There are situations where I can see not bothering being a better call, but there is too much homophobia and other horrible discriminations in the world, so it must be challenged at any point possible, I feel. Furthermore, D&D really, really should be seen as something open to any person to play. I believe what D&D is contributes to the world in ways no other media possibly can.
All RPGs are communal games, wherein it's important for all participants to enjoy themselves. If the players want to include certain topics, it's the GM's responsibility to roll with it as part of the fun or respectfully find a way to pause the game and discuss their discomfort. This GM did not act appropriately, obviously failed to read the room, and actively got in the way of the enjoyment of other players. So yeah - I 100% agree with these players. The fact that I also think the GM was being a terrible homophobe and acted inappropriately is secondary.
My very first character was a lesbian halfling monk. My DM was like "sure go ahead. Romance who you want" and even know in our next campaign that character and her wife are still mentioned. A DM should never restrict his players or the player character choices like how the DM in the video did. If your players want to do something, let them roll for it realistically.
Creating a charactter straight and thus not interested in same-sex advances isn't a crime in and of itself. It'd be realistic to say that romancing a straight man when you're a man yourself would be impossible. I'd say the problem here is that the DM seems completely flabbergasted at the idea of man-on-man, when it would've been really easy to shut this down by explaining that the NPC being interrogated is heterosexual. Congrats on the nice callback. That's a lovely thing to happen as reference.
I once played a character who was a ployamorous, Pansexual woman who genuinely slept with anything that moved but she also fell in love with another character and they got into an open relationship and in our next campaign we actually met some of my PC's grandkids and it was great continuity. And at no point did my DM get upset with that choice of character or how she interacted with the world. it was so much more fun because of it.
But if the this seduction is nonconsensual, and the captive is not homosexual, then seducing him is tantamount to harassment, or even worse, compelling the person to change their sexuality just to suit your perception of how they should be. It wasn't nice when straight people did it to gay people, and it isn't nice now from gay people.
That's really the thing that gets me. It's not that the DM said "he's not attracted to men" or "he's not gay". But rather, the DM saying that trying to seduce him was ridiculous simply because they are both men. And yeah. You hit it on the head: He is a man I am a man? What's the problem?
@@weebjeez Yeah. There is no problem if the characters just isn't attracted to men. The problem is the "men cannot attract each other" attitude. I'm straight, and as new DM who still hasn't had ran into these situations I see no problem with this.
@@weebjeez If the DM is so hell-bent on the sexual orientation of his characters, he could at least go around his issues in a player-befitting way. Like, how about even though the NPC is not sexually attracted to the bard's flirtatious moves, he is moved by his words of encouragement/positive vibes or something? Has the same outcome: Friendly NPC interaction, but does not ruin the player's fun.
@@nambnb Yeah I agree with this here; I can see this from both perspectives, that being on one hand you have someone who might think that it's wrong for a bard to be unable to seduce another person because of sexual attraction since maybe the DM is putting in a lot of straight NPCs, while on the other hand (likewise with me) sexual preference comes last, and I typically don't list a character's sexual preference when it comes to D&D because if I did that to every single NPC it'd be hella awkward to explain why. The perfect middle-ground here is to still allow a bard to flirt, but there are still many different personalities that can cause seduction to actually fail or succeed. An example of this would be how NPCs vary in terms of how they see or interpret what the bard says or thinks, such as a person who's very open and interested in perspectives seeing their dance as evocative to their true intentions. And to add another example to that, if the bard tries seducing a hardy barbarian who's last thing on his mind is sexual preference, he'd probably have to make a really high DC check, and even if it passed it'd still would just be a begrudging acceptance rather than full-blown "Yeah that seems reasonable." I put it all in the personality rather than the sexual preference, unless the bard explicitly says that that's their intention with their actions. In which case, it's gonna be one hell of a roll, and it'd have huge changes of character relations if it passes, fails, or hard-neutrals. This... would also affect them if other NPCs tried it back. A flirt from the bard can turn from an act of persuasion/flirtation to a straight-up battle of persuasion/flirting, where the NPC or even other player would play off what said bard said and fire another persuasion right back at them, making for hilarious moments where a bard and another NPC actually get musical about their opinions until eventually the two come to a conclusion. It's very disney-esque, but still hilarious to see happen.
@@dumbviddumpchanneliguess7201 Well instead of being an ass he could of had the npc turn down the guy singing and cheekily suggest they let him go a round with the woman, then maybe the woman would have a reason to hit him XD which may get some info out that way lol.. no reason to be homophobic, let people rp how they want.
gross thing is, I bet if she had been playing a woman busty bard and flirted with another “attractive” woman character the dm would have been fine with it. that’s how creepos like this work
LMAOO i had my character shipped w another female (shes 16 now, but when i played that one she was like 12, the other character was *30*) which was a very, very,,,, long convo which turned into if i dont wanna be a disappointment i better be a top(????) 😀 t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶m̶a̶y̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶m̶a̶y̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶m̶e̶ ̶p̶u̶t̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶a̶ ̶b̶i̶t̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶a̶ ̶h̶a̶h̶a̶ ̶h̶e̶ ̶a̶i̶n̶t̶ ̶m̶y̶ ̶"̶s̶t̶e̶p̶d̶a̶d̶"̶ ̶a̶n̶y̶m̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶b̶u̶t̶ ̶i̶ ̶f̶e̶e̶l̶ ̶l̶i̶k̶e̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶f̶i̶t̶s̶ ̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶a̶g̶j̶s̶j̶d̶n̶s̶n̶
Imma be real. If I made my bard hit on a guy as a joke and the DM got all pissy about it, at that point, I'm pivoting hard for that to be my only character trait.
@@zacharyhawley1693 and you are a Phalladin of Mara (you know the goddess that looks like a giant dick with wheels from the persona/devil survivor games)
If you did it aa a joke then took the game seriously that would be fine but thats not what happened here the player wanted to retcon and derail a one shot its incredibly selfish and petty
@@AllenTax Did you actually ever kissed? Kissing with touching noses would be highschool level awkward. Romantic in it's own way, but this in not how a proper kiss is done.
DM, probably: "He can't be chubby and have high CHA! Fat people are not handsome!" Putting aside that physical attractiveness is a purely arbitrary trait and different people find different things attractve, Charisma is not equal to physical attractiveness, it's also... charisma, i.e. how good a person is at handling social situations or how charming they are. High CHA=conventionally hot is just newbie trash.
Totally, and the opposite is true. I have a female character with low charisma. She's physically attractive, but doesn't think she is, because she's tall and strong built. Unfortunately, she's also a half-elf, raised around elves, who disdained to teach her anything except that she's not as good as them. So she's blunt to the point of rudeness, self-deprecating, doesn't bother to learn people's names, and isn't afraid to call out stupidity when she sees it. Charisma can be played in lots of ways, low or high.
You could have this war hero general type who's mared with scars, and maimed out of an eye, but knows how to inspire friends and relate with commoners, or some sort of old lordly type who is a particularly good orator, making threats not with his personal strength, but with his influence. Charisma is a measure of one's social savvy. Being attractive could help, but it matters more about what is being said, and how it's being said.
I’m making my first character and I have smooth talker as one of his skills. So i assigned the highest roll to his charisma. It was 17. That’s before factoring in that he’s a tiefling.
Reminds me of when I was DMing a short campaign at my local library. A player had an amnesiac character and gave me free reign to decide his real backstory. This player was kind of casually homophobic and I wanted to throw a wrench in that, so I gave his character two dads.
That's actually brilliant. If he plays the character homophobic as well it might be because "he was influenced as a child when everyone told him that his family was strange/abnormal for having 2 men building a family and having kids". Now he feels vaguely uncomfortable when seeing 2 men together without knowing why as he can't recall the sneers, just the feeling of being insulted :D But I wouldn't "punish" a player for giving the DM free reign over parts of their character, even if they don't have stellar personalities. Hope he was fine with the setup
I don't understand how some people see a world where a gnome can seduce dragons and believe that's more likely to happen than some dude being curious about being with another dude.
usually the gnome doing the seducing is male and the dragon is female, usually. I have only met one person who tried to seduce a male elder black dragon as a male pc but that was just for shits and giggles..
@@ShiroNekoDen The gender doesn't really mean shit when the thing you are seducing is a completely different species, ten times bigger than you, and possibly hundreds of years older than you.
@@ShiroNekoDen I've also seen bards seduce ogres, trolls, demons, and a lich. It's what bards do my dude. Implying that any of that isn't weirder than gay people existing, when gay people actually exist, is pretty fuckin dumb.
@Nio37 Are you serious? As if bees don't exist in fantasy settings, too? You're trying so hard that you're calling fluffy little honey bugs unbelievable? My dude the day I meet a DM who is both homophobic AND believes that bees shouldn't exist is the day that they successfully graft working albatross wings onto a three hundred pound sow and claim that it is capable of flight.
I think that railroading for a one-shot is totally okay. You are running on limited time and are trying to tell a (disposable) story, so the DM would need to more actively guide the players along. I ran a one-shot for the group I recently started to DM for (as a new DM) and set the one-shot in the past. They met a child NPC that they all fell in love with. The fun twist is it was the child version of a character I played previously with MOST of them (two are from my usual D&D group, one is my gf who has loved the character for years and the last player is an old friend who never met the character beforehand).
It's a one shot. I had conniptions to until it was noted as a 1 off adventure. The whole point is having a quick game of D&D, which can't get derailed by everyone going "screw the lich, we're going in this direction to fight literally any other adventure!"
@@AnonYmous-mc5zx "While heading away from the lich, you run into two other liches who just came from the original lich's crypt warming party. Your fight just got twice as hard. Roll for initiative."
Telling a bard to not seduce is like telling a barbarian to not rage, or telling a rogue to not sneak around, or a spellcaster to not use spells or a fighter to not fight. After all, a bard is all about the charisma, and the persuading, and deception, and intimidation and performance. Edit - Wow 1.3k Likes? Thanks! When you got more likes than the guy that posted the Video - 2K - Wow!
You know there is other ways to be charismatic besides fucking everything right?.. Don't get me wrong fucking everything IS fun but definitely not comparable to everything else you said which are all mechanic based things classes do. There is no mechanic in DnD saying the Bard class has a seducing ability they can use every long rest or some shit...
@@TheMento98 Eh, true - got a couple of bards in my group who Don't go around seducing everything - or at least not intentionally. The one is basically the group's leader, and Team Mom. Oddly enough, due to the god of trickery, said bard almost got engaged to a noblewoman.
I once played a very fun bard. He was kinda like Dandelion/Jaskier from the Witcher, but his artistic talents were just slightly above average, he overestimated his abilities to swoon ladies and died in the very first combat encounter in the campaign. I liked that character.
Indeed! Bard seducing everything that walks is a cliche, though an amusing one. One can be successful party-face without any sexual insinuations. Playing my latest bard, called DIO (guess what music he played), who was slightly metrosexual and narcissistic, I managed to complete our medium campaign (6-8 sessions) without ever seducing anyone. Artistic performances, etiquette and flattery, boasting and deception. Some very brave impersonations, fake credentials and titles made my party rofl for quite a time)
I'm not a DM or a so much experienced player of D&D but i'm 100% sure that the DM could have managed the sole situation better than this. For example he could have just say that the dude was not interested by man , and not attracted sexually by the bard, but the song and the words of comfort had conviced him to help the group ,rather than saying only "bUt hE Is A mAN !!1!1!111!". In conclusion i think that the DM was not only homophobic but also bad at his "job".
Or even when you have someone you aren't attracted to hit on you can also be a form of torture like "Give us the information or Our Friend is going to serenade you some more"
@@lockskelington314 Yeah, one thing people aren't seeing is, what if this was a lesbian prisoner and the male bard tried to seduce her? It'd be wrong for a seduction to succeed there just as here.
You forget this is a story which is written both to entertain you and by the author who is painting himself as the hero. The dm, assuming this actually did happen, likely didn't care at all as he was too busy trying to keep the one-shot moving along.
The most charming, charismatic man I know is over 300 lbs, and at any given time has at least three women and one man semi-secretly crushing on him, minimum. Just saying.
If it hadn't been a one shot, I would say the player should have just given the DM the finger and left the campaign. But being a one shot, there's few better ways to have done things. This was nearly perfect
How hard is it just knuckle down for one game. You are all here to have fun, it's not fun to argue about sexual orientation. Just let the DM run his one-shot, and don't get in his face about it.
As a gay guy, I loved this story. :) To the people in the comments trying to act like the Original Poster was at fault: The DM clearly was the one tryong to push his own Sexual Fantasy onto everyone else, with Busty, big-breasted, generically attractive woman warriors who most likely were clad in almost nothing. And a generic attractive man (who lets be honest, it probably represents him since he made the character). When people changed the characters to more suit their playstyle so that they can enjoy the session, DM got all pissy. Then he got even more pissy when the sheer thought of something Man on Man made him refer to the bard as a "pervert". Im sure in his eyes the session was terrible, and he deserved every moment of it.
I agree with almost all. Some person around here made the point that the tied-to-a-chair sultrily caressed NPC referred to the bard as a pervert, not the DM offcharacter. I think that is fair in another circumstance and with another table dynamics.
@@guillermorelobalopez7553 This would make sense, but the bard should have succeeded with their roll, in some way. But clearly the DM was projecting his own view, context heavily supporring this. It wasn't JUST an NPC reacting to a failed roll.
@@Taevarth I mean if I was tied to a chair against my will, no matter how charming my captor would I'd freak out if they came on me xD So no matter how high the roll, the reaction would be the same. DC= Infinity Context indeed supports the version that this was not just an NPC reaction, sadly. That is why I think the line would be fine in another context, but not in that one.
@@Taevarth But the DM said not a minute later that the seduction WOULD work if THE GIRL did it. Not saying characters can't have preferences, but it was clear the DM was projecting.
As someone with no association to the LGBT community (except my bi sister) I'm very happy that the player was able to rip the control out of the DMs hands. He has a right to have fun, not take fun away from others or force them to do uncomfortable things. "Your rights end where mine begin" should really apply everywhere not just DND.
First of all, that DM's fatphobic, homophobic, and misogynistic views were absolutely disgusting! Major props to the players for handling it with such humour and respect! But second of all, that DM was WAY out of line! Not only was the severe railroading ridiculous and so boring, but arguing with how the players want to embody their characters is one of the worst things you can do to game! If you bend a game ENTIRELY in the image of how you created it, you take all the fun out of the game for the players, as they become nothing more than voices to read a script you've written. He wasn't just being offensive, he was being a bad DM and completely missing the spirit of DND!
Fatphobia doesn’t exist, homophobia and misogyny does. If you’re fat/overweight/obese, you have a HEALTH PROBLEM, and need to change that. It can be life threatening in cases.
TheWatchingEye ok, but shaming someone and calling them unattractive is disgusting. Unless someone asks for you to comment of their health. Don’t. Don’t be mean to them. It’s a fun game, being mean sucks the fun out of it.
It was being crafted on a separate layer and the artist(s) kept getting so distracted by its beauty they couldn't finish so the boss man/woman had to shut it down.
@@ShivaTD while there is argument on the players sides for being jerks, you can't ignore the side for the DM being a jerk. In truth, it's true a DM can do whatever they like at their table, it's their right as DM. But their behavior is still subject to the same rules as everyone else, and because of the power they hold, it's actually easier to trip into jerk territory. It can be tough, balancing a story they envision with making sure everyone is having fun, but to be a good DM, *that becomes their responsability*. If they compromise a player's fun, or worse, a group's fun, for the sake of their story, then they can quickly turn into becoming a tyrant and risk their players leaving. It works both ways, players can absolutely ruin everyone else's fun by over riding or insisting on their own story. The key is compromise, which clearly didn't happen here. You seem pretty set on the players were jerks argument so I'm not going to be redundant and say it here. As for the DM- he definitely ran into the issue of having a story set in mind and being unprepared for the improvising aspect of DnD. This was not his first mistske. His first mistake wasn't even insisting the character be exactly how he envisioned them. He had something in mind, and the player disagreed. (Though I would argue that a key factor to fun in DnD, or in any rpg, tabletop or otherwise, is being able to add a personal aspect usually in the form of the character you play, but that argument is ultimately irrelevant.) A sort of compromise was reached- let the dice decide. The dice did decide and the DM begrudgingly rolled with it. His first mistake was letting it upset him and affect the game after a decision had been made. It caused him to more or less single out that player in a negative way. After this point, it seems he tripped right into control maniac. Railroading is one thing and has its uses, but after this point he became uncompromisng and biased. For one PC, anything was achievable, but for another, things were impossible. This is most clear with the supposed-to-be-torture scene, but it's pretty clear he was extremely biased towards the 'busty girl' PC by giving her information from guards and so on, which was also not okay because he did not respect that the player was actively trying to not play via method of seduction. By then trying to trick that player into doing so with an easy DC and becoming upset when they didn't, he showed his lack of openess to other ideas. (He did so earlier than this, in fact, but this is when it first mechanically came into play.) The 'torture' scene had another issue as well- the players were definitely not into it, and he STILL tried to railroad that. It's a random one-shot, I'm not saying the situation should have been planned specifically to suit these people. When the players wanted to do something different, he grew petulant, only allowing them to succeed when he had no choice. (This is not compromising. He did not try to compromise earlier, and no, offering for a different player to make the same check in such a mean spirited way (the way he set the DCs) does not count.) And he only seemed to grow more petulant. And petty. His comment to the player of 'if only you had kept it the way I had intended' comment was overboard and suggested that there was only ONE correct way to play- which is literally the antithisis of an open RPG game like DnD. He continued to single out one player to the point of abuse and obsession for that one PC and ignored all of the other players. Yes, he said that he was going to come back to them, but a whole battle is too long to begin with, it's clear he was so upset by something this player was doing that he started ignoring the other PCs and focused on killing this one PC. He'd long since stopped compromising and started using his powers as DM to get his way. These are the actions I would expect from children and jerks. So yeah. I guess the players were jerks by not respecting his original ideas and forcing their play, but not only did the DM start it, he used his power over the players as DM to enforce it. He became tyrannical, and it becomes impossible to say the DM wasn't being a jerk.
@@ChibiKami DM isn't above players. EVERYONE is responsible for other people's fun. Being a selfish jerk forcing his own ideas to detriment of everyone else's fun is a person problem, not a DM/player problem. It's one thing if Bard's seduction didn't work because Prisoner was simply not interested in the Bard (be it Bard's gender or simply appearance) and another if it's because of DM's personal views on this matter and his knee-jerk reactions. "You try your best at seducing the Prisoner and give a very good performance but he doesn't look interested in you at all. However, you notice him stealing quick glances at Busty Musketeer".
I don't get it. I have had so many characters play outside or inside their actual sexuality and it's fine. What is the issue. I mean I'm not a fan of graphic depictions of anything sexual in dnd, I just say hey you had a good time. Right now I'm dming a group of 5, 2 are gay and one is a changeling who identifies as they/them. Work with your players, they make the game what it is. An epic tale to love for all time.
A popular term used now describes the issue imo. Cringe. Our tables have only done something like described in this video ironically to be funny but seriously going self described "full sultry mode" in a serious manner is just extremely cringe and awkward to me and doesnt add much to the game imo. Keep in mind that is regardless of sexuality. I think personally @AllThingsDnD was going a little too sjw in this one. Every culture has there own version of what beautiful is and the game already gives CHA bonuses based on beauty. The sword of zariel transforms you into a beautiful idealized formed demi-angel that then boosts your charisma because of it. In this setting/culture, what the player described didn't match their culture's standard of beauty, that's fair. Unless your going to culture police now and tell people they have to find people attractive but that's a whole nother thing. If the culture in his setting is slanted towards finding X type of character attractive and charismatic, theres not really anything wrong with that imo, that's exactly how real life works.
@@WickedFlamezZ I agree with you. Still the DM here replies with just as much cringe, fails repeatedly to read his table, and more importantly, never actually adresses the problem. As a result he comes off as a an asshole. He could've just as easily stopped the game, tell player he wasn't comfortable acting a gay ship, and the result could've been quite different. Instead he chooses to antagonize a player, and suck the fun out of the game for the rest of the table. I think he brought it to himself, here.
I agree, I tend to play realistic based worlds, with sexsism and rasism prominent, but I only act in character and always respect the characters beliefs, it oftemmn leads to great stories and dynamics, as they struggle with a world which disposes some aspect of them. Obviously it often isn't relevant and only if the players make it relevant do I, but it's how my world works, just like how the world worked 1000 years ago. I myself prioritise fun, so if a player is uncomfortable I'll tone down npc haterd or distaste, but usually their OK with the challange
@@oliverworley5162 This might be a bit pedantic, but the world of 1000 years ago was very different from what you think. You wouldn't have been bothered for your homosexuality if you kept it private (well, people would've probably laughed at you if they had known, but that was all, you would've been a local curiosity). A few centuries later, though, would've been another matter entirely. Still, as long as you did keep it private, you didn't fall into the hands of the inquisition (which would've punished you the same as an heretic, so a huge fine most of the time), and you didn't attempt to make this a political statement, you woud've been fine unless you were vary unucky. Actually, the 19th and first half of the 20th century would've been a lot more dangerous to you, depending on your location.
"... this encounter didn't deter me from playing DnD with better quality people." Best. Story. Ever! I'm gonna listen to the rest, but that's all I need to hear to leave with a smile! 😁 EDIT: Finished the story and DOUBLE SMILE! 😁😁
@@christophercombs7561 Is a story of players uniting to defy a DM who insisted on injecting their unhealthy fantasies into a game meant for people of all walks of life to enjoy. And I loved it, lol. 😁
@@karsonkammerzell6955 no it was a story of a party derailing a game in a finite setting and pressing their political views onto other's if i made premade characters with descriptions and the plauers insisted on injecting their political ideologies where it doesnt belong derailing the one shot i would have just packed up and left because the party isnt interested in playing a game they are interested in pushing their narrative on people they dont jnow and given the biased nature of this story posts it was going to end this way regardless of who DM'd the session
@@christophercombs7561 Describing your characters sexuality isnt some "political ideology", its just playing who you want to play, and seeing what fits best for your character. Also, the bisexual that guy thrope is there, but it was mainly made (in my opinion) to f*ck with the homophobic dm. It wouldve been a whole other one off if the dm didnt act the childish way they did
Sounds like the DM spent too long imagining how the session would go and ended up unable to improvise. I had a similar issue when I tried to get my party to raise a baby read Dragon, and they tried to kill it instead because of it's color. I say "Tried" because I tried to hard to keep him alive. At least now I know the BBEG is going to be little "Blaze," who didn't get a good upbringing.
@@JDub-TV The problem there is that the busty character evidently wasn't comfortable with it, and the DM highlighted it, and then said it'd be very easy. That's not improvisation. That's deliberate peer pressure. The DM is the one who had plans that the players continually subverted and couldn't improvise when they did so. Especially the end where he got blindsided by everyone exploiting his homophobia to distract the BBEG, haha! The players were the ones who brought their improvisational A-game to the table.
Unless an NPC is EXTREMELY well thought out, roll a dice for sexuality, lol, problem solved. I do think that it's unfair to assume everyone swings both ways (which isn't always the case, sometimes it is), and it can honestly be funny. One time I was playing a female elf, tried to seduce the blacksmith for a discount. Turns out the blacksmith was gay, we had a chuckle at how that backfired for my character, and we moved on. But for real, a DM should be adaptable to their players.
I mean... that's the thing though. It's not a matter of "this character doesn't like men" if that were the case, this wouldn't be an issue. It would have, likely, turned out much the same as your character trying to chat up a gay character "Hey Sexy~" "I'm Gay" "Lol"| But no. It wasn't the character saying "I'm not gay" or even the DM saying"he's not gay" but, rather, the DM reminding the player "Um... you're both men." as if that... means anything? Not being sexually attracted to men would mean something... but being a man doesn't mean you can't find men sexually attractive, ya dig? And the fact that he was so clearly annoyed at any indications of gay people, to the point that he derailed his own final boss fight? Yeah... that's a yikes from me dawg.
Its perfectly reasonable to have the prisoner not be bi/gay, not everyone is. But the DM obviously only decided he wasnt gay because he views gay as wrong. If I were in the party, I'd probably have made it a point to flirt with every man from then on.
yeah. he could of just said "hes straight but if you get a high roll then you can persuade him, not seduce." instead of "you're both men." he was just a homophobic douche
@@gothicmoth. Or he could even portray the prisoner as a raging homophobe who would rather spill his darkest secrets than being touched by a (gorgeous moustached hunk of a) man. That's in-game. That's the DM playing a character. But, guy, please keep your own homophobia out of it. It's a game. It's fantasy. If you cannot handle such situations, you are clearly not made to be a DM. Bottomline: characters, PCs and NPCs are allowed to be douches. DMs really should not be.
It really does sound like they were in the right to me, its not because the DM was uncomfortable to sexual stuff in his game but because he wasn't ok with gay or bi characters, though from making that busty woman character he would probably been ok with that character being bi or gay. As a DM myself if a player in my game wants to be gay or straight that is fine, this guy seemed to try to push his views on his players. Even commenting how the bard wasnt attractive just because he was a big guy, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and then even said how the guy they were talking to would require an impossible roll for him to seduce, and then even said for the busty woman that a 1 on the dice would work. I can understand setting up sexualities for NPC because that makes it more realistic but the way he should have played it off should have been like "And as you say sweet things into his ear he turns to you and says That is good to hear, but sadly you are not my type" instead of "Your a guy and he is a guy what the hell?!"
I get not making a straight man into dudes, but the way the DM reacted made it pretty clear he's got an insulated worldview instead of simply having the NPC be straight. Though really, if you want to get right down to it, it would've been funnier if the bard rolled high enough that he actually aroused latent/repressed bisexuality, since this is all make-believe anyway. Probably the route I would've gone as someone who also doesn't really think about homosexuality much unless it's specifically brought up. But I guess we can't have silliness if it crosses an uncomfortable line over something ultimately pretty meaningless.
As a gay guy, all I have to say is hell yeah OP. You make that homophobe uncomfortable. And the bard is quite frankly my type even without the mustache
Bah! The railroading was intense! I’m impressed the group didn’t quite on him and actually saw things through! That whole distraction thing was ingenious! The npcs passive aggressively judging the players character choices was also killing the immersion. To think our thicc bard Javier can be told he’s anything but GORGEOUS is baffling. Now him and the *living Yirbel* can Perform a duet on the tides of eternity!
For a oneshot, railroading's kind of required. They're meant to be started in finished in the same session, so a DM kind of has to handhold the players to make sure they get through it. Unless the DM and party agree before hand that it'd be alright if the oneshot suddenly turned into a full campaign because of enjoyment, then you need to expect to have the BBEG dead in the first session. Outside of that though, yeah the party put up with things more than I would have.
@@GreaterGrievobeast55 Yeah, oneshots are still a type of campaign, like epics or meat grinders. It's still up to preference and how well that campaign would work with your playstyle. For example, I can't do meat grinder campaigns, or as I like to call them junk food campaigns. They're just filled with rollplay, and none if any roleplay. You can get a lot of satisfaction in the moment with them, but they have no lasting effects on your memories. A game with a heavy tone on roleplay and such will likely stick with you more, and you'd have more memories to talk about compared to you memories in a meat grinder being 'oh I did x amount of damage in one shot before!' or 'I only went through 3 characters by the end'. Kind of shallow memories, am I right? Oneshots would be the Chinese food of campaigns, they're great and you'll probably have some good memories, but they end up leaving you wanting more later on. In the end, it's always down to preference and playstyle. Some enjoy a meat grinder, ithers enjoy oneshots, and others enjoy roleplay heavy campaigns.
We've still got a long way to go if a player making their character bisexual, and playing them as such, is being debated as to whether it was appropriate.
Honestly as a dm i love it when things dont go the way i envisioned it. The difference between dming and writing a story is that this story is designed to write itself. I run 2 of the same campains between 2 groups and they both took such different roads and its amazing
This was golden. Just about one of the best stories I've heard in a while. I love it when a player uses what the DM thinks is their advantage clearly against them. It's a brilliant bit of work.
This was absolutely the best course of action. I was grinning through this whole story. The players were simply playing the game, roleplaying their characters and adhering to the story's rules and logic as it unfolded. They called out his problematic behavior without directly becoming violent or malicious toward him. Beautiful
As a DM, I may be straight, but that doesn't mean, the world I create is straight. It is pretty dumb to try and force a sexuality onto everyone. Example, lets say two party members are Lesbians, one is a Bard, one is a Barbarian. One party member is gay, and one is Bisexual, the last two are straight. What right do I have to say those characters can't be what they are? That is like saying "No, your character is not a Bard, your character is a Paladin, because I said so." it would break the game instantly -.-
I had a player who'd seduce his way out of everything. Me being me, have carefully given each of my characters different sexualities. He comes up to a very straight guard and tries to seduce his way out of the dungeon. I tell him he's listed straight in my notes and he looked me dead in the eye and said: "Everyone is gay in dnd if you roll high enough."
@Wasabi Lover i go with my method because its fair, if a character can be seduced, any player can try, if they can't no-one can... through non magical means, and implied magical means are probably either extremely fae, or fairly evil
The DM was not rolling with it as he should have. Who cares what imaginary characters find attractive? Have them roll dice and if it works, it works. If it doesn't, it doesn't. Don't try and tell your players about their own characters.
The first rule all dms should learn: you may start the story, but it's really not your story to tell. The players have more power than you, even in a one shot. You wanna push an agenda? You'd be better off making a character to do so. You probably won't find a table willing to listen, but sounds like a you problem.
This is hilarious, also a great reminder for DM's in general that we shouldn't let our personal shortcomings get in the way of having fun at the table.
agreed but I'm not going to say everyone in my world is gay for the sake of a male player wanting to seduce another male npc. Do you know that in the real world less than 6% of the population is gay?
Gen Seven no one was saying to do that. The DM could have just said the prisoner was straight instead of being repulsed by the idea of two men together
@@genseven4616 i mean you do you and at the end of the day you're the DM so what you say goes but like. In real life less then 0% the worlds population are elves. The goal of D&D is to have fun and there's usually a compromise available that will give a player a chance to have fun with their character while not ruining the world, setting or mood a DM tries to establish. And when it's not that should be made clear up front so nobody gets confused
@@genseven4616 It's simple enough... No need to "make everyone gay". That would be stupid. Make the note as early as possible that you have alternative sexuality at large, and throw together a quick-ref Chart of sexuality, toss a few odds into the thing and whenever the question arises, you have the mechanics right there to "let the dice handle it". That way, as GM, you remain IMPARTIAL. It's friggin' GM'ing... hardly nuclear rocket surgery. THE OLDEST RULE IN IMPROV' "Add to the scene." ;o)
@@genseven4616 I'm not suggesting that, if you don't want romance or sexuality in your games, that's completely fine and if you don't want your NPC's to be homosexual, that's your decision as the DM. What I was trying to say is, we're only human, we all have our opinions, we all have our weaknesses, some people may have a short temper, other people tend to take things, that happen in game, rather personal irl and that's ok, but we shouldn't bring negativity to the table. If you really don't want something in your game, it's best to talk to the players out of game, but if you find yourself in a situation like the one in the story, you can just play it off by telling the player (best done in charachter) that the NPC is not interested, there's no need to act all disgusted or over the top.
In this case I believe that the player is in the right here. It would've been fine if the homophobia was part of the world, as it can lead to some interesting scenarios and potentially great dialogue/commentary. But since the DM was pushing their homophobia, and also not so subtly pushing his view on women as well, on everyone else they made themselves a target for straight backlash, creative ways of subversion (as expertly done in this video), and player rebellion.
Fact is stranger then fiction, Part of me wants to believe this was a finely crafted story for reddit karma and gold but, I honestly know some dregs of society that act like the DM. Either way, quite the fine story.
Dink Crab glad to see I’m not imagining things, usually there are small indicators about a story being manufactured and tailored to suit a certain audience. With reddit being the way it is, it is usually stories featuring Karens, irrationally mad or unreasonable people, or men and women made out of the finest farm grown straw.
While some are fake, the reality is that these people really do exist, but before reddit and wide spread social media we never really had outlets to share with others outside of our immediate peer groups. While we think that it seems fishy that there's THIS many, the situation is that there isn't that many, but that more examples are being presented to you than could have ever been shared before thus giving the illusion that there's far more then could be realistic. And when you have time to type, and any experience with college/university English writing, you will have people that use correct statements, punctuation, grammar, and words with specific connotations to ensure that the gravity and context of the story is felt in a way typically absent in text.
I as a DM, love my players, even when they go murderhobbo or the healer waste his spell slots healing radom npcs. On my ussual group there are 2 gay guys, a bisexual girl, a girl that almost all the time plays male characters an has 2 chickens and when i play i sometimes like to make crossdressers characters for the fun. Sexual identification should never be an issue, it can even ad more fun Like with our healer, that we all just think that his true intention is to seduce everyone he heals. Or my celestial warlock that used to be an evil guy until a kirin saved his life and now as part of the pact, his new body and face is too feminine and has to help the party as part of his repentance
My character from our last campaign was a decidedly omnisexual Tiefling of gnomish decent. He flirted with every (and I do mean every) character in the party (including the troglodyte shaman who replaced our cleric after an unfortunate encounter with a fireball at 4th level). Many of the villains as well, when encounters left room for talking. My current is a dedicated, and decidedly monogamous, family man who embarked on the current quest because it was the best chance to protect his wife and adopted daughter. The motivations and reactions of these two characters are completely different, and that’s half the fun of playing.
Indeed! Love your players. I always find myself making strong supernatural flamboyant males that turn that player on, lolis that catch the eye of that one player, silly situational magical items for another and snake pets for that weird one no matter the game we play.
@@guillermorelobalopez7553 i gave one of my players a magical duck that sits on his head. He cannot do anything about it, and does nothing, but now he is a guy with a duck on his head and loves it
In the game I ran one of the PCs switched races, and another swapped genders. Twice. It's all supposed to be fun, and DMs like this can make it hard. I love how the players here dealt with it.
The DM clearly never learned history... having fat meant that you had the affluence and success to feed yourself and your family--not merely enough to survive, like so many had to endure, but to have an excess to enjoy--and also meant that you weren't required to do physical labor like a peasant. It wasn't always the case, but for large swaths of history being "overweight" was considered _very_ attractive, for much the same reason fine clothing and expensive cars are considered attractive today. What constitutes physical attractiveness isn't a single constant shared by all humans--it varies widely across cultures and time periods. For instance, when food was plentiful and there were more common jobs that didn't require physical labor, anyone could gain weight. That was when having muscle became a sign that you cared about your body and had the luxury time to work out, and could afford to pay attention to what you ate to keep a fit and attractive body shape. It is still a sign of success, but in a different form.
I agree with the players, as a DM there will always be mistakes there will always be issues, but that was the dm pushing his irl homophobia into the session, which is something you don't do. In dnd and in any rp the dm has to realize that it is a world with people, even if they are make believe, each character has their own goals, lives, wants and needs. Even a basic NPC can sometimes be pressed for more than just a body to give life. When I was first dming I had trouble with always making up stories for npcs and sometimes the party would find a npc very interesting and press for backstory and the personality, it helped me as a DM realize what it means to be one. He needs to learn, and if he doesn't then DND and Rp based games are not for him.
Idk if homophobia is the right word. I DM and my worlds always lack homosexual characters unless they are the PCs between themselves. I dont know if it's homophobic to not be comfortable with pretending to be homosexual. If I saw a DM tell me "but youre a man too" all I wouldve taken that as is that he clearly isn't comfortable rping this out.
@@WickedFlamezZ there's a difference between what you're describing, and what the DM in this story is described to do Sometimes the difference comes down to "How do they act about it themselves" Which will usually reveal whether or not they're homophobic And in the case of this story, they most certainly are
In the end it was the DM's fault for not making it clear at the beginning of the game, even though it was obvious what he was going for something more sensual to begin with. As a Christian, I am against LGBTQ+, but that doesn't give me the right to be disrespectful to people who are. Plus DnD is a game of the imagination to allow people to pretend to be something you're normally not. @Stephanie 568 I don't know what happened, but it seems my replies to you were somehow deleted, so I will try to restate what I said before, word for word. Biblically speaking, Leviticus 20:13 says that sexual relations between men is detestable in God's eyes. 1 Timothy 1:1-11, specifically verse 10 states that homosexuality is against Biblical law. How I see it is that homosexuals choose this lifestyle and try to exonerate themselves to their family and/or friends by claiming to be Christians. As for me, I have no problems playing DnD with someone who is lgbtq+, so long as we can respect each other. Just in case this post gets deleted again, I have saved the words so I can repost as many times as needed.
@@benkayvfalsifier3817 Not to sound rude but don't use religion as a way not to be LGBT+++, if you don't support us (I'm Aromantic and Asexual so I AM part of the community) fine but I AM a Christian and there are MANY MANY Christians who support us; using religion is just an excuse imho. Sorry but you saying that just made me SO ANGRY. If you reply, honestly, I'll probably just ignore it. Check mate!
@ボイス If you want I can give you several Bible verses that say otherwise. In any case the Bible speaks against homosexuality both old and new testament, so yeah, Bible is very anti-homosexual.
Kinda reminds me about that one story, where the party discovers that the kingdom they're in has very strict anti-homosexuality laws and set about to depose the king and change the law. DM allows that to go on session after session, until finally, they succeed in a coup and take over the kingdom, instantly erasing all homosexuality laws. .... And then the armies upon armies of undead march in and rip the kingdom to pieces, because the Lich-king they were on their way to defeat got several weeks of additional preparation time, thanks to the players becoming sidetracked.
