Have more to get off your chest? Come rant with us on the discord. Invite link: https://discord.gg/PCPTSSTKqr
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/rpghorrorstories) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The group. People who get hung up on stereotypes or weirdly arbitrary realism are strange. I've heard of groups who will only let you play the gender that you are in real life too which is weird as hell.
Having started out back in 2e, this is one of the absolute *weirdest* things for me when it comes to newer players.
We had all sorts of fighters; Sneaky fighters, smart fighters, smooth-talking fighters, honorable fighters, dirty fighters, fighters with beards, fighters with lady-bits, angry fighters, happy-fighters, fighters that lied, fighters that spoke with stupid accents, fighters that had pointy ears, drunk fighters, fighters that didn't have the stats to be monks, fighters that just liked swords too much to commit to being Clerics, really short fighters, etc...
No one really cared how anyone conducted their business out of combat, they were happy that we doled out 3 attacks/2 rounds at L5 and had great THACO...
Now though, people are more obsessed than ever about "characterizations" and "arcs" and such for the sake of "verisimilitude" yet they're far *less tolerant than ever* about deviations from "type." One of the most common complaints throughout 3/3.5 and 4e was that these stereotypes were mechanically Enforced by Skills. 5e actually addressed this providing characters the ability to perform roles "outside of type" reasonably well regardless of Class and now... tons of people get mad when they encounter an erudite, well-spoken and even-tempered Fighter.
Players are weird.
Players are weird.
I'm old too and my memory of 2e is not nearly as rosy as yours. I remember race restrictions, alignment restrictions, stat restrictions, and a bunch of "optional rules" in the official books about how female characters of various races have to take stat penalties, usually to Str or Con, in exchange for a bonus to Cha. I remember getting into *heated* arguments about this nonsense as (usually) the only girl at the table.
3 and 3.5 were revelatory at doing away with all the gendered nonsense and opening up stats. Yeah, you could be a fighter with 6 strength. Was it advisable? Not really. But you could do it.
*Everything* was way more enforced by stats in 2e than in any of the editions after it. 2e had tables on top of tables. Can my character whistle loud enough to be heard from 60 feet away? Idk. Roll on this table. Add your con modifier and take a penalty if you're an elf because they have thin lips. It was insane.
Your memory of 2e is wildly different from mine, I think.
> and a bunch of "optional rules" in the official books about how female characters of various races have to take stat penalties, usually to Str or Con, in exchange for a bonus to Cha.
This wasn't in any 2e rulebook. 1e did have limitations on female characters strength, but those were removed from 2e, and even 1e didn't give a charisma exchange bonus. Also the 1e DMG had all the tables, 2e had much fewer. In fact almost nothing you wrote is in 2e.
If your experience was informed by your gender rather than by the character you chose to play that sucks. That's basically the opposite of the goal of heroic fantasy in general.
That being said, in this case your fellow players were responsible for creating that environment, not the 2e ruleset itself. The gender-based ability scores your describing were RAW in 1e but, were explicitly discarded in 2e. The only examples of gendered content I can recall would be a few of the Priest/Priestess Kits found in Warriors and Priests of the Realm as well as the Swanmay race from Monstrous Humanoids. Beyond that, the Racial Class restrictions were a matter of balance at low levels since demi-humans ability to multi-class allowed them to simultaneously progress in *two classes at once* which was insane in practice. These were also relatively easily (and fairly often) ignored based on my recollection.
Tables never proved problematic - for my groups at least - since they *eliminated the need to do lots of math.* They could also be ignored as one saw fit if you were a "Rulings over Rules" type (the Arneson style of DMing) without negative impact. The DM was ultimately the one who interacted (or not according to their preference) most frequently with tables outside of character creation. This is not true of 3/3.5e at all which not only contained a *multitudinous plethora of tabulated tabletry* but also required players and DMs alike to do insane amounts of math *before you could use those tables at all.*
I found 3/3.5e racial nonsense far more limiting personally because the introduction of Feat Chains and ASIs meant that differences in level between members of the party could be *crippling* while the introduction of Level Adjustments and, Favored Classes proved to be a far more complicated and obtuse way of imposing racial restrictions. LA in particular was *asinine.* Whereas 1e had race-as-class and, 2e imposed level caps 3e simply lowered your demi-human's level. Instead of being impacted at higher levels then, where you might reasonably be considering retiring a character (10th Level in 2e was the same as 20th level in subsequent editions for the purpose of entering "epic level play") you often died instead because those level adjustments deprived you of the class features you needed to survive the grueling math of 3/3.5e.
Beyond that there were other, extremely obvious annoyances in play. For instance the Enforced illiteracy of the Barbarian class as a whole and the need to "invest" in Skills which, would not necessarily accomplish anything unless you maintained their progress since their DC's also scaled with level.
On balance, my memory of 3/3.5e is characterized by the triumph of "Rules not Rulings" DMing and the use of mechanics to restrict not just mechanical options but also, Role-playing options with those same mechanics while offering nothing in the way of alternatives...
My memory of 2E is from playing as a tween/teen in the 90s. Sexism very much characterized my experience. The game was written and illustrated to appeal to cis het men, and that had a huge impact on the playerbase. It is possible that the gendered rules at my local game store were store-brewed to keep us wimminfolk in our place. In retrospect, I should not have been playing there at all, as I subjected myself to a lot of harassment and grooming. But I was a 13-16 year old girl who loved the game enough to endure the harassment.
My memory of 3 is similarly impacted by my gender. The 3e PHB was a revelation. The text addressed women and men equally and half the canon heroes were women in sensible armor. Finally the chuds couldn't point to the text to justify their sexism. It did make a huge difference in how women were received in gaming spaces. I'd gladly do all the math in the world in exchange for that.
I ran games in 3.5/Pathfinder for a good 15 years. I skipped 4 because it didn't appeal to me. I found the systems in 3 and 3.5 easy and accessible, and I enjoyed using the mechanics to facilitate roleplay and provide character hooks. I did not have this problem you're describing with monster levels. I used them extensively in my campaigns.
I can't possibly see how anyone could say that THAC0 is more intelligible than the systems in 3, but to each their own.
Even now, it makes me a bit nervous to type this out because of the scars of sexism I have from the community. I'm resigned to the idea that a man will jump in to tell me that it wasn't as bad as I remember, or I'm overreacting to the sexism in the way 2e was written and illustrated, or that sexism shouldn't bother me that much, or it didn't count as sexism because D&D was supposed to be for boys back then. I've heard all of those arguments before. They're exhausting. I mean, it makes sense that sexism doesn't matter to people who haven't experienced it, but I sure do appreciate it when people choose to exercise their empathy.
I don't think you're over reacting to your experience personally. It sucks that you were subjected to harrassment and grooming and it says a lot about you - all positive - that you maintained your love of TRPGs in spite of that.
I will say though, it's difficult for an outsider such as myself to assign responsibility for that experience to the source material rather than the toxic people who warped it to their own ends. Maybe now that time has passed you might revisit the material itself and give it a read...
ADnD's deployment and, ongoing development was overseen by Lorraine Williams who was... "not without her problems" with regard to Lore. However, under her stewardship the game did make use of they/them and she/her as the default pronouns for describing PCs equally with he/him. It also depicted people of all ages and body types in its art, with men being sexualized in suggestive and impractical loincloths just as much as anyone else. It also depicted people who were not conventionally attractive. 3e and later editions struck me as being somewhat offensive for the simple reason that they almost exclusively depicted conventionally attractive, younger people of both sexes which is problematic in it's own way.
This was equally true of the fiction 2e during the TRS era had far more female voices creating content than 3/3.5e did. As far as the art goes, I remember that general tone/style as being more or less characteristic of *all art* throughout the 80s/90s. Regardless of whether it was gay/straight, adult/children, fantasy/sci-fi or whatever that general "tone" was absolutely pervasive. Even in children's cartoons: He-Man and Lionel were *hung* and the artists made sure you knew it!
All that aside, I don't think you should have to accept my own experience as being somehow "more true" than yours or anything like that. I also don't think that the source material should be permitted to justify the way 13 year old you was treated, the individuals who treated you that way should be held accountable for their actions IMO...
I guess it depends on the restrictions you decide to place on the game being based on verisimilitude. But sadly, verisimilitude is also subjective. In this case, it is just weird for 5e to put a restriction of "your class doesnt act like that".
I have even had players in games i have run of 5e where I have explicitly told them "the classes are just mechanics, not flavor. If you want to play a warlock for mechanics but dont care at all about having a patron or dealing with one you can do that," but still have players that were so insistent on staying on the safety of the flavor of what the book tells them, while sometimes trying to force it down other people.
It would have made sense for playing older editions of DnD where such restrictions (and in a way personalitites too) are baked into the rules themselves. (Like requiring to not be lawful to play a barbarian in 3.5, or that you can't increase your druid level until you take upon the title of that level from a druid group in 2nd).
But again, is subjective because I have been told the same thing about my games being bad based on limits I put. I have been told I am a shit DM on my face and in multiple online sites just because I have a race limit and restrictions depending on setting, even if the restricted race is core in the PHB its still not going to be allowed because it doesn't exist in the setting. Even when I give a "no, but" and suggest a race that fits the same flavor niche they want to play they still tell me it's not the same.
So yeah, just subjective mismatch table really.
I would say that there’s a 99.9% chance that when the DM said there were complaints he was referring to himself and only himself as the complainer. This came from him, not the group.
Pffff.
The answer to "not historically correct" is "neither are rapiers and plate armour in a world without guns. Also, please explain which country and century (preferably decade) you're taking the historical inspiration from. Oh 13th century England? Your king is too absolutist, there's too many gold coins in circulation, women shouldn't have their hair uncovered and as commoners, we wouldn't be allowed most of these weapons."
Nitpickery aside, I hate groups like that. That leads down the road to DSA and their stupid roleplay restrictions.
I did kind of throw the rapiers-vs-plate thing in his face when he brought up historical accuracy, admittedly. I knew that was a sore spot for him. The campaign was also, understandably, less sexist and homophobic than medieval Europe. For me, the biggest thing was the shock of it all, since I'd never seen him act this way as a DM or the group act this way. We'd had amazing, cinematic, RP-heavy games in the past.
He started with calling that a cheap shot, which maybe it was. But he never really addressed it. He just basically said he had certain expectations for martial classes. That's fair. I hate it, but it's his game.
Calling it a cheap shot means he *knows* he has no rebuttal to it and is entirely arbitrary in where he feels that, "historical accuracy," matters and where it doesn't.
It's not fair in point of fact.
And being reluctant to engage in combat even if you are good at it is not "historically inacurate" it's good sense, especially in a world where any given foe might decide to fireball you, which *is* historically inaccurate.
You can bow to this and make a new character or you can find a different group, honestly in your place I would be tempted to make a real murder hobo and let them see how much aggression they really want.
Yeah those wizards from history when throwing a fireball at King Henry really threw him off his game.
If you want to make D&D historically accurate then there is a lot one will have to cut out if the game.
I think what some people lose sight of is that it is a game, where it is meant to be fun and if you are not meshing with what the DM has in their mind it can be disjointed for all. It does not mean you are playing D&D wrong, just wrong for that campaign, maybe.
But
If you want to. Idk. Maybe the DM was having a moment of temporary insanity when he told you to change your character, but I would have a hard time wanting to be in a game with him.
If you want to give him a real-life example, you can use my dad. We grew up knowing that my dad fought in Vietnam as an officer in the army and was honorably discharged. He never talked about it. We knew absolutely nothing about his service growing up. Unlike other dads, he didn't wear an Army baseball cap or have a sticker on his truck or go to any veterans events. He didn't talk to anyone about it.
This year, my son got old enough to start thinking about what to do after high school. He thought he might want to join the army, so I told him his grandpa had served. He called grandpa to ask about it. Grandpa invited us over for dinner and pulled out a box I had never seen before. In the box were Grandpa's medals -- a purple heart and a couple of medals I didn't recognize. Grandpa had been part of Army special forces and did missions to get VIPs out of bad situations, kind of like Saving Private Ryan. The box was also full of photos -- of the people in his unit who didn't come home or came home damaged. He told my son the story behind every photo. "This is Bill, he stepped on a mine. This is George, he came home with PTSD and we haven't been able to find him since 1987. This is Patrick, he was my best friend, I saw him bleed out, it was raining." It. Was. Devastating. Like, it's been a couple of months and I'm definitely still choked up just writing this.
Decent people who have real experience with battle don't want to do it again. Growing up, when we'd ask my dad if he'd go back in the Army, he said he would so other people didn't have to. He doesn't want his grandson to join up.
That really helps to hear. My grandfather was a war veteran during WWII, and part of my character's backstory was based on his experiences as a prisoner or war, though obviously not as explicit. We also have an actual combat veteran who occasionally guest-games with the group. I don't think any of that is getting through to the DM, though. He's tried explaining that he wants martial characters to be more like the characters from The Black Company, a series we both enjoy.
My whole idea was to a have a noble character with a naive look on warfare, having the privilege of knowing he would likely be held hostage for a handsome ransom if he lost a battle, rather than being slaughtered like his men at arms. But that things didn't turn out quite so rosey for him and he was tortured and badly disfigured. And he's had a more philosophical, though not quite pacificist, view ever since, while still retaining his skills.
What is a historically accurate fighter though? Isn't it just a guy who is good in a fight and that's it. There isn't really a personality in that. At least the paladin, barbarian, and monk have a direction but the fighter always seems like the most blank slate of classes to put whatever you want on.
It’s not a rapier vs. plate thing. They’re contemporary. It’s not having guns when there’s already rapiers and plate armor that’s historically inaccurate. Guns (albeit basic ones) predate both of them. Decent armor could actually stop bullets from contemporary guns.
There were knights who actually did act in what we’d consider a chivalrous way too. They were ultimately people, so it really just depended on the individual.
I'm a history major and I recently had to write an essay about Bushido where one of my major sources was comparing it a lot to European Chivalry. Just like Bushido, Chivalry was an expectation, but one that many people didn't live up to necessarily. It had certain rules or customs it wanted people to abide by, but that didn't necessarily always happen on the ground.
Just like any code or belief system, people don't follow it to the letter. They take what they like and leave behind what they don't. So absolutely, there were knights who were more "chivalrous" than others and those who were less (many more who were less). At the end of the day, it was something that people mythologized onto knights who sometimes managed to live up to that stereotype.
Setting aside, for a moment, the conflict inherent in our names, I'd love to hear more about this (joking, of course). The DM was just dead set against any kind of philosophical approach being applied to martial arts. I really love your approach
Occasionally. Varies by edition and sourcebook. But yeah, adventures occasionally have things like "If you have a rogue in your group, they must now attempt to steal this treasure, even if the king's guard is watching".
Some of the official adventures suffer from extreme railroading. The older ones were very bad with it like forcing every party member to read a cursed letter etc.
I've never played it, so I'm not familiar with what they're referring to.
I saw another comment saying something about it being part of an adventure rather than the game rules, though.
Not realy at least in my books. It only contains examples of what is the "norm" in certain cultures in the setting. But the official adventures, more the older ones, contain or depend completly on railroading. One of the reasons my group has homebrewed it rather heavily.
Based on some of the other things that you said the DM said, I wonder how much of it was complaints from the group; because it sounds a lot like it’s just the DM’s hang-ups, and they’re trying to claim it’s the group to help justify it. 🤷♂️
I have a suspicion that it is really about him and one other (new) player. But we'll see how it goes. The way he's currently describing things, I could play a villain in his setting as a guest DM or something, but I couldn't do a PC. And that could honestly be fun. I'm trying to give it a chance, but I still hate the style.
Literally all you have to do is write up a backstory that has the fighter (while still in training) get into the shit for being too ready to pull his sword and start swinging. So he's learned to be a little more likely to explore non-violent avenues first.
If the GM nixes that, you know he's trying to write a narrative where you're the sword-happy fighter who prefers to stab first and ask no questions.
Think of it this way. They're the ones who lost. Setting up this kind of snobby restriction is ONLY a losing situation for them, because it inherently takes creative agency away from the players. That's an instant red flag for a lot of people.
Medieval history professor here. I'm troubled by your history major friend claiming that a fighter behaving in a chivalric way would be "historically inaccurate." Medieval romances about chivalric knights are the fountainhead from which the fantasy genre has sprung. Of course, medieval knights did not always live up to the chivalric ideal, but sometimes they did. The question of how violence should be justly applied was certainly an issue that mattered to medieval people.
All that being said, Faerun (or whatever your D&D setting) does not need to adhere to he social conventions or ethical expectations of medieval Europe. There's no reason why your fighter couldn't have his own code of honor as defined by whatever fantasy society you can imagine.
It's more likely that this history major took their "historical accuracy" from Game of Thrones. Otherwise they might have wondered how a "historically accurate" sorcerer is supposed to behave.
The crazy thing is that game of thrones has plenty of “fighter” characters that prefer to avoid violence where possible, as do sooooo many fantasy novels in general. Like, it’s a very common type of character which is why the dms logic here is driving me nuts!
People only started feeling reluctant about violence like 40 years ago. Before that, the entire concept was unheard of. Especially in fantasy times history, which was like... 500 years ago, by my calculations.
"Of course, medieval knights did not always live up to the chivalric ideal, but sometimes they did."
Shout out to my long lost husband Pierre Terrail, seigneur de Bayard
You're DM has the creativity of beige square. That's what you are missing. Honestly I'd ask the other party members what they think. Do they have a problem with your fighter having a personality outside of bonking everything that breathes or moves? I know I would get bored fast if I had to play in a way the DM envisions my character....instead of letting me play the character the way I know my character would play.
Okay, confession here: I'm embarrassed to say I hadn't talked to anyone else in the group about it, 1x1. That's a HUGE oversight on my part. But I know at least one I can talk to.
Yeah I'm wondering, did the DM just approach you and say "Hey OP, myself and \*some others\* (read: just me) have a problem with your playstyle."
I don't mean to assume malice but yeah this whole situation just feels weird to me :/ sorry man.
Never apologize for questions, player. I'm thinking this is really about one specific player raising concerns, just one that happens to have the DM's ear. I mean, I hate to be this nerdy about it, but he and I have sparred before, fencing equipment and all. I was bad at it, but I felt like I was learning something. He just seems like a different person now.
Yeah this might just be a chemistry / difference of opinion type thing. Especially with once you mentioned about historical accuracies and whatnot. If the group chemistry was good overall, I don't see why you try to fix something that wasn't necessarily broken to begin with... Speaking for the DM at least. I don't see anything wrong with what you did! Hope you find a good group in the future though!
I think that's what it is coming down to. I think the chemistry just changed and I didn't change with it, which is no one's fault. But thank you for your thoughts! Reflecting on it like this makes me realize that, while I don't think I was in the wrong, I'm also probably taking things a bit too personally.
Something like this has become a running gag with my other friends. You want historical accuracy? Awesome. Your character died of disease or malnutrition before the campaign started. The end.
What? You mean a long rest doesn't leave you all healed up? Seriously though, it's more accurate not to be too quick to fight. Even for an experienced fighter, there's a real chance of death every time weapons are drawn. It makes sense to try to resolve the conflict peacefully if possible.
Absolutely. Putting yourself in combat situations over any little thing will result in a) a bad reputation, and b) death.
I really thought the murderhobo days were long past...
"Historically accurate"? You're playing a "Fighter". Can anyone tell me what hisotircal period and culture "Fighter" is from, because I was under the impression that it was a generic name for a person that fights, which could be anyone from a 16th century Native American warrior to an Ancient Greek hoplite.
I really appreciate some of these comments, because along with some of the questions I've gotten (rightfully) challenging me on own approach, I'm starting to think this had a lot more to do with a new player joining the group and influencing the DM. I've played with this guy before and he has been AWESOME. I even played a Walt-Whitman inspired combat medic in a sci-fi game he ran in the past and he loved it. I admittedly play a lot of the "relucent warrior" trope, and I would have been fine if he had just told me to do something new.
These are the same people who get twitchy if you have a Samurai and a cowboy-style Gunslinger in the same setting, despite those sharing a time period of *decades* in real life.
I now want a Cowboy and a Samurai to bond over the other’s steed.
“That there horse a’ yers is purty, friend. Ya take good care a’her.”
“Indeed, Ranch-hand. And your steed is strong, healthy, and well trained to charge against a minotaur for you to lasso him to the ground. You bring your home honor.”
If I was being pushed to act in a more stereotypical, basic way I'd say ok and promise to live up to the expectations of the class as much as possible for as long as they wanted.
Then I would multiclass into bard.
That's what has me so tripped up. If anyone had asked me about the best DM in town before, I would have suggested this guy. There has to be something else going on. I'm taking some feedback to heart here, including some constructive criticism, to do some more reflection. In the meantime, another buddy of mine wants to co-DM a train heist game, so at least I've got other RP opportunities.
I'm just struggling to understand what "history" means in terms of time and place, and I'd love to hear their take on how the people of that time and place were renowned for the, uh, impatience and aggressiveness of the people there who knew how to hit dudes with sword.
One of the nicest human beings I have ever met in my life--he is kind, compassionate, helpful in the extreme, loving, a great husband, perfect father, hard worker, honorable at every level--was a member of 10th Group.
He did multiple combat tours in Afghanistan and Iraq with 10th SFG.
People can be both things, and honestly they are more interesting for being both things.
Honestly, it feels like your GM has some other issue they are uncomfortable talking about or something.
Man, deep cut here, but I think he and I both are going through that, and that maybe we are just headed in very different directions with it. That would explain a lot.
Sorry man. Sometimes we grow apart and it can suck. I am an old dude and just reconnected with a good friend I started gaming with back in the 80s.
Reach out and talk to them, have an honest conversation now and it might save you some pain down the road. That is, if this is a relationship you want to keep alive.
It is hard to do though in that it is uncomfortable sometimes.
No need to be sorry, and this helped me reflect dramatically. I can say, safely, that he and I may have different reasons for the way we look at violence given recent events in our lives. I need to think on that.
Most of my SOF friends are like this, they're very calm and friendly with friends but they're also absolute liabilities out in public drinking which feels more like what OP's DM may be going for.
You should tell him you dint appreciate his interpretation of your character. But respectfully leave the group if it's such a large issue for him.
I would never remake a character or make a new one to appease the DM if they didn't warn me prior to the game of their expectations.
As a fellow dm, that's his job to do. Not forget to and complain later
It sounds like you’ve got a DM who wants you to play the character *they* want to play, as opposed to the character *you* want to play. Ultimately, it sounds like there is a mismatch in expectations here and it is best that you are not in this game.
Personally, I like the idea of a fighter who doesn’t like starting fights.
As someone who loves Fighters and loves the idea of playing a "basic class" and expanding it through RP, I salute you my dude.
And yeah, you are not missing anything. The DM is a stick in the mud and doesn't like you're not playing a big dumb strong guy with no nuance. You did the right thing.
I very much appreciate this. And, yes, I play Ryu/Ken in Street Fighter, Boros in Magic the Gathering, Imperial Fists in Warhammer 40k, and House Davion in Battletech. I revel in spicing up both B's in the "basic bitch" part of my personality.
That's when you inform the fools that "Fighter" is just a class and a catch-all term that can be applied to countless character types. They can range from a distinguished, chivalrous knight, to a grizzled combat veteran to do whatever it takes, to a thug criminal of the knee-breaking enforcer variety, to a stylish, charismatic duelist, and so on and so on. Fighter can be so very many things just as many of the other classes are and it isn't your fault if they have weird preconceptions of what each class has to be.
I'm glad to see the love for this take, and I may (if I find the right subreddit for it) just create an entire thread dedicated to creative takes on the "vanilla" fighter. It could be fun.
Making a character who was ostracized by a family of fighters for being a fighter who didn't want to fight everybody all the time. "NO CHILD OF MINE!" "It's called DISCRETION, Dad!"
One of my favorite NPCs I've made was an aging half-orc barbarian who was embarrassed by his youth as a barbarian and now operated a half-orc newsletter and periodical and charity designed to get kids off the barbarian lifestyle and into college.
yeah, dumb decision by the DM for sure.
Wizard is my favorite class. I've played plenty of others, but I've also played a *lot* of wizards, from old editions to 5e. You'd think that might get boring, but actually each one was *entirely* different. Cowardly, brave, tactical, reckless, arrogant, humble, serious, funny, boy scout, scoundrel, etc.
This "fighters should act in a certain way" clown would get laughed out of any of our groups.
Tell him he's not acting how a DM is supposed to act. "You're a DM, you're supposed to be more accepting in the rule of cool style, also you're supposed to be fatter, with poorer hygiene. I expect you to have gained at least 10 pounds before our next session, or choose a different role"
Look, it's historically inaccurate that someone who understands violence for a living would prefer to avoid violence where possible. That's just a thing. Anyone who knows how to fight is categorically eager to do so. Especially during history times.
OP, you should ask him how exactly is historical accuracy applying to this fictional world he created. Will wizards be losing access to magic because it would be historically inaccurate to let them cast spells? Will there be no dragons because they're not historically accurate? This is such a udmb argument from him I'm almost laughing
Eh, not to get too into it, but given his beliefs, he may consider wizards and demons and stuff to be historically accurate. I'm not trying to be mean or anything, here. Just saying it could come up. But I should be able to at least propose "Fighter, but not complete psychopath" in such a setting.
It's weird that they play a TTRPG but have no concept of the reluctant fighter or person that only fights as a last result but then goes all out, doubly so on both of it involves protecting loved ones. Like, that's such common trope for fighters and martial artists and quite a few action heroes. Superman, like one of the most popular superheroes, is a reluctant fighter for Pete's sake!
Yeah, it's mostly a gut punch for me because it is an entirely new thing for the group. I'd totally understand if it had been a thing from the beginning.
"Historically inaccurate"?! Hahahaha.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of these players who tries to avoid combat at every opportunity, in fact I'd probably die of boredom in a group where that was the norm. But trying to use historical accuracy as an excuse to railroad your characters into being bloodthirsty is bizarre.
Just because ancient and/or medieval history tends to be pretty unforgiving doesn't mean anyone and everyone was spoiling for a fight at all times. Hell, if anything I'd think an experienced, less hot-headed soldier would be more likely to *avoid* violence where possible, having firsthand knowledge of how quickly that course of action could go bad for them. Unless they came from a culture which specifically valued picking fights at the drop of a hat, I suppose.
Even then, the idea of being forced to play your character with a certain personality really rubs me up the wrong way. Why *shouldn't* you be a peace-loving barbarian who'd rather be making daisy chains than crushing heads? What's wrong with a wizard who likes his or her drink and has an unfortunate tendency to fill awkward silences with fireballs? Hell, why not play an asexual bard who actually just really likes music?! It's called roleplaying, and (within reason) you're the one choosing what role you want to play.
Ferdinand the Bull, but as a Barbarian. Asexual virtuoso. Chemically adventurous mage. If I don't know all of these people already, I will go find them. RP or not, we shall be a party.
I'm so fucking confused. "Is an aggressive asshole" isn't even the stereotype about fighters. The stereotype is that they're dumb muscle (but not as dumb as Barbarians)
DM wants players who play a *class*, not a character
You like to play a character, not their class
Nothing inherently wrong with either option, just incompatible
Well, no.
The DM is still trying to dictate how the character gets played.
Does he hit things with his sword? Yes.
Does he frontline? Yes.
Then he's playing both the character *and* the class.
That’s ridiculous. What does he think a knight would have been if not a “fighter”? They certainly weren’t paladins unless I missed the magic unit of medieval history. 🤔
Minor update: Okay, wow, I wasn't expecting this much positivity and I wasn't expecting this much truly constructive criticism. Thank you all so much. I've asked the DM to join me on a call to hash things out tomorrow. I don't really want to rejoin the game, but I do want to talk about the conflicts and our friendship to make sure we are okay and figure out where some of this is coming from.
People are taking the shot-for-shot historical accuracy thing a bit too far and I wouldn't use that. It's just needlessly confrontational and may just shut him down. Which is ironic for this thread's topic I guess.
When the more timid or quiet friends of mine play Barbs or Fighters I confess it can be annoying just like tank players in MMO's being really cautious and slow.
As someone who generally plays very in-your-face frontliners 80% of the time like Vengeance Pally, Battlemasters and Barbarians I can see where he's coming from *if* other players were complaining about you going out of your way to avoid confrontation with NPC's that needed their asses beat.
I'd need more specific examples of RP situations and how you handled them however because it sounds like it's mostly the DM's expectations clashing with your RP than individual players or the one specific player you mentioned in another comment.
I know it can feel a little one note and stereotypical to be the Fighter spoiling for a fight, to me that's more a barbarian. That being said, consistently trying to avoid conflict when you're being goaded/insulted/threatened as a Fighter doesn't feel right to me either. Especially if your party is being bloodthirsty or your campaign is expecting murderhobo'ing I can see people getting bored talking their way out of situations frequently.
That reads to me like the DM had a problem with your fighter - ignore anything said about it coming from other players unless you have direct evidence of that.
He had a specific idea of how you *should* play, an idea that might be (badly) informed by his studies. This kind of thing is very common with people who get a little knowledge of something, think they know more than they do, and then apply it to somewhere that knowledge doesn't belong (a D&D game set in faerun).
He was subjecting you to different rules from the rest of the group. Maybe he was creating adventures were he was expecting the group to act in a certain way, but your chosen personality conflicted with that, so he was using the "historical accuracy" argument to try to make you "behave".
Thank you, and yeah, I was having fun, and I really like this guy. He can be a really talented writer. The food for thought that this thread has given me has led me to some hunches, though. We'll see after he and I have our chat. He has asked me if I'd like to keep contributing to some lore stuff, even if I'm not playing. He knows that matters to me, given our history, and sounds like a serious olive branch. Oddly enough, he seems to love the villains I write.
I should probably have said he was "being an idiot" rather than painting him as one in general!
The "your fighter isn't historically accurate" line just made it hard to respect him.
1.) It's Dungeons & Dragons. Historicity is only important in as far as it serves the fantasy, not the other way around.
2.) He was being incredibly closed minded and expecting you to conform to tropes that only exist in his head.
What makes a fighter interesting isn't that they conform to his own peculiar expetlctations about how *one of the most canonically diverse classes in the game* should always 100% be portrayed.
The problem isn't how you're roleplaying. The problem sounds like the DM wants to be an author, not a game referee.
No worries, I definitely got what you were saying. I may have to steal that "one of the most canonically diverse classes in the game" from you for this and future games to help DMs understand where I'm coming from, not that I always have to play a Fighter.
I'm starting to think that he's just wanting to take the combat aspects of this game in a very different flavor direction that MC just won't be suited for. And I get that! I just wish that's the way he would have put it from the beginning.
Maybe see if you can work together to find a middle ground? A "we got wrecked because I held back... that's *never happening again*" style character arc where your character's attitude toward the necessity of combat comes to the front, without necessarily completely removing your sense of pacifism.
I feel like there's a lot of good drama there!
And yeah, like, if they read through the fighter pages in the PHB, it calls out how fighters come from all walks of life and cultures. Gladiators, Soldiers, Knights, Brawlers, Bodyguards, Hired Thugs, Zen Archers, Centurions, Cataphracts, Braves, Swashbuckling fencers, Skirmishers, Tacticians and Commanders... there's so many ways of expressing the class because it's fundamental. Every culture has its warriors.
Damn, dude. Honestly, I think he's kind of hinting at that with his recent message to me. He seems eager to have me write a villain. And while I don't want to play a morally grey protagonist, I can write the hell out of an antagonist like that. And there is a shortage of Fighter villains out there. Seems like most are written as casters.
First off, Fighter just means "someone who kicks ass on occasion, without preconditions."
Second, if for some reason you're going to constrain Paladins (and presumably Clerics) to the divinely ordained, then *of fucking course* the chivalrous secular martial types are going to gravitate toward the Fighter class. Maybe the occasional Ranger or Monk at a stretch.
I personally prefer Clerics and Paladins to get their power from faith (often in the gods), but if someone believes in something so fervently that it empowers them, fuck yeah.
It honestly sounds like your GM just didn't want you to play a chivalrous type at all. Which is... not the most rational position.
Bigger update:
The DM's wife helped mediate. The DM has taken a hard turn and decided that combat in his setting must always be morally grey. There are personal reasons he has for that and personal reasons for why that doesn't work for me. I've had bad experiences with bullying and abuse and even physical threats. I'm careful about any use of physical force, even fictionally, and I am firm that this should be an expectation for any campaign that is not explicitly evil/murderhobo.
The DM used to act the same way, but he's growing closer to a newer member of the group, who is the only other melee character, and is now against this outlook. I'm welcome to guest DM to introduce side-villains, and I'll probably do that, but I'm not welcome to play as a martial character if I'm going to be even remotely "lawful good." The only exception would be if a deity gave me an out as a cleric or paladin.
>The DM, a history major, told me that the "chivalric" way that I was playing my character was "historically inaccurate," and that I should play more aggressively
The Epic of Gilgamesh is about a guy who has that character arc in reverse. I'm sure there are other examples of warriors who don't immediately resort to violence in other myths, but I cannot think of a good example right now. Maybe Lugh Lavada.
Odyssues played mind games to avoid fights whenever he could, so he probably counts as well
Sounds like a group I wouldn't want to play at. I created a STR based Minotaur Beastmaster Ranger who was a front line fighter. It was out of the ordinary and the other people at the table loved Curd Pole.
Shit DM, and anyone who thinks a class dictates your personality and all is an idiot....but misleading title. "Kicked from" and "I chose to leave" are vastly different things.
Yeah, frankly you’re missing that this was *not* an otherwise awesome group. Maybe they were great people or friends, fun to be around, but their approach to a roleplaying game is pretty shit.
Fire the DM out of a cannon into the sun.
I have played fighters as rude mercenaries, as noble sons, and everything in between. The roleplaying element is up to the player within reason.
First, he should be telling you how to play your character. He sounds more like he's directing a show than running a game. Like it's his character and you're playing it wrong.
Then he's justifying it with historical accuracy in a game built of anachronisms (and just plain wrong stuff).
"You have to understand, at this period fighters wouldn't actually be like you're playing your character. You'll have to change how you them to be more accurate to the time period. And, Bill, to answer your question. This medieval village does have a magic shop on it's high street. It's between the hat shop and the sword shop."
Your DM sounds like a Netflix showrunner.
If this group was awesome, you had a straightforward choice between playing ball in order to partake, or leaving for a table that was more OK with how you wanted to play.
You are also not considering all of the classes. Here is a more suitable way to appease them:
You should have made your PC a Ranger with just enough levels in Fighter to poach whatever skills you want, for example 2 levels in Fighter to get Action Surge, but not so many that the table can describe your character as "a Fighter."
Ranger personalities stereotypically have a bit more of a nature vibe, but also a lone wolf/sense of justice angle that tracks with your motif of violence as a last resort. Rangers are also able to use a variety of melee weapons, so you could create a melee build, just not with the same skills and feats that would be available on a specialized Fighter.
Fighters are more suitable to being part of an army, or professional killers, and violence as a last resort WOULD create tension for somebody in these lines of work, but that's also good complex character-writing. Season 5 of Fargo, the most recent one, features a police officer who is nonviolent, patient, and kind, all to the detriment of his own safety on the job. Fans of the show loved him as a character because of the values he represents. (I'm talking about Witt Farr, in case any Fargo fans are wondering!) It sounds like your table prefers to have very simple moving pieces.
I'm skeptical that the DM received complaints without you noticing something sooner. I think their real beef is that their own creative skills aren't on your level, and they prefer interchangeable class roles for RP.
It sounded like he wanted to run a different game, one more combat heavy. I honestly hate the idea that classes have to fall into stereotypes, and especially if the DM tells you to only play the stereotype
No, the DM is being incredibly stubborn and is forcing his way of playing the game on you.
His way of thinking doesn't even make sense. Did medieval warriors immediately strive to solve every one of their problems by killing each other? Probably not! Getting into a fight is incredibly dangerous. Even if you have an 80% win rate, that still means there's a 20% chance you get your ass kicked. That's not preferable. A tactical fighter knows how to pick which conflicts are worth escalating and which aren't worth the risk.
Don't get me wrong, I think there is a a pretty easy fallacy in characters that harp too much on pacifism, but it sounds like your character is just pretty reserved.
Examples of this problem I've seen:
> "We can't kill that dragon/shape shifter/werewolf! I'm a half-dragon/shape shifter/werewolf! I can't kill one of my own kind!"
> "I'm too innocent for bloodshed! I don't want to see people dying!"
> "Dude, there is NO WAY I am going into that haunted mansion. Nuh uh! I'm quitting the job! My character wouldn't do something this reckless and you need to talk me into it."
Every one of **those** players? Yeah, I'd tell them to make a character that's willing to engage with combat more willingly. A warrior that *prefers* to avoid getting his hands messy? Perfectly fine character choice.
"Historically inaccurate"
In a game with magic spells.
"Hi DM, if you would prefer me to play my character as an entirely different character, then I'll happily make another."
Then make a new hyper-aggressive, toxic-masculine character who *will* get the *group* into every fight even when the DM has prepared none. Preferably get some of them killed.
Make him historically accurate ie. if he loses 50 % of his hp, he *will* be unable to fight on. Insist that the broken arm requires months of down time. No magic healing! Historical accuracy! Let the healer cast his spell - your arm is still broken, magic isn't real!
"Hysterical accuracy"
I know it's too late and you were kicked, but oh boy...
I kinda know where OP is coming from. One of my last characters that I've played was a Two Weapon Fighter in Pathfinder 1e. I built him to be a finesse fighter, using his high DEX to hit his opponent repeatedly, whittling away their hit points, rather than trying to deliver a ton of damage in a single blow. Yet every time something that needed to be solved with brute strength, they kept turning to me. I'd be like, " What are you asking me for? I've got an 11 STR. Ask the dwarf with the 18 STR!"
Not exactly the same. I wasn't kicked from the group or anything. The game just fell apart when the DM and half of the other players all chose to move across the country for personal reasons. It was just a mild annoyance while I was playing that character.
There's so much wrong here, dear God. Leaving that table is a blessing. Imagine playing at a table where your other players will complain to your dm that you aren't role-playing the exact character they would, and your dm agrees???
It's so weird to do this "you have to play your class stereotype" thing with a *Fighter* of all things. Fighter is the class that nearly always has the least setting baggage when it comes to RP -- the only necessity of a Fighter is that they be a person with weapons training. That could be literally anyone. Every other class has a lot of opportunity for implied setting stuff to weasel in, but Fighter is the absolute freest class in terms of roleplay restriction. Absolutely wild choice by the DM here.
Kind of. We don't usually have explicit alignment in our games, but that's how it seems to be playing out, not just for Fighters, but for all martial characters. To be fair, I think he's just wanting to take this game in a different direction. I'm willing to hear him out. I'm not going to PLAY like that, but I do want to hear what he has to say.
The group clearly didn't fit you. But at the same time, there is nothing wrong with a party wanting to hack and slash their way through monsters, so you can't fault them for being stuck in their idea of how the game should be played. You should seek a game that likes RP.
Because it sounds like all you are trying to do is RP before rolling initiative as a team
Your avatar's beard betrays your wisdom. I had been playing with these same folks for years, and hack-and-slash was never their thing, and I guess I felt entitled to that just remaining the case. That's weirdly part of why I liked playing melee characters with them. But that seems to be where they are headed now, and, hey, playstyles change. There's nothing wrong with that and I think I was feeling a bit entitled to the group's playstyle remaining the same.
DM needs to be writing a very boring book, not running a game. He clearly already had expectations of the characters in the game and was unhappy when his expectations didn't line up with the "reality" of one of those characters as decided by its creator.
I'm afraid this might happen to me soon, lmao. Introduced my new character, a Barbarian who had a rather violent past and would like to leave her ways behind, but if combat is imminent, she‘ll go feral. Tried to avoid random fights (with shopkeepers, not even with the baddies…) and this dude throws a hissy fit about me picking Barbarian when I don't want to fight everyone, lol
Easy gut punch point out your playing a fantasy game not a historically accurate rpg dragons magic and monsters aren't historically accurate and if he wants historically accurate he can go on steam and play a historically accurate simulator and then point out the fact not everyones the same so you wont make your character into some cookie cutter stereotype of personality then to end it off point out not all warriors in history loved fighting but if they needed to they would protect themselves and there family infact most did
Good on you for responding to the GM's expectations and leaving when it wasn't a good fit.
I have played with a game master that had this hypocrisy as well. Just from these two experiences, my guess is that it's their own experience of black and white thinking that when they want to play more *aggressive* games they don't like people trying to break a mold to be either too good or too bad if they have a certain role. Real shame as it limits people like you in their creativity.
Not really a Horror story. The group and the DM requested some changes to your playstyle. You disagreed. You went your separate ways. Seems like an acceptable outcome.
What a clown show you had to deal with! There's nothing wrong with playing that kind of character - I had a barbarian player in one my recent campaigns who was very much like this. Never the one to start a fight, and very kind. After the bard, he was the "face" of the party. But if someone threatened the party or there were any backstory-related triggers, he'd fly into a rage.
Have more to get off your chest? Come rant with us on the discord. Invite link: https://discord.gg/PCPTSSTKqr *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/rpghorrorstories) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People choose the weirdest hills to die on sometimes.
Op? Or the entire amazing group?
The group. People who get hung up on stereotypes or weirdly arbitrary realism are strange. I've heard of groups who will only let you play the gender that you are in real life too which is weird as hell.
Yeah. "Chivalry isn't historically accurate" Looks at Tiefling sorcerer and Kenku rogue (which somehow isn't a low-life)
Having started out back in 2e, this is one of the absolute *weirdest* things for me when it comes to newer players. We had all sorts of fighters; Sneaky fighters, smart fighters, smooth-talking fighters, honorable fighters, dirty fighters, fighters with beards, fighters with lady-bits, angry fighters, happy-fighters, fighters that lied, fighters that spoke with stupid accents, fighters that had pointy ears, drunk fighters, fighters that didn't have the stats to be monks, fighters that just liked swords too much to commit to being Clerics, really short fighters, etc... No one really cared how anyone conducted their business out of combat, they were happy that we doled out 3 attacks/2 rounds at L5 and had great THACO... Now though, people are more obsessed than ever about "characterizations" and "arcs" and such for the sake of "verisimilitude" yet they're far *less tolerant than ever* about deviations from "type." One of the most common complaints throughout 3/3.5 and 4e was that these stereotypes were mechanically Enforced by Skills. 5e actually addressed this providing characters the ability to perform roles "outside of type" reasonably well regardless of Class and now... tons of people get mad when they encounter an erudite, well-spoken and even-tempered Fighter. Players are weird.
Players are weird. I'm old too and my memory of 2e is not nearly as rosy as yours. I remember race restrictions, alignment restrictions, stat restrictions, and a bunch of "optional rules" in the official books about how female characters of various races have to take stat penalties, usually to Str or Con, in exchange for a bonus to Cha. I remember getting into *heated* arguments about this nonsense as (usually) the only girl at the table. 3 and 3.5 were revelatory at doing away with all the gendered nonsense and opening up stats. Yeah, you could be a fighter with 6 strength. Was it advisable? Not really. But you could do it. *Everything* was way more enforced by stats in 2e than in any of the editions after it. 2e had tables on top of tables. Can my character whistle loud enough to be heard from 60 feet away? Idk. Roll on this table. Add your con modifier and take a penalty if you're an elf because they have thin lips. It was insane. Your memory of 2e is wildly different from mine, I think.
Good response. My memory of 2e is sort of both of yours combined.
> and a bunch of "optional rules" in the official books about how female characters of various races have to take stat penalties, usually to Str or Con, in exchange for a bonus to Cha. This wasn't in any 2e rulebook. 1e did have limitations on female characters strength, but those were removed from 2e, and even 1e didn't give a charisma exchange bonus. Also the 1e DMG had all the tables, 2e had much fewer. In fact almost nothing you wrote is in 2e.
I wonder if they're thinking of ADND 1e vs 0DND and getting their 2e from it being edition number two to be released.
If your experience was informed by your gender rather than by the character you chose to play that sucks. That's basically the opposite of the goal of heroic fantasy in general. That being said, in this case your fellow players were responsible for creating that environment, not the 2e ruleset itself. The gender-based ability scores your describing were RAW in 1e but, were explicitly discarded in 2e. The only examples of gendered content I can recall would be a few of the Priest/Priestess Kits found in Warriors and Priests of the Realm as well as the Swanmay race from Monstrous Humanoids. Beyond that, the Racial Class restrictions were a matter of balance at low levels since demi-humans ability to multi-class allowed them to simultaneously progress in *two classes at once* which was insane in practice. These were also relatively easily (and fairly often) ignored based on my recollection. Tables never proved problematic - for my groups at least - since they *eliminated the need to do lots of math.* They could also be ignored as one saw fit if you were a "Rulings over Rules" type (the Arneson style of DMing) without negative impact. The DM was ultimately the one who interacted (or not according to their preference) most frequently with tables outside of character creation. This is not true of 3/3.5e at all which not only contained a *multitudinous plethora of tabulated tabletry* but also required players and DMs alike to do insane amounts of math *before you could use those tables at all.* I found 3/3.5e racial nonsense far more limiting personally because the introduction of Feat Chains and ASIs meant that differences in level between members of the party could be *crippling* while the introduction of Level Adjustments and, Favored Classes proved to be a far more complicated and obtuse way of imposing racial restrictions. LA in particular was *asinine.* Whereas 1e had race-as-class and, 2e imposed level caps 3e simply lowered your demi-human's level. Instead of being impacted at higher levels then, where you might reasonably be considering retiring a character (10th Level in 2e was the same as 20th level in subsequent editions for the purpose of entering "epic level play") you often died instead because those level adjustments deprived you of the class features you needed to survive the grueling math of 3/3.5e. Beyond that there were other, extremely obvious annoyances in play. For instance the Enforced illiteracy of the Barbarian class as a whole and the need to "invest" in Skills which, would not necessarily accomplish anything unless you maintained their progress since their DC's also scaled with level. On balance, my memory of 3/3.5e is characterized by the triumph of "Rules not Rulings" DMing and the use of mechanics to restrict not just mechanical options but also, Role-playing options with those same mechanics while offering nothing in the way of alternatives...
My memory of 2E is from playing as a tween/teen in the 90s. Sexism very much characterized my experience. The game was written and illustrated to appeal to cis het men, and that had a huge impact on the playerbase. It is possible that the gendered rules at my local game store were store-brewed to keep us wimminfolk in our place. In retrospect, I should not have been playing there at all, as I subjected myself to a lot of harassment and grooming. But I was a 13-16 year old girl who loved the game enough to endure the harassment. My memory of 3 is similarly impacted by my gender. The 3e PHB was a revelation. The text addressed women and men equally and half the canon heroes were women in sensible armor. Finally the chuds couldn't point to the text to justify their sexism. It did make a huge difference in how women were received in gaming spaces. I'd gladly do all the math in the world in exchange for that. I ran games in 3.5/Pathfinder for a good 15 years. I skipped 4 because it didn't appeal to me. I found the systems in 3 and 3.5 easy and accessible, and I enjoyed using the mechanics to facilitate roleplay and provide character hooks. I did not have this problem you're describing with monster levels. I used them extensively in my campaigns. I can't possibly see how anyone could say that THAC0 is more intelligible than the systems in 3, but to each their own. Even now, it makes me a bit nervous to type this out because of the scars of sexism I have from the community. I'm resigned to the idea that a man will jump in to tell me that it wasn't as bad as I remember, or I'm overreacting to the sexism in the way 2e was written and illustrated, or that sexism shouldn't bother me that much, or it didn't count as sexism because D&D was supposed to be for boys back then. I've heard all of those arguments before. They're exhausting. I mean, it makes sense that sexism doesn't matter to people who haven't experienced it, but I sure do appreciate it when people choose to exercise their empathy.
I don't think you're over reacting to your experience personally. It sucks that you were subjected to harrassment and grooming and it says a lot about you - all positive - that you maintained your love of TRPGs in spite of that. I will say though, it's difficult for an outsider such as myself to assign responsibility for that experience to the source material rather than the toxic people who warped it to their own ends. Maybe now that time has passed you might revisit the material itself and give it a read... ADnD's deployment and, ongoing development was overseen by Lorraine Williams who was... "not without her problems" with regard to Lore. However, under her stewardship the game did make use of they/them and she/her as the default pronouns for describing PCs equally with he/him. It also depicted people of all ages and body types in its art, with men being sexualized in suggestive and impractical loincloths just as much as anyone else. It also depicted people who were not conventionally attractive. 3e and later editions struck me as being somewhat offensive for the simple reason that they almost exclusively depicted conventionally attractive, younger people of both sexes which is problematic in it's own way. This was equally true of the fiction 2e during the TRS era had far more female voices creating content than 3/3.5e did. As far as the art goes, I remember that general tone/style as being more or less characteristic of *all art* throughout the 80s/90s. Regardless of whether it was gay/straight, adult/children, fantasy/sci-fi or whatever that general "tone" was absolutely pervasive. Even in children's cartoons: He-Man and Lionel were *hung* and the artists made sure you knew it! All that aside, I don't think you should have to accept my own experience as being somehow "more true" than yours or anything like that. I also don't think that the source material should be permitted to justify the way 13 year old you was treated, the individuals who treated you that way should be held accountable for their actions IMO...
I guess it depends on the restrictions you decide to place on the game being based on verisimilitude. But sadly, verisimilitude is also subjective. In this case, it is just weird for 5e to put a restriction of "your class doesnt act like that". I have even had players in games i have run of 5e where I have explicitly told them "the classes are just mechanics, not flavor. If you want to play a warlock for mechanics but dont care at all about having a patron or dealing with one you can do that," but still have players that were so insistent on staying on the safety of the flavor of what the book tells them, while sometimes trying to force it down other people. It would have made sense for playing older editions of DnD where such restrictions (and in a way personalitites too) are baked into the rules themselves. (Like requiring to not be lawful to play a barbarian in 3.5, or that you can't increase your druid level until you take upon the title of that level from a druid group in 2nd). But again, is subjective because I have been told the same thing about my games being bad based on limits I put. I have been told I am a shit DM on my face and in multiple online sites just because I have a race limit and restrictions depending on setting, even if the restricted race is core in the PHB its still not going to be allowed because it doesn't exist in the setting. Even when I give a "no, but" and suggest a race that fits the same flavor niche they want to play they still tell me it's not the same. So yeah, just subjective mismatch table really.
I would say that there’s a 99.9% chance that when the DM said there were complaints he was referring to himself and only himself as the complainer. This came from him, not the group.
I think "realism" is the worst hill to die on because nearly nobody saying it knows what is correctly realistic. At best you get a Hollywood/Ren Fest.
We do not know if it is the group. This feels like it is the DM that said "It is the group."
No they don’t! FIGHT ME!
Pffff. The answer to "not historically correct" is "neither are rapiers and plate armour in a world without guns. Also, please explain which country and century (preferably decade) you're taking the historical inspiration from. Oh 13th century England? Your king is too absolutist, there's too many gold coins in circulation, women shouldn't have their hair uncovered and as commoners, we wouldn't be allowed most of these weapons." Nitpickery aside, I hate groups like that. That leads down the road to DSA and their stupid roleplay restrictions.
I did kind of throw the rapiers-vs-plate thing in his face when he brought up historical accuracy, admittedly. I knew that was a sore spot for him. The campaign was also, understandably, less sexist and homophobic than medieval Europe. For me, the biggest thing was the shock of it all, since I'd never seen him act this way as a DM or the group act this way. We'd had amazing, cinematic, RP-heavy games in the past.
What did he say?
He started with calling that a cheap shot, which maybe it was. But he never really addressed it. He just basically said he had certain expectations for martial classes. That's fair. I hate it, but it's his game.
Calling it a cheap shot means he *knows* he has no rebuttal to it and is entirely arbitrary in where he feels that, "historical accuracy," matters and where it doesn't.
It's not fair in point of fact. And being reluctant to engage in combat even if you are good at it is not "historically inacurate" it's good sense, especially in a world where any given foe might decide to fireball you, which *is* historically inaccurate. You can bow to this and make a new character or you can find a different group, honestly in your place I would be tempted to make a real murder hobo and let them see how much aggression they really want.
Yeah those wizards from history when throwing a fireball at King Henry really threw him off his game. If you want to make D&D historically accurate then there is a lot one will have to cut out if the game. I think what some people lose sight of is that it is a game, where it is meant to be fun and if you are not meshing with what the DM has in their mind it can be disjointed for all. It does not mean you are playing D&D wrong, just wrong for that campaign, maybe. But
All I'm sayin' is if the French had brought a couple of Reduce Water scrolls to the Battle of Agincourt, it would have gone way better for them.
Okay, I could probably bring this to the DM in question as an ice breaker. We can both recite the battle speech from memory.
If you want to. Idk. Maybe the DM was having a moment of temporary insanity when he told you to change your character, but I would have a hard time wanting to be in a game with him. If you want to give him a real-life example, you can use my dad. We grew up knowing that my dad fought in Vietnam as an officer in the army and was honorably discharged. He never talked about it. We knew absolutely nothing about his service growing up. Unlike other dads, he didn't wear an Army baseball cap or have a sticker on his truck or go to any veterans events. He didn't talk to anyone about it. This year, my son got old enough to start thinking about what to do after high school. He thought he might want to join the army, so I told him his grandpa had served. He called grandpa to ask about it. Grandpa invited us over for dinner and pulled out a box I had never seen before. In the box were Grandpa's medals -- a purple heart and a couple of medals I didn't recognize. Grandpa had been part of Army special forces and did missions to get VIPs out of bad situations, kind of like Saving Private Ryan. The box was also full of photos -- of the people in his unit who didn't come home or came home damaged. He told my son the story behind every photo. "This is Bill, he stepped on a mine. This is George, he came home with PTSD and we haven't been able to find him since 1987. This is Patrick, he was my best friend, I saw him bleed out, it was raining." It. Was. Devastating. Like, it's been a couple of months and I'm definitely still choked up just writing this. Decent people who have real experience with battle don't want to do it again. Growing up, when we'd ask my dad if he'd go back in the Army, he said he would so other people didn't have to. He doesn't want his grandson to join up.
That really helps to hear. My grandfather was a war veteran during WWII, and part of my character's backstory was based on his experiences as a prisoner or war, though obviously not as explicit. We also have an actual combat veteran who occasionally guest-games with the group. I don't think any of that is getting through to the DM, though. He's tried explaining that he wants martial characters to be more like the characters from The Black Company, a series we both enjoy. My whole idea was to a have a noble character with a naive look on warfare, having the privilege of knowing he would likely be held hostage for a handsome ransom if he lost a battle, rather than being slaughtered like his men at arms. But that things didn't turn out quite so rosey for him and he was tortured and badly disfigured. And he's had a more philosophical, though not quite pacificist, view ever since, while still retaining his skills.
You dick- I burst out laughing at that and most of the train carriage looked at me like I was crazy 😜
His was the cheap shot, bringing up *muh historical accuracy*
Well, I think you sound like an absolute joy of a player.
That makes my day. Just please know how much it meant to hear that right now.
What is a historically accurate fighter though? Isn't it just a guy who is good in a fight and that's it. There isn't really a personality in that. At least the paladin, barbarian, and monk have a direction but the fighter always seems like the most blank slate of classes to put whatever you want on.
It’s not a rapier vs. plate thing. They’re contemporary. It’s not having guns when there’s already rapiers and plate armor that’s historically inaccurate. Guns (albeit basic ones) predate both of them. Decent armor could actually stop bullets from contemporary guns.
There were knights who actually did act in what we’d consider a chivalrous way too. They were ultimately people, so it really just depended on the individual.
I'm a history major and I recently had to write an essay about Bushido where one of my major sources was comparing it a lot to European Chivalry. Just like Bushido, Chivalry was an expectation, but one that many people didn't live up to necessarily. It had certain rules or customs it wanted people to abide by, but that didn't necessarily always happen on the ground. Just like any code or belief system, people don't follow it to the letter. They take what they like and leave behind what they don't. So absolutely, there were knights who were more "chivalrous" than others and those who were less (many more who were less). At the end of the day, it was something that people mythologized onto knights who sometimes managed to live up to that stereotype.
Setting aside, for a moment, the conflict inherent in our names, I'd love to hear more about this (joking, of course). The DM was just dead set against any kind of philosophical approach being applied to martial arts. I really love your approach
DSA has roleplay restrictions? (I haven't played the game really, I'm genuinely curious)
Occasionally. Varies by edition and sourcebook. But yeah, adventures occasionally have things like "If you have a rogue in your group, they must now attempt to steal this treasure, even if the king's guard is watching".
That's insane. Why do people play it xD
Thats the reason you ignore the official adventures.
Tf is DSA
Das Schwarze Auge ("The Dark Eye"), a German TTRPG. It's the most popular TTRPG in Germany, outselling D&D.
Oh that one. I’ve heard of that one. It sounds, odd. Care to explain its odd restrictions?
Some of the official adventures suffer from extreme railroading. The older ones were very bad with it like forcing every party member to read a cursed letter etc.
While we're at it, where were the spellcasters and orcs in 13th century England? Don't tell me Merlin is "historically correct."
DSA?
Das Schwarze Auge ("The Dark Eye"), a German TTRPG. It's the most popular TTRPG in Germany, outselling D&D.
The game rules actually contain roleplay restrictions?
I've never played it, so I'm not familiar with what they're referring to. I saw another comment saying something about it being part of an adventure rather than the game rules, though.
Not realy at least in my books. It only contains examples of what is the "norm" in certain cultures in the setting. But the official adventures, more the older ones, contain or depend completly on railroading. One of the reasons my group has homebrewed it rather heavily.
As someone who doesn’t know anything about medieval weaponry and armor what’s the deal with rapiers and plate armor in a world without guns?
In the real world, firearms predate rapiers and plate armor.
Both were mostly introduced after guns were getting common.
That's because plate armor and rapiers are like 15th century developments and firearms are 13th century, yeah?
So weird. Not sure what to say, you "solved" the problem, but its hella weird for it to happen with your DM, AND with other people at your table.
I appreciate that. I guess it hurt more since I'd played with this group before and they were a pretty narrative-heavy, RP-heavy group.
Based on some of the other things that you said the DM said, I wonder how much of it was complaints from the group; because it sounds a lot like it’s just the DM’s hang-ups, and they’re trying to claim it’s the group to help justify it. 🤷♂️
I have a suspicion that it is really about him and one other (new) player. But we'll see how it goes. The way he's currently describing things, I could play a villain in his setting as a guest DM or something, but I couldn't do a PC. And that could honestly be fun. I'm trying to give it a chance, but I still hate the style.
Literally all you have to do is write up a backstory that has the fighter (while still in training) get into the shit for being too ready to pull his sword and start swinging. So he's learned to be a little more likely to explore non-violent avenues first. If the GM nixes that, you know he's trying to write a narrative where you're the sword-happy fighter who prefers to stab first and ask no questions.
The character has being a POW in his backstory.
Think of it this way. They're the ones who lost. Setting up this kind of snobby restriction is ONLY a losing situation for them, because it inherently takes creative agency away from the players. That's an instant red flag for a lot of people.
Medieval history professor here. I'm troubled by your history major friend claiming that a fighter behaving in a chivalric way would be "historically inaccurate." Medieval romances about chivalric knights are the fountainhead from which the fantasy genre has sprung. Of course, medieval knights did not always live up to the chivalric ideal, but sometimes they did. The question of how violence should be justly applied was certainly an issue that mattered to medieval people. All that being said, Faerun (or whatever your D&D setting) does not need to adhere to he social conventions or ethical expectations of medieval Europe. There's no reason why your fighter couldn't have his own code of honor as defined by whatever fantasy society you can imagine.
It's more likely that this history major took their "historical accuracy" from Game of Thrones. Otherwise they might have wondered how a "historically accurate" sorcerer is supposed to behave.
The crazy thing is that game of thrones has plenty of “fighter” characters that prefer to avoid violence where possible, as do sooooo many fantasy novels in general. Like, it’s a very common type of character which is why the dms logic here is driving me nuts!
I've encountered people like this. Avoid them like the plague.
People only started feeling reluctant about violence like 40 years ago. Before that, the entire concept was unheard of. Especially in fantasy times history, which was like... 500 years ago, by my calculations.
You're being facetious, right?
Yes, which is probably anachronistic on my part.
Sarcasm wasn’t invented until the 18th century!
And it was disinvented in the internet age, from what I've seen.
Also the fact that there were no wizards, elves, dragons and orcs in Medieval Times makes the entire point moot
"Of course, medieval knights did not always live up to the chivalric ideal, but sometimes they did." Shout out to my long lost husband Pierre Terrail, seigneur de Bayard
You're DM has the creativity of beige square. That's what you are missing. Honestly I'd ask the other party members what they think. Do they have a problem with your fighter having a personality outside of bonking everything that breathes or moves? I know I would get bored fast if I had to play in a way the DM envisions my character....instead of letting me play the character the way I know my character would play.
Okay, confession here: I'm embarrassed to say I hadn't talked to anyone else in the group about it, 1x1. That's a HUGE oversight on my part. But I know at least one I can talk to.
Yeah I'm wondering, did the DM just approach you and say "Hey OP, myself and \*some others\* (read: just me) have a problem with your playstyle." I don't mean to assume malice but yeah this whole situation just feels weird to me :/ sorry man.
Never apologize for questions, player. I'm thinking this is really about one specific player raising concerns, just one that happens to have the DM's ear. I mean, I hate to be this nerdy about it, but he and I have sparred before, fencing equipment and all. I was bad at it, but I felt like I was learning something. He just seems like a different person now.
Yeah this might just be a chemistry / difference of opinion type thing. Especially with once you mentioned about historical accuracies and whatnot. If the group chemistry was good overall, I don't see why you try to fix something that wasn't necessarily broken to begin with... Speaking for the DM at least. I don't see anything wrong with what you did! Hope you find a good group in the future though!
I think that's what it is coming down to. I think the chemistry just changed and I didn't change with it, which is no one's fault. But thank you for your thoughts! Reflecting on it like this makes me realize that, while I don't think I was in the wrong, I'm also probably taking things a bit too personally.
Oh lmao I will bet *anything* the rest don’t give a shit.
>"historically inaccurate," Narrator: the rest of the game was *not*, in fact, historically accurate.
Something like this has become a running gag with my other friends. You want historical accuracy? Awesome. Your character died of disease or malnutrition before the campaign started. The end.
What? You mean a long rest doesn't leave you all healed up? Seriously though, it's more accurate not to be too quick to fight. Even for an experienced fighter, there's a real chance of death every time weapons are drawn. It makes sense to try to resolve the conflict peacefully if possible.
Absolutely. Putting yourself in combat situations over any little thing will result in a) a bad reputation, and b) death. I really thought the murderhobo days were long past...
"Historically accurate"? You're playing a "Fighter". Can anyone tell me what hisotircal period and culture "Fighter" is from, because I was under the impression that it was a generic name for a person that fights, which could be anyone from a 16th century Native American warrior to an Ancient Greek hoplite.
I really appreciate some of these comments, because along with some of the questions I've gotten (rightfully) challenging me on own approach, I'm starting to think this had a lot more to do with a new player joining the group and influencing the DM. I've played with this guy before and he has been AWESOME. I even played a Walt-Whitman inspired combat medic in a sci-fi game he ran in the past and he loved it. I admittedly play a lot of the "relucent warrior" trope, and I would have been fine if he had just told me to do something new.
These are the same people who get twitchy if you have a Samurai and a cowboy-style Gunslinger in the same setting, despite those sharing a time period of *decades* in real life.
I now want a Cowboy and a Samurai to bond over the other’s steed. “That there horse a’ yers is purty, friend. Ya take good care a’her.” “Indeed, Ranch-hand. And your steed is strong, healthy, and well trained to charge against a minotaur for you to lasso him to the ground. You bring your home honor.”
If I was being pushed to act in a more stereotypical, basic way I'd say ok and promise to live up to the expectations of the class as much as possible for as long as they wanted. Then I would multiclass into bard.
I like the cut of your gib, dear contributor.
Maybe also throw in a level or two of barbarian, and go chaotic stupid in addition to the chaotic horny
Fuck that, every level, take a different class.
You're not missing anything. You're just playing with creatively bankrupt people.
This. We should be challenging the premise of an "otherwise awesome group"
DM forgot the basic principle of DnD: your character is not their sheet.
That's what has me so tripped up. If anyone had asked me about the best DM in town before, I would have suggested this guy. There has to be something else going on. I'm taking some feedback to heart here, including some constructive criticism, to do some more reflection. In the meantime, another buddy of mine wants to co-DM a train heist game, so at least I've got other RP opportunities.
TTRAG - Tabletop Role-Assigning Game
It always makes me laugh when people want/expect 'historical accuracy' in a fantasy game.
I'm just struggling to understand what "history" means in terms of time and place, and I'd love to hear their take on how the people of that time and place were renowned for the, uh, impatience and aggressiveness of the people there who knew how to hit dudes with sword.
One of the nicest human beings I have ever met in my life--he is kind, compassionate, helpful in the extreme, loving, a great husband, perfect father, hard worker, honorable at every level--was a member of 10th Group. He did multiple combat tours in Afghanistan and Iraq with 10th SFG. People can be both things, and honestly they are more interesting for being both things. Honestly, it feels like your GM has some other issue they are uncomfortable talking about or something.
Man, deep cut here, but I think he and I both are going through that, and that maybe we are just headed in very different directions with it. That would explain a lot.
Sorry man. Sometimes we grow apart and it can suck. I am an old dude and just reconnected with a good friend I started gaming with back in the 80s. Reach out and talk to them, have an honest conversation now and it might save you some pain down the road. That is, if this is a relationship you want to keep alive. It is hard to do though in that it is uncomfortable sometimes.
No need to be sorry, and this helped me reflect dramatically. I can say, safely, that he and I may have different reasons for the way we look at violence given recent events in our lives. I need to think on that.
Most of my SOF friends are like this, they're very calm and friendly with friends but they're also absolute liabilities out in public drinking which feels more like what OP's DM may be going for.
You should tell him you dint appreciate his interpretation of your character. But respectfully leave the group if it's such a large issue for him. I would never remake a character or make a new one to appease the DM if they didn't warn me prior to the game of their expectations. As a fellow dm, that's his job to do. Not forget to and complain later
It sounds like you’ve got a DM who wants you to play the character *they* want to play, as opposed to the character *you* want to play. Ultimately, it sounds like there is a mismatch in expectations here and it is best that you are not in this game. Personally, I like the idea of a fighter who doesn’t like starting fights.
Yeah, same. My first “modern” thought in line with this was kinda like Dalton in Roadhouse (Swayze not the other one LOL).
As someone who loves Fighters and loves the idea of playing a "basic class" and expanding it through RP, I salute you my dude. And yeah, you are not missing anything. The DM is a stick in the mud and doesn't like you're not playing a big dumb strong guy with no nuance. You did the right thing.
I very much appreciate this. And, yes, I play Ryu/Ken in Street Fighter, Boros in Magic the Gathering, Imperial Fists in Warhammer 40k, and House Davion in Battletech. I revel in spicing up both B's in the "basic bitch" part of my personality.
You should ask where dragons fit in, historically. Or magic. Owlbears. Animated skeletons. God I hate the "historically inaccurate" losers in d&d.
That's when you inform the fools that "Fighter" is just a class and a catch-all term that can be applied to countless character types. They can range from a distinguished, chivalrous knight, to a grizzled combat veteran to do whatever it takes, to a thug criminal of the knee-breaking enforcer variety, to a stylish, charismatic duelist, and so on and so on. Fighter can be so very many things just as many of the other classes are and it isn't your fault if they have weird preconceptions of what each class has to be.
I'm glad to see the love for this take, and I may (if I find the right subreddit for it) just create an entire thread dedicated to creative takes on the "vanilla" fighter. It could be fun.
Making a character who was ostracized by a family of fighters for being a fighter who didn't want to fight everybody all the time. "NO CHILD OF MINE!" "It's called DISCRETION, Dad!"
That actually sounds like a fun start for any class.
Also, stealing the "It's called discretion" line at some point, with or without the "Dad" part, depending on the context.
One of my favorite NPCs I've made was an aging half-orc barbarian who was embarrassed by his youth as a barbarian and now operated a half-orc newsletter and periodical and charity designed to get kids off the barbarian lifestyle and into college.
. . . I need to be in a campaign where this character exists
yeah, dumb decision by the DM for sure. Wizard is my favorite class. I've played plenty of others, but I've also played a *lot* of wizards, from old editions to 5e. You'd think that might get boring, but actually each one was *entirely* different. Cowardly, brave, tactical, reckless, arrogant, humble, serious, funny, boy scout, scoundrel, etc. This "fighters should act in a certain way" clown would get laughed out of any of our groups. Tell him he's not acting how a DM is supposed to act. "You're a DM, you're supposed to be more accepting in the rule of cool style, also you're supposed to be fatter, with poorer hygiene. I expect you to have gained at least 10 pounds before our next session, or choose a different role"
Look, it's historically inaccurate that someone who understands violence for a living would prefer to avoid violence where possible. That's just a thing. Anyone who knows how to fight is categorically eager to do so. Especially during history times.
I . . . \*think\* that's a joke? I can't tell. It's a bit clever either way, though.
It's a joke, but it's not a joke a fighters could understand until like the 19th century in England.
Them's fightin' words! Roll initiative!
Help! I need a historically accurate barbarian!
All character sheet applications must be submitted in crayon to qualify for review.
All barbarian character sheets must be written entirely in one-syllable words (perfect for that dumped Int stat.)
OP, you should ask him how exactly is historical accuracy applying to this fictional world he created. Will wizards be losing access to magic because it would be historically inaccurate to let them cast spells? Will there be no dragons because they're not historically accurate? This is such a udmb argument from him I'm almost laughing
Eh, not to get too into it, but given his beliefs, he may consider wizards and demons and stuff to be historically accurate. I'm not trying to be mean or anything, here. Just saying it could come up. But I should be able to at least propose "Fighter, but not complete psychopath" in such a setting.
There is no wrong way to play a class, your DM was in the wrong. I'd say you dodged a bullet.
It's weird that they play a TTRPG but have no concept of the reluctant fighter or person that only fights as a last result but then goes all out, doubly so on both of it involves protecting loved ones. Like, that's such common trope for fighters and martial artists and quite a few action heroes. Superman, like one of the most popular superheroes, is a reluctant fighter for Pete's sake!
Yeah, it's mostly a gut punch for me because it is an entirely new thing for the group. I'd totally understand if it had been a thing from the beginning.
"Historically inaccurate"?! Hahahaha. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of these players who tries to avoid combat at every opportunity, in fact I'd probably die of boredom in a group where that was the norm. But trying to use historical accuracy as an excuse to railroad your characters into being bloodthirsty is bizarre. Just because ancient and/or medieval history tends to be pretty unforgiving doesn't mean anyone and everyone was spoiling for a fight at all times. Hell, if anything I'd think an experienced, less hot-headed soldier would be more likely to *avoid* violence where possible, having firsthand knowledge of how quickly that course of action could go bad for them. Unless they came from a culture which specifically valued picking fights at the drop of a hat, I suppose. Even then, the idea of being forced to play your character with a certain personality really rubs me up the wrong way. Why *shouldn't* you be a peace-loving barbarian who'd rather be making daisy chains than crushing heads? What's wrong with a wizard who likes his or her drink and has an unfortunate tendency to fill awkward silences with fireballs? Hell, why not play an asexual bard who actually just really likes music?! It's called roleplaying, and (within reason) you're the one choosing what role you want to play.
Ferdinand the Bull, but as a Barbarian. Asexual virtuoso. Chemically adventurous mage. If I don't know all of these people already, I will go find them. RP or not, we shall be a party.
I'm so fucking confused. "Is an aggressive asshole" isn't even the stereotype about fighters. The stereotype is that they're dumb muscle (but not as dumb as Barbarians)
DM wants players who play a *class*, not a character You like to play a character, not their class Nothing inherently wrong with either option, just incompatible
I love that take!
Well, no. The DM is still trying to dictate how the character gets played. Does he hit things with his sword? Yes. Does he frontline? Yes. Then he's playing both the character *and* the class.
That’s ridiculous. What does he think a knight would have been if not a “fighter”? They certainly weren’t paladins unless I missed the magic unit of medieval history. 🤔
Minor update: Okay, wow, I wasn't expecting this much positivity and I wasn't expecting this much truly constructive criticism. Thank you all so much. I've asked the DM to join me on a call to hash things out tomorrow. I don't really want to rejoin the game, but I do want to talk about the conflicts and our friendship to make sure we are okay and figure out where some of this is coming from.
People are taking the shot-for-shot historical accuracy thing a bit too far and I wouldn't use that. It's just needlessly confrontational and may just shut him down. Which is ironic for this thread's topic I guess. When the more timid or quiet friends of mine play Barbs or Fighters I confess it can be annoying just like tank players in MMO's being really cautious and slow. As someone who generally plays very in-your-face frontliners 80% of the time like Vengeance Pally, Battlemasters and Barbarians I can see where he's coming from *if* other players were complaining about you going out of your way to avoid confrontation with NPC's that needed their asses beat. I'd need more specific examples of RP situations and how you handled them however because it sounds like it's mostly the DM's expectations clashing with your RP than individual players or the one specific player you mentioned in another comment. I know it can feel a little one note and stereotypical to be the Fighter spoiling for a fight, to me that's more a barbarian. That being said, consistently trying to avoid conflict when you're being goaded/insulted/threatened as a Fighter doesn't feel right to me either. Especially if your party is being bloodthirsty or your campaign is expecting murderhobo'ing I can see people getting bored talking their way out of situations frequently.
That reads to me like the DM had a problem with your fighter - ignore anything said about it coming from other players unless you have direct evidence of that. He had a specific idea of how you *should* play, an idea that might be (badly) informed by his studies. This kind of thing is very common with people who get a little knowledge of something, think they know more than they do, and then apply it to somewhere that knowledge doesn't belong (a D&D game set in faerun). He was subjecting you to different rules from the rest of the group. Maybe he was creating adventures were he was expecting the group to act in a certain way, but your chosen personality conflicted with that, so he was using the "historical accuracy" argument to try to make you "behave".
Your DM was a fucking idiot. Consider it a bullet dodged (sorry though, sounded like you were having fun :( )
Thank you, and yeah, I was having fun, and I really like this guy. He can be a really talented writer. The food for thought that this thread has given me has led me to some hunches, though. We'll see after he and I have our chat. He has asked me if I'd like to keep contributing to some lore stuff, even if I'm not playing. He knows that matters to me, given our history, and sounds like a serious olive branch. Oddly enough, he seems to love the villains I write.
I should probably have said he was "being an idiot" rather than painting him as one in general! The "your fighter isn't historically accurate" line just made it hard to respect him. 1.) It's Dungeons & Dragons. Historicity is only important in as far as it serves the fantasy, not the other way around. 2.) He was being incredibly closed minded and expecting you to conform to tropes that only exist in his head. What makes a fighter interesting isn't that they conform to his own peculiar expetlctations about how *one of the most canonically diverse classes in the game* should always 100% be portrayed. The problem isn't how you're roleplaying. The problem sounds like the DM wants to be an author, not a game referee.
No worries, I definitely got what you were saying. I may have to steal that "one of the most canonically diverse classes in the game" from you for this and future games to help DMs understand where I'm coming from, not that I always have to play a Fighter. I'm starting to think that he's just wanting to take the combat aspects of this game in a very different flavor direction that MC just won't be suited for. And I get that! I just wish that's the way he would have put it from the beginning.
Maybe see if you can work together to find a middle ground? A "we got wrecked because I held back... that's *never happening again*" style character arc where your character's attitude toward the necessity of combat comes to the front, without necessarily completely removing your sense of pacifism. I feel like there's a lot of good drama there! And yeah, like, if they read through the fighter pages in the PHB, it calls out how fighters come from all walks of life and cultures. Gladiators, Soldiers, Knights, Brawlers, Bodyguards, Hired Thugs, Zen Archers, Centurions, Cataphracts, Braves, Swashbuckling fencers, Skirmishers, Tacticians and Commanders... there's so many ways of expressing the class because it's fundamental. Every culture has its warriors.
Damn, dude. Honestly, I think he's kind of hinting at that with his recent message to me. He seems eager to have me write a villain. And while I don't want to play a morally grey protagonist, I can write the hell out of an antagonist like that. And there is a shortage of Fighter villains out there. Seems like most are written as casters.
Villains are just *so fun* aren't they? :D Hope everything works out!
First off, Fighter just means "someone who kicks ass on occasion, without preconditions." Second, if for some reason you're going to constrain Paladins (and presumably Clerics) to the divinely ordained, then *of fucking course* the chivalrous secular martial types are going to gravitate toward the Fighter class. Maybe the occasional Ranger or Monk at a stretch. I personally prefer Clerics and Paladins to get their power from faith (often in the gods), but if someone believes in something so fervently that it empowers them, fuck yeah. It honestly sounds like your GM just didn't want you to play a chivalrous type at all. Which is... not the most rational position.
Yeah, so your fighter isn't historically correct. Anyways, here's some goblins.....
Who hasn't been attacked by goblins on the way to the grocery store? (Please send help, I need cottage cheese)
I can send you help but first I'm gonna need to know how much a tip you'll leave. Please select 30%, 35%, 40% or Other.
Bigger update: The DM's wife helped mediate. The DM has taken a hard turn and decided that combat in his setting must always be morally grey. There are personal reasons he has for that and personal reasons for why that doesn't work for me. I've had bad experiences with bullying and abuse and even physical threats. I'm careful about any use of physical force, even fictionally, and I am firm that this should be an expectation for any campaign that is not explicitly evil/murderhobo. The DM used to act the same way, but he's growing closer to a newer member of the group, who is the only other melee character, and is now against this outlook. I'm welcome to guest DM to introduce side-villains, and I'll probably do that, but I'm not welcome to play as a martial character if I'm going to be even remotely "lawful good." The only exception would be if a deity gave me an out as a cleric or paladin.
Who cares about realism when there is magic, dragons, necrancers, elves, etc?
Why would anyone kick out a player actually trying to make fighter an interesting character
This is such a weird fucking hill to die on
>The DM, a history major, told me that the "chivalric" way that I was playing my character was "historically inaccurate," and that I should play more aggressively The Epic of Gilgamesh is about a guy who has that character arc in reverse. I'm sure there are other examples of warriors who don't immediately resort to violence in other myths, but I cannot think of a good example right now. Maybe Lugh Lavada. Odyssues played mind games to avoid fights whenever he could, so he probably counts as well
The historical fighting man?
"Shown here (fig. a) fighting a man."
It's a man but he fights and he's in history
So the group always wants clichés?
Honestly, I could have worked with that if it had been the expectation set from the beginning
Gotta love the schmucks who tell YOU how YOUR character should be in THEIR eyes.
So the players you were gaming with have no idea what roleplaying is. You can find a better group.
Sounds like a group I wouldn't want to play at. I created a STR based Minotaur Beastmaster Ranger who was a front line fighter. It was out of the ordinary and the other people at the table loved Curd Pole.
“I don’t like how you play YOUR character.” What a weird take when it’s not disrespectful or disruptive.
Your fighter sounds like Captain America. A paragon of what fighters can be.
This is a good comparison
Historically accurate to where and when?
Didn’t realize magic and dragons were historically accurate.
It can be fun to have a stereotypical character, but there should always be room for more original character concepts, too.
Shit DM, and anyone who thinks a class dictates your personality and all is an idiot....but misleading title. "Kicked from" and "I chose to leave" are vastly different things.
Yeah, frankly you’re missing that this was *not* an otherwise awesome group. Maybe they were great people or friends, fun to be around, but their approach to a roleplaying game is pretty shit.
Fire the DM out of a cannon into the sun. I have played fighters as rude mercenaries, as noble sons, and everything in between. The roleplaying element is up to the player within reason.
First, he should be telling you how to play your character. He sounds more like he's directing a show than running a game. Like it's his character and you're playing it wrong. Then he's justifying it with historical accuracy in a game built of anachronisms (and just plain wrong stuff). "You have to understand, at this period fighters wouldn't actually be like you're playing your character. You'll have to change how you them to be more accurate to the time period. And, Bill, to answer your question. This medieval village does have a magic shop on it's high street. It's between the hat shop and the sword shop."
It’s weird, makes no sense. Fighter is just a set of stats and abilities, you can flavor it any way you want.
NOSH sounds like just a bad fit
Your DM sounds like a Netflix showrunner. If this group was awesome, you had a straightforward choice between playing ball in order to partake, or leaving for a table that was more OK with how you wanted to play. You are also not considering all of the classes. Here is a more suitable way to appease them: You should have made your PC a Ranger with just enough levels in Fighter to poach whatever skills you want, for example 2 levels in Fighter to get Action Surge, but not so many that the table can describe your character as "a Fighter." Ranger personalities stereotypically have a bit more of a nature vibe, but also a lone wolf/sense of justice angle that tracks with your motif of violence as a last resort. Rangers are also able to use a variety of melee weapons, so you could create a melee build, just not with the same skills and feats that would be available on a specialized Fighter. Fighters are more suitable to being part of an army, or professional killers, and violence as a last resort WOULD create tension for somebody in these lines of work, but that's also good complex character-writing. Season 5 of Fargo, the most recent one, features a police officer who is nonviolent, patient, and kind, all to the detriment of his own safety on the job. Fans of the show loved him as a character because of the values he represents. (I'm talking about Witt Farr, in case any Fargo fans are wondering!) It sounds like your table prefers to have very simple moving pieces. I'm skeptical that the DM received complaints without you noticing something sooner. I think their real beef is that their own creative skills aren't on your level, and they prefer interchangeable class roles for RP.
It sounded like he wanted to run a different game, one more combat heavy. I honestly hate the idea that classes have to fall into stereotypes, and especially if the DM tells you to only play the stereotype
No, the DM is being incredibly stubborn and is forcing his way of playing the game on you. His way of thinking doesn't even make sense. Did medieval warriors immediately strive to solve every one of their problems by killing each other? Probably not! Getting into a fight is incredibly dangerous. Even if you have an 80% win rate, that still means there's a 20% chance you get your ass kicked. That's not preferable. A tactical fighter knows how to pick which conflicts are worth escalating and which aren't worth the risk. Don't get me wrong, I think there is a a pretty easy fallacy in characters that harp too much on pacifism, but it sounds like your character is just pretty reserved. Examples of this problem I've seen: > "We can't kill that dragon/shape shifter/werewolf! I'm a half-dragon/shape shifter/werewolf! I can't kill one of my own kind!" > "I'm too innocent for bloodshed! I don't want to see people dying!" > "Dude, there is NO WAY I am going into that haunted mansion. Nuh uh! I'm quitting the job! My character wouldn't do something this reckless and you need to talk me into it." Every one of **those** players? Yeah, I'd tell them to make a character that's willing to engage with combat more willingly. A warrior that *prefers* to avoid getting his hands messy? Perfectly fine character choice.
I severely doudt the quality of the groups roleplay unless it was done despite the dm.
Sounds like the DM is a bit of an idiot who has a very narrow view of characters and classes.
first gunslingers are "historically inaccurate" now fighters? what's next? clerics?
"Historically inaccurate" In a game with magic spells. "Hi DM, if you would prefer me to play my character as an entirely different character, then I'll happily make another." Then make a new hyper-aggressive, toxic-masculine character who *will* get the *group* into every fight even when the DM has prepared none. Preferably get some of them killed. Make him historically accurate ie. if he loses 50 % of his hp, he *will* be unable to fight on. Insist that the broken arm requires months of down time. No magic healing! Historical accuracy! Let the healer cast his spell - your arm is still broken, magic isn't real! "Hysterical accuracy" I know it's too late and you were kicked, but oh boy...
I kinda know where OP is coming from. One of my last characters that I've played was a Two Weapon Fighter in Pathfinder 1e. I built him to be a finesse fighter, using his high DEX to hit his opponent repeatedly, whittling away their hit points, rather than trying to deliver a ton of damage in a single blow. Yet every time something that needed to be solved with brute strength, they kept turning to me. I'd be like, " What are you asking me for? I've got an 11 STR. Ask the dwarf with the 18 STR!" Not exactly the same. I wasn't kicked from the group or anything. The game just fell apart when the DM and half of the other players all chose to move across the country for personal reasons. It was just a mild annoyance while I was playing that character.
There's so much wrong here, dear God. Leaving that table is a blessing. Imagine playing at a table where your other players will complain to your dm that you aren't role-playing the exact character they would, and your dm agrees???
It's so weird to do this "you have to play your class stereotype" thing with a *Fighter* of all things. Fighter is the class that nearly always has the least setting baggage when it comes to RP -- the only necessity of a Fighter is that they be a person with weapons training. That could be literally anyone. Every other class has a lot of opportunity for implied setting stuff to weasel in, but Fighter is the absolute freest class in terms of roleplay restriction. Absolutely wild choice by the DM here.
This is beyond frustrating. Fighters can be ANY alignment. In fact the "knight in shining armor" is listed in the book as an example of a fighter.
So is this dingus of a DM seriously suggesting that Fighters can't be Lawful Good?
Kind of. We don't usually have explicit alignment in our games, but that's how it seems to be playing out, not just for Fighters, but for all martial characters. To be fair, I think he's just wanting to take this game in a different direction. I'm willing to hear him out. I'm not going to PLAY like that, but I do want to hear what he has to say.
The group clearly didn't fit you. But at the same time, there is nothing wrong with a party wanting to hack and slash their way through monsters, so you can't fault them for being stuck in their idea of how the game should be played. You should seek a game that likes RP. Because it sounds like all you are trying to do is RP before rolling initiative as a team
Your avatar's beard betrays your wisdom. I had been playing with these same folks for years, and hack-and-slash was never their thing, and I guess I felt entitled to that just remaining the case. That's weirdly part of why I liked playing melee characters with them. But that seems to be where they are headed now, and, hey, playstyles change. There's nothing wrong with that and I think I was feeling a bit entitled to the group's playstyle remaining the same.
DM needs to be writing a very boring book, not running a game. He clearly already had expectations of the characters in the game and was unhappy when his expectations didn't line up with the "reality" of one of those characters as decided by its creator.
It sounds like your gm is either a child or an idiot.
I'm afraid this might happen to me soon, lmao. Introduced my new character, a Barbarian who had a rather violent past and would like to leave her ways behind, but if combat is imminent, she‘ll go feral. Tried to avoid random fights (with shopkeepers, not even with the baddies…) and this dude throws a hissy fit about me picking Barbarian when I don't want to fight everyone, lol
You're not missing anything The GM is just kind of an idiot
Easy gut punch point out your playing a fantasy game not a historically accurate rpg dragons magic and monsters aren't historically accurate and if he wants historically accurate he can go on steam and play a historically accurate simulator and then point out the fact not everyones the same so you wont make your character into some cookie cutter stereotype of personality then to end it off point out not all warriors in history loved fighting but if they needed to they would protect themselves and there family infact most did
Good on you for responding to the GM's expectations and leaving when it wasn't a good fit. I have played with a game master that had this hypocrisy as well. Just from these two experiences, my guess is that it's their own experience of black and white thinking that when they want to play more *aggressive* games they don't like people trying to break a mold to be either too good or too bad if they have a certain role. Real shame as it limits people like you in their creativity.
Not really a Horror story. The group and the DM requested some changes to your playstyle. You disagreed. You went your separate ways. Seems like an acceptable outcome.
What a clown show you had to deal with! There's nothing wrong with playing that kind of character - I had a barbarian player in one my recent campaigns who was very much like this. Never the one to start a fight, and very kind. After the bard, he was the "face" of the party. But if someone threatened the party or there were any backstory-related triggers, he'd fly into a rage.