I’m venting bc I’m grumpy.

Recently, I started to notice that my character has had a series of being shut down or left out of things, for no discernible reason. I will preface she’s neither smart or wise, so some of these things started as simply “she didn’t roll very high” which is super fair, but then no one caught her up on anything and folks even clarified that they intentionally didn’t tell her things. But this evolved into basically 1 character in our party (N) getting a ton of super plot relevant information and then keeping it secret between her and one other character while the rest of the party was excluded. We got vague explanations of “she doesn’t trust everyone yet.”

N was very friendly (and at times flirty) with my character and gave me no reason to believe there was friction. My character is very lovable dingus golden retriever. She has no enemies except the party’s enemies. While she’s not very smart, she does understand loyalty and keeping secrets and can follow instructions. There has not been a time where she’s spilled secrets or done something stupid that had negative consequences on anyone but herself. She would jump in front of a sword for anyone in the party.

N also recently had a huge backstory reveal, but again, only to a select few characters, and mine was not included. The following session, N slammed a door in my character’s face while mine was checking on her and making sure she was okay because N was described to be sobbing loudly in her room and no one else wanted to check on her because of still processing her backstory reveal. My character still had no info on the backstory reveal so she just was asking generally what was wrong. N’s player basically said N didn’t want to talk to mine so to stop trying, which was also fair and I respected the player’s boundary and didn’t continue interacting. N’s player continued to hint that she wanted further interaction (“Doesn’t anyone want to check on N? She’s crying” / “You all can still hear N crying loudly in her room”) so I asked if she wanted my character to try again, and she said no, and no one else wanted to interact with her.

I sent a message in our group chat the next day saying I was feeling a little stuck with my character because she seemed to be left out of so much info. DM messaged me privately and asked where I wanted to go with my character. I reiterated that I was feeling kind of stuck because my character basically had zero idea why we were even at the current location, is not up to date on the Party Drama, the current situation with the BBEG, and is getting doors slammed in her face when trying to do things that would help her gain information. DM stated that N doesn’t trust a different character in the party (E) and therefore is going to be distrusting of anyone who interacts with him. E is not hostile at all, but let a tactical secret slip in front of a bad guy on accident toward the beginning of the campaign. The player was driving at the time and genuinely got confused that we were still within earshot of a bad dude, but agreed to proceed and say that E messed up. E is a sheltered teenager with minimal real world experience and is socially awkward, so it made narrative sense and the player was cool with it. No one expressed being genuinely upset, in character or above table. Since this instance, E has been very helpful to the party and I find E’s player to be a fun person to play with.

I messaged N’s player and asked if I could clarify what was up. N’s player confirmed that anyone who interacts with E will never be trusted and information will continue to be withheld. I mentioned that my character isn’t even especially close with E, nor has she personally ever done any of the actions that has made N distrustful. If she’s asked to keep a secret, she never speaks of something again. I also mentioned that my character (and I as her player) were under the impression that she and N were at least friendly so she didn’t realize she was doing anything ‘wrong.’

I did clarify that above table, she was asking me to ignore an entire player for the whole campaign, and she said yes. The DM also confirmed that they were basically trying to ice E’s player out of the campaign by encouraging everyone to just ignore him and using it as a bartering thing where he gives N information and she only tells people who don’t interact with E. I asked why, and DM stated E’s player is too much of a rules lawyer and metagamer (which I haven’t ever noticed, but everyone’s got different pet peeves). I said I didn’t think in-character antagonizing was the way to go for this and was basically told my character’s options were to keep having information withheld from her or to stop speaking to E. This also wasn’t even done well (not that it’s something I would’ve agreed to) because over multiple months of weekly play I genuinely never connected that information was being withheld because my character interacted with E.

I let them know that neither me being excluded or participating in excluding someone else were going to be fun for me, and left the campaign with a message that I didn’t feel my character fit well with the party anymore and wished them well. I’m trying to determine if I message E’s player and let him know or just let them work it out themselves at this point because they’re all adults and I’m no longer involved. In my opinion, issues with a player shouldn’t be resolved by antagonizing a character, and this is all very reminiscent of high school bullying which I don’t want to be a part of. There was never any explanation on why the DM and N’s player wouldn’t just speak to E’s player directly other than because this is how they wanted to resolve it.

Am I absolutely losing it for thinking this was all super petty and wanting no part in it? This all feels like such a toxic dynamic to me. But at the same time, I am sad to leave a group I’ve spent almost a year playing with. I’m a high school teacher, and I have seen how bad isolation and exclusion can get, so it’s not anything I will ever participate in.

