Playing 5e

Now hang on a minute if that DM's player wasn't responding to his potential plot hook then he should have just dropped it and thought of something else to engage him. It's not fair to punish a player for not wanting to do something they wouldn't enjoy

Fucking seconded.

Speaking as a GM, playing along is almost always the best way for a player to handle something like this, even if it is the "just set her up with the baker" route
Ignoring something the GM cares about is shitty, even if the thing the GM cares about sucks. Of course, this isnt a problem if you dont like/care about your GM.

It seems here like the GM assumed OP was retarded, and wasnt picking up on the plothook
We dont really know what happens after this place in the narritive, since OP's story ends where it does

You are like little cuckold. Watch this:
>Playing 5e
>Lawful Good Paladin
>Doing a few quests for a female alchemist with 3 children
>Shorthand backstory is her husband left her and she became a potion seller to provide for her children
>Realize that according to multiple studies the children of single parents are more likely to befall such ill fates as dropping out of high school, becoming criminals, becoming teen parents, having lower grades et cetera than the children of married parents
>Realize that this effectively means the single mother is an abuser
>Smite the THOT, drop her children off at an orphanage but only after making sure that there's a substantial number of both men and women among the caretakers and they're qualified for the heavy duty of raising a child
>DEUS VULT

>It seems here like the GM assumed OP was retarded, and wasnt picking up on the plothook
A good DM shouldn't rely on just one plothook to drive the story forward. If it doesn't capture the player's attention then they should drop it and think of something else. It's just egotistical to refuse to acknowledge that your planned plot might just be shit and that you're better off finding something actually actually.

actually interesting*

Not OP, but as a player I tend to be pretty compliant with whatever plot the GM wants to drag my character along for. However most of my characters will have some ideology, goal or motivation that they will not let go untill I say they've had enough development to either complete or move to the next step of their story arc, regardless of how much the GM wants to rush their development.

Fuck I know this isn't quite the same but this hits close to home as I literally got semi cuckolded playing D&D before.

Yes he's probably not a great GM but that's still no reason to bash a mediocre idea. RP is a collaborative effort, and unless you reallly totally fucking hate the idea, just roll with it and take it places if you ask me. That's the way to turn a mediocre idea into a good story.

Also let me add: I'm not totally on board with the idea that the GM is supposed to throw you infinite plot hooks unless you, the player, in your infinite mercy, deign to accept one. Which isn't quite what you said but you see where that kind of attitude can end up quickly. I think a bit more deigning on the player side and a quick talk in between sessions a la "Hey GM I'd really like a plot with X, that's my jam" does more for smooth play and making everyone feel on board.

If his mediocre idea would have a drastic effect on my character that I'd rather not have, that's all the justification I need to say 'no'.

Of course the player could've tried to play along and do something along the lines of setting her up with someone else, but these things don't always occur to someone whilst playing

Look I just feel that just as not every NPC is going to be a hit with the players so too is not every plot hook going to be as well. A good DM can deal with this instead of trying to force a square peg into a round hole. If it was the only plot hook in the area then that would be one thing but from OP's post it was implied that he was already in the middle of other quests.

Fair enough, I'm just saying course you don't have to do what the GM wants to placate him, but resolving the storyline some other way is cooler than moonwalking away.
As I said, he's probably not yet a good GM, but I feel even a mediocre GM has the right for you to attempt to play on, and I also believe that will turn him into a better GM when he realizes where his influence on the story begins and ends, by example. At least I do reserve the walkouts for people that are actually revolting, and not just slightly incompetent.

Remind me to take THOT's as my favoured enemy.

>pic
Kek. Saved. So true.

>GMs really trying to defend railroading a player
I hope you guys get murderhobos from now on.

This. If the GM throws something at me that they obviously want me to follow, I'm not going to shut them down and 180 away from it unless it's actually really awful. They deserve their fun too, so the least I can do is meet them halfway as long as it's reasonable.

Though everyone does alignment differently so it's not like I'm addressing OP's post entirely.

Tell him that a paladin, a knight of the gods should be smiting evil instead of playing cheap mexican soap opera.

Railroading means you take a back seat to the plot. My suggestion wasn't that. Go fuck yourself you entitled little snowflake service mentality player shit.