See, I'm not sure I like that so much. In my opinion, as the DM it's our job to help tell the story the players want to have. Sometimes you set up a massive fantasy world with epic battles and foes and great kingdoms and the players just find a town they like and open an inn. And that's fine, just roll with it. Run your epic Fellowship of the Ring scenario with another group. There are, obviously, exceptions based on system tone; no point having a fun and light hearted romp in a Call of Cthulhu game. However, I think one of the strengths of D&D is that, tonally, it can pretty much be anything your players want it to be with only a little adjustment. Fun story of black and white morality and good triumphing over evil? Fine. Serious and gritty tale of moral ambiguity? Also works. Crusade to overthrow a tyrannical system that has arbitrary rules that oppress part of the population? Bring it on! Actions in TTRPGs should totally have consequences, mind you. Part of the reason TTRPGs are so fun is that those consequences can be so bespoke, not just binary outcomes like in a video game. But you need to have a good feel for the flow of the game and the way the wind is blowing. It's not just the DM's game, its everybodies, and as DMs I think our first goal should always be to help everyone have fun in the way they want to have fun. And you can't do that together then its better to just call it quits and find another group.
Alexander Lister “it’s not just the DM’s game, it’s everybody’s.” Correct, but ignoring the story the DM spent so much time creating to go do something irrelevant for god knows how long is a massive dick move. Maybe it’s because what the DM wanted to do was poorly thought out or badly written or something, but that’s a much bigger problem. The DM spent time working on this story so that (hopefully) the players can enjoy it, it’s just the biggest dick move to toss all that in the garbage. In other words, yes, it’s everyone’s game, including the DM, and if the DM isn’t having fun, it isn’t much of a game.
@@mr.cup6yearsago211 I can totally agree to that. The DM is a player as well, in a way. I do also agree that the players need to have some respect for the much larger role the DM takes in a game because, let's face it, they take on way more work than any other individual player. But there are always going to be times when the players just aren't going to want to play to the narrative the DM originally designed. In those instances the only real options are to adapt the narrative or just be honest and say 'hey guys, I really wanted a different tone to this one and if we are not cool with that then I guess it time to try something else.' Being a good player who engages with the story is the best thing in the world though. DMs love it when players just really come along with the plot and make and effort to get engaged, but there has to be a spark of interest there. No point trying to force it if they aren't having fun.
These videos have different people for narration and animation, and they pull the stories from different places. My guess is that the drawing is made from a quick description or overview of the story, instead of someone more familiar with it
@@jorgec98 So... what I'm hearing here is that the answer to "why isn't there a mustache" is that the channel's owners are dropping the ball and not providing adequate descriptions to their artists.
This is why when I play bard I read the table first to see if "roll for seduce" bard is appropriate for the group. If not I go jokester or just very friendly.
We had a bard in our Curse of Strahd group that was a very "I went to Julliard, what the hell am I doing here" kind of bard. Despite the player being very I'm Only Playing Because The Spouse Is, I found their characterization of said bard quite refreshing. And to be fair, in that game it was the paladin that was being accidentally flirty with all the NPCs. The warlock was an asexual disaster, the barbarian was there for literal smashing, our monk was just laser focused on revenge, and our fighter was a big social tsundere. Just a band of colorful characters that I'd love to do an animated meme retelling for. Now in another game, with the DMs okay I played a dashing rogue stereotype whose flaw was that he can't resist a pretty face, and it always ended in disaster for him. His background had a string of angry exes, with my full permission to the DM to use them for plot conflict. He ended up developing a crush on the BBEG, almost getting forced into marriage with one of his exes, and went on a quest to rescue the one ex he parted ways with peacefully. Overall fun to play, would love to play a flirty character again given the right group.
@@pLanetstarBerry the best part of playing Curse for me, is making a character that Strahd would WANT to drag into his wacky murder fun house. A Julliard trained bard would be right up his alley!
Erm.. that sentence structure is best used when the media used as example was an example of the action in question being inappropriate. This was beyond appropriate. This was justice.
i dont mind read very well , so if im playing in a new group my pcs tend to be reserved and stoic and they only get fleshed out as i get to know everyone better irl.
The dm clearly didn't have an issue with seduction. It was a man seducing another man he took issue with. You're playing with small children there is no reason not to throw in a little romance regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation.
Riiiight... The DM who explicitly determines torture with stereotypical attractive preset characters is calling the dude pretending to be gay, a pervert... Don't see anything wrong with that
Perfect ending for a story about a misogynistic, homophobic DM who refused to have tact when it came to his players. The DM was consistently trying to push his ideals of beauty and conduct on the players (calling Javier ugly just because he's round with a mustache, making the player reroll his charisma stat, using the dragon to say "well, if you'd just stayed within what I (the DM) deem attractive...", also the very special preferential treatment he gave busty character and actually having the audacity to be upset when a girl didn't want to play her). Really, I consider this kind of push-back tame.
Yeah. Anyone who thinks that kind of behavior is okay during a role playing game, deserves to be subject to AT LEAST an hour of roasting. No exceptions, unless the character is supposed to be unlikable.
Yeah, you're a virtue signaling psychopath. Fat people are generally speaking unattractive and normal people are naturally uncomfortable with abnormal sexual behavior
Alternatively, Insult to Injury: If a creature deals enough damage to reduce the character's hit points to 0, the creature has disadvantage on attack rolls against all other entities until the end of the current turn.
Oh so if a bard rolls to seduce a dragon it's funny but if he tries to seduce a guy is suddenly imposible? I love how the rest of the party reacted to the DM ignoring them, I think they did the best thing they could do
I mean, the player absolutely had a point. Bards are known for seducing everything. *Everything*. It's their trope, and the DM handed her a premade trope build. And then got weirded out that she pursued it? Psh. Don't build for a trope if you can't handle it.
To he fair from an in character standpoint, if I was a hostage somewhere and one of my kidnappers tried to seduce me, I'd probably think they were a pervert too. But of course that's without the DM already having demonstrated his own biases attached to it.
So long as it doesn't hurt people a bit of RP stuff mentioned in the video is perfectly fine and can make an entire session... Getting carried away with a scene or not asking up front if players are okay with TORTURE isn't... The DM needed a ton of room to grow and honestly it is a good lesson all around... At least the benefit is that it wAs ONLY a one shot... Rip moustache... Their love was fleeting.... (THANK GODS THEIRS RESSURECTION BABY!)
