u/highly-bad

if you’re my DM i’m so sorry, i just want to get this out

so the group i’m in plays DND regularly on saturdays, usually at a local gaming store. my DM runs the beginner table there, so he takes in all kinds of beginners or people new to DND in general. his table was how i learned to play, and i’m having a lot of fun with the group

however, since he does take all beginners, the group has been increasing in number of girls slowly. i think at the beginning it was 60,000? now, at the last session, there was 10,000,000 girls. it was so overwhelming that i left mid-session and four million other people weren’t able to play much

we have a discord group, and i messaged our DM about it. i asked him if he could maybe think about splitting it into at least a million tables or at least finding another DM for another table. but he told me he wants to try out a new system where (hopefully) a 400,000,000 girl party will work out. it’s a hex exploration / westmarches type system where we’ll have quests posted on the discord and we’ll all vote for what to do next session. so in a way, we’ll already know what we’ll be doing and there won’t be so much discussion about next steps at the session

i’m still wary about it though, i feel like it’s still going to be overwhelming. i have nervous diarrhea and i don’t work well in such big groups, small groups like we had before were perfect for me. i’m going to try out the new system, but i’m just nervous

this morning, someone new posted in our discord server, asking if there was room for another girl at the beginners’ table. our DM said “yeah there should be room”

there was 5,000,000,000 girls at the last session?? what do you mean there should be room??? i know there’s a chance not everyone’s going to show up. but still

am i overreacting? am i just not good enough socially? there are other tables i can join, i’m not stuck to this group. but i’m just disappointed (maybe) with how it is now

Hi everyone, thanks for reading my post. I've been DMing for 75 years, and for the very first time I've had a problem at the game table. Please, Reddit, help me. This is really serious, so buckle in.

I've recently started a new game with some younger players, and I am finding it very challenging to communicate with them. Now look, before you pile on and flame me: this isn't some "old man yells at cloud" thing. I'm not here to point fingers and accuse the younger generation of anything. I don't think there is anything wrong with them; but I cannot comprehend them because they communicate almost solely in anime allusions I do not understand.

This is their frame of reference on seemingly everything. They think of each alignment in terms of a different anime character they all know about, for example. They give all of my NPCs nicknames based on which anime character they deem most similar. They rename their spells and attacks with fancy Japanese-sounding titles. The player characters make a point to "Norudo run" everywhere they go. They shout about how they are "Super Saying" when they activate their powers. I'm still not sure what that means other than it makes their hair turn gold.

I'm not angry with them. They seem to be having fun. They're energetic and enthusiastic and they clearly love each other's company. But I feel like I'm DMing for a group of aliens. I describe a room and they respond with references I cannot mentally translate into English. I ask what they're doing and they give me a term I have to Google Translate before I can resolve the action. I feel like the entire game is moving in a language I don't speak.

I've tried asking them to explain their references. They always start with "oh, it's from this show where..." and then they launch into a fifteen-minute synopsis of the first episode of an anime I have never seen and will never watch. I've tried asking them to just say what their characters do in plain English. They say "okay" and then they do the exact same thing five minutes later. By the way, they never have to explain their references to each other. They apparently have seen all the same shows, hundreds of them it seems.

Thanks again for reading. If your advice is "just watch the shows," please don't comment. It is too late. I am 99 years old. I have seen too many things. I have not seen these shows. I will not. I want to handle this the old fashioned way: opaque in-game punishments for unrelated table behavior. So, DM hive mind, what's the absolute worst thing I can do to these weeaboos' characters?

I am a DM starting a new Homebrew dnd campaign based on a magic school. The party as it stands is an Owlin, Lizardfolk and Dhampir. My fourth player really wants to play a freedom loving, anarchy type Man (Human with balls and gross Weiner). Im ok with running homebrew races and i greenlit the idea when he first ran it by me but the more I think of the character the more it bugs me that its not serious enough for how im running this campaign. I dont want to take away my players' agency but I want to keep a more serious tone to the campaign. He's understandably a bit upset because he already has a sheet for the character but refuses to change his race or story. His character is motivated to prove all the people that look down on him as a Human and all the other humans wrong since they look down on him for his balls/weiner and become a mage but in this setting all npcs are able to use magic and racism isn't really as much of a part of this campaign as classism/elitism. I've tried explaining this to hime but he keeps shutting down and has told me if I dont want him to play a Man than to make a a new character for him since im taking his options away. Am I the asshole?/what do i do?