TL:DR- I was asked to participate in excluding another character/player because the DM and another player don’t like him and don’t want to address it above table. I said no and left the campaign because the vibes were bad.

Edit: E’s player has been notified. He just told me thanks for the heads up and then wordlessly left the group. 🥲

Recently i got myself wanting to use a particular monster that has healing spells. But i got myself thinking, "wait, this will just give his sidekicks more HP and make the fight longer".

Then i remembered this section from the PHB 2024: "A monster dies the instant it drops to 0 Hit Points, although a Dungeon Master can ignore this rule for an individual monster and treat it like a character." Then i thinked that healing my unconscious monsters to stand and fight back could at least be more visually interesting than simply wounds being closed.

This lead to here to ask you guys, did you ever used this "feature" in a fight? How did it went? Anyone advice against? Do you (as a player) or as a Dm feel that this is tricking your players?

I was in the dentist's waiting room today.

There was a dad who brought his ~14 year old son for a routine checkup.

The son was clearly a "Dungeon Master in training". He was talking with his dad about a campaign he was leading last weekend. The two of them discussed tactics, ways to liven up the experience for others, rules and tricks and ...

Well it was just delightful to hear. The dad was helping craft the next generation of dungeon master. The son was eager. Both were clearly passionate.

In an era with kids glued to their devices and parents searching for ways to engage with their teens ... this was simply a warm-and-fuzzy kind of reminder that not all of us fall into that trope.

I’ve been looking into all of the other 5E books lately, and I’ve seen a lot of negative stuff about Spelljammer. Anyone wanna clue me in on why?

Correct might be a little bit too strong.

I am running as a first time DM a homebrew world, it's a bad idea I know, just bear with me 😅

After a TPK I got sent new backgrounds, they played some sessions so they new a lot more about my world and they tried to incorporate key aspects into their characters' story and I'm super appreciative tbh

Thing is, it's wrong. There's some "things" some cults/NPC/public institutions would have never done for reasons they don't know YET.

I could let them know why, but

- I don't want to spoil the various reveals, which they're really looking forward to

- I don't trust them (and I explicitly told them, we are all close friends) to discern between what Player knows and what PC knows, and also I'd rather not have them constantly think about it and ruin the immersion

Should I just fix their backgrounds 'because I said so' , which wouldn't be a problem honestly butttt I think there's a better solution I'm not seeing.

EDIT I'm talking about changing 5-10% of the background's body, nothing major and all key points and personality would stay intact. It's a couple of events that don't fit well enough, I'd have to bend the lore to accommodate them

EDIT 2 since my players will never see this post PC was raised in a family devoted to Deity, Deity has monastic order, order is deeply tied to kingdom, order trains PC. PC develops assassin skills and kills bad people. One time PC is asked to kill family, family is innocent. Order is actually bad people, they lobby trying to protect their power and kill political opponents and those who know about their dealings. THE ISSUE: the order wouldn't meddle with political opponents or land disputes, they do believe in structure, order and law, and they are actually being used by BBEG to try to kill the actual king because they got beef. If there were any episodes they would be against the royal family, the Kingdom has its problems but isn't corrupt and it's definitely not using the order as its FBI, it's actually kinda the other way around.

Last Edit: thank you everyone for your input, I've read a ton of different ideas and I think I know how to fix it now, I feel like I improved a bit as a DM thanks to your advice. Much love ❤️

A Long Rest, at least in 5.5e, is defined as a period of 8 hours where at least 6 of those hours are spent sleeping, and the other 2 are spent doing light, non-strenuous activity like eating or talking. Those two hours of light work sound remarkably similar to a Short Rest, a 1-hour period of downtime in which you do non-strenuous activity like eating or talking.

So, this begs the question: can someone use the 2 hours of downtime in a Long Rest to attune to a Magic Item, the same way they would attune to a Magic Item during a Short Rest?