GM fail!
Since there is no proof of former partner's demise, she is not a widow and any further marriage could be bigamous.
Even if the regional, species and religious customs permit multiple partner marriages, such arrangements normally require the consent of all relevent parties; since her original partner isn't around to consent the marriage is null and void.
If she divorced him on the grounds of abandonment, then it could be allowed, depending on the socio-religious mores prelevent, eg., the Paladin can only be married in a church, but his faith refuses to allow divorcees to remarry ("til death do you part" clause!), preventing there being a valid ceremony.
Any or all of these could apply, making the railroading a poorly thought out exercise...

Aw yeah, embark on a quest to find her husband.

Railroading means forcing the player in something he doesn't want to. Make an interesting plot and players will follow. But since it's clear you are incapable of that, stay mad. Maybe one day you will be a good GM.

Railroading means forcing the player to do something, not forcing the player into an uncomfortable situation. But since it's clear you're incapable of withstanding any modicum of discomfort, stay safespaced. Maybe one day you will be an interesting player.

...by following the trail of abandoned "wives" until catching up with him at his latest wedding ceremony, which the paladin disrupts by arresting him for multiple counts of bigamy and failure to pay child support!
The ensuing trial could a great roleplaying session...

Yes, but saying 'you should go along' is exactly pushing the player in a railroad.

Also user sorry to say but people don't want to roleplay your fetishes. And I rather don't play at your table, seeing that being 'interesting' is 'pick my hooks even through they are shit'.

There's the post I was waiting for. Again:

You didn't really read the post you were responding to, right?
>marry her to the baker or some shit, and the story can go on.

>Speaking as a GM, playing along is almost always the best way for a player to handle something like this

Found the entitled GM.

>user thinks he have a point
Except that no, he doesn't have to lose valuable time playing matchmaker while he could be doing actual cool stuff such as exploring dungeons, because GM is so stuck on his ego that he doesn't sees that this is extremely stupid especially when he take into account that he is a hero, a knight of gods who literally card is smiting monsters.

Speaking as a GM, fuck that and fuck you. Just because you have some ~*grand storyline*~ you want to play out doesn't mean the players need to go along with it if they aren't interested. Just save your clever garbage for some other group and/or some other time. For reference, here's how that interaction should go, in game or in real life:

Girl: I am interested in you!
Boy: I am not.
Girl: Okay then, I guess I'll have to get dicked down by someone else.

So the problem is that the people at the table are wasting valuable time while they could be doing what you want to do. And that's why they're entitled.

>and wasnt picking up on the plothook

Im sure he got the plot hook fine. It was just terrible.

The table? Go read the post again numbnuts, it's the GM pushing a plot line that doesn't has anything to do with the player's expectations. If the players enjoy romance they fine, do it, but don't force players that don't want anything to do with it.

And that's why I say spend 5 fucking minutes to resolve the plot and give the GM the feeling that he's not a fucking loser, while you insist on going BEEEEP WRONG MOTHERFUCKER WOW WHAT A SHITTY PLOT IM SERIOUSLY RECONSIDERING LETTING YOU GM NOW WHERE'S THE FUCKING DUNGEON DICKWAD?

OP's GM is trying to shoehorn his bloody single mom fanfic into this shit.
A true paladin would track the deadbeat father and force him to stay with the kids like a true christian family

The GM was the one throwing a hissy fit about changing a players alignment for not wanting to get rail roaded into a shitty marriage plot.

It was a shitty idea, it was a shitty plot and it deserves to be stopped dead in it's tracks

I guess we've both made our point clear by now sir, shall we proceed to call each other names?

>the players should pander to the GM so he doesn't get a boo-boo on his feels

Holy fuck, you have to be baiting.

>has no argument
>tries to disguise a transparent concession as a quippy comeback
KYS

PS: What really gets me about the story is that an Alchemist and potion maker is a highly specialized profession and that lady should be filthy rich by any measure of the setting. I mean it's the Fantasy equivalent of: "my husband ran away so I became a professional biochemist at Merck to pay the bills, oh deary me what will become of the little ones!"