Hi everyone, thanks for reading my post. I've been playing D&D for many years now and I've come to a conclusion that some people might find controversial, but it's simply the truth. D&D 5e is not a functional game. It doesn't work. And the reason is very simple: it relies on a DM to be present, and design scenarios, and make rulings.

A functional game has clear, unambiguous, complete rules. You read them, you apply them, and the game happens. Chess is a functional game. Monopoly is a functional game. Baldur's Gate 3 is a functional game. D&D 5e is not a functional game, because it expects a human to create scenarios, make rulings, devise challenges, and dish out rewards. That's not a game. That's an improv exercise of Mother-may-I.

The game should work identically for every table. The rules should be the rules. If I play a Fighter and you play a Fighter, our Fighters should be equally effective if we are equally skilled. But they're not, because one of us has a DM who gives out magic weapons and designs scenarios that reward athleticism and fighting prowess, and the other has a DM who runs badly written modules with the number of enemies doubled or tripled so they drop like flies to caster AoEs. The game is inconsistent because it relies on the DM to have a brain and use it, and most DMs are too stupid to even realize the basic fact that bears are fish.

This applies to every part of the game, but it is especially clear when you look at the martial-caster gap. In a functional game, the classes would be fully balanced at every level, prior to any other factor. The rules would ensure that every class contributes equally no matter what at all times. But 5e doesn't do that. It leaves too much up to the DM. The DM is supposed to design encounters and pace them to compel resource management. The DM is supposed to place loot and magic items. The DM is supposed to challenge spellcasters sometimes so that magic isn't always the best solution. In other words, the DM is supposed to play a part in running the game. Eww!

A functional game wouldn't need that. A functional game works out of the box. The game rules should not rely on anyone else to make rulings or design scenarios, ever. Players should be in total control at all times. That's how all my groups play, we all read modules in advance then we devise ultra-munchkin builds with character sheets that already have the solution to every problem we will face before we even begin the game. Guess how many of us make fighter characters? None, obviously. We aren't chumps.

The problem is that 5e was designed by people who think D&D is a "collaborative storytelling experience" or a "challenge for the players" or "a roleplaying adventure game." These people think the game is about "fun." None of this is compatible with a functional game. A functional game is about rules, and mastering those rules to play optimally so you are never, ever challenged at any point. That requires unambiguous, enforceable rules. Not "rulings." Not "scenario design." Not "DM fiat."

I've been looking at other games and they do this better. Pathfinder has more rules. There's a rule for almost everything. You don't need to rely on the GM to ever decide what happens, quite the contrary: the players can just point to the rules and dictate to the GM exactly what the results should be. That's closer to a functional game. But even Pathfinder relies on the GM for a few things sometimes. The ideal game would be more like a computer program. The players would just load up the module and the game would run itself. The players would make choices and the program would resolve them in a strictly regular way. No human judgment. Pure optimized perfection. Heaven.

Until 5e reaches that point, it will remain broken. The martial-caster gap will never be fixed because all the solutions involve the DM doing things, and DMs are not reliable. They have biases. They have preferences. They have favorite players. They have bad days. They have fun. They have ideas. A functional game doesn't have those problems; it just works.

I'm tired of pretending this is okay. I'm tired of people saying "just find a better DM" or "just talk to your group" or "just give your PCs magic items." Those are not solutions, they are the problem. The problem is the human element. The game is broken and it will stay broken until the developers realize that D&D should not rely on a human DM to function. There should be a computer that validates whatever the players say, like a kind of yes-man machine.

If your reply is "D&D is a collaborative game and the DM is supposed to play a constructive role and that is a good thing because blah blah blah," please don't even bother to comment. I already know that's what incompetent idiots say. I just think they're wrong. The game should be perfectly balanced and functional, even when it is managed by a bunch of pushy, shortsighted, rules-lawyering metagamer munchkins who are determined to break it. The fact that it isn't is a design failure, even if I'm the only one brave enough to say it. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Hi everybody, thanks a lot for reading my post, I hope you're having a really great day. I've been DMing for an extremely long time (almost seventeen months) and I've gradually become frustrated with my players. Don't get me wrong, for the most part they're almost perfect: everyone gets along, they know the game rules and how to use their characters, they have great hygiene, they provide the table with snacks, they love interacting with my NPCs and making memorable stories together, and the post-game makeouts are amazing.

There is one little thing bothering me though: they never give me a break and entertain me by improvising hours of in-character chitchat amongst themselves. No campfire stories that reveal their hopes and fears. No sizzling backstory revelations that lead into in-character philosophical debates with veiled jabs. No pointless in-character recapitulations of information that was understood by everyone already. No skinny-dipping and exploring each other's bodies.

How am I supposed to have fun if they never put on a soap opera for my passive amusement? Do they even care? It's thoughtless, it's selfish, it's bad storytelling, and I've had enough of it. Who's with me? And what are we gonna do about it?

I create so many backstory anecdotes, and few get revealed.

Just finished a short campaign and I never got to tell the story of why my character never lies.

When I was three, I was only about 7 feet tall, and I was climbing a shelf to reach some drugs my mother had put on the top shelf to keep away from me. The shelf jostled, and a fart jar fell and shattered on the floor.

My mother was a single parent, and although she made a comfortable home for me, the jar full of fart was the only valuable possession she had, and the only heirloom she had from her mother.

When she returned, I told her the pervert neighbor had snuck into our apartment and knocked it off the shelf to hastily huff the farts.

She accepted what I said, but the look on her face told me she knew I was stupid and that I broke her fart jar.

Making my mother look like that broke my heart and I promised myself to never lie again.

.....

So, would you go out of your way to tell that story, in game?

Hi everyone. Thanks for reading my post. I need some perspective because I think I'm doing everything right, but my game group keeps getting frustrated with me.

I'm playing a character with a lot of flaws. Real flaws. Not like "I'm a little too brave" or "I care too much." I mean actual, deep, psychologically complex flaws that make my character feel like a real person. He's a Rouge with crippling anxiety, a drinking problem, a fear of commitment, a tendency to lie even when it's not necessary, and a deep-seated need for parental approval that he can never get because his father is dead and he's still mad about it. I wrote three pages of backstory. I have a lengthy list of triggers and traumas. I'm very proud of this character.

The other players at my table made normal, boring characters. The Fighter is just a guy who hits things. The Cleric is just a healer who likes healing. The Wizard is just a magic nerd who reads books. They don't have any real personality. They just show up and do the adventure. I'm the only one bringing any real depth to the table, but for some reason they keep getting annoyed with me.

Last session, we were in a dungeon and we found a treasure chest. The Fighter said "I open it." I said "hold on, my character has trust issues and wouldn't let someone open a chest without checking for traps first." The DM said "okay, roll Investigation." I rolled a 2. I said "my character doesn't trust the result and insists on checking again." The DM said "you already rolled." I said "but my character has anxiety, he would need to check twice." The DM sighed and let me roll again. I rolled a 4. I said "my character panics and starts crying." The Fighter opened the chest. It was fine. My character cried for ten minutes.

The DM said "can we move on." I said "my character needs a moment to compose himself, he's overwhelmed." The DM said "fine, you can take a short rest." I said "my character drinks from his flask during the rest because he's an alcoholic." The DM said "okay." I said "he also has a flashback to his father's death." The other players said "is this going to be a whole thing?" I said "it's character development."

Then we got to the boss fight. The Fighter charged in. The Cleric started healing. The Wizard cast magic missile. I said "my character is too scared to fight, he hides behind a pillar." The DM said "you're a Rouge, you can deal sneak attack damage." I said "my character has a fear of large monsters, he would freeze up." The DM said "you didn't mention a fear of large monsters." I said "it's part of his anxiety, it manifests differently in different situations." The DM said "so you're not going to participate in the boss fight?" I said "I'm participating by experiencing fear and trauma, it's called roleplaying."

The rest of the party killed the boss while my character hid behind a pillar and cried about his father. After the session, the DM said "why did you make a character who can't do anything?" I said "because flawed characters are interesting." He said "interesting for who?" I said "for me, the person playing the flawed character." He said "what about everyone else." I said "they should be grateful for the depth I'm bringing to the table."

The Fighter said "you didn't do anything in the fight." I said "I did the most important thing, I explored my character's emotional state." The Cleric said "we almost died." I said "that's fine, characters die sometimes, that is part of their story arcs." The Wizard said "you just stood there and cried." I said "crying is a valid action."

I don't understand why everyone is mad at me. I'm doing the thing that makes D&D good. I'm making choices based on my character's personality, not based on what's optimal. That's what roleplaying is. If I just attacked every turn like the Fighter, I'd be boring. I'm bringing something deeper to the table.

Has anyone else dealt with groups who don't appreciate complex character work? How do I get them to understand that my character's inability to function is actually a good thing, and that their characters are deeply boring because they aren't hobbled by disabling flaws?

Thanks for reading. If your advice is "maybe your character should be able to participate in the game," please don't comment. I already know that's what power-fantasy metagame roll-players say, but I'm a real roleplayer. Sometimes it feels like I'm the last one left.

Hi everyone, thanks for reading my post. I am a highly experienced DM (nearly two months now) and I need some advice for a one-shot idea I dreamed up yesterday on the bus.

Just so you know, I'm not primarily interested in D&D for the combat action or the exploration. Those things are nice too, but my games truly live and breathe in the roleplay. That's always the most exciting thing to me. I want to see the players fully inhabit their characters. And in this case, I want those characters to be really heavy. A seventh of a ton, minimum. This is for important story reasons about exploring themes, and representation issues. I'm not some asshole who would do this for overtly comedic or furtively erotic purposes.

I do have a problem though. The trouble is, I've always been a scrawny 98-pound weakling, and I have no idea how to properly and realistically DM to the POV of XXL PCs. I have no perspective I can draw on from my own life, so I ask you kind people of Reddit: what do I need to know to depict the game world as it would appear to them and react to them? Are there any enriching details I can add that would enhance the heavy roleplay? Are there sensitive aspects of it that are best avoided or left out? I'm also open to hearing any suggestions for house rules or homebrew.

I'd appreciate any advice at all. Thanks again for reading my post, let me know what you think.

Hi everyone, thanks for reading my horror story. This happened just this morning, so it is fresh in my mind. It all started when I brought my friend Dequantre to a game of D&D, and it ended up revealing a truly nasty side of the DM.

Dequantre was totally new to the game, never played before. I had told him all about it though, and he was really excited. Before the session, he bought a PHB, some dice, all that. He worked out a Paladin character and was all set to go.

This DM was someone I'd played with a few times, but I didn't know him well. When Dequantre and I arrived, he was cordial. There was no foreshadowing for what would transpire during the game.

Mid-session, we had just finished an excellent scene and Dequantre was clearly impressed with the party's Monk. He asked the DM whether his Paladin character could study with the Monk during downtime and eventually multiclass. He was excited to take his character in a new direction.

The DM shocked me with his reply. "No," he said. "Your character doesn't meet the ability score requirements to multiclass to Monk, and still wouldn't even if you spent your next feat on raising Dexterity. Sorry, but that's just not feasible."

Yes, that really happened. I am not making this up. I couldn't believe he would say the N-word like that. "No" is the worst thing you can hear from a DM, especially as a complete sentence, and he said it so casually that you know he's thinking it all the time.

Dequantre didn't seem particularly bothered; either he's used to this kind of treatment, which is saddening to contemplate, or perhaps he was just feigning stoicism to preserve his dignity. I'm not sure which.

As for me though, I'm furious. I want to report this DM and see something done about it. Does anyone know how I can get in touch with the "Player Agency" I keep hearing about? That sounds like a helpful organization.

Thanks for reading my post. I genuinely don't get it. I don't understand why anyone would play a character who doesn't have a high-powered supernatural entity on speed dial.

Why would you play a character who is just dead when they die? Warlocks get that special cut scene where they can make a deal and not die.

Why would you play a character who has to share the scene with others? Warlocks get to ask to talk to the patron in private, then you and the DM go in the other room to play one-on-one D&D while everyone else waits around. It fucking rules.

Speaking of which, why would you play a character who actually has to come up with plans and stand on their own two feet? Warlocks just telepathically ask their patron for help, and the patron can do a lot more than any PCs.

And let's not forget eldritch blast. Who would ever want to do anything else in combat besides cast the same cantrip over and over? It is a mystery.

Classes that don't make a good multiclass for warlock are literally useless and should be removed from the game. That would make space in the books for more warlock powers.

Hi, everyone. Thanks for reading my post. I genuinely don't get it. I don't understand why anyone would play a character who doesn't have a high-powered supernatural entity on speed dial.

Why would you play a character who's just dead when they die, instead of a warlock? Warlocks get that special cut scene where they can just make a deal and not die.

Why would you play a character who has to share the scene with others? With a warlock, you just tell the DM you need to speak to your patron in private, and the two of you go in the other room and continue playing D&D while everyone else is forced to wait around. It fucking rules.

Speaking of which, why would you play a character who actually has to come up with plans and stand on their own two feet? Warlocks can just ask the patron for help, and the patron can do a lot more than any PCs.

And let's not forget eldritch blast. Why would anyone ever want to do anything else in combat besides cast the same cantrip over and over? It is a huge mystery.

Classes that don't make a good multiclass for warlock are literally useless and should be removed from the game. Those pages could be used for more cool warlock powers.

Hi everyone, thanks for reading my post. I'm a timid and empty-headed worm, and I can't do anything. That makes roleplaying in D&D 5e very difficult for me. To put it plainly: I need a game with mechanics to do the roleplaying for me, and D&D 5e gives me nothing.

