[ SECRET POST #6449 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6449 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Ciconia: When They Cry]



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.
[Snowpiercer]



__________________________________________________



07.















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 35 secrets from Secret Submission Post #922.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

04. https://i.imgur.com/5vuYxoi.png

[(Anonymous)]

I hear something along these lines pretty often, what is it about the Rogue class which seems to attract drama queens? I would have thought they'd go for Barbarians instead.

[(Anonymous)]

Nah, barbarians attract people who don't mind playing a "dumb" or "uncivilized" character compared to the rest of the setting. Rogues meanwhile attract people who want to play a character that's in theory smarter and more cunning than others with a built in reason to act selfish if they want.

Obviously not all rogue players are drama queens, but drama queens and the "excuse me ma'am i am a sigma male" types tend to like the latter thing.

[(Anonymous)]

Whereas I have never encountered this at all. The most disruptive players I've known all tend to multiclass and make weird bespoke characters.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

I don't disbelieve you. Plenty of different kinds of drama players out there.

"Chaotic Neutral Rogue" is a dnd player stereotype for a reason, though. You'll find lots of DMs are wary of it.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah.

(Some) people (who are bad at roleplaying) play rogues because they want to PvP the rest of the party. Just like some people play bards because they want to role to fuck every opposite-gender NPC they see, or play wizards because they want to be officially smarter than the rest of the party, or play paladins because they want to roleplay their character being a huge smug asshole to the rest of the party.

[(Anonymous)]

The common thread there is character/player separation.

With enough character/player separation, and the players willing to laugh at them, some snotty pseudointellectual wizard traveling with an incredibly gullible paladin who is supremely sure in incredibly wrong things and a rogue who is wondering how she got surrounded by idiots and trying to shove them off on someone else unsuccessfully at every turn could be total comedy gold.

Without character/player separation though, you just get self-insert player drama.

[(Anonymous)]

Right, ultimately it's basically about having out-of-character conversations to make sure everyone is on the same page tonally and so on.

[(Anonymous)]

DA same. I know it is the stereotype amd I'm sure it is out there, but I just haven't encountered it.

[(Anonymous)]

Idk. I’ve been playing rogues for a long time, and one thing I’m really enjoying in 5e is that I can actually kill bad guys. But I want a collaborative game with the other players, and I play for that — everybody contributes, some contribute more at specific points, and we’re all there to have fun.

Isn’t that how everyone plays, or have I just been really lucky for 35 years?

[(Anonymous)]

damn lucky I'd say. I don't game but I have tons of friends both online and irl who do so I've heard every horror story about table manners, and it really does seem like 80-90 percent of game groups fall into the same tropes, the same lack of IC/OOC divide, and feed the stereotypes to a T. be grateful for your luck!

[(Anonymous)]

Ayrt—got it, I will be deeply grateful for my luck!

[(Anonymous)]

It's baffling to me, as someone who almost always plays a rogue. I wouldn't BE there if I didn't want to be part of a group? Same for my adventurer?? My favorite experiences have been with rogues who were *socially motivated*-- one was a grieving widower who bonded with the party's stoic barbarian, and even though that was YEARS ago, I still remember the emotional impact her death then had on him, and her player's reaction to how it hit him! My most recent rogue essentially adopted a fellow adventurer, viewing him as an unprepared kid with a sword, and had the experience of having his desire to be cautious or self-serving in various situations tempered by the desire to protect someone just starting out as an adventurer, wanting to keep him alive long enough to learn some caution of his own.

There are so many great moments with friends I just... wouldn't HAVE, if I played lone wolf asshole rogues, and none of my characters would have enough depth to be memorable to me.

[(Anonymous)]

In the same vein, I'm so beyond tired of bards being played as those super annoying 24/7 horny "will flirt with and fuck everything tee hee" unfunny running gag characters.

[(Anonymous)]

Class stereotypes aside, bravo for walking out of a group that would rather have a disruptive asshole than a happy DM.

+1

[(Anonymous)]

Yup. Sounds like a toxic environment that was not bringing enough joy for what is supposed to be a fun hobby.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah. I once had a player decide his character (a rogue) would rape another character (a mahe) and despite DM warnings that there would be consequences, he went ahead and promptly got killed by a fireball. And then the other players refused to resurrect him. He then argued endlessly about how unfair it was and how he should have various dice modifiers, and when I told him to go roll a new character, he started threatening me and the player whose character he tried to rape. Other players told him off, he stormed out, but then he was planning just to show up for the next game and most of the other players were fine with that, I quit. And two other players did too.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm surprised you didn't kick him out right then and there. If I had a person who wanted to raoe another character that would be the end of me playing with them. Then to add them ignoring you and doing it anyway? Gross. Good for you for quitting because fuck that guy (and the others that supported him).

[(Anonymous)]

As a fellow DM, agreed.

I've never been so glad my players are all really delightful people who communicate with each other AND me, and like to play their characters really out of the box sometimes, like the actually asexual bard who was in it for the music, the cleric who isn't so above it all and is downright even goofier than the rest of the party, and the goofy surfer bro monk/druid. Hell, even the vampiric Blood Hunter is a delight.

[(Anonymous)]

Good on you OP. DM-ing is hard work and having a player refuse to work with the rest of a group is a nightmare, I tried to salvage a group like that years ago but these days I know when to cut my losses and leave. It's not fun when one person is trying to hog the character-spotlight.

I don't outright ban chaotic neutral rogues, because not everyone is trying to meme-play, but I do sit down and have a chat with a group so I can get a feel for where everyone wants to go with their characters(personal spoilery stuff is done privately ofc).

[meadowphoenix]

it's probably because after tier 1 the rogue's most interesting features are out of combat, and they're try to make the most of that in the worst way (which is why imo the bard can also get like this if they have a so-so subclass)

but i got lucky and found a group where i'm the cautious rogue trying to prevent the fighter or the ranger from going in half-cocked.

[(Anonymous)]

Very valid! The game is to be fun for everyone on the table, including the DM, and that's something players tend to forget. I do wonder thought, did you ever get around to talking with them about this, and then they dismissed you?