I assume its significant other without reading the context
Am I correct?
I assume its significant other without reading the context
Am I correct?
There's a long running stereotype of DMs bringing their SO in spelling bad news for the game, due to obvious favourtism or having to placate them.
Obviously, not every DM falls to that. The only DM in my circle who plays with his SO doesn't show favourtism at the table, he just helps her create characters - which he was intitially very bad at, building every class like it was a Wizard. It was pretty funny when she started thinking he was intentionally screwing her over with his poor choices.
It introduces a conflict of interest into the already complicated enough social dynamic of a group of roleplayers, because pussy game ridiculous.
Some pairs can handle it but it usually shows in-game.
And realistically the significant other did it out of possessiveness and to keep tabs on the GM to begin with, make sure he is merely having fun, and so they actually don't care about the game and make either a healbot or an elf ranger with a wolf animal companion, neither of whom will then do anything to progress the plot, bring their own ideas or opinions, etc. Thus the GM has to do things for them specifically to keep them out of their phone, but they can't be bad things happening to them because pussy game ridiculous.
Have you never met women who actually like playing?
Women that enjoy playing and SO's aren't necessarily the same ones
I'm playing with one right now!Originally Posted by SpoonyViking
This is about stereotypes based on reality. Another good one is "Chad, who clearly does not belong among these nerds but is so cool they let him play, brings his girlfriend that he has because he ain't no nerd, to impress the nerds, and it turns out she has nothing to talk about with these nerds."
I actually think that unless they to begin with share the hobby and it is the basis of their relationship, most experienced GMs will tell their significant other, if they ask to play, that 'it's going to be tough', and generally try to dissuade them from participating entirely.
I guess I've been lucky in that regard. I've played with several couples, and none of them fit that stereotype. Although, to be fair, most of them were gamers before they had met - several had actually met through shared hobbies.
Realistically, a healbot that just doesn't participate in the game and is just there to keep tabs on the GM is pretty much the lesser of all evils you could end up saddled with (although it can still certainly sap all the fun out of the game when a player is on the phone/chatting off-topic/otherwise distracted all game). I haven't had a DM bring an SO to the table yet, but I did have a couple of co-players flirting during play and it was not an experience I'd like to repeat, to be honest.
Granted, that campaign eventually foundered for a lot of reasons, including having to switch DMs mid-campaign and the new DM adapting an evil module to run for what was supposed to be initially a Good-aligned party, turned mostly Neutral, turned basically demon cultists by the time I got fed up and left, but that's a story for another time.
- - - Updated - - -
There really wasn't much context, it was one of Gudao's random meme reactions to TESTAMENT in the Prisma Codes event epilogue. Made me chuckle though, I admit.
shit BL says
Once and always and nevermore.
I've experienced pretty much every stereotype. The amount of people means there's a revolving door of SOs who come and go and are inevitably curious about what we were all doing. Some were good, some were awful. It depends on the maturity of the person and the group.
The good ones either really dug into it and had fun for the time they dropped by, or quickly realized it wasn't their cup of tea and bailed out. The bad ones refused to leave and just complained and made it awful for everybody.
The problem with a friend bringing a real awful SO is even as DM it's hard to do anything about it because you don't want to offend your friend's SO and cause trouble for your friend -- but if you do nothing, everyone else suffers.
One of my friend's wives always bursts into tears and storms out of the room whenever she loses at any board game, so any game with her involved just turns into a charade where everyone has to pretend to lose to her so she won't cry and throw a tantrum. Luckily we don't play at their place often.
Then there was this one guy who loved snapping up the dice instantly before anyone could see it if it was ever a low roll. Zzz
He never sleeps. He never dies.
Battle doesn't need a purpose; the battle is its own purpose. You don't ask why a plague spreads or a field burns. Don't ask why I fight.
That sounds like a similar issue I've had with individual players creating issues but no-one wanting to exclude them. It's an awkward situation.
Oh, god, I had one of those. He also kept "miscounting" points or "misinterpreting" abilities. Everyone at the group, from the players to the GM, complained behind his back, but did nothing because we played at his place. I ended up just quitting the group.
Last session we had two hours of our arcane trickster rogue playing tricks on some of the party, and those members wanting revenge. Ended with the wizard nearly killing the rogue and the fighter beating him into unconsciousness. I'm not sure about outright banning pvp but I definitely understand why people do, jeez
What happened?
It was a bit more comical in my case. The player hated admitting failure in any shape or form, and that apparently extends to his dice rolls.
Every roll would go something like:
Him: I attack the creature! *rolls*
Me: OK, what did you get?
Him: ... *snatches up dice instantly before anyone sees what the result was*
Me: Well?
