#HorrorStories : Advice for strange GM behavior / unusual character building

[TheG]

Hello everybody! We are going to start a new camping with a one of our players as GM.

Loaded of hopes and optimization hunger we gathered for a first introductory session (for the setting and background) when strange things come into being.

The campaign turned out that will be the continuation of his previously dm-ed adventure, ended after 9months into a TPK fighting against a Witch where only one PC (in a party of four) was able do damage her with a 1d100 cannon-like firearm and the others where just meatshields, starting where we left but as we won the battle.

Stats were rolled with 5d6 keep the mid 3 four times and keep the best 3 two times (with the choice made after each roll)

I rolled 17-16-13-12-9-7 .. good enough

After the stats we begin to ask about classes and such expecially 'cose in the previous one casters were banned (no-magic setting), and the GM replied that we could choose any class except paladin "because is OP" but spellcaster have "some" issue due to the magic being discovered (re-discovered) recently

The issues are the following:

1. Spellcaster are not very practical to spellcasting so there will be a spell failure chance (not disclosed yet). If you fail, however, you will not expend the spell slot.

2. Magic is recently rediscovered, so spellcaster don't know any spell and must search for them (in addition to the roleplay/setting justification the GM added that if he would have allowed to pick spells all the spellcaster of the same class would use the same spells 'cose the players would choose only the optimal spells):

2.b. magic scrolls (to learn) for all spellcasting classes will be discovered in treasures with random spells in them

3. There will be times or places where magic will not function at all.

However he also pointed out that magic will be necessary in the campaign and he will follow the party with his PC, if no one will choose magical classes, his PC will be a spellcaster and essentially we will have to bodyguard-him .

Dipping into the character details we were informed that we will start from 6th level, and his PC from 10 it seems.Talking about his PC privately I learned some Intel:

1. He will be fighter5/paladin3/something1
2. He will not do tanking, beacuse reasons?
3. "I think it's very strong..but, I will test it during the adventure"

WHAAT?

At the end of the session, after we asked if there isn't any chance to have some jurisdiction on the selection of spells (even nerfed from the standard game) and he denied, he said that at start every character will have "something" that could give him some innate magical abilities or a rare item, but both will be rolled randomly at the start of the adventure.

I was hoping to play a druid this time (I played only martial classes for a while) but I'm very concerned for the nerfs and the overall general environment he developed.

Could you give me some advice to speak/manage the GM and for my character?

Thanks!

[History_buff]

Red flag shoots up when the DM bans Paladins but yet not only has a DMPC, but a DMPC with Paladin levels.

[Millface]

DMPCs are like... the worst idea ever. And one that's higher level than the PCs?

It sounds like he'd rather be playing, but I fear that if he didn't have the control he'd be a bit of a problem-player.

I hate that I don't have much advice for you... I'd just sigh and find a new table to play at. How do the other players feel about this? If everyone has issues with it you can call a sort of meeting and talk to him about it together, discuss options and find a compromise for everyone.

If he puts his foot down and says you have to play the way he's envisioning, even if you don't particularly want to... take the rest of the players and find a new DM.

[Unoriginal]

Could you give me some advice to speak/manage the GM and for my character?


Tell the DM he is not being reasonable, and that you do not to play in a campaign with those restrictions?

Personally I would probably leave.

[Sigreid]

I wouldn't play.

[Lille]

Whaddya bet his DMPC doesn't have the same magic restrictions as the PCs?

How does the "have to learn each spell" rule work with spellcasters that prepare from their whole list? Do they have to learn a spell before they can prepare it, the way a Wizard does?

Ask your DM if you also have to randomly find scrolls to be able to learn feats and ASIs. After all, if the players get to choose which ASIs/feats they take then everyone from the same class would take the same ASIs/feats "because players would only choose the optimal ones".

[GlenSmash!]

Likewise I would not play in this campaign. It has all the hallmarks of being a power trip for the DMPC.

Runs a DMPC.

Bans a single class.

DPMC has levels in banned class.

DMPC is higher level than PCs.

Has stated that party will be there to support DMPC.


That's all sorts of bad.

[strangebloke]

The only way to play in such a campaign is thoroughly inebriated with an absolute minimum attention span. Ignore his PC completely. Every time you die, just have a backup sheet.

[Gryndle]

Red flag shoots up when the DM bans Paladins but yet not only has a DMPC, but a DMPC with Paladin levels.

I've always ran a DMPC, and the why to's and why nots have been discussed here as nauseum. BUT I call BS on a DM that has his/her DMPC capable of doing something or being something that is banned from the players. The smell gets even worse when you consider that DM banned paladins for being "op".

Yeah, I would have a problem with that DM

[Man_Over_Game]

I've always ran a DMPC, and the why to's and why nots have been discussed here as nauseum. BUT I call BS on a DM that has his/her DMPC capable of doing something or being something that is banned from the players. The smell gets even worse when you consider that DM banned paladins for being "op".

Yeah, I would have a problem with that DM

Lol, relevant enough signature.

[DeTess]

The overall idea of magic having been discovered recently could be quite interesting, and I might play in a campaign like that. The entire DM-pc having a banned class (and given that he's got 2 unaccounted for levels I expect those to be taken up by warlock) thing seems BS though, and I'd definitely not play in a game with something like that around.

Still, it might not actually be bad? I see all kinds of red flags, but I'd probably play at least a single session if the DM is someone I know. If it's as bad as it seems, I'd explain the issue to the DM, and based on his response either quit, or give him one more chance to improve.

[TheG]

First and foremost thank you all for the support. I'll try to speak the other players about it. Even if I feel bad to sabotate the campaing, too much is too much.

The "no ban/nerf for me" +4levels DMPC it's just the icing lol.

Some random-ish answers:


DMPCs are like... the worst idea ever. And one that's higher level than the PCs?

It sounds like he'd rather be playing, but I fear that if he didn't have the control he'd be a bit of a problem-player.

I hate that I don't have much advice for you... I'd just sigh and find a new table to play at. How do the other players feel about this? If everyone has issues with it you can call a sort of meeting and talk to him about it together, discuss options and find a compromise for everyone.

If he puts his foot down and says you have to play the way he's envisioning, even if you don't particularly want to... take the rest of the players and find a new DM.

Yes, I agree that he would rather play. In the last adventure, beside powerplaying/optimization that's common at the table, he wanted to change character when the xanathar was out and made some questionable (metagame) choices that the DM let pass to live easy.

Other players are less experienced so don't bother too much but noticed his control-maniac patterns.

I'll try to raise a class action On the next session, but I think even if we gain something it will be a pain in the ass regardless or worse


Whaddya bet his DMPC doesn't have the same magic restrictions as the PCs?

How does the "have to learn each spell" rule work with spellcasters that prepare from their whole list? Do they have to learn a spell before they can prepare it, the way a Wizard does?

Ask your DM if you also have to randomly find scrolls to be able to learn feats and ASIs. After all, if the players get to choose which ASIs/feats they take then everyone from the same class would take the same ASIs/feats "because players would only choose the optimal ones".

I proposed a simple fix:
- "All spell list" classes learn 1 spell each level for free
- "fixed spell learning" classes instead learn 1/3 of the spells granted for free by the base rules (ex wizard 2 spell at 1st level and 2/3 of spell each following level [so 2/3 at 2nd - 4/3 at 3rd - 6/3 at 4th etc.]

With the possibility to saturate the maximum known spells with random scrolls (excluding wizard that can always write into the spell book).

It was not accepted.

Very cool justification on the feats/asi hahaha I'll bring it to the table the next time ( so i can have feats banned too lol)


The overall idea of magic having been discovered recently could be quite interesting, and I might play in a campaign like that. The entire DM-pc having a banned class (and given that he's got 2 unaccounted for levels I expect those to be taken up by warlock) thing seems BS though, and I'd definitely not play in a game with something like that around.

Still, it might not actually be bad? I see all kinds of red flags, but I'd probably play at least a single session if the DM is someone I know. If it's as bad as it seems, I'd explain the issue to the DM, and based on his response either quit, or give him one more chance to improve.

Yeah at first I was intrigued too for the setting of the magic re-discovering thing, but...with those rules is actually unplayable, even more from level 6.. how a character could be a wizard of 6th level if he never cast a spell? A very acculturated paesant indeed, you may guess.

You centred the point, isn't a random guy found on the local rpg Facebook page. We have another setting session before the first "game", so I hope him adjusts / redeems himself listening to us, otherwise it will be a very unpleasant situation to be in.


Thanks!

[ImproperJustice]

That’s a shame.

If there is a personal connection with the GM, I guess you could take one for the relationship and make some kind of character for the game.

One red flag that worries me, is that magic is absurdly difficult for Players to access, yet “magic will be nescessary to advance”.
Tells me he is gonna put walls in the PCs path and then mock them for not preparing how to scale his walls.

It sounds like nothing you do is destined to suceed without his DMPC.
So you should ditch him at your first opportunity.
Wish him luck on his heroic journey and then go to the nearest tavern in search of mercenary work perhaps?

[Corran]

Reading the op gave me the chills.

I'll be blunt and take whatever you want from it.
If I trusted the DM, I would very much like to play a spellcaster (even with the homebrew hindrances) in this world, because that would be an easy way for my character to be motivated by what seems to be (part of) the campaign theme here (ie rediscovery of magic). Or alternatively I would play a religious zealot (in this case the class can be any non-spellcasting one) that would fear magic and that would try to do everything in their hand to not see it return and plague the land (though only if after I communicated this last idea of a character to the rest of the group and to the DM, they all were cool with it). But your DM seems (from what I can make out of what you say), like the kind of DM I would not trust, and that's for a great many number of reasons for that, other than playing a protagonist DMPC. So if I *had* to play with such a DM, I would just pick the most ''mundane'' class I could find (most likely a fighter; I'd probably play an archer too -make that a fast archer-, as I would not trust this DM to be able to balance encounters even if they wanted to -and I doubt such a DM would even care about balancing encounters). But seriously, consider finding a more appropriate DM (even one within the group, maybe even you could try that -and I dare say you have the perfect example of what to avoid doing in your current DM, at least before you find your own footing and know better yourself). End of rant.

[Lunali]

I have many of the same misgivings expressed by others, but if I were to play a caster in such a setting I would tend towards something relatively martial. Since paladin is out and antimagic zones will probably affect wildshape as well, I would probably go with a war cleric.

[Pelle]

I agree that this looks very bad, but who knows? It's up to the DM to sell it to the players, to convince them why this campaign pitch would be more fun than something else. Low magic and class/race limitation can be great fun if there's a reason for it, the banned-class DMPC could just be a plot device/macguffin, etc.

You have previous experience with the DM to judge if he could be capable of pulling it off. Sounds unlikely, though. As for advice, just ask him to convince you why this will be fun despite your concerns. If he can't, say you want to play something else instead of this game.

[Jerrykhor]

I think I've read enough horror DM stories to be able to predict where this is going.

[sophontteks]

The DM has too much control over the game. He's trying to restrict anything the players could use to interrupt the plot and even plopping in a OP PC to dictate the party's direction.

Two can play at that game though. If you want to fight fire with fire consider it a challenge and create a character that can blow a hole in his carefully contrived plot in spite of his restrictions.

A warlock may be good at this. Warlocks can go around his restrictions witu invocations. Take disguise self at will with pact of the chain and actor. You can scout everything ahead of time easily and disguise yourself appropriately. Take the invocation that gives you silent image at will too.

In a low magic world these two spells will own. In typical d&d most npcs have some idea what magic is, but in this one no one will suspect that something is an illusion. Spell failure chance has no meaning, since its at will and the spells aren't time-sensitive.

I'm assuming of course that cantrips are still ok. Make sure you sneak that in. A warlock only really needs EB to work as a caster.

Next, RP a warlock. You are selfish and power-hungry. You aren't concerned with the welfare of the people or the state. You aren't evil, but you are self-serving. When the paladin gives you crap about duty or w/e, just ditch him. Make him tag along to your plans, not the opposite. You are the one in control because you have all the intel and all the schemes thanks to your familiar and at-will spells.

If the DM adds any additional house rules after the game has started. Like "Oh you can't learn spells through invocations." Remind him that he should have laid down all the house rules before the game started. If he keeps them, quit. You've revealed him as a cheat now anyway.

[Millface]

That’s a shame.

If there is a personal connection with the GM, I guess you could take one for the relationship and make some kind of character for the game.

One red flag that worries me, is that magic is absurdly difficult for Players to access, yet “magic will be nescessary to advance”.
Tells me he is gonna put walls in the PCs path and then mock them for not preparing how to scale his walls.

It sounds like nothing you do is destined to suceed without his DMPC.
So you should ditch him at your first opportunity.
Wish him luck on his heroic journey and then go to the nearest tavern in search of mercenary work perhaps?

We've all seen these stories before. We all know what happens when a DM who wants this much control over everything doesn't get his way. If the party absolutely refuses to go along with what he wants he'll stop having fun, if he stops having fun he'll throw a fit.

You can't just... you know... use reasonable choices in character to get around a DM like that. They'll find ways to punish you for everything you do that they don't want you to do.

[ImproperJustice]

We've all seen these stories before. We all know what happens when a DM who wants this much control over everything doesn't get his way. If the party absolutely refuses to go along with what he wants he'll stop having fun, if he stops having fun he'll throw a fit.

You can't just... you know... use reasonable choices in character to get around a DM like that. They'll find ways to punish you for everything you do that they don't want you to do.

Your right of course.
It’s probably the contrarian in me that would really like to see the expression on his face when the party tries to leave his ego PC at the inn though.

There seems to be a general consensus this game is heading no where good, unfortunately.

[JackPhoenix]

Ignoring what others already said, his justification for limiting spells known doesn't make sense for many classes. Clerics and warlocks don't learn spells, they get them from their god or patron, respectively: cleric prays and the god does most of the work, the patron either grants magic or teaches them the spells directly. Sorcerers don't learn spells, they will it and the magic happens (also, the sorcerer having spells like anyone else is a bad mechanical decision in the first place, IMO, they should have some sort of "build your own magic effect" mechanic, but that's besides the point). Paladins are out, and rangers, druids and bards can be seen both ways... their magic is some combination of learned knowledge/innate power/relationship with supernatural entity (nature, in this case).

Presumably, those supernatural entities didn't come to existence recently, and they were aware how their powers work.

So only for wizards, eldritch knights and arcane tricksters does "magic has been rediscovered recently" make sense as limitation... and only if they are at the minimum level they need to get spellcasting (so 1, for wizards)

[Millface]

Ignoring what others already said, his justification for limiting spells known doesn't make sense for many classes. Clerics and warlocks don't learn spells, they get them from their god or patron, respectively: cleric prays and the god does most of the work, the patron either grants magic or teaches them the spells directly. Sorcerers don't learn spells, they will it and the magic happens (also, the sorcerer having spells like anyone else is a bad mechanical decision in the first place, IMO, they should have some sort of "build your own magic effect" mechanic, but that's besides the point). Paladins are out, and rangers, druids and bards can be seen both ways... their magic is some combination of learned knowledge/innate power/relationship with supernatural entity (nature, in this case).

Presumably, those supernatural entities didn't come to existence recently, and they were aware how their powers work.

So only for wizards, eldritch knights and arcane tricksters does "magic has been rediscovered recently" make sense as limitation... and only if they are at the minimum level they need to get spellcasting (so 1, for wizards)

While you're absolutely right, this is clearly a guy who only cares about his own fun. He nerfs everyone else into the ground, makes a DMPC that doesn't have to follow those rules so he can go "Oooooh, look how badass I am, look how strong I am with this character that I just filled in the numbers however I wanted, aren't I impressive?!"

I know this kind of guy because when I was, idk maybe 13 years old I was that guy. Then I grew up and realized DMing was about everyone else's fun as much and often times more so than my own. That and that showboating a DMPC means absolutely nothing because you didn't earn that character. It's a reasonable mindset if you play a DMPC villain, because the party gets to kill them. So showboating how powerful the character is just makes the party feel more powerful when they eventually knock him/her down. Outside of that, it's kind of just a crappy move.

[sophontteks]

Your right of course.
It’s probably the contrarian in me that would really like to see the expression on his face when the party tries to leave his ego PC at the inn though.

There seems to be a general consensus this game is heading no where good, unfortunately.
I'm with you. If I didn't have anything else to do anyway, I'd play just to try to weasel around his little plan.:smallcool:

[strangebloke]

I'm with you. If I didn't have anything else to do anyway, I'd play just to try to weasel around his little plan.:smallcool:

So what is the best way to weasel around this?

I don't really see a way.

Other than the beer and pretzels approach. Make a wizard that only casts magic missile. Or better yet, a druid who only casts conjure animals.

[ImproperJustice]

So what is the best way to weasel around this?

I don't really see a way.

Other than the beer and pretzels approach. Make a wizard that only casts magic missile. Or better yet, a druid who only casts conjure animals.

Pacifist Fighter?
A Wizard who spams whatever spell the GM randomly rolls?

A Cleric dedicated to the DM PC as a deity would be my personal choice.

Hey! Does that mean you get his spell list as domain spells? That’s totally worth asking.
Like at every session, and every time you prepare spells.

[sophontteks]

So what is the best way to weasel around this?

I don't really see a way.

Other than the beer and pretzels approach. Make a wizard that only casts magic missile. Or better yet, a druid who only casts conjure animals.

Did you see my post about using warlock invocations to workaround the spell limitations? At will disguise-self and silent image with a Warlock familiar should give you a ton of power in a low magic environment.

[Anonymouswizard]

Red flag shoots up when the DM bans Paladins but yet not only has a DMPC, but a DMPC with Paladin levels.

Yeah, this is the big red flag. The rest aren't too bad by themselves, and harken back to an older view of magic, but really spit in the face of bards, sorcerers, clerics, and druids, in roughly that order (wizards less so). But the Paladin is fairly obviously banned because Smites aren't going to be ruled as spells, and because it has enough nonspell stuff to escape the magic nerf unscathed, but of course that just makes his DMPC super special (which is the real problem, DMPCs just about work if they're treated as a hanger on or hireling*, not if they're central).

* The classic example is the defensive fighter or paladin if the party is made up entirely of squishies, who normally lack initiative, have a passive personality, and might literally be a hired sword.


The overall idea of magic having been discovered recently could be quite interesting, and I might play in a campaign like that.

I'd generally recommend using a B/X retroclone for it, either Basic Fantasy or Lamentations of the Flame Princess. As the only casters will be Magic-Users(/Elves) and Clerics you could rule that clerics only know that a relatively small portion of their list is possible without breaking the game (especially in B/X proper or Basic Fantasy), and have to uncover the others by searching old records and religious texts. Magic-Users already don't learn spells beyond their starting set as standard, and so are already searching for new ones all the time.

[dmteeter]

This is so bad.

Walk away, take your new players and start a new table.

[Keravath]

Given the OP comments, I think the whole DMPC idea is not a good sign. The DM usually doesn't play in the game, they run the game. Investing in playing a character in the game from a DM perspective often can be a source of issues in terms of controlling how the party does things and this is made even worse when the DMPC is the strongest member of the party. If the party is a bit weak or there are too few players then an NPC (not DMPC) added to the party can make a lot of sense.

I have seen DMPCs work in games where the DM role rotates between players in a shared campaign. However, even then, the decision making, dice rolls and action choices of the character are usually handed over to the other players. The DM knows what is happening and why .. to avoid a conflict of interest the DMPC should really be a party controlled NPC when the DM is running the game.

The whole return of magic concept sounds interesting and potentially a lot of fun if run well. The problem is that the players need to trust the DM to run it well and based on the story about meatshields, a 1d100 hand cannon, a witch and a resulting TPK ... I don't think this DM sounds up to the challenge. Sorry. Maybe I am wrong since I don't know the DM involved. However, the OP has played in a campaign he ran previously ... they should have a good idea whether this is likely to be workable.

(I am also curious how the DM had a witch in the previous non-magic campaign that was immune to the damage that most of the party was able to inflict ... all without magic?)

Best of luck! :)

[MilkmanDanimal]

montypythonrunaway.gif

Flee and don't look back.

[SanguisAevum]

Could you give me some advice to speak/manage the GM and for my character?

Thanks!

My advice would honestly be

“Dont play in that game”

[Spriteless]

Well, if you want a crazy DM story to tell us, then play the game by all means.

[sophontteks]

Well, if you want a crazy DM story to tell us, then play the game by all means.
This is probably the best advice, really, the only advice the OP should listen to at all.

@OP
Please, please, please. Play the game and tell us how bad it goes. This is the fuel that sustains us. We would cling to your every word as you detail each session until the inevitable crash.

[GlenSmash!]

This is probably the best advice, really, the only advice the OP should listen to at all.

@OP
Please, please, please. Play the game and tell us how bad it goes. This is the fuel that sustains us. We would cling to your every word as you detail each session until the inevitable crash.

oh yeah I mean I wouldn't play in that game, but the OP totally should. :smallwink:

[Laserlight]

the GM added that if he would have allowed to pick spells all the spellcaster of the same class would use the same spells 'cose the players would choose only the optimal spells)

That right there is the mark of someone who doesn't understand what he's doing. "Optimal" doesn't mean anything until you define what you're trying to optimize for; it might be damage, survivability, battlefield control, social encounters, theme ("all fire spells"), overall flexibility, whatever.


3. There will be times or places where magic will not function at all.

"You want us to play spellcasters, who can't learn magic unless you toss us a bone, can't rely on it even when we're in a good area, and sometimes can't use it at all. So for half the game or more we're commoners with a few extra hit points. Yeah, no. "

[Pex]

Red flag shoots up when the DM bans Paladins but yet not only has a DMPC, but a DMPC with Paladin levels.

This and the convolution of magic tells me this DM has a control problem. He needs absolute control. Funny thing the previous campaign spellcasters were banned, but the BBEG was a witch. This DM cannot stand PCs being able to do anything more than I attack for 1d8 + 3 damage. I facetiously call these DMs a DM who hates his players.

[sophontteks]

You could stream your sessions on youtube. It could be the next big thing.

[ImproperJustice]

I’ll join in, I would love to hear stories from this.

And please consider being a Cleric dedicated to the DMPC.

[Finback]

The only way to play in such a campaign is thoroughly inebriated with an absolute minimum attention span. Ignore his PC completely. Every time you die, just have a backup sheet.

And always go for the weirdest race/class combos, even ones that don't work well. Goblin paladin, grung cleric*, kenku bard.. I mean, if you're going to ride the car off the cliff, you might as well have vuvuzelas and fireworks on the way down.



* one of my players did this in Chult; best worst laying on of hands ever.

[Corran]

This and the convolution of magic tells me this DM has a control problem. He needs absolute control. Funny thing the previous campaign spellcasters were banned, but the BBEG was a witch. This DM cannot stand PCs being able to do anything more than I attack for 1d8 + 3 damage. I facetiously call these DMs a DM who hates his players.
Well, there is always the kind of DM that antagonizes the players (and I don't mean antagonizing the PC's with villain characters, I mean in a personal and IRL way). But putting these (few) DM's aside (who hopefully at some point they can mature and break from that bad habit), I think many DM's do that (ie ban stuff to reduce player options thus to reduce player agency), because they are honestly scared of improvising when players do something unexpected. Fear of improvisation on the DM's part can be the source of many problems in a dnd table.

[JNAProductions]

Good advice: Have a frank discussion with your DM. Explain that there's a LOT of warning signs that it's gonna be bad, but let him know that you're willing to give him a chance. However, be firm that if you and the other players aren't having fun, you will not play. No gaming is better than bad gaming.

Bad advice: Play in this game whole-hog and share the stories!

[strangebloke]

Good advice: Have a frank discussion with your DM. Explain that there's a LOT of warning signs that it's gonna be bad, but let him know that you're willing to give him a chance. However, be firm that if you and the other players aren't having fun, you will not play. No gaming is better than bad gaming.

Bad advice: Play in this game whole-hog and share the stories!

With all due respect, adult conversations are a great solution... But only if the other person is an adult.

This guy doesn't sound like he is. He might be, but it's just something to bear in mind.

Don't play, try and talk to him, or grab some beer and pretzels and have a good time. Regardless, know what you're in for.

I'd for a tortle rogue who focuses on grappling guys and dragging them under water.

Or a warlock who made a pact with Deus Mordus, the devil god of overly controlling legal systems.

Or a kenku bard who speaks entirely via sound board.

[Anonymouswizard]

This and the convolution of magic tells me this DM has a control problem. He needs absolute control. Funny thing the previous campaign spellcasters were banned, but the BBEG was a witch. This DM cannot stand PCs being able to do anything more than I attack for 1d8 + 3 damage. I facetiously call these DMs a DM who hates his players.

I think the key thing is that he's banning it for player use, not world use. I had aGM who once banned my delusional spell-using Anglican priest because magic didn't exist in his zombie apocalypse game, and then threw fire breathing, teleporting zombies at us. As if visions and great strength would have broken the game (yeah, intentionally skipped Healing as we were informed patching up would be important, nobody got hurt until the final session). I had another who handed out a ban list in session one, and stuck to it religiously, if it wasn't at least theoretically PC appropriate it didn't exist (this included stuff like recursive summons).

[Pelle]

I think the key thing is that he's banning it for player use, not world use.

Nah, limiting player options is fine, but it's the intention behind that matters. After all, in most D&D games players can't play monsters or master bakers, yet they still exist in the world. And in 5e, npcs are also built different than PCs. If a DM wants to play a game of Conan-like smart warriors battling evil sorcerors, that's ok. If the players don't think the suggested game sounds fun, they can just decline to play.

[Anonymouswizard]

Nah, limiting player options is fine, but it's the intention behind that matters. After all, in most D&D games players can't play monsters or master bakers, yet they still exist in the world. And in 5e, npcs are also built different than PCs. If a DM wants to play a game of Conan-like smart warriors battling evil sorcerors, that's ok. If the players don't think the suggested game sounds fun, they can just decline to play.

As always, the line is blurry.

In theory every option open for (humanoid) NPCs should be open for PCs. With player agreement this can be whittled down, say all the gods in this world are evil and the GM wants the PCs to be good guys, but if the players want divine magic then they should pick a different concept. That's the thing, and where your last sentence comes in. A GM can whittle down player options with player permission ('if all the players go the GM has no game'*).

In practice there are a lot of options players don't care about. A player should always have the option to play a master baker (highest scores in DEX and INT, proficiency in bakery kitchens, expertise in bakery kitchens), but if a player doesn't want that then there's no need to work out what hoops they have to jump through. Monsters is trickier, as even if we restrict it to humanoid frames between three and ten feet in height there are still a lot of options not made for players in most games (my homebrew treats all humanoids as races to follow my philosophy, but I understand why most don't), but I think that if the GM presents a monster as part of their world they should be willing to work with their players who want to play one (...did I mention my system has no humanoids over ten feet tall?).

* Anonymouswizard, 21:29 17/10/2018. Totally not something anybody else has said before.

[Pex]

When a DM wants to ban something because but of course a player will choose the most optimal thing, that's a DM who can't stand PCs doing more than I attack for 1d8 + 3 damage. That's a DM who hates his players because he doesn't trust their choices. If a player does happen to choose an optimal thing that's not something a DM should be hating against.

[Pelle]

Monsters is trickier, as even if we restrict it to humanoid frames between three and ten feet in height there are still a lot of options not made for players in most games (my homebrew treats all humanoids as races to follow my philosophy, but I understand why most don't), but I think that if the GM presents a monster as part of their world they should be willing to work with their players who want to play one (...did I mention my system has no humanoids over ten feet tall?).


If a player wants to play the Tarrasque from the MM, that is ok, and it's completely acceptable to allow it. However, it is equally acceptable to say no, that is not an appropriate character for this game.

I understand some people enjoy playing kitchen sink games, where everyone creates a character in isolation, and then you see what game comes out of it. That's ok, and sometimes I'm fine with it as well. But some people don't enjoy that, and want to play games with a more focused premise. Not every potential character concept have to be appropriate for every game. "We're cruel pirates (so no paladins)", "we're a guerilla force of minority races fighting the evil opressive humans (so no humans)", "in this setting there are no dragonborns (so no dragonborns)", "this will be a low magic setting/game (so no fullcasters)". There can be good (and bad) reasons for limiting the options.

The ting is, this is about enjoyment. If the player running the game for whatever stupid reason will not enjoy an option, he absolutely should not have to allow it. I don't enjoy running/playing games for evil characters. Why? doesn't matter. If one player wants to play an evil character, I am not morally obliged to sacrifice my enjoyment and allow that. Now, I should consider allowing it if I want to run a game for my friends who will only play evil characters, but it's still up to me to decide if it is an activity I want to participate in.

Yes, the game pitched in the OP looks unfun. So what? It's up to the DM to change it if he can't find enough players who will like it. The problem there is that there seems to be some kind of social pressure to accept playing in the game, instead of simply declining it or suggesting other ways to make it more palatable.


When a DM wants to ban something because but of course a player will choose the most optimal thing,

I doubt that is the most prevalant reason for banning options. IME it is because of setting or campaign premise reasons, and has nothing to do with nerfing optimal builds. Don't assume you know the intentions of other people.

[Anonymouswizard]

@Pelle: I do think there's a difference between being forced not to play something, and agreeing not to play something for game theme reasons. As long as the GM is up front about standard options*, willing to work to help allow options that are on-theme, and is clear when out of theme options are brought up, then there are no problems.

Now we're coming from different viewpoints here. As far as I'm concerned game theming and potentially even a certain part of setting creation is a group activity best done alongside character creation. If a player wants to be, for example, a hobgoblin that isn't shunned on sight then there can be a tribe or nation of goblinoids peacefully coexisting with the main nation. This doesn't mean we're playing a kitchen sink world, but it does mean I'll make allowances (because if elves are okay to be PCs why not lizardmen).

Now my view also says I can point blank refuse to ruin for nonhuman PCs, but I must then be willing to only use human NPCs and creatures that could be considered 'animals'. And that if I don't let a player play an orc when asked then I've forfeited my right to use them for this campaign.

* And that any bans aren't strictly player only.

[Pelle]

Now we're coming from different viewpoints here. As far as I'm concerned game theming and potentially even a certain part of setting creation is a group activity best done alongside character creation. If a player wants to be, for example, a hobgoblin that isn't shunned on sight then there can be a tribe or nation of goblinoids peacefully coexisting with the main nation. This doesn't mean we're playing a kitchen sink world, but it does mean I'll make allowances (because if elves are okay to be PCs why not lizardmen).


Saying yes, being open to changes and finding compromises is all good, and a smart thing to do if you want to find people to play with. The point is that if you for any particular reason end up with something you will not enjoy personally, you are not morally obliged to run the game. If a player wants to play as a lizardman, it's up to the player to ensure that everyone else at the table will enjoy that. You can't expect others to endure something that they don't enjoy only for your sake.

[PhoenixPhyre]

@Anonymouswizard

I fully and completely disagree. The role of the DM (and thus the tools he needs) are not the same as the role of a player (and thus the tools they need). Your vision produces either insane balancing needs or very limited settings.

5e has no expectation that player options and DM options are the same. Or even related. You could play a game where the PCs are the only humans in the setting. Or one full of all sorts of intelligent NPCs that aren't available for players. Your view would require that all NPCs (including monsters of every sort) be built like PCs, which is bad design in 5e. Monster-PC transparency is a convoluted mess that only existed in one edition of D&D. Every other edition has rejected it for good reasons.

Lots of things are balanced when the NPC in question will only exist for 3-4 rounds in combat. Those same things would be hilariously imbalanced when available day-in-and-day-out to a PC.

Your way would also preclude "living settings" like I run, where different adventures actually change the world. It requires a pre-existing "state of the world" with restrictions on what can be played based on what has been discovered. Gnomes, for example, exist in the world but just not in this particular area. Same with the drow-analogues. Other creatures exist that aren't playable--goblins, for example. My goblins are barely sapient except in packs (due to a semi-hive-mind/shared-memory-space), so having a single goblin all by himself is not an option. Or the floating eyeball/R2D2 NPC that tagged along for a while. Intelligent, but not playable. Or the non-evil oblex alchemist one group will possibly meet. Or the bug-thing that can spit clouds of biting insects that another group will almost certainly murdilate. Or the green hag who's consorting with demons (neither of which is playable) another group is facing. Or the well-established dragon NPC (a former PC, now retired for centuries). Or any of the other many many NPCs who use NPC stat blocks (which have options not available to players and don't use ones they theoretically should have.

Now sure, if a DM bans a normal player option, he shouldn't then turn around and bring in a GMPC using those options. That's just dirty pool. But NPCs? NPCs are balanced against their role, not against PCs. Different roles == different capabilities and needs.

[ciarannihill]

@Anonymouswizard

I fully and completely disagree. The role of the DM (and thus the tools he needs) are not the same as the role of a player (and thus the tools they need). Your vision produces either insane balancing needs or very limited settings.

5e has no expectation that player options and DM options are the same. Or even related. You could play a game where the PCs are the only humans in the setting. Or one full of all sorts of intelligent NPCs that aren't available for players. Your view would require that all NPCs (including monsters of every sort) be built like PCs, which is bad design in 5e. Monster-PC transparency is a convoluted mess that only existed in one edition of D&D. Every other edition has rejected it for good reasons.

Lots of things are balanced when the NPC in question will only exist for 3-4 rounds in combat. Those same things would be hilariously imbalanced when available day-in-and-day-out to a PC.

Your way would also preclude "living settings" like I run, where different adventures actually change the world. It requires a pre-existing "state of the world" with restrictions on what can be played based on what has been discovered. Gnomes, for example, exist in the world but just not in this particular area. Same with the drow-analogues. Other creatures exist that aren't playable--goblins, for example. My goblins are barely sapient except in packs (due to a semi-hive-mind/shared-memory-space), so having a single goblin all by himself is not an option. Or the floating eyeball/R2D2 NPC that tagged along for a while. Intelligent, but not playable. Or the non-evil oblex alchemist one group will possibly meet. Or the bug-thing that can spit clouds of biting insects that another group will almost certainly murdilate. Or the green hag who's consorting with demons (neither of which is playable) another group is facing. Or the well-established dragon NPC (a former PC, now retired for centuries). Or any of the other many many NPCs who use NPC stat blocks (which have options not available to players and don't use ones they theoretically should have.

Now sure, if a DM bans a normal player option, he shouldn't then turn around and bring in a GMPC using those options. That's just dirty pool. But NPCs? NPCs are balanced against their role, not against PCs. Different roles == different capabilities and needs.

I might be misreading, but I think his point had less to do with the symmetry of options and more to do with the justification given for restricting options:
EDIT: Was misreading.

I feel like making sure restrictions you place on your players in terms of character have to be consistent and justified within one's world, for example if you only allow human PCs with the justification that there "are only humans in your setting", but then in the first town they encounter an Elf, a Dwarf, and a Tiefling you players might be (IMO) justifiably irked at you. Now perhaps you restrict races based on background/class/etc, like "Tieflings must begin with a Fiend Warlock level because the race is actually a physical manifestation of their pact, likewise Dragonborn must begin as Dragon Sorcerers" then encountering one becomes a clue about the NPC, area, etc.
How you've mentioned handling Goblins is a perfect example of a consistent and therefore reasonable justification for a restriction, for example.

I feel like the justification for the restrictions should be consistent for the world and the PCs, but I'm not gonna tell anyone else how to run their game.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I feel like the justification for the restrictions should be consistent for the world and the PCs, but I'm not gonna tell anyone else how to run their game.

I could see a perfectly good campaign where the premise is that you're playing the local non-humans and the antagonists are the human empire (or vice versa). I can see a perfectly good campaign where arcane magic is outright evil (and thus suitable only for villains). I can see a campaign where you're playing the good guys (and so evil is banned for PCs). Etc.

The assumption of symmetry between PCs and NPCs is a false assumption. More than anything, restrictions need to be made (if they are made) for the reason of increasing fun. If they serve that purpose, they're good. If they don't, they're bad.

[ciarannihill]

I could see a perfectly good campaign where the premise is that you're playing the local non-humans and the antagonists are the human empire (or vice versa). I can see a perfectly good campaign where arcane magic is outright evil (and thus suitable only for villains). I can see a campaign where you're playing the good guys (and so evil is banned for PCs). Etc.

The assumption of symmetry between PCs and NPCs is a false assumption. More than anything, restrictions need to be made (if they are made) for the reason of increasing fun. If they serve that purpose, they're good. If they don't, they're bad.

Oh absolutely those things, my point is not to mislead your players by saying "we're playing a game in which no humans exist in the world" instead of "we're playing a game where the premise is that you're playing the local non-humans and the antagonists are the human empire". That's all I'm getting at in a round-a-bout way.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Oh absolutely those things, my point is not to mislead your players by saying "we're playing a game in which no humans exist in the world" instead of "we're playing a game where the premise is that you're playing the local non-humans and the antagonists are the human empire". That's all I'm getting at in a round-a-bout way.

Ah. In that case, I agree fully. I'm all for more information and not misleading people. As well as getting buy-in. I've done some homebrew in cases where there wasn't a clear setting answer yet--I had a player play a "renegade" mind flayer (faulty cerebromorphosis caused a split/shared personality) that I brewed up. He had to be careful to keep a disguise up at all times though. As a result, there are now renegade mind flayers in the setting. Very few, but they must exist. I also have lots of homebrew classes that so far have only been used for NPCs. They're not banned, just not published openly as options (because they're still in the WIP category).

I just strongly disagree with requiring NPC/PC transparency. The resolution mechanics should be the same, but the exceptions, the "class features" can be anything under the sun. Whatever's required for their place in the fiction.

[ciarannihill]

Ah. In that case, I agree fully. I'm all for more information and not misleading people. As well as getting buy-in. I've done some homebrew in cases where there wasn't a clear setting answer yet--I had a player play a "renegade" mind flayer (faulty cerebromorphosis caused a split/shared personality) that I brewed up. He had to be careful to keep a disguise up at all times though. As a result, there are now renegade mind flayers in the setting. Very few, but they must exist. I also have lots of homebrew classes that so far have only been used for NPCs. They're not banned, just not published openly as options (because they're still in the WIP category).

I just strongly disagree with requiring NPC/PC transparency. The resolution mechanics should be the same, but the exceptions, the "class features" can be anything under the sun. Whatever's required for their place in the fiction.

I love consistent and growing world stuff in campaigns, where one campaign can influence the next. I had a group TPK recently by being utterly foolhardy and reckless (charging into a room where they heard a struggle with sub-5HP each and no spellslots of Rages left, then engage in combat directly instead of attempting any other method of approaching the encounter), and though we're beginning a new party with the same basic campaign, their previous characters and the things they had acquired and deeds they performed will still exist in the new game for the new characters to find.

Something that has frustrated me as a DM is when I say to my players "I don't want to do an evil campaign -- if one of you really, really wants an evil character that's fine, but decide who it is and everyone else please be either neutral or good" enter next session and they all show up with Chaotic Evil characters...

[Laserlight]

I don't care if PCs can't do the same things as NPCs, but PCs need to be able to do Cool Stuff.

This description sounds like the DM wants the DMPC to do all the Cool Stuff so it turns out exactly the way he wants it, and he can make sure the players don't deviate from the railroad. Tell him to write a novel and get someone else to DM.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I love consistent and growing world stuff in campaigns, where one campaign can influence the next. I had a group TPK recently by being utterly foolhardy and reckless (charging into a room where they heard a struggle with sub-5HP each and no spellslots of Rages left, then engage in combat directly instead of attempting any other method of approaching the encounter), and though we're beginning a new party with the same basic campaign, their previous characters and the things they had acquired and deeds they performed will still exist in the new game for the new characters to find.


I run after-school campaigns as part of a club. The nature of them means we get lots of short-term campaigns. The kids love the idea that their old characters are still around doing stuff. I always end each campaign with a session like "now what do your characters do?" Purely narrative, but it sets their goals for the future and I write them into the future narrative with that in mind (assuming another party doesn't come and break stuff in the mean time). I also extract key actions and fold them back into the "canon" timeline (since I may have multiple groups at once they're sort of in alternate timelines until things settle down). This sometimes requires messing with exactly who did what when but the changes they make are persistent.

I've had groups completely shake up the world--one got 5 unfriendly factions to ally against a common foe, another went exploring and brought a whole bunch of new nations into things, including things I hadn't thought of. It's what I like most about being a DM.



Something that has frustrated me as a DM is when I say to my players "I don't want to do an evil campaign -- if one of you really, really wants an evil character that's fine, but decide who it is and everyone else please be either neutral or good" enter next session and they all show up with Chaotic Evil characters...

I have a firm "if you act evil, your party will kick you out" policy. I don't do alignment (for anything, including monsters and outsiders), so I don't have "I'm Evil" characters. My main groups are more split on the law/chaos axis (with one person in particular out well past the slaadi on the chaotic end) but they tend to do "good".

[seventh_soul]

I like camping:smalltongue:

[Pex]

I'm soon to run a game again. I've told players "no tieflings". I did so because they don't exist in the game world. That is not what's happening in the OP. That DM hates players being so called optimal. He banned half the game his first campaign and makes players struggle through hoops to do stuff in the second. Meanwhile his NPCs can do all sorts of things he refuses to let players do. He's not running a world culture. He's being arbitrary and unfair.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm soon to run a game again. I've told players "no tieflings". I did so because they don't exist in the game world. That is not what's happening in the OP. That DM hates players being so called optimal. He banned half the game his first campaign and makes players struggle through hoops to do stuff in the second. Meanwhile his NPCs can do all sorts of things he refuses to let players do. He's not running a world culture. He's being arbitrary and unfair.

Agreed. The DM as written (assuming that it's a fair depiction) is acting like a jerk.

I've had DMs put restrictions/houserules that they thought were fun, but weren't. For example, variant encumbrance. Really, I had one who thought that forcing spellcasters (arcane ones anyway) to roll to see if they learned their spells, with a custom chart by school opposition and no fall-back (so if you failed as a sorcerer you just don't get that spell at all and if you're an evoker, you only have a decent chance of learning the two "next" to it and a crappy/no chance of learning anything else). I've had ones play with PF crit fail/hit decks (Ugh). But those were doing what they thought would be fun and failing. This one is just being a jerk/control freak without care for the fun of the players as far as was described.

[Spriteless]

I mean, the DM might be okay. Maybe he doesn't intend to bring in a high level DMPC, but will bring in a low level character with the future build allready figured out. Some people think roguelikes are fun, and random spells are the only thing that keeps Quest of Dungeons (https://www.questofdungeons.com/) fun after the first 100 runs. D&D is just like that, right?:smallwink:

Well, if you want to cooperate with/outsmart that DM, play a Bard. Since they aren't damage dealers, they are clearly the least optimal choice, and therefore the most interesting. If you be the chosen you can be the sort that makes your friends shine better. There is a lot of movies for inspiration, ranging in tone from Green Book to The Spice Girls Movie, to show DM how cool his game will be! And if he only gives you one spell ever you can still use skills for the limelight. Like perform, for the literal limelight. Or literal rotten tomatoes.

[Selion]

I played as a wizard in the 1th edition of d&d. Abilities were rolled with 3d6 in order (there was just a reroll allowed, we chose our classes after rolls were made), at first level i had just one random spell and i could cast it once a day. I picked "LIGHT"! (i could use it to blind foe, though)
It was somewhat funny, because of the dire, hostile setting.
I died at 100 experience points from level 2.

[ATHATH]

I played as a wizard in the 1th edition of d&d. Abilities were rolled with 3d6 in order (there was just a reroll allowed, we chose our classes after rolls were made), at first level i had just one random spell and i could cast it once a day. I picked "LIGHT"! (i could use it to blind foe, though)
It was somewhat funny, because of the dire, hostile setting.
I died at 100 experience points from level 2.
How is this at all relevant to the rest of this thread?

[Selion]

How is this at all relevant to the rest of this thread?

Because one of the home rules includes random spells for wizards, i just wanted to point out that it's possible to have fun in an inconvenient situation.

[ATHATH]

Because one of the home rules includes random spells for wizards, i just wanted to point out that it's possible to have fun in an inconvenient situation.
Oh, I forgot about the random spells bit.

[furby076]

Barring the other nonsense (like DMPC), I was thinking about this last night (the spell casting part) and have some ideas:

1) All classes that learn spells (wizard, bard, etc) - basically arcane magic users - learn their normally allotted spells (e.g., wizards learn 2 spells per level), however it's randomly chosen. Every time you get a level, you learn 2 RANDOM spells from the level you choose. So, if you get 5th level, you can learn 2 3rd level spells, 2 2nd level, 1 1st level or some combination

2) Divine casters, since they normally get all spells for that level, get 5 spells per level that you pick. Example:

At level 1 you learn 5 spells that you choose
At level 2, you learn additional 5 spells
At level 3, you learn 5 level 1 spells and 5 level 2 spells
At level 4, you learn 5 level 1 spells, 5 level 2 spells
At level 5, you learn 5 level 1 spells, 5 level 2 spells and 5 level 3 spells
Once you max out a spell level (presumably level 1 spells), you CANNOT transfer those 5 spells to a different level. You just don't have to worry about that levels spells


Wizards can still find scrolls to learn. The fun thing of randomness is you will be forced to be creative.

Best

[Banana3lf]

I would approach the dm. Ask for a normal game. Ask for him to step down. If he doesnt comply? Still play and get your players to all go the opposite direction of wherever he leads you. This person will eventually find new players and make them suffer too. Best to kill his ambition to play the game this way. It is brutal non-sense to want to dm a game where you have so many rules foe the sake of breaking them and being better your self. The game is based on the ability to tell the best stories combining all players perspectives. When he has a question or problem with all of your playing styles and always choosing to surrender to the bad guy or sedduce the maiden. Or to simply spend the night asking the librarian what is the content of every book he has. Or always asking what your surroundings look like? Tell him to take a look at the first 15 pages of the DMG where it clearly lays how to play this game and how he is not so why should you. Dont let this pre-pubessent anti-fun person go off and destroy some new players ideas of how dnd works and can be played! Nay, break his game. Ask every bartender their life story. Go find random buildings and inspect the crap put of them. Id even go as far as finding the leader of a small village and taking control of the village through subduing him/her and just plain owning a village-then once you own the village make every villager go out and write a detailed list of everything they own and bring it back to you-every bad thought they've ever had written down and given to your character, make the villagers call your character the "betterdm". Make the dm role play that. If he doesnt break then leave and find a new game. But as dm of several games for several years, most recently last 2 years 5e, this is the most attrocious version Ive ever seen a person make it. Heck, heat up a d20 and weight it to always role a nat 20. Then say, id like to persuade the bad guy into throwing down his weapon. *rolls a nat 20* see a dm get past that. Play a character with every multiclass possible. And when you die? Make the exact samr character just with different name. "This is bob" "wasnt your last character rob?" "This one is bob, and he is *wink* completely different because of it. This time he is chaotic evil. Hmm, it seems like bob wants to stab that npc who just started talking...repeatedly." DND IS A GAME WHERE YOU ALL MAKE UP STUFF TOGETHER. IF YOU CANT GET CHARACTER CREATION ON THE SAME PAGE AS YOUR PLAYERS? THIS PERSON SHOULD NOT PLAY THIS GAME. NOT AS A PLAYER NOT AS A DM. Dnd has been through the wringer with the satanic panic. Heck I still have to hid the fact that I play from 80% of the people I know. Now its finally taking off and making people feel good about being able to share that with each other. It has literally kept friends Ive know from continuing thoughts of suicide. So yes, this person is an abomination to the game and to all of those who play it. Show them this thread. Show them the pain they are causing. Show them, that we. will. Not. be. Ruled. Boston tea party-and throw his dmg in the sea. End of rant.

[the_brazenburn]

I would approach the dm. Ask for a normal game. Ask for him to step down. If he doesnt comply? Still play and get your players to all go the opposite direction of wherever he leads you. This person will eventually find new players and make them suffer too. Best to kill his ambition to play the game this way. It is brutal non-sense to want to dm a game where you have so many rules foe the sake of breaking them and being better your self. The game is based on the ability to tell the best stories combining all players perspectives. When he has a question or problem with all of your playing styles and always choosing to surrender to the bad guy or sedduce the maiden. Or to simply spend the night asking the librarian what is the content of every book he has. Or always asking what your surroundings look like? Tell him to take a look at the first 15 pages of the DMG where it clearly lays how to play this game and how he is not so why should you. Dont let this pre-pubessent anti-fun person go off and destroy some new players ideas of how dnd works and can be played! Nay, break his game. Ask every bartender their life story. Go find random buildings and inspect the crap put of them. Id even go as far as finding the leader of a small village and taking control of the village through subduing him/her and just plain owning a village-then once you own the village make every villager go out and write a detailed list of everything they own and bring it back to you-every bad thought they've ever had written down and given to your character, make the villagers call your character the "betterdm". Make the dm role play that. If he doesnt break then leave and find a new game. But as dm of several games for several years, most recently last 2 years 5e, this is the most attrocious version Ive ever seen a person make it. Heck, heat up a d20 and weight it to always role a nat 20. Then say, id like to persuade the bad guy into throwing down his weapon. *rolls a nat 20* see a dm get past that. Play a character with every multiclass possible. And when you die? Make the exact samr character just with different name. "This is bob" "wasnt your last character rob?" "This one is bob, and he is *wink* completely different because of it. This time he is chaotic evil. Hmm, it seems like bob wants to stab that npc who just started talking...repeatedly." DND IS A GAME WHERE YOU ALL MAKE UP STUFF TOGETHER. IF YOU CANT GET CHARACTER CREATION ON THE SAME PAGE AS YOUR PLAYERS? THIS PERSON SHOULD NOT PLAY THIS GAME. NOT AS A PLAYER NOT AS A DM. Dnd has been through the wringer with the satanic panic. Heck I still have to hid the fact that I play from 80% of the people I know. Now its finally taking off and making people feel good about being able to share that with each other. It has literally kept friends Ive know from continuing thoughts of suicide. So yes, this person is an abomination to the game and to all of those who play it. Show them this thread. Show them the pain they are causing. Show them, that we. will. Not. be. Ruled. Boston tea party-and throw his dmg in the sea. End of rant.

Seconded.

This DM sounds awful. I'd suggest trolling him (and trying to get the other players to do the same) until he gives up or tries to kick you out of the group.

Find an AL game, there's probably one near your house!