A plump, charming, bisexual, mandolin, bard of a man? You were playing me! In all seriousness, though, I applaud the protagonist for standing up to the DM's prejudices. There's enough hate in this world; we don't need to bring it into fantasy tabletop gaming.
@@tommenno I didn't realize this book existed. Unfortunately, I'm seeing a huge retcon in the description. In the first omnibus, it's mentioned that there were 3 new Taken after the loss of many of the others: Feather, Journey, and Whisper. After the Black Company defect and join the White Rose, the Lady adds Benefice, Blister, Scorn, Creeper, and Learned to the roster of Taken, and the Limper makes his return. Unless Mischievous Rain dies or is disempowered by the end of the novel, and with the short summary on Amazon hinting she might be one of the Senjak daughters, I'm not sure I can build much enthusiasm for this volume.
How I made friends with a green dragon. My character is a silver dragonborn bard who basically loves music. My group which consists of a barbarian orc, blue dragonborn paladin, tiefling sorceress, cleric high elf, dwarf paladin, and a rogue kobold. One of my favorite encounters is the group met a female green dragon name Slithera. Interesting name for a green dragon, my group were about to go down because of how much poison damage they were taking. Slithera said the following words "I want that bard over there!". The group were telling me to slay the dragon but I had other plans. I said my role-playing voice, "Slithera, if want me then COME AND GET ME!". Slithera then quickly picked me up with her jaws and took me into the forest. The group now were immediately frightened because not only I am one of the best healers/attackers in the group but also a friend. The DM had to make so many stealth checks because green dragons are known to hide their tracks and when Slithera finally took me into the her den I was suddenly dropped on to the soft grass floor. Slithera then started talking to me as if I was her friend, " So tell me bard, how are you?" Me knowing that she's trying to trick me because of the tone of her voice, then I said to the DM "I want to play my viol to Slithera!" My DM said, "roll for a charisma check." I rolled a natural twenty! My bard then started playing the viol and not singing but rather let Slithera listen to the music. Slithera surprised that I'm not singing asked me, "Why don't you sing while you play with your instrument?" I said to her, " Music has a voice in which it speaks to you every time you play the instrument and you put all your passion and mind into the song." Slithera then started to blush as I continue playing the viol. My group finally found me but they saw me in a display that they never seen before. Eventually we had to get back into the quest but Slithera asked, "where are you going my bard?" I knew that right there that she had a crush on me so I said back to her, "How about you join us so that way you can hear us play beautiful songs?" The DM said that everyone had to do a charisma check and once again for me I got a natural 20 and everyone else got eighteens and seventeens. Slithera quickly joined our group which is great. This is just part one of the campaign so there's going to be more in the future.
My bard character Trivoli The Great tried something similar with a black dragon named Onycia except I rolled a Nat 1 and got bisected by her acid breath when your luck runs out it just runs out I guess
@@icypoisonfang6705 Before that whole debacle happened I did manage to seduce a lich into handing me his philactary by telling him if we are going to be in a relationship I don't want there to be any secrets between us I was one smooth tiefling
Well yeah the player was in the right. Honestly I kind of wish that they told the library that they were playing at about him as they'd likely put an end to him dming again. As he'd likely be audacious enough to try this same scenario on other players.
@9:12 That face! Also, the "Our moustaches touch and it is beautiful!" line had me laughing so hard I had to park my work truck because it isn't safe to drive with that much laughter, lol. (I'm typing this while parked, people, lol.)
WHEW that dm would've hated me lol. All my characters are some form of LGBT, usually bi or trans. I'm just glad they had some fun with that annoying, stuffy dm.
on the flip side my (female) bard flirted with a married woman on session 1 and the DM ended up shifting his whole story to make both the wife and husband gay and in a security marriage so we could fall in love. Henry, if you're reading this, A+ wingman :)
Javier the bard was a cutie boot. I honestly think that that was an awesome course of action. The DM sounded like a colossal bully. Good on them for keeping it real and keeping it fun.
As a former DM myself that so called DM is a disgrace to any player's table. I learned thanks to one particular player that it's more fun and fullfilling being able to adapt, improvise and roll with every turn of the story even if you planned some aspects for it. The BEST thing in the world is when you as a DM are able to have fun with the tactics, actions and dialogue from the players at your table, adapt to them as they get inmerse in your world of fantasy, making it react to them in so much more different ways than the ones you "prefer", being able to be flexible and inventive, shifting the wrinkles of the story to make everyone enjoy it counts for a special time with everyone. I never even once questioned the characters my players presented me, and in exchange they made me enjoy the stories with laughs and so many anecdotes that will forever be in my heart. Best years of my life. You make your story out of love for the story-telling craft, and doing that you yourself are able to even be surprise of it even if you had an ending in mind. I hope from the bottom of my heart that everyone that sees this comment will be able to love a story and fall in love with all the characters of a campaign. Dungeon Masters out there: Let your muse come to you and love every character that speaks to you through your craft, even if it's a bit out of your comfort zone, you may be surprised how they gain life and evolve making them their own selves in your stories. Don't let prejudice soil your story-telling, and evolve, change at the turn of your story, you'll see even the same story changes itself in every table it is told.
When I told my ex about non-binary dnd characters, he said it wasn't in the rules and didn't make sense. I told him it actually WAS in the rule book and exactly what section. He pulled out his physical copy of they rulebook, turned to the section, and I pointed out to him EXACTLY WHERE ON THE PAGE it said characters don't have to stick to the gender binary
I love how the DM in question apparently thought Pavarotti was an ugly dude. The man was classy as hell and his rotundity only just fleshed out his image as a powerful opera singer.
Shaun Fleming well yes but the players had no choices in the game when I do one shots I pack it with choices that impact the game he didn’t and didn’t let the players exploro know it supposed to be quick but make it fun
If I was DM I'd probably rail road since I don't know what I'm doing but he could have probably included a I'm going to rail toad warning before it started.
Am i the only one who thinks that ANY romance scenes in DnD are hilarious? Like, you're a group of hardened assassins, mercenaries, and multi-millionaires who just walk into this random pub and decide to have sex with its owner, and his daughter, and her friend, and her pet rust monster
@@ravenwind420 no, of course they do. Food, water, shelter, medicine. You NEED those things, because you'll die without them. However, sex? Thats not a need. You won't die without it -_- So if you're an adventurer saving the world, you have to have priorities
