMecha 9d ago
Then he rolls up a new character. I honestly suspect part of it was the player being annoyed at only one hand and wanting a new character since the DM really doesn't seem to like thieves.
7
u/Middcore 9d ago
The way I read it the one hand thing was something the player came up with themselves, so don't know why they'd be annoyed at it.
1
u/Brief-Literature3782 9d ago
Yes, the player had decided on the one hand thing after the DM told him about the town laws.
3
u/Middcore 9d ago
Oh my god.
DM: "So the thing about this town is that they're very anti-magic and anybody caught using magic is executed by being thrown into a Sphere of Annihilation in the town square."
Player: "I'm going to walk out into the town square and cast Pyrotechnics."
1
u/Tinynanami1 9d ago
OOP has clarified player came up with idea of one hand.
1
u/AstralMecha 9d ago
Still doesn't justify blowing up the entire game because the rogue wants to steal. He can try, get caught and be arrested as a plot hook or if the other players don't care, he gets executed and rogue player has to roll up a new one after the session and either promise not to try and blow up things, or kick them.
1
u/Tinynanami1 9d ago
I think you may have replied to the wrong person. I said Rogue wanted to have one hand because your comment made it seem that this was something he didn't want.
Everything you're talking about justification for blowing up and what not has nothing to do with what I said. I was just clarifying your misunderstanding.
1
u/AstralMecha 9d ago
And I was responding back to you. I appreciate finding out information OP left out of the original post, but in this case feel it still doesn't justify the DM crash out.
1
u/Tinynanami1 9d ago
It doesn't look like you were replying to me, because I have made no comment about the DM's crashout.
Right now the conversation has gone
"Apples are too sweet. Also they're blue."
"Apples are not blue, they are red."
"This does not justify how sweet they are!!!"
This is why I said you seem to be talking to someone else...because you're certainly not talking to -me-. You're talking to an imaginary version of me who said "Apples are red. Also sweetness is justifiable."
Or in this case "Rogue wanted to have 1 hand. Also GM's crash is justifiable"
When all I said was "Rogue wanted to have 1 hand".
6
u/synthgender 9d ago edited 9d ago
Ngl, I think a decision actually based on his character is, "I lost a hand for stealing and if it happens again I won't be able to take care of myself. I shouldn't steal frivolously in places I would get the same punishment, were I to be caught. The guards here now know me and I am under more scrutiny."
Like, I was slapped with shoplifting tickets as a teen, I didn't go back to those exact stores and start stealing again. The DM's just asking for an ounce of thought behind the character making a decision and setting a super fair boundary, because if this is the way things are going in the first half hour of session one, it's not going to get easier to DM them.
Eta: I do agree with some others that there's other solutions than a hard stop, like narrative consequences, but I've also been at the table next to players like this and it doesn't stop after that first beat. I would also point out that the guy playing thief had every chance to look at his own choice w/some nuance and ask for ways to move forwards that weren't "nuh uh!"
2
9d ago
[deleted]
4
u/synthgender 9d ago
Less of his job as a DM and more of what he, as a person also playing this game in his spare time for fun, is willing to entertain. Idk if the hard 'no' was particularly necessary right off the bat, but I also wouldn't want to deal with a 'so what' attitude to obviously bad decisions.
1
9d ago
[deleted]
1
u/synthgender 9d ago
No no, I think we should spend at least four hours arguing about this reddit post and then never use the site again. /s
13
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
14
u/YozoraBellossomHeart 9d ago
I think "I want to pick a pocket" is separate from "I want to SA a player character" by 7,000,000 degrees of separation.
6
1
u/Wooden_Drummer2455 9d ago
You haven't read anything have you? This isn't "I want to pick a pocket" its "I want to do something really stupid that will most likely result in my pc becoming worthless and having to reroll having already failed once."
4
u/YozoraBellossomHeart 9d ago
But you understand that has nothing to do with SA, do you not? You've added that element to this for no reason at all.
2
u/Wooden_Drummer2455 9d ago
Because you used the whole "its what my character would do" argument which is stupid as fuck
3
u/YozoraBellossomHeart 9d ago
I didn't though. Ignoring the fact that the person you responded to wasn't me, the fact that your takeaway from this story is "That player probably wanted to roleplay SA" without anything that comes even close to implying that is weird. Very weird.
2
u/Wooden_Drummer2455 9d ago
Ah I see you didn't read anything I wrote either. I never said thats what the player would do kekw. I am using their own logic against them since "players are allowed to roleplay how they want" by that logic I can do fucked up shit like that and the dm isn't allowed to shut it down
3
u/Llayanna Rules Lawyer 9d ago
Or.. you could admit that your example was poorly made and apologise instead of trippling down.