CW: Body horror

So, id like for you to imagine, a magical scroll, maybe they find it in a lich's old lair, an evil spell

"When you cast this spell, you may choose a creature you can see, they then must roll an intelligence check or be cast away to find a horrible death and be sent to the tom

It can be cast once per day & recharges whenever midnight hits"

This is a once per day practical banishment spell right, It's intentionally balanced by the roll to give a false sense of security to the players

Keep a tally on every creature the group banishes

But theres a secret cypher written on the bag of the scroll, now your players could try and solve it, in which case theyd find out the true nature of the scroll, but lets say they dont coz, free banishment

Whenever you feel like it, set up a quest, could be retrieving a powerful magic item, a rescue mission, smth important or personal

When they arrive, they inmidietly recognise the place, they have made their way onto the tomb of horrors

But its different, it seems that the legends were true, a party once came and ransacked the place already

All the traps are triggered or dismantled, the magical aura is all but a fading remnant of this place's architecture, the walls creak and groan. Seemingly struggling to keep themselves up

When they venture into the deep dark tomb, the scent of miasma starts to seep in, through some checks perhaps, the entrance behind them shuts

They venture deeper and deeper, the tomb seemingly expanding beyond normal means

It is then that they hear squelching creaking & groaning

Something shifts beneath them, something big

The floor collapses, as they are in a large dark chamber, face to face with it

An amalgamation of every creature, person and monster they ever banished, molten and fused together

Maybe the reveal only comes as they start to recognise pieces of it

A pile of flesh, fur, oozing fluids and metal bent & torn, groaning in agony

This is what the cypher mentioned: "Grant thee, an audience with the olden lord Acererack, pity thy flesh, thy soul to him, give yourself entirely, eternally"

& yeah for stats, its a blob, so you can take the max health of everything they ever banished, add it up and multiply it by 1.5

It cant attack so, just gotta roll strength or dex saves to not be consumed into the pile

Anyway! Hope youre having a good day :3

The people that designed the game we all love are making a stand for a better workplace where they are supported for their creative work. Stand with them and support real people living real lives with real costs. Support the people that bring us the resources for OUR games.

https://actionnetwork.org/forms/uwotcpetition/

Edit. Reading the first responses i wanted to clarify. i am not one of the workers at WOTC. I just saw this coming by and think it's important to share.

I want to play a cold damage focused caster, but I’m not sure what class or subclass I want to use. I’m aware of subclasses like draconic sorcerer or Evoker Wizard, but I’d rather have something a bit more focused like Storm sorcerer or Circle of storms is with electric and thunder damage, including with the aesthetic and flavor. So do you guys have any cool suggestions from expansions or third party books? Thanks!

After years of wanting to play DnD, I finally found a group to play with (thanks to my wife’s coworkers). I’ve worked within the government for well over a decade and it’s been.. difficult finding anyone to play the game with—my day to day is usually sports talk, finance speak, or politics, so I’m grateful to be finally be playing. I’m a total noob but grateful that I can create stories with like minded folk. This is how me and my wife are spending our Thursday night and I am ecstatic.

So as the title says. We got spells like Steel Wind Strike, Booming Blade, Green Flame Blade, True Strike etc that let casters emulate martials or even surpass what a martial is even capable of (like with Steel Wind Strike). When martials are so limited by "realism and grit" should casters have the ability to do what martials do as well?

I’ve been gaming with an old hippopotamus that I met at the zoo (don’t ask) which is mostly fine but for whatever reason he’s always yelling at me, “Don’t roll a nat 20!!!Don’t roll a nat 20!!” and then of course I roll like shit.

But then what do you think happens on his roll EVERY DAMN TIME?!?

BAM! Nat 20.

Effing hippo crit.

Did you ever see Deborah Ann Woll adlibbing a D&D opening scene for Jon Bernthal?

Could you do something similar; DM for about 30 minutes for someone (or even a small group) who has never played. Just an index card for character notes, and a d20. No special effects, not much more than a coffee table to play on?

Do you have a specific module virtually memorised, or could you freestyle a short session off the top of the dome!?

What kind of thing would you run?

[Edit: What great answers, everybody is like "Yes, Easy!" which warms my chaotic heart. I have a follow up question but I need to work out how to phrase it]

I am setting up a one-shot where the party is kidnapped by hags and forced to do what is essentially jigsaw mixed with the world's worst game night. I already have some basic puzzles and games, I essentially want to turn the party against each other while giving them a slight chance to all live if they work perfectly with each other, but I need some game ideas, or trap ideas.

I posted a question yesterday, and it was heartening (exciting) to see how many DMs are adlibbing and freestyling their way through the game. I like running this way but none of my friends do.

What I'd like to know from you guys is, when you're DMing in that style are you using a specific rules edition, or are you just running it loosey-goosey FKR style?

Same question about Lore - are you adlibbing your own lore, or using a published setting while you freestyle the scenario.

And lastly, to what extent do you freestyle the structure of the session? I always feel like I prefer to let the game go where it wants, but some answers were suggesting having an ending in mind.

Thanks for your positivity!