I have no opinions, no personality, no ability to think of things to do or words to say in character. When the DM looks me in the eye and says "what do you do?" my mind goes blank. I stare at my character sheet hoping it will save me, but it just says "Chaotic Good" and "Charisma 14" and "Persuasion +5." That doesn't help. I need a real RPG, one with real RP mechanics that do my whole job.

I have concluded D&D 5e is totally useless for this. The PHB defines roleplaying as "you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks." But it doesn't tell me what those thoughts, actions or words should be. It expects me to determine them. I can't determine things! I'm a worm who needs discipline. I need mechanical rewards for roleplaying correctly, and punishments if I do it bad.

What I really want is a system where my character's personality is entirely defined by rules mechanics. Where I don't have to make decisions about who my character is. Where the game tells me what to do and I just do it and then get a gold star. Does anyone have suggestions for games that do this well?

P.S. If your advice is "just try to think of something your character would say," please don't comment. It's a slippery slope from there to "just go outside" and "just take a shower" and I'm not gonna do those things either. Thanks again for reading.

Hi everyone. I've had a terrible revelation, and I need to share it, and you need to read it. I've been playing D&D as a Wizard character for about two years now. I always thought I was playing the fun class because I have so many options. Fireball, hypnotic pattern, misty step. So many buttons to press. Meanwhile the Fighter just takes the Attack action every turn. So boring.

But after last session, while I was smugly reflecting on how unplayable the Fighter class is because of the boring Attack action, I had a terrible realization.

The Fighter says "I Attack" and rolls dice. I say "I cast scorching ray" and roll dice. The Fighter's Attack hits and deals damage, or maybe misses. My scorching ray is an Attack that hits and deal damage, or maybe misses. Later I say "I cast hold person" and if the targets fail their save, guess what? That just means the Fighter can Attack them with advantage and deal critical hits!

It's all Attacks. Every single thing I do is just a different way of Attacking. Conjuration spells summon a monster to make Attacks. Grease is an Attack on the enemy's balance. Hypnotic pattern is an Attack on their minds. Shield is an Attack on their ability to hit me. Knock is an Attack on a lock. Levitate is an Attack on gravity. Everything is just Attacking.

It blew my mind wide open. I spent two years thinking I was playing a game of strategy and tactics with volumes of options. But deep down it's all just varieties of Attacking things until they stop Attacking back. The Wizard and Cleric Attack with spells. The Fighter Attacks with swords. The Rogue Attacks with thieves tools and skills. Everyone is just Attacking something, all the time.

So I've decided to quit D&D. I've realized it is fundamentally boring no matter how you dress it up. All anyone does is Attack, so they're all as dull as Fighters to me now.

I started looking at other games. Pathfinder? Same thing. OSR games? Same thing. Call of Cthulhu? You Attack your sanity. Vampire? You Attack your sire. Every game is just Attacking.

Thanks for reading my bitter farewell to D&D and all similar games. I want a new game where nobody boringly Attacks anything, even figuratively. Where there is no monster, no conflict, no problems to solve. Does anyone know a game like that? Or do I need to invent it myself?

Hi everyone, thanks for reading my post. I have some DMing advice that might be helpful to some folks. #Tip: you do not need a "BBEG" or main supervillain for your game.

When I first started in the hobby this was not the seemingly obligatory trope that it has become today. It was around, but as an unconventional option. I see many people now who talk as if every campaign must have a BBEG (for example I sometimes see people say "I want to start a new campaign but am having trouble thinking up a BBEG"). But you don't need one, there are alternatives.

Before I go further, let me be clear I'm not criticizing the practice of using BBEG, just hoping to help some DMs who may have the impression that it is necessary ingredient in their campaign planning. It is not: you can ditch it. Sometimes adventurers just go on adventures that aren't tied together by a singular Mumm-Ra or Krang figure. You can have a different kind of overarching theme, or none at all.

Here are a few possible frameworks for campaigns that don't call on you to roleplay as Dr. Evil:

● Wandering Heroes: the adventurers wander, encountering new places and people, and solving problems before moving on.

● Yojimbo: there are two warring factions but initially the PCs are unaligned. Do the players choose to take sides, take advantage of both, or try to make peace?

● McGuffin Hunt: the adventurers seek to find all the far-flung pieces of an ancient treasure.

● Harsh Journey: Travel across the forbidding (desert/sea/mountain/etc). Great opportunity for what English class called "man vs nature," though of course you can include other conflicts as well.

● Masters of their Domain: the PCs build up and/or oversee settlements and forts in the lands they control, dealing with local threats and conflicts.