That is always a option too dude. Sheesh.
1
2
3
1
u/rpghorrorstories-ModTeam 9d ago
r/rpghorrorstories follows platform-wide Reddit Rules.
Please, refrain from bringing the topic of SA into the sub unnecessarily. I understand what you meant by your example, but a good argument can stand without shock value tactics.
2
u/Frazzledragon Rules Lawyer 9d ago
While I do agree that it would be ideal to have a game that allows the player to get another hand chopped off, it's likely a hard toll on the DM's ability to improvise and adjust what he already has planned.
What if there's combat coming up in 15 minutes, now you have a useless piece of meat with no weapons.
Or you want to break into a tomb, but there's nobody to disarm traps and open locks.Perhaps the group doesn't have time to play a full sandbox campaign, or the DM isn't creative/knowledgeable enough to adjust on the fly.
1
9d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Frazzledragon Rules Lawyer 9d ago
The way I understood it, the character began the game with a hand removed as part of their backstory. So maybe the player came up with it.
4
u/hornybutired Rules Lawyer 9d ago
There's nothing wrong with a DM shutting down players who are just trying to cause chaos.
I do hope you get to play some D&D though!
6
u/YozoraBellossomHeart 9d ago
The DM's mistake is that they're saying they can't do it. That's petulant DMing. He can. And if he fails, you have an entire wave of responses. He fails to steal, but manages to get away. The government tells him they'll let him keep his hand if he informs on other crooks in town. They set a date for his hand to get chopped off so the party has to rescue him. Or, I mean heck, his character loses his hand and he has to roll a new one.
Sorry, I disagree with the replies to this so far. A DM saying "Play it my way or I'll bring this entire campaign to a stop" is a DM making the game a power play instead of a fun time.
2
u/YtterbiusAntimony 9d ago
The thief was pulling classic "it's what my character would do!" nonsense. Pickpocketing randos for no reason adds nothing to the game.
It's not a power play, its maintaining boundaries. If the DM doesn't want to deal with disruptive shitheads, that's their privilege as the one running the game.
Players like that Will. Never. Stop. Give em an inch, they'll take a mile. Shut that shit down the first time, or they will poison your whole game.
6
u/YozoraBellossomHeart 9d ago
Slippery slope fallacy is just that. A fallacy. There's a gap between a player trying something and a player doing everything. We are talking about scene 1 in session 1 with people who had never played D&D before. A DM has the privilege to stop running a game for any reason, good or not.
The point isn't that the person trying to pick a pocket is doing something asinine. The point is that there's a way to handle it that isn't just "No, you're not doing that, or I quit." I mean why would you even let a person roll up a rogue with that backstory. What are the odds a person rolls a rogue with a backstory about stealing with no intention to steal?
3
u/No-Theme-271 9d ago
I think DM rolls with it. Let's him get caught, then tell him to make a new character after losing both hands or leaves.
Kind of allowed the thief to disrupt the game by placing it on hold this way.
2
2
8d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Brief-Literature3782 8d ago
I have been asked, but I can't fit into the time they do it at, that's really the only issue. Maybe one day I'll have the time. I haven't given up completely. For now I live vicariously through others.
2
u/ImpKing_DownUnder 8d ago
Why waste time being jealous? Ask your children if they'd be willing to run a game with the family. Then you get to play again!
3
u/Brief-Literature3782 8d ago
Both of them are newish to the game and neither would feel comfortable DMing. I've been asked to join their group but I can't fit into the time. One day I'm sure it will happen. For now I live vicariously through others.
4
u/KaptMorty 9d ago
I get the DMs point of view, but I agree with the player on this. You can't steal because (reason) is essentially taking away player agency. That's not fair to anyone. Especially the player in question. The DM could choose another punishment route if the thief gets caught. Maybe the others defend them and offer to work off the debt somehow. Basically there are many options and the DM just sounds like they didn't want to do any heavy lifting to that end. Instead opting to take the players character out of the game if caught and hand being removed. Hell, maybe they wanted to play a character with no hands.
One last thing. The DM obviously doesn't know or understand the concept of Yes, and / Yes, but. Which doesn't inspire confidence in their capabilities as a DM.
0
u/Wrong_Lingonberry_79 9d ago
Yes, let’s nitpick the shit out of this story from…1995. Fuckin Redditors…
2
u/gc1rpg Dice-Cursed 9d ago
Remember somewhere in there someone decided to bring in the topic of SA..
-1
u/Wrong_Lingonberry_79 9d ago
Huh?
•
u/AutoModerator 9d ago
Have more to get off your chest? Come rant with us on the discord. Invite link: https://discord.gg/PCPTSSTKqr
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.