D&D 5E Killed Me a Lawful Stupid Paladin

[jgsugden]

….

Quickest way to get evicted from the game.

Which is fine - evicting a player from a game where they are not a good fit happens. However, calling them an idiot, setting their PC up for death, and then bragging about it on message boards is not something you need to do in that situation, and is something that is rude, cruel and abusive.

 

[Zardnaar]

Which is fine - evicting a player from a game where they are not a good fit happens. However, calling them an idiot, setting their PC up for death, and then bragging about it on message boards is not something you need to do in that situation, and is something that is rude, cruel and abusive.

1. I didn't call him and idiot. I told him before he played don't be one.

2. I didn't set him up for death he went out if his way to pick the fight and I telegraphed it wasn't a fair one. Everyone else backed down.

My plan as such was for a 0 combat session.

And this was also after he got told point blank attacking a different ship was suicide (CR9 or 12 spellcaster).

 

[GreenTengu]

I didn't read past the OP.
My opinion is simple-- you failed as a DM and any veteran players at the table failed as veteran players.

Its quite easy in the role of a DM to kill off a player. Trivial, really. You can just rule any trap or whatever to be autodeath. You can throw in an impossible to defeat NPC/monster at any time. It is absolutely trivial.
Thus-- killing off a player for not playing D&D "the right way" is nothing to be proud of or brag about.

You control the game, the story, what happens at all in reaction to what a player does. Now-- I do understand that this player missed session 0, and maybe that is on them, but in the very least you should make sure that this player's expectations for what he expected to happen in the story met what the expectations of everyone else at the table expected from the story.

Honestly-- in any given fictional story, the protagonists of those stories are often rewarded for whatever decisions they make, are just simply vindicated in their actions-- because the same person is writing the character's actions and the results of those actions. Take any random action movie, whatever it is-- James Bond, Jason Bourne, John Wick, Fast and the Furious-- and you will see protagonists taking drastic actions that results in the deaths of others and, if the plot decided they should be held to "realistic consequences", then they would probably fail and die in one of the stupidly dangerous things they did or it would be revealed they murdered someone undeserving for no justifiable reason and the justice system would hold them account for it.

That sort of action movie vibe isn't what you were going for? The player was to be punished for sticking relentlessly to their character's strict code of violence? Okay-- it was kind of your role as the experienced person in roleplaying to explain this. Play the "Yes, and..." or "Yes, but..." game with them and encourage them to do the same for the rest of the players. Have a conversation and instead of "I hate you, you do everything wrong..." try a "Everyone would enjoy things more if you..." conversation.

Now, I totally get that you were angry in that particular moment-- that you felt you were giving them too much of the time and letting them go off on too many tangents and you tried to be patient... but, thing is-- did you really properly communicate this?

If you came here expecting to be applauded for killing someone's interest in roleplaying because they were fulfilling their role of an idealistic prick all too well in a game you expected to be all grimy and underhanded and compromising... maybe you will find some of that here, and that is sad.

But most of us-- we kind of want to keep the hobby alive. And driving players away from the hobby because the screw up in their first few times playing is just not the way to do that.

 

[Zardnaar]

I didn't read past the OP.
My opinion is simple-- you failed as a DM and any veteran players at the table failed as veteran players.

Its quite easy in the role of a DM to kill off a player. Trivial, really. You can just rule any trap or whatever to be autodeath. You can throw in an impossible to defeat NPC/monster at any time. It is absolutely trivial.
Thus-- killing off a player for not playing D&D "the right way" is nothing to be proud of or brag about.

You control the game, the story, what happens at all in reaction to what a player does. Now-- I do understand that this player missed session 0, and maybe that is on them, but in the very least you should make sure that this player's expectations for what he expected to happen in the story met what the expectations of everyone else at the table expected from the story.

Honestly-- in any given fictional story, the protagonists of those stories are often rewarded for whatever decisions they make, are just simply vindicated in their actions-- because the same person is writing the character's actions and the results of those actions. Take any random action movie, whatever it is-- James Bond, Jason Bourne, John Wick, Fast and the Furious-- and you will see protagonists taking drastic actions that results in the deaths of others and, if the plot decided they should be held to "realistic consequences", then they would probably fail and die in one of the stupidly dangerous things they did or it would be revealed they murdered someone undeserving for no justifiable reason and the justice system would hold them account for it.

That sort of action movie vibe isn't what you were going for? The player was to be punished for sticking relentlessly to their character's strict code of violence? Okay-- it was kind of your role as the experienced person in roleplaying to explain this. Play the "Yes, and..." or "Yes, but..." game with them and encourage them to do the same for the rest of the players. Have a conversation and instead of "I hate you, you do everything wrong..." try a "Everyone would enjoy things more if you..." conversation.

Now, I totally get that you were angry in that particular moment-- that you felt you were giving them too much of the time and letting them go off on too many tangents and you tried to be patient... but, thing is-- did you really properly communicate this?

If you came here expecting to be applauded for killing someone's interest in roleplaying because they were fulfilling their role of an idealistic prick all too well in a game you expected to be all grimy and underhanded and compromising... maybe you will find some of that here, and that is sad.

But most of us-- we kind of want to keep the hobby alive. And driving players away from the hobby because the screw up in their first few times playing is just not the way to do that.

He's not new, played in AD&D played like the 1E Cavalier.

 

[GreenTengu]

He's not new, played in AD&D played like the 1E Cavalier.

AD&D 1E? So... someone who hasn't played since 1982?
Or is there someone out there who is insane enough to still be playing 1E in any time in the past 30 years?

Well-- someone who has been away from the game for 30 years ought to still be treated like a newbie.

 

[Zardnaar]

AD&D 1E? So... someone who hasn't played since 1982?
Or is there someone out there who is insane enough to still be playing 1E in any time in the past 30 years?

Well-- someone who has been away from the game for 30 years ought to still be treated like a newbie.

90s.

Even then I didn't see behavior like this. I did see a player do stuff like this occasionally.

Playing again today, different DM and I'm playing the beatstick a Goliath Fighter.

 

[jgsugden]

You keep defending yourself here, but a lot of people see you as having been in the wrong. You may benefit from some self reflection here. It is easy to justify things away to suit your narrative, but if you don't pay attention to how other people see the situation ... (man, that seems topical at the moment).

 

[Zardnaar]

You keep defending yourself here, but a lot of people see you as having been in the wrong. You may benefit from some self reflection here. It is easy to justify things away to suit your narrative, but if you don't pay attention to how other people see the situation ... (man, that seems topical at the moment).

As I said LN type DM. School of hard knocks philosophy.

Some things are tougher than you in my games. Don't pick fights with them very simple concept.

If he wasn't so aggro and healed himself he would of won.

So even in a self inflicted stinker encounter it was doable.

 

[Olrox17]

I think some posters are being way too harsh on the OP. A player (who apparently isn’t even new to d&d) decides to be kind of prick, hogging the spotlight and provoking unnecessary fights, even after being telegraphed that was going to be extremely dangerous.

Seems to me this player was testing the waters, trying to see what he could get away with. There are players out there who will try to push a dm around just to see if they can, I’ve met them.

I think the OP was harsh but fair, which I think was the correct reaction in this situation.

 

[Istbor]

It’s also worth noting that gladiators is one of those NPCs that has a much higher CR than one would assume.

When I hear Gladiator, I think “guy somewhat stronger than the guards who can put on a good show in the arena” and not “guy that regularly curbstomps mounted knights attacking with their mounts”.

The image of a guy curbstomping surprised knights got me.