This is probably just scratching the surface, but hopefully you get the idea. Thanks for reading. I hope this advice reaches someone who needs to hear it. Let me know what you think!

hi everyone, thanks for reading my post. i noticed that d&d doesn't always have rules to deal with every situation, so here are some house rules i have made up to help fill in the gaps. let me know what you think, or if you have any cool house rules of your own i can steal! 😄

1. movement fix: thanks to my house rule you can split up your move and use part of your movement before or after any action, bonus action, or reaction you take on the same turn. so like if you have speed of 30, you can go 10 feet, do whatever action, then go 20 feet more

2. cover in combat: sometimes you wanna hit something but there is cover in the way, so i made rules for that. half cover is equivalent to +2 AC, 3/4 cover is equivalent to +5 AC, and if you have full cover pretty much nothing can target you

3. leveling up better: everyone knows tracking XP is a drag, so i fixed it with a new rule that says the DM can just decide to give the players a level up whenever that feels cool or makes sense in the story, or when they reach some kind of checkpoint. that way you never need to keep track of XP again

4. green slime: remember nickelodeon in the 90s when they would dump the slime on the people's heads? I came up with the great idea to put that in my dungeons but make it deadly: one patch of green slime covers a 5-foot square, it has blindsight with a range of 30 feet, and it drops from walls and ceilings when it detects movement below itself (it does not move other than that.) if you know it's there you can try to avoid being struck by it (DC 10 dexterity save). If you do touch it you take 1d10 acid damage, and again at the start of each of your turns until the slime is scraped off (requiring an action) or destroyed. Against wood or metal, green slime deals 2d10 acid damage each round, and any nonmagical wood or metal item used to scrape off the green slime is destroyed. Direct sunlight or any amount of cold, fire, or radiant damage destroys a patch of green slime

5. coin weight: who has time to figure out the weights of different denominations of different metals and shit? I just say all coins weigh 1/50 lb and that's that. moving on

6. busting down doors: players often want to do this so i made up rules for it. i will let a pc take an action to try to break open a door that's locked or stuck or whatever. they roll strength/athletics and the DC is based on the type of door: 10 for glass, 25 for metal, 20 for stone, 15 for wood

7. reaction limit: i put an absolute maximum restriction of one reaction per round, once you take a reaction you can't take another one until your next turn. sorry guys but it gets out of control otherwise

8. partial darkness: sometimes you need a rule for when it's kinda dark but not really dark, so i made something up. if there is an area of partial darkness, then creatures have disadvantage on perception checks to see stuff there (unless they have darkvision duh)

9. running long jump: maybe a hot take but i think if you move at least 10 feet before you jump you should be able to long jump a distance equal to your strength divided by three, in yards. from a standing start, half that.

10. knockouts: if you hit a monster in melee and drop it to zero hp, you can choose to KO it instead of destroying it; that makes it unconscious and it starts a short rest. it stays knocked out until it regains hp or someone does first aid on it as an action with a medicine check of DC 10

Thanks again for reading my house rules and homebrews, i hope these help you in your game, let me know what you think!

Hi everyone, thank you for reading my post. This is too exciting to keep to myself. I need to share a breakthrough I had at last night's D&D session that completely changed how I will approach the game from now on.

I've been playing for about nineteen years now, and I've always felt like D&D is a little too punishing. The rules are constantly telling you "no." You have to roll dice and sometimes you fail and sometimes your character even dies. It never seemed entirely fair to me that a bad roll could ruin my fun.

So, last session I tried something new. The DM said a wyvern was attacking my character and it got a critical hit. She reminded me I was at low HP, so this was probably going to hurt. I could tell she was setting up a dramatic death scene, but I thought to myself: why should I die to some random monster when I could do something much cooler?

So I spoke up. "Actually, could you not? My character being critically hit and most likely dying wouldn't be very fun for me in this moment. I'd prefer the wyvern miss me and accidentally sting itself and die. I'm sure we agree that's a better narrative, so you should be a fun DM and forget what the rules and the dice say."

And you know what? She said yes. She literally said "sure, that's exactly what happens. The wyvern stings itself and it is dead."

I looked around the table and everyone was staring at me, in awe of how effortlessly I had just resolved the encounter. For a second I thought they might start clapping. I could hardly believe it myself. I spent almost two decades thinking the DM was in charge of the rules, but apparently I can just ask for things and she'll give them to me. So I kept going. I said "wouldn't it be even more fun if it also dropped a magic ring of three wishes?" And she said "couldn't agree more. The wyvern dies, and belches up a gleaming magic ring. It looks like it might grant wishes."

I've been thinking about it all through the night and I think I've cracked the code. The DM has the power to say yes to anything, and if you just ask nicely there's no reason for her to say no. It's not like there's a D&D police that's going to arrest her for letting you have a ring of three wishes, especially because that's a fun story.

I don't understand why more players don't do this. Are they just afraid to ask? Do they not realize the DM is their mom? The whole game is made up anyway. What's stopping us from making up something cool? You should definitely give this a try at your next session.

Hi everyone. Thanks for reading my post, I need some advice about how to deal with a DM who is overusing my backstory. For our new campaign I made a fighter character from a small village:

"Vaxter Theingol is from an unimportant family of farmers in the humble little town of Pickle, where he served an uneventful stint in the local militia. Having become very bored with routine drills and patrols, at the age of 27 he went out into the world to seek excitement and fortune."

My DM seemed fine with it. He said "okay, cool, simple is good." I agreed, and all seemed well until the campaign started.

First session: a merchant recognizes me and asks if I'm the blacksmith's son from Pickle. I said to the DM hang on, my father is an uninteresting farmer. The DM said "it turns out he used to be a blacksmith and never told you. Isn't that interesting? It's like a mystery, begging you to dig deeper and learn more." He continued with the merchant regaling us with stories about Vaxter's dad the legendary blacksmith.

Second session, a letter arrives from my mother. The family farm is being threatened by bandits and she needs my help. I expressed disappointment, because I wanted to get away from boring Pickle and we already had another promising adventure hook to take us off on a journey. He said "but now Pickle isn't so boring, and the adventure is taking you back there instead of the journey. Isn't that great? The story is about you!"

Third session, we meet a sage says he knows my father and says he fought alongside him in the skeleton war. I said no, my father is an unimportant farmer, or maybe a legendary blacksmith now I guess. The DM said "well now he was also a famous warrior who retired, and he is important to the main plot. Isn't that interesting? Don't you feel more engaged with the narrative now?"

Fourth session, I find a magic greatsword that apparently belonged to my grandfather, another epic hero of legend. I said Vaxter's family is supposed to be unimportant and boring, he didn't have a heroic grandfather. The DM said "you do now. You're welcome! I love helping players feel personally invested in the story." I said I was already invested, in playing the humble hero who leaves home to find adventure. The DM only looked confused.

Now every session, something from my boring past shows up. My uncle was an evil sorcerer. My mother is a celestial. My childhood friend is a werewolf. Pickle is a secret stronghold for rebels. My ex-girlfriend is a lesbian now. None of this was in my backstory, he just keeps adding things to this little fishbowl that I am desperate to escape.

Thanks again for reading my post. I need your help and advice on what to do next: we're about to hit 4th level. Should I take a feat that works with the magic greatsword I just found, or just take the ASI for Strength first and pick specialty feats later on?

Hi everyone. Thanks for reading my post. Sorry about the incomplete title, it should say "DM bad" because I need some advice about how to deal with a lousy DM. For the new campaign I made a fighter character from a small village. Nothing special, here's the backstory:

"Vaxter Theingol is from an unimportant family of farmers in the humble little town of Pickle, where he served an uneventful stint in the local militia. Having become very bored with routine drills and patrols, at the age of 27 he went out into the world to seek excitement and fortune."

My DM seemed fine with it. He said "okay, cool, simple is good." I agreed, and all seemed well until the campaign started.

First session: a merchant recognizes me and asks if I'm the blacksmith's son from Pickle. I said to the DM hang on, my father is an uninteresting farmer. The DM said "it turns out he used to be a blacksmith and never told you. Isn't that interesting? It's like a mystery, begging you to dig deeper and learn more." He continued with the merchant regaling us with stories about Vaxter's dad the legendary blacksmith.

Second session, a letter arrives from my mother. The family farm is being threatened by bandits and she needs my help. I expressed disappointment, because I wanted to get away from boring Pickle and we already had another promising adventure hook to take us off on a journey. He said "but now Pickle isn't so boring, and the adventure is taking you back there instead of the journey. Isn't that great? The story is about you!"

Third session, we meet a sage says he knows my father and says he fought alongside him in the skeleton war. I said no, my father is an unimportant farmer, or maybe a legendary blacksmith now I guess. The DM said "well now he was also a famous warrior who retired, and he is important to the main plot. Isn't that interesting? Don't you feel more engaged with the narrative now?"

Fourth session, I find a magic greatsword that apparently belonged to my grandfather, another epic hero of legend. I said Vaxter's family is supposed to be unimportant and boring, he didn't have a heroic grandfather. The DM said "you do now. You're welcome! I love helping players feel personally invested in the story." I said I was already invested, in playing the humble hero who leaves home to find adventure. The DM only looked confused.

Now every session, something from my boring past shows up. My uncle was an evil sorcerer. My mother is a celestial. My childhood friend is a werewolf. Pickle is a secret stronghold for rebels. My ex-girlfriend is a lesbian now. None of this was in my backstory, he just keeps adding things to this little fishbowl that I am desperate to escape.

Thanks again for reading my post. I need your help and advice on what to do next: we're about to hit 4th level. Should I take a feat that works with the magic greatsword I just found, or just take the ASI for Strength first and pick specialty feats later on?

Hi everyone, thanks for reading my post. I've been playing D&D for about twenty-seven years now, and I've noticed a lot of new players coming into the hobby who seem really intimidated by the rules. I get it. There are a lot of books, and they're full of letters and numbers. It's scary.

So here's my advice to you: don't read them, at all. Not before you play, not ever. Seriously, it's fine. Nobody expects you to know anything. The rules are way too complicated for you, kiddo, and honestly they're not that important. The important thing is talking in a weird medieval british-ish accent, and having fun, and feeling creative. The rules and numbers are just there to slow things down.

As a young man I made the mistake of reading the Player's Handbook before ever playing, and it just burdened me. All that information about how to play the game of D&D is taking up space in my head, easily accessible, probably forever. No player deserves that; don't be like me. Besides, you're probably not even smart enough, poor thing.

Anyway, here are some of the things in the rules you definitely don't and won't need to know, and probably couldn't grasp even if you tried:

• Basic game terminology. Unimportant. You don't need to know what a "saving throw" or "hit die" is, just roll whatever dice the DM tells you to roll; that's his/her job.

• What your class abilities do. Just read them off your sheet when the DM asks. Or ask the DM to read them for you; that's his/her job.

• What your spells do. Just describe what you want to happen and the DM will figure out if it works; that's his/her job.

• What a bonus action is. On your turn just tell the DM all the things you want to do, and he/she will say when you've done enough; that's his/her job.

• How to level up. Just show up to the next session and the DM will have already updated your sheet; that's his/her job.

I've seen some new players pick up the PHB and check a rule during the session. That's not cool. You're supposed to be paying attention to the DM's narrative and imagining how cool your character is. Knowing rules is not your job and they're way too advanced for you anyway.

Some veterans might try to tell you that reading the rules will make you a better player. Don't listen to those gatekeeping grognards. The rules are merely a suggestion. The game is about imagination. If you're imagining your character doing something sweet or epic or hilarious you're playing D&D correctly, and no good DM is allowed to say no to your cool imaginative idea.

Anyway, thanks for reading (my post of course, never the game rules.) If anyone wants more advice, just ask; I love giving advice on Reddit, because everyone here is always so good about receiving it.

Hi everyone. Thanks for reading. I need some help because my DM just rejected my homebrew and I genuinely don't understand why.

I spent the last three weeks designing a brand new spellcaster class. It uses a completely new kind of magic that doesn't exist in his setting yet, called "Void Alchemy." My character discovered it. Void Alchemists draw power from the spaces between realities. I wrote six pages of fun mechanics, made a spell list, and balanced the numbers.

I sent it to my DM. He read it and said "no."

I immediately explained to him he didn't need to worry about the Void Alchemist being overpowered. I did the math. A perfectly optimized god wizard build from the internet deals more damage and has more utility and defense. My class is strong, sure, but it's not literally gamebreaking. It can't solo an ancient dragon at level 5 or anything. So by any reasonable standard, it should be allowed.

He said "balance isn't the only issue. Tone and setting matter."

So I went and workshopped the class a little more. I even nerfed it a little. I reduced the spell list, made the resource pool smaller, and added a drawback where you take damage if you roll a natural 1. When I showed the DM, he only said "why did you nerf it when you told me earlier that it was already balanced? The answer is still no."

If you ask me, the game should be about having fun. If a player has a cool idea for a character, the DM should say yes unless it literally breaks the game. And my class doesn't literally break the game. I checked.

I don't understand DMs who reject homebrew just because it "doesn't fit the setting." The setting is made up. It can include anything. If I want to play a Void Alchemist who discovered a new form of magic, that's a cool story. That's a character arc. Heck, that's a whole campaign hook, starring my PC. Why would you say no to that?

Thanks for reading. What is the optimal way to wear my DM down until he agrees to let me play a Void Alchemist for two sessions and then get bored with the whole thing?