So I’m a DM and I have a crazy idea.
We as DMs run all kinds of one shots and campaigns. Some of us reuse battle, maps, or NPCs from all the campaigns to keep up with it all.

My suggestion to make games a little bit more fun and personal for you and other campaigns (if you’re repeating players 10 times more fun)

Legacy item. So you take an item that was something personal in your game. It could be from a sad moment or a funny moment.

For example, the soldier that everyone liked, died a hero’s death, defending the village while they were gone. What made him more notable? It could be the trustee short sword, the helmet that had a dent in it, or whatever aspect that made him a unique NPC.

You use that item for your next campaign. If you like one of your homebrew items or it could be a re-skin of an item but with a different name.

You can describe to your party that they found what appears to be a dented helmet of a decorated soldier.
When anyone puts it on, they feel an overwhelming warmth from a job. Well done.
You gain advantage on being frighten when you’re protecting another creature

Something like that. I usually take the last person to kill the boss. Their weapon or spell of choice would become a magic item in my next game and I would give it a cool name.
I just want you to imagine a one shot where the boss was defeated with nothing more than a squeaky hammer because it was some kind of clown theme carnival.
I put Bozo’s demise. It is a magic Warhammer that is shaped like a squeaky hammer

Bozo’s Last Laugh — Once per long rest, when you hit a creature with this weapon, you can unleash its true power. The target takes an additional 2d8 thunder damage as the hammer produces an impossibly loud squeak.

If this damage reduces the target to 0 hit points, the squeak echoes for 300 feet, followed by a tiny, distant voice that whispers:
“Thank you for playing!”

I put that in a bloodthirsty zombie apocalypse. I have a little sheet. I called the items of chaos. Of which is a list of items that were memorable and I just put them in the world randomly a roll D 100 every time and if I get a natural one, it goes into campaign
Every session roll at D 100 at the start

I’m just saying have a little bit more fun and personal campaigns. it’s somewhat makes you feel awesome when you get to see nostalgia in your own campaign

I’m just wondering, do y’all do something like that?

Hi there! Eventually, ill master my first table (never played or mastered before), and all my 4 players have never played either.

So, should i do a one-shot just so they get the mechanics, acting... Or should i just start a campaign and see how it goes?

If you guys have an adventure to suggest i would be pretty thankful too :)

Im Brazilian, so sorry if i commited too much writting crimes.

Thanks for the atention!

My players had acquired a wagon full of explosives and accidentally assembled a veritable fleet of horses. They were in the good books with the local wereravens, and they asked a few of them to bite the horses so they could have horse-sized ravens to speed up travel.

One of them realized they now had a flying wagon of explosives, so why bother reaching for Strahd's exact location when they could just blow up a sizeable chunk of his castle?

"Please do not 9/11 Strahd" was not a sentence I ever thought I'd say out loud, but here we are.

I'm drawn to D&D 3x. I wasn't too much of a fan of the optimization side, though I thought it was pretty neat in how flexible, depending on the DM, the options of what you could play were. This is the edition I distinctly remember a lot of monster options also being PC options.

I kind of like the combat. I've played a few 3.x computer games and enjoy the tactical options, especially of what I've seen with Temple of the Elemental Evil.

But I'm feeling 5e might hit more of the right notes for me. But I always come back to 3.x fondly. Could much of this be nostalgia? It was the first D&D system I got to extensively play with others. Or is there something I might be keying in on that you share fondness for as well?

Then the hobgoblin riding on his back threw a bead of fireball at the rest of our party. It was the funniest enemy turn I’ve seen in a bit. They had disappeared for a round after we killed the giants pet lion and when the GM said we were able to see the giant again 100 feet in the air I lost it. Then I rolled a nat 1 on my Dex save to avoid the rock.

Surprisingly I didn’t die and kept concentration on my hex spell. (Level six draconic Sorcerer, took 38 points of damage)

Trying to teach myself to draw and thought I’d try to capture the scene as I imagined it.

Basically:

What creatures get the most benefit from being able to keep the combat within the boundaries of a Dead Magic Zone?

(Reminder for those needing one, basically Permanent Antimagic Field that encompasses howevermuch space)

I've been working on a massive homebrew project[1] and it's reinforced for me the (rather simple and obvious) idea that different tables are different. What works well for one table won't necessarily work for another. Heck, even with my 3 different tables currently, they all need different styles and approaches.

The 4e DMG actually had a good description of one possible way to slice the desires of the players, akin to M:tG's profiles CF https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/making-magic/timmy-johnny-and-spike-2013-12-03 . And I think it might be useful to think of your own players, yourself, and the tables you're at along these lines. I've flaired this 5e because that's what I play; these descriptions are fairly universal IMO.

Note: These are not the only ways to slice player motivations. And they're not exclusive--most people are some combination of most of them, and how much of which varies over time. But they're discrete motivations that need different handling, which makes it a useful model, if not necessarily a true model.

----------The motivations, paraphrased (4e DMG ---------

Actor: This is the "true RP" motivation. I want to play my character, often making "immersion" a top priority. Staying in character above all. Can be disruptive, often due to "it's what my character would do" syndrome.
Explorer: Motivated by seeking out new things. Learning about the setting, asking about everything, playing with the logic of the setting. Can be disruptive mostly by being boring to others (pushes every button to see what they do, asks a million questions about everything including stuff that's just set dressing).
Instigator: Like the explorer, they want new things to happen. But mainly, they want stuff to happen in game. Can't handle a moment of boredom. Insults the king to get a reaction, but is always willing to jump at the shadow of a plot hook. Can be disruptive, especially if the rest of the party isn't down for shenanigans.
Power Gamer: Numbers. Optimizer. Mostly motivated by challenge and "winning" (as much as that's a thing. This is the counterpart to the Spike from M:tG's profiles. Can be disruptive, especially to the Actor-motivated players, because they're focused very firmly at the game level, not the narrative level (at the extremes).
Slayer: This is like the power gamer, but mostly "I want cool fights and want to fight big things." They tend to get bored with talking. Often like simple options over complex ones, even if less powerful, because they get to do things instead of think about things. They and the instigator tend to get along, bonding on their shared dislike of deep planning.
Storyteller: This motivation is about the narrative itself, rather than the characters (like the Actor). Unlike the Actor, they don't mind compromising character motivations to tell the "right" story[2]. Definitely Rule of Cool types. They and the Power Gamer often don't get along, because the PG wants to win or lose "by the rules" (rules over story), while the ST wants the narrative to be satisfying, even if the rules have to go hang.
Thinker: AKA Chessmaster. They want to carefully plan stuff and have that come to fruition. They like making creative builds, finding new uses for spells, abilities, etc. Often disruptive by trying to micromanage other players, especially when mixed with the PG motivation.
Watcher: This person's here for the beer and pretzels and the company. They are less interested in the game or the story than just being there and having fun. Too many of these can suck the life out of the campaign or get distracted. But having some is like a nuclear moderator--it keeps the more vibrant motivations working together rather than being at each other's throats.

--------------------------------------

Personally, as a player and as a DM, I'm a mix of an Explorer/Instigator/Storyteller. I like new things, I like to explore settings, and I like narrative. In fact, I crave narrative. It's why, for me, dungeon crawls just don't sit right (aka bore me to tears). I've got little bits of the Slayer and Thinker and Actor in me, but very little of the Power Gamer. Numbers-go-up optimizers aren't my favorite types of players; my games tend to be narrative heavy but not particularly challenging.

[1] I've got
* variant versions of the fighter, barbarian, ranger, and warlock
* two artificer-like variants (one spell-caster the other more clockwork)
* Subclasses for barbarian, monk, rogue, paladin and druid
* 3 entirely new classes: 2 half-casters and a hybrid full/half caster (9th level slots but only 5th level spells)
* Two new subsystems (one for skills and one like 4e Rituals)
* Replacements for every single race valid in my homebrew setting.

[2] We call these DM's /joke. No, really, DMs who go too hard here risk becoming railroaders, since the narrative in their head has to win out

Hi everyone,
I’m a relatively experienced DM who has a started new group with a mix of experienced and new players. While creating characters, some of my players expressed their interest in having intra-party conflicts. That got me wondering: how would you all handle this?

To be precise, two of my players have backstories that could lead them on a potentially confrontational trajectory based on the factions that they support and their own flawed belief system. While I really like this idea since it adds drama, I’m still very wary of it. None of them sound like they are looking for an excuse to be the asshole and both of them have come to me asking if this might be potentially dangerous for the group. I think they genuinely have an interest in the central conflict of my setting and want to explore that with their characters. We will still have a session 0 obviously and will talk about it there. But my general hunch is that it’s a new group and intra party conflict should be for groups that know each other very well. Also, I think it shouldn’t be anything that crosses a line from which there is no coming back. That means no betrayals, no killing another PC or doing something unquestionably evil.

What do you think? Should I give them a green light if everyone is on board with it?

EDIT: I mixed up my intras and inters. 😭 Obviously it should be intra-party conflict. 🫣