You clearly expect the GM to pander to the players by giving them the plots they want, so what's with the other way round? That's exactly what I mean: service mentality.
I made the point 3 times and either you don't want to understand it or you just can't, and I'm fine with both.

Railroading characters into situations they believe their characters wouldn't do does not create good stories.

>I made the point 3 times

What point?

>DO WHAT THE GM WANTS EVEN IF IT'S STUPID!

>#GMfeelingsmatter
If a player simply not following one of your hooks makes you feel like a complete retard, you are too thin skinned to GM.

literally never happened

>so what's with the other way round?
there isn't an other way around. The DM controls literally everything in the world. He gets to set up rules. The players control literally only their character. If the DM wants to infringe that because he can't deal with not being completely in control, he should go write a novel instead.

>You clearly expect the GM to pander to the players by giving them the plots they want, so what's with the other way round?
Because, as the other user said, the GM controls literally every fucking thing in the world. The ability to choose which plot hooks to pursue is one of the few powers the player actually have.

No but you can take the dumb "you have to marry her" story and turn it into a better one in like 5 minutes time.
see above several times

>"Jared, I know it hurt you when your dad left, but this isn't healthy."

If the GM is going to force me to marry this broad I don't want to what evidence do I have to assume he's not going to try to force other shitty things on me.

It's not my job to make the story interesting.

The ability to choose what you deal with or not is not a given. What if a plot starts off with you being thrown in jail? The real freedom the players always have is HOW their characters deal with problems.

>No but you can take the dumb "you have to marry her" story and turn it into a better one in like 5 minutes time.
Yes you can, but the point that you aren't getting is: you don't need to that. There is literally nothing wrong in not pursuing a plot hook you find boring, and frankly the fact you think this is like a personal offense to the GM really worries me.

>It's not my job to make the story interesting.
Disagree, it's the job of everyone at the table, that's why you're there.

Where in the code of honour does it say:
"Quit saving the world and raise some dead fuck's kids"
Nowhere, that's where. Tell your DM to suck some cock.

>The ability to choose what you deal with or not is not a given.
Yes, you would have a point if this was the point. The point however is that the situation happened and he choose to respectfully bow out. He dealt with the problem.

In fact:
> The real freedom the players always have is HOW their characters deal with problems.
And he choose by saying 'no, not interested sorry' and leaving. So there, problem solved.

Are you going to try to move the goalpost again?

>This is just another thinly veiled attempt of /pol/ faggotry, isn't it?
Well, we are on Veeky Forums, so odds are... yes.

My job is to role play my character. Not come up with Scenarios. That's the GM. What am I suppose to do with this chic? Im not going to bring her along inside a dungeon

>the fact you think this is like a personal offense to the GM really worries me.
To be honest if the guy in the OP is actually real and not, as I suggested in my first post, a /pol/ troll making a cuck joke, he strikes me as a new and comparably inexperienced GM who is failing, but failing in an interesting area. My worry here is that if you teach that guy the hard way that this specific idea was shit, the lesson he is gonna take is that all ideas in that specific area are shit, or considered shit by his players - not just his specific execution of thatspecific idea.

In my experience that is one of the main reasons for GMs who don't try interesting weird shit, and the game is typically poorer for it.

Yes, it's his job to make the story interesting by roleplaying well, not twisting it to give a fat fuck some masturbation fuel.

Apparently you don't interact with girls much

But how is it making him uncomfortable to apply an incoherent meta punishment to an in-game action.

He didn't like the plot hook, he didn't even say it made him uncomfortable.

He RPd what his character would do, so why are you punishing him in the stupidest meta-way possible?

Why is it so hard for - you - to let go of your shitty plot ideas? Why do you need to punish people for being """uncomfortable""" at your table?

Why do you suck at GMing? This one I can answer, see all questions above.

Or he will take the idea that his player doesn't like romance, take the hint and stop pushing it.

>interesting weird shit
>weird shit
user, I'm sincerely very worried about your games. And a GM shouldn't actually put any 'weird shit' before warning players the game can have them. There is nothing more displeasing than unwanted magical realming.

The problem isn't that his idea is shit, It could've been a fine idea with another group, towards another character, or in a different story context. The problