Hey Veeky Forums, I know you like stories so here's mine

Hey Veeky Forums, I know you like stories so here's mine.

>Be me in an online 5e campaign with some friends
>Make a Paladin, pick Knight as a background
>Get a squire and 2 other helpers because Retainers
>Make a pretty cool squire character together with the DM
>One day, I ask him some questions about the squire
>"Oh, you're not starting with him."
>What.jpg
>"He's going to be an NPC and you might get to recruit him later. I think it'll add character."
>I'm not guaranteed to even get the squire, so I tell him I'd rather start with my squire if that's ok
>DM starts getting pissed, calls me That Guy and accuses me of min-maxing
>"You just want everything"
>My face = pic related
>Ensue long and tedious argument, in the end I get to keep my squire but I have to make another one because DM is claiming the first one as an NPC

More?

No, because that was incredibly boring.

Fpbp
This is a real story, it's boring and doesn't really matter in the end. It isn't exciting like a that guy story ending with police helicopters and rape, it's just normal benign shit.

Eh, I'll reserve judgement for now. Continue.

OP here. I realize this was a bit boring, but I have some more stuff coming up including an NPC raping another NPC, wolf-girls and a completely fucked version of lycanthropy.

>Ok, so campaign going on for a month now
>Pretty good, despite original arguments
>Playing a Lawful Neutral Paladin, Vengeance Oath
>Our two druids set off with another PC to hunt werewolves
>DM makes some mini-quest for them
>Both druids get bitten
>Rest of party finds out later on
>OHHELLNO
>Me and Barbarian say they need to get that shit cured
>Nope, they wanna be werewolves
>Okay then
>After the session, I approach one of the Druids and tell him whether he knows what the fuck being a werewolf is and how it turns you into a rampaging beast every full moon
>Yes, he does. Still wants to be one
>I ask him why
>"Well, DM said that druids can be fully in control of themselves even during transformation. Plus, wolf girls"
>"Plus, wolf girls"
>Oh god

>Literal Hothead

OP again. I asked the druid player how the fuck does he get to be immune to the negative effects of lycanthropy. Explanation as follows.

>Apparently in our world when a werewolf bits a human, they become that human's "master"
>The human behaves like a normal werewolf, rampage every full moon stuff included
>However, when the master werewolf dies the human gains full control over their lycanthropy
>I explain how that doesn't work, since there must have been an original werewolf and if they die then every werewolf would stop being a werewolf
>Nope, apparently in here werewolves are a "species"
>There are "natural werewolves", aka when two werewolves breed and make a full werewolf offspring
>Then there's lycanthropes, who are humans bitten by werewolves
>I tell druid player that's not how species work
>He says he's also confused but doesn't care. He gets to play a wolf girl, he's happy.
>Even admits that its' his fetish

Those are three stories about you getting into heavy discussions and getting angry over very minor elements.
You know, when everyone around you seems like an asshole, you have a high chance that it's in fact you who is the asshole.

>DM doesn't let him start with even one third of his background feature, which is fitting for the class
>Accuses him of *minmaxing* for wanting to get a single non-combat helper when the feature grants 3


>Lets 2 of his friends become werewolves (not a template meant for players, a huge buff) and fully control themselves

While that isn't a bad thing in and of itself, it shows some level of bullshit that they think one is fine and the other isn't.
Signs point to "DM is shit"

>He doesn't want to run wild and free with his druid bro fucking bitches and taking down fuck huge magical elk with his bare claws
>He doesn't want to be the vengeful wolf of his God seeking out sinners with his heightened senses and putting fear into the hearts the wicked.

Why Paladins always gotta be so orthodox? You think someone with a tree branch up their ass would have an easier time communing with nature.

There are 'natural lycanthropes' in 3.5 I know. The fact he gets no drawbacks is pretty shitty (not even LA? Monster HD? Something?). Have you gotten anything to make it equal in the party? You should get someone to bite you too, or for them to bite someone to bite you and you kill them, something like that.

>Gets to be full in control of a transformation that's supposed to be a massive problem.
>Transformation also gives them like 7d8 extra HP and a at-will transformation that gives regeneration
>Not overpowered

>DM wants to implement a part of his background in the story and offers the opportunity to pick up this element during the campaign. OP whines that he want's to have the squire now, loses his shit.

>Let two players gain awesome, flavorful powers. OP can't handle it, arguing: "that's not how fantasy works badwrongfun".

It all depends on how you tell the story.
And sure, no DM is perfect, he made some mistakes and could use some work.
But:
>OP takes to Veeky Forums to complain about how shit the campaign is and what horrible bullshit he had to go through.
That's the kicker.
Maybe come back when some sperg player does a table-flip out of rage, but for now either grow a thicker skin or grow some balls and find a different group.

>playing D&D
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>I explain how that doesn't work, since there must have been an original werewolf and if they die then every werewolf would stop being a werewolf
Thats not a logical conclusion. The curse could just as easily be generational and nothing about the druids previous statement said that gaining control over the lycanthropy would end it. The first werewolf came, bit a lot of people, died, his descendants were free, but the people they bit were not.

>you MIGHT get to recruit him later
Emphasis mine. Story-wise it might be interesting, but in a game I don't blame him for feeling cheated if there's a possibility he can't use part of his class. How would you feel if he'd been playing another class with the same effect? The way you're phrasing it is altering the context a little.

>Wizard's familiar
>Cleric's turn undead
>Bard's bardic knowledge

"You don't start with that. You MIGHT get it later."

OP is a fag and should have left when the GM stole his squire. How big of a red flag do you need?

Well, how about letting the DM craft a beautiful campaign for you first, since he clearly has a reason for withholding the squire, and then complain if you don't get the squire when the time comes? Give your DM some credit that he won't screw you over, instead of neurotically safeguarding yourself for the possibility that he might screw you over.

There's no way to ingrain the squire in the story if he's already a squire, yep. They couldn't have a brief one on one session to flesh that out. Instead, let's have a *chance* that he could get that NPC as a follower.

I wouldn't have a problem with this if the character had a different background feature. Just expressing to the DM "Maybe in a while you could introduce an NPC who might become my squire?" That's quite reasonable. After all, the background features in 5e are all things that exist to provide a bit of mechanical back to utility and roleplay that does a nice job of defining a character's, well, background.
But that isn't the case. The DM isn't saying "I acknowledge your interest and will provide a way for it to possibly develop naturally." He's saying "No, you can't take your level 1 feature. You MIGHT be able to unlock it if you progress in a certain manner."

Meanwhile, Holo over here gets to play a fucking sentient werewolf. Granted, since the two were playing druids I'd bet that they talked to the DM about this matter previously, and were recommended that path and given an "I'll work on it."

How often did they wildshape into dire wolves before the curse, OP?
Here's hoping what the DM told them was after a botched knowledge or insight check and they're still under puppet strings

Extreme projection or the GM in question, I can't decide.

How about 'someone who actually knows how to play with other people'?

Well that's what the OP is describing so of course I'd describe stuff in D&D. What do you want me to do, respond to someone asking a D&D 5e question with rulings from the Rifts handbook?

Fair point. I apologize for that post, it was a dumb remark.

You're getting very emotional about this. Don't get so involved, you're filling in gaps with your own biases and point of view. Look at the situation objectively.

>You're getting very emotional about this. Don't get so involved
Not really, I am voicing an opinion.
From what I gather, OP is complaining about minor technicalities that will rectify themselves and getting up in his group's grill for it.

Granted, I am probably biassed as a DM, but when someone says:
>I'd rather start with my squire if that's ok
>DM starts getting pissed
then I don't believe for shit that this is really how it went. OP is portraying himself as the good guy and his DM as a jackass, while he's actually the one complaining.

>letting the DM craft a beautiful campaign for you first, since he clearly has a reason for withholding the squire,

No emotion clouding reasoned thought here, no siree.

>I don't believe for shit that this is really how it went.
Well we have no other information to go on, neither way can be proved.

The 'beautiful' part was intended as a humorous exaggeration. I stand by the rest of the statement: if the Dm wants to use the squire as an NPC first, then he probably had some plans first, otherwise he wouldn't have done it. So instead of making a fuss about it, I would've wanted to see what the DM had in store, or at least let him show what he had in store out of respect.
I get the DM was bending the rules, but the rules ain't sacred.

That's not the point.
>You might get to recruit him later
That's what people are annoyed about. It would have been fine but that one word, 'might' changed everything. OP might have asked for clarification, if he did we don't know. As stated that 'might' is what makes it unacceptable.

Yeah, I get that. But again, why not give him the benefit of the doubt?
That seems to be the sensible thing to do in a group activity. Because, 'might' could also mean that you will get the squire and there won't be a problem at all, which is what a good DM would understand. What you call "unacceptable" seems to me like you immediately assume the worst possibility concerning your group.

This is actually the same argument I put forwards before you started banging on that I was too emotionally involved btw.

You don't get it. I can't explain it any more simply. Saying someone 'might' get a starting feature of their class is not acceptable.
If he'd said 'you WILL get a chance to recruit him later' that would be fine.
I'm not assuming anything about the situation. It's my lack of knowledge that is informing my opinion.

I agree with your point that "might" implies there is a chance you'll never get a class feature written on your sheet, but you also have to trust people. This isn't when 26 people on party.app selecting the "maybe" option and nobody shows up, it's someone making a promise directly to you.

Brother, you're not having a discussion here. Just saying "you don't get it" isn't an argument. Again, why not give him the benefit of the doubt?

I do understand that changing 'you will get something' into 'you might get something' is bending the rules. So, the rules are now bent, will you make a fuss about it or not?
A) You assume that 'might' will most likely result in 'will not', the GM is likely screw you over and not give you your squire, so you start pressing the issue.
B) You assume that 'might' will most likely result in 'will', since your GM knows what he's doing and he's not a dick. Also you realize that pushing the issue prematurely might make you look like a dick.

kys sperg faggot
glad you're not in my game

Humans are now born with out skin and MIGHT get skin if they let the doctor rape them.

So you're comparing playing a campaign with a doctor raping you? Maybe this hobby isn't for you.

False equivalence, faggot.

YOU are ThatGuy. When a GM says "You might get X" he is literally saying "You'll get X eventually but I want you to feel like you earned the squire".

>When a GM says "You might get X" he is literally saying "You'll get X eventually"
Wow, I never expected to meet the most retarded person on Veeky Forums! A dubious honor.

>Conveniently cut's off half of the sentence
>Wow, you are so dumb
Those are some great reasoning skills you've got there.

Might=/=Will
Simple enough? Maybe your handler can explain it to you.