Him: Erm... nothing.
Me: It had to be something.
Him: ...it wasn't very good.
Me: OK, so what was it?
Him: Uh...
Me: Was it a 1?
Him: No.
Me: But it wasn't good?
Him: ...yeah...
Me: Then what was it?
Him: ...
Me: ...okay. You miss. Next!
Repeat every round. Eventually I just stopped asking what he rolled and just assumed he missed unless he pointed out he got a high number.
To this day I have no idea what he was doing. It's not like it wasn't obvious he flubbed the roll. And yet he just couldn't bring himself to say what it was.
He never sleeps. He never dies.
Battle doesn't need a purpose; the battle is its own purpose. You don't ask why a plague spreads or a field burns. Don't ask why I fight.
DnD is strictly a cooperative game. If you try to play out a fight between PC's you damn better have agreed it with the other guy beforehand or you're getting stopped hard and fast, imo.
Last edited by Deathhappens; September 11th, 2018 at 01:17 PM.
shit BL says
Once and always and nevermore.
Hah! Yeah, it was definitely more comical in your case. The player I was talking about wasn't so funny, though; in one super-hero game where he was basically playing Iron Man - right down to his alter ego being a millionaire playboy -, only with a specific weakness to magnetic attacks (basically, any magnetic attack would disable his armour), he threw a tantrum when we had to fight a villain with, you guessed it, magnetic powers who one-hit KO'ed him.
In my old Vampire: The Masquerade group, we had had so many instances of PCs killing others "because that's what their characters would do" - seriously, we had two TPKs just because of that - that when we started what would be our final campaign, the Transylvania Chronicles series, we had an entire session beforehand just to discuss character concepts and make sure there would be absolutely no potentially-lethal conflict at all (less serious conflict was allowed), and even then there were some moments where out-of-game stuff nearly caused in-game fights.
It wasn't really a "unwanted" PvP situation.
It started when the Rogue cast Charm Person on the Wizard so he would hand over a magic sword they found. After Charm Person ended, the Wizard was angry and started looking for the Rogue (they were at a festival). Meanwhile, the Rogue was playing tricks on the Fighter via Mage Hand and Illusion spells.
After an attack by some Hill Giants, the Wizard confronted the Rogue and wanted to fight him. The Rogue agreed, and they went to the outskirts of the village. The Wizard used his Undead and began whooping the Rogue really badly, and the Rogue (since he's a "friendly prankster") only attacked the Wizard's Zombie. This continued until some travelers on the way to the village showed up and saw the zombie and started freaking out, calling for the guards.
Some fog cloud, illusions, and a Paladin lying on behalf of her friends later, the issue was resolved. The Rogue was still near death. But the Fighter hadn't had his chance, so he decided to tie up the Rogue and start beating him until unconsciousness. This continued until the Monk stepped in, dragged the Rogue to the inn, and locked/barred him in his room to prevent anything else for happening.
Overall this took most of the session. I'm not entirely sure everyone else's thoughts but I thought the whole situation was annoying and not that funny. I assume the Paladin/Monk who were basically spectators thought the same. Hopefully the Rogue at least learned his lesson.
When you say the "wizard" was angry -- do you mean the character or the player?
He never sleeps. He never dies.
Battle doesn't need a purpose; the battle is its own purpose. You don't ask why a plague spreads or a field burns. Don't ask why I fight.
See, in this scenario the fight started the second the Rogue used his abilities (Charm Person) against the party, particularly since he wasn't just "being funny" but actively working against the other player (stealing his loot). Definitely not an OK move, imo.
shit BL says
Once and always and nevermore.
The character got angry once the effects of charm person wore off.
I don't know how angry the player was. I guess that's the downside of online DnD, no way to judge facial expressions. He certainly wasn't overtly angry at least. I even gave him a way out by reminding him Charm Person only makes you regard the person as a friendly acquaintance, it doesn't necessarily mean you just give your shit up, but he did it anyway.
To be fair, my players are all relatively new to DnD (except the rogue lol) and their mindset when it comes to loot tends to be "first come first serve", unless it's glaringly obvious someone else would benefit more. The Rogue is new to the group and "has a fascination with magic items" so I knew something like this was bound to happen.
Overall it wasn't really a big deal. The Monk gave the Rogue a stern talking to about playing nice with friends, and the Wizard even gave the sword up (well, after he discovered it was cursed). So hopefully things dial down a bit next session.
Is this an online group? It'd be pretty hard to guage how people feel about things based off that
It sounds like the kind of thing the players could enjoy - some people like the dysfunctional group dynamic of adventurers always at each others' throats
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote