u/highly-bad

We've been playing for about six months and are at level five, my character dual wields and often does far more damage than anyone else in the party. I have over 300 confirmed kills and the DM asks this almost every time, so it's usually multiple times per combat.

My first thought is always just "Idk, because they're trying to take my money and my character sheet has all these weapons on it?" If I had my glasses on in combat then I could see what I'm doing. And I do try to be descriptive about other parts of the combat, like what my strategy is, how I'm feeling/reacting, where I position myself, etc. But when it comes to justifying a kill, I have no idea what to say.

Do people describe separate motivations for each blacksmith, stableboy and barmaid they kill? I don't really want to do this.

Should I learn about swordfighting IRL so I can bisect the DM? This doesn't sound legal to me but I could try.

Should I just ask the DM to stop inviting me to play?

I'm starting to feel myself shut down a bit during combat and even turning to diplomacy to avoid it. Last session when the DM asked why I killed things I just gave one word answers like "encyclopedia," "pimple" or "hairball." I love my character but I'm kinda hoping they die so I can just play G.U.R.P.S., even though this seems like a silly thing to be stuck on.

Hi everyone, thanks for reading my post. Something confusing has happened in my D&D game, and I'm hoping that some Redditors with a bit more distance from the situation can shed light on it.

I've been playing in an ongoing long-term campaign for 27 years. Recently we onboarded a new player, a friend of the DM's girlfriend. He came to a few games to watch and then asked us what kind of character he should build to round out the existing group. We could really use a tough frontliner, so we told him "someone as tanky as possible". He said he had the perfect idea, and we were all looking forward to the next session when his character would be introduced.

Last night was the big game. The new guy showed up with a character sheet and a huge smile. But he was totally disruptive during the game. Instead of going on a quest for the King, he insisted we should organize an uprising to tear down the empire from within. He spent hours denouncing the war effort and the "racist anti-Orc propaganda" that had supposedly indoctrinated us all. In all honesty, at times he sounded a lot like an ambassador for the kingdom's enemies.

When we noticed he didn't have any adventuring equipment or weapons or spells we asked him for his class. He said his class is the working class, which should wield supreme political authority. We pointed out that his build seems awfully squishy, and suggested he should wear breastplate. "I have a moral breastplate," he insisted cockily, which sounds insane but then he went on and survived over 630 assassination attempts in that same session, including poisoned beer and exploding pretzels.

I have no idea how any of this happened, it's truly bizarre. When we asked the player why he was doing this, he coyly replied "what's a tanky?" before leading the party to crush rebels in Hungary. Please give me guidance, I asked my uncle what I should do and he just said "based based based" over and over, cryptically. Thanks again for reading my strange story, redditor. Let me give you a kiss. 💋

Hi everyone, thanks for reading my post. I've been a DM for 1,051,200 minutes and I need some advice on what to do about one of my players. He's playing a human fighter. I'll never allow that again, but for now it is what it is.

The problem is that this player keeps trying to invent things that aren't real class features. For example, he wanted to try to use rope to pull open a trapped door from a safe distance. I had to explain to him that that's what magic is for, and he doesn't have any spells. The fighter class doesn't have "invent things with rope" as a class feature, and therefore there is no such action allowed in D&D. This seems obvious, but it isn't the first time it came up: we previously had to shut him down when he tried using the same rope to climb a wall.

Later, he tried questioning a NPC, but we had to stop him because his character doesn't have any relevant features or spells. He claimed that he should be allowed to do things that aren't fighter class features, so everyone else had to shout "that's not fair," over and over, until he finally relented. I double checked his sheet to make sure "talk to people" wasn't a fighter class feature, and of course it's not. He was just cheating.

Worst of all, when the party found a treasure hoard he tried to claim a magic weapon for himself. Did he think I wouldn't check the fighter class features? Obviously there is no class feature that says you get a magic weapon, and that means you can't. I screamed this at the top of my lungs, over and over, until he got the point. Only class features are real. Everything else is strictly cosmetic. Fighters can't do anything, it's the law.

Has anyone had to deal with a player who tries to be sneaky and break the game by doing things that aren't class features? How did you handle the situation? Unfortunately I can't kick this player since we play at his house and it's nicer than anyone else's. I need a different answer.

Hi everyone, thanks for reading my post. I was trying to establish a D&D club at my local library. I found lots of people with interest in joining, worked out a schedule that worked for the largest number of us, and got permission to use the space at the library. There were surprisingly few difficulties in all of that and we are all looking forward to playing the game together soon. Even the library seems excited and proud to be part of a community event like this.

But there has been one sticking point. The library says we absolutely cannot have any beer and pretzels in their building. What should we do? I'm worried that playing without beer and pretzels will affect the entire game experience. Will we all have to play as misunderstood gothy drow warlocks, or tiefling bards whose sarcastic quips shallowly conceal our deep backstory traumas? Can we still go on a fun adventure, like rescuing a princess from a hobgoblin fort, or does each session have to center around progressing a main character's emotional interiority? Will cameramen and makeup artists show up unbidden? We aren't a trained theatrical troupe or writer's room, so I was anticipating a much more casual game. I have more concerns the longer I think about it.

Thanks again for reading. Should I go through with the library club, sans beer and pretzels, or should I try to find a better venue to accommodate us? I'll take any advice I can get, nobody has ever been steered wrong by listening to Reddit.

Hi everyone, thanks for reading my post. I'm a narrative-focused DM running a campaign that's all about the characters' relationship to their unique wondrous abilities. I've built the entire campaign around this theme: The necromancer is struggling with the ethical weight of his arcane experimentation. The warlock is feeling the burden of forbidden knowledge and questioning the nature of her pact. The sorcerer is discovering the origin of his bloodline. The cleric is questioning her faith, and even the monk is embracing his inner peace. They all have a rich, extremely complicated story arc about their relationship with their special powers and what they signify about the character.

Then there's the human fighter. He has no powers. No connection to anything greater, no cosmic destiny, no ancient lineage. No secret potential whatsoever. He's just an uneducated, nonmagical, smelly villager who is decent at swinging a piece of metal at things. It's honestly embarrassing. I keep forgetting he's there because he doesn't do anything interesting in combat. He just says "I attack" and then rolls dice, like a peasant who only just learned which end of a stick to hold. And outside of combat he doesn't do anything, except for using skills and tools and NPCs and all those other parts of the game that don't really count.

I don't know how to give him a meaningful story arc. Everyone else has themes. The necromancer's backstory asks "what is the responsibility that comes with power?" The warlock asks "what do I owe my patron for this power?" The sorcerer asks "where does my power really come from?" The cleric asks "is this truly what I believe in?"

The fighter asks "can I buy a better sword." That's his arc. Shopping.

I asked the player what he wants his character's story arc to be. He said "I want to become a better fighter." I said "that's not a story, that's a goal. There's no conflict in that." He said "there's conflict every time I fight something." I said "I mean internal conflict." He said "I don't have internal conflict, because I'm happy with who I am." But that's the whole problem! He's perfectly content. He's downright well-adjusted. I think he might be a psychopath. Who just plays a guy with no internal struggles? Who just wakes up, puts on armor, picks up a sword, and hits things without a single existential crisis? It's unnatural. It's like he doesn't understand what roleplaying is.

How do I create a compelling story arc for a character who just wants to go on adventures and be really good at his job? Every time I try to give him something to wrestle with, he just literally wrestles with it, physically if possible, and moves on. I gave him a curse. He said "cool, a challenge" and got it removed. I gave him a sentient sword. He said "cool, a new friend" and stuck it in a scabbard to forget about. I gave him a rival. He said "cool, I'll kill him," then went and did that. He has no depth.

I feel like I'm failing as a DM. Everyone else is getting these beautiful, emotional arcs. The wizard had a crisis of conscience about the dangers of playing God with life and death. The warlock had an emotional personal confrontation with her patron. The sorcerer discovered his father was an evil dragon. But there is nowhere to go with the fighter's story. How do I find the drama in a character who refuses to have any? Should I just give him more fights? Should I just accept that he's going to be the boring one? I don't think I can do that. Maybe I'll reveal that he's actually the Chosen One. Or maybe I'll have his family be a secret lineage of demon hunters. I just need him to have an arc that doesn't start and end with "I hit it."

If you are going to reply "not every character needs an interior emotional arc," please don't comment. I already know that's what idiotic, probably-racist wargamer grognards say. I just think they're wrong. Everyone's story needs to have the exact same shape, because otherwise what's the point of them being here. A human fighter just hits things, but anyone can hit things. A goblin can hit things. That's not a character, it's a monster, and I'm not running a game for monsters. I'm running a game for heroes, and heroes have arcs, so I will give him one whether he wants it or not; I just need some advice about what exactly that should be. Thanks again for reading, and have a great day.

Hi everyone, thanks for reading my post. I'm sinking into depression because of something terrible that happened at my D&D game last nite, and I need someone to hear it and tell me it will all be okay.

I've been running a long term, character centered, RP-heavy campaign for a few years. We all take the characters and the plot very seriously, and put on a great performance during sessions. The players write extensive backstories to get deep into character, and as the DM I manage every scene for maximal drama and creative expression. But last nite, something happened that has made me question whether we are all on the same page, or whether any of this has been sincere.

Our mid-game snack usually consists of Chardonnay and bruschetta. But last nite the host broke tradition, by providing Chimay and Bavarian Laugenbrezel instead. In the moment, I didn't speak up about it, but I haven't been able to stop thinking about it since then. I've heard of "beer and pretzels" D&D, and it refers to games typified by brainless hack-and-slash dungeon-crawling, inappropriate humor (probably racist/sexist), and the complete absence of serious dramatic roleplay.

Are my players trying to tell me something about my game? It seems ambiguous. Are they saying my game is already an inane farce, beneath their respect? Or are they actually requesting I pivot in that direction, and dumb things down? Either way, I feel I have no choice but to take it as a grave insult, and this cannot stand. How should I respond? I need to strike back, but in an appropriately mature and dignified way, to save face and defend my honor. Please, help me plan next steps.

Hi everyone, thanks for reading my post. I had an idea for a homebrew class, although I would be happy to skip the effort if someone else has already done a similar idea before. Let me know what you think, I will appreciate any and all feedback.

I came up with the idea for this class because I've always been terrible at combat in RPGs. I don't have a good sense of tactics, believe me I've studied and tried but I'm just awful. But I really want to feel like a battle genius while roleplaying; that character type really appeals to me. I feel strongly that my character should be able to do the tricky tactics work for me; spellcaster players don't need to have IRL magic powers, so I shouldn't need to have the slightest grasp on warfare, or even basic powers of reasoning, to play as an expert at it. This seems very obvious.

In order to replicate this, I think a tactician class should be able to add their Intelligence modifier to a lot more things than usual, and they should have a big pot of fancy special moves to choose from that can buff their allies or hinder the enemies (I plan to copy and paste a bunch of spell effects for this part obviously). I am pretty sure that's what being a highly tactical warrior should really feel like. Oh yeah they definitely need some kind of special unique metacurrency as a resource too, but that goes without saying.

If you're going to say the point of this hobby was supposed to be to strengthen and test the players' own problem solving ability, lateral thinking and tactical sense by having them realize the consequences of their own decisions, please don't comment. What are you, like 200 years old? Sit down grandpa, nowadays the point is to pretend to be the most special little guy with the crunchiest superpowers, and a dumb-dumb like me can hardly feel like a gifted super-tactician unless my character sheet expressly certifies me as such with special Tactics moves. Thanks again for reading and have a great day!

Hi everyone, thanks for reading my post. I need to share a horror story about a DM who completely destroyed my character concept and I may never recover from it. I spent years working on my OC, and gave him everything I thought he needed to feel like a real person and all the elements for the story I want to tell about him. But as soon as the campaign began, the DM maliciously destroyed and dismantled everything I had built, with absolutely no concern for my character's themes and arc and wellbeing. I'm devastated. It feels like my OC's life is ruined, which almost makes me feel like my life is ruined too.

Here's the (very brief summary of) my character's brilliant backstory: Wibble Bibblewith is the sole heir to a vast fortune, inherited from his late parents who were both legendary adventurers. He is also the rightful ruler of a small kingdom, though he's currently in exile. He commands a personal army of loyal knights who would follow him anywhere. He is the leader of a secret society that spans the continent. He possesses a legendary omnipotent wishing sword that was forged by the gods themselves. He has a network of spies, a private airship, and a mansion in every capital city. He also has a cult of worshipers who believe he is a divine messenger.

I was nervous sending this to the DM. I thought he might say it was too much; I've heard that from a lot of DMs in the past. But he just said "okay, looks good. I can work with this." I was so relieved: most DMs just don't understand the potential for great things that can be achieved only when there's mutual trust around the table.

Then the campaign started, and it all went to shit. During the very first session, I mentioned Wibble's vast fortune. The DM said Wibble Bibblewith has been in exile for years so it's tied up in assets he can't access. I said, then what about my family's contacts? He said they're all dead or retired. Next I asked about Bibblewith's private army of knights, but it turns out they disbanded. As for the secret society, they had gone so deep underground I don't know how to contact them now, and even the cult apparently moved on to a new messiah.

Well, at least I still have my legendary sword of infinite wishes... NOT! The DM said it's "sealed" and doesn't do anything anymore, it's basically just an antique now, plus a pickpocket just stole it. My airship? Confiscated. My mansions? Foreclosed. My spies? They've been compromised. My diamond mines caved in and collapsed. Even my kingdom vanished. The DM says it was annexed and doesn't exist anymore, and the people there aren't interested in putting me back on the throne since I've been gone for years.

I don't understand. Why did the DM even let me write that backstory if he was just going to take everything away from me? I could have just written "I'm a guy who has nothing" and saved us both the time. Has anyone else dealt with a situation like this before? I hate it. I hate everything about it. My DM ruined Wibble Bibblewith, the best character of all time, and I don't think I can forgive him or D&D. I might just give up roleplaying altogether, I doubt I could ever come up with any other OC I'd be as excited about. Let me know if you have any ideas or advice, and thanks again for reading.

Hi everyone, thanks for reading my post. I hope you don't mind a little against-the-grain opinion this morning. This concerns my own personal preferences as a player, which I don't see reflected in the discourse too often. I've been playing for nearly 3 decades, predominantly as the DM. Please be gentle with me in the comments, I already know most of you will disagree so you don't need to tell me that.

In a nutshell, when I'm playing a PC in a game of D&D, I don't want to contribute to worldbuilding, either directly as the world is brainstormed or indirectly through my character's backstory. In fact I generically don't want my backstory to be "used" in the game. I'm extremely uninterested in that, it always feels contrived and in a sense sort of condescending. I feel that I'm already interested and engaged, so you do not need to make the moon and stars revolve around me. I want to earn my place in the story through action, not hand myself a starring role on a silver platter. Backstory is important to me, but it's important because it's where my character comes from and what they left behind, not because I want the adventure to revolve around it, that sounds like hell.

All this is because the biggest appeal of playing D&D is exploration and discovery. Getting out of one's comfort zone, venturing to the blank spot on the map, bringing only one's wits and essentials, and seeing what is out there to be found. That's what adventure is all about to me. But if I was involved in authoring what's out there, then it's almost completely spoiled. That makes sense, right?

The feeling of leaving one's past behind and exploring the unknown is exhilarating, and it is largely incompatible with "collaborative" worldbuilding and storytelling. I don't get the same thrill of a first encounter with the aloof aaracokra in the mystic mountains if I already knew they were there because I helped the DM design their culture or whatever. I can't get the feeling of setting off into the great unknown when the party's backstories are constantly intruding and getting in the way. It can feel like being stuck in a fishbowl with the same stale stuff swirling around endlessly in circles. At that point, my character is ready to start playing D&D himself, as a form of escape from the dreary backstory chains!

Thanks again for reading. If there's any actionable takeaway here, just be aware that there are people like me. Perhaps you've dealt with a player who is resistant to having their backstory interwoven in the plot, or who doesn't want to contribute to worldbuilding. Well, now you know at least one possible reason why someone might be that way. They probably weren't just being difficult for no reason, they may have been putting up necessary boundaries to preserve their fun. This doesn't mean they'll necessarily be compatible with your table, but you can part ways with mutual understanding which seems preferable to how a lot of rpg stories end. Have a great day and let me know what you think.

Hi everyone, thanks for reading my post. I need some advice on kicking a problem player; how do I avoid hurting my own foot on impact? I never kicked a person before, just puppies and cats, but people are way bigger so I'm having second thoughts

Sorry for weird title.

As the DM I heavily criticize the players for not talking for hours with each other in character. They talk a lot at the table out of character but for example if they ride a cart to another city and are on the road for several days or at camp I try to force them to have conversations in group. My setting and scenario are all kinda boring and dont really give them anything to talk about. They have short conversations to make plans or talk with npcs but dont really know what their characters should say to each other once everything actionable has been touched on. It often ends in hours of awkward silence when I expect their chars to act out their entire evening at camp or something. Do you have any tips to improve that. The silence is kinda weird and they feel my frustration but dont know exactly how to improve.

Aasimar: player is addicted to glowing special effects

Dragonborn: player is addicted to dragons

Dwarf: player is addicted to alcohol

Elf (Drow): player is addicted to smack

Elf (High): player is addicted to blow

Elf (Wood): player is addicted to hunting

Gnome (Forest): player is addicted to pranks

Gnome (Rock): player is addicted to gadgets

Goliath: player is addicted to HGH

Hafling: player is addicted to pipeweed

Human: bigot

Orc: player is addicted to adrenaline

Tiefling: player is addicted to meth and GHB

Artificer: player's greatest fantasy is to play as Tony "Iron Man" Stark in a DC comics game; will settle for wrecking your setting's tone instead

Barbarian: player is egotistical but self-hating rules lawyer; plays a 'stupid' character out of magnanimous concern that their big brain will outrun the table otherwise

Bard: this class would be downright OP if the player were picking spells based on effectiveness instead of flashy spectacle and pun potential

Cleric: player so badly wants to heal the party and fulfil their healer fantasy that they'll root for the enemies to deal some damage and be disappointed if nobody gets hurt

Druid: this class would be downright OP if the player weren't in it strictly for disgusting and morally dubious ERP with animals

Fighter: player is hack-and-slash grognard (probably racist/misogynistic) who has unprocessed trauma from decades of abusive gotcha DMs, thinks a 10-foot pole is a personality

Monk: this class would be downright OP if the player had a semblance of tactics for defense and control and range instead of just rushing to punch every monster in the nose

Paladin: player picked this class specifically for the high-fantasy knightly roleplay; is hands-down the worst roleplayer you've ever seen in your life

Psion: edgelord player is barely able to contain their excitement for the eugenics-slavery setting coming out next year

Ranger: player doesn't exist; nobody would ever be interested in the fantasy of a martial class that also has significant out-of-combat utility, please don't be absurd

Rouge: player thinks saying "I go into stealth" renders them undetectable and forgotten, like crouching in a video game; is irritated when most NPCs have nothing interesting in their pockets

Sorcerer: player is entitled elitist brat whose greatest fantasy is wielding unearned power by virtue of their superior bloodline

Warlock: player expects their face-tattooed devil worshiper to be accepted socially because of their high Charisma score; will whine when the patron/DM doesn't offer them extra additional powers in some half-assed lopsided "bargain"

Wizard: player is truly dense simpleton whose greatest fantasy is to feel more intelligent than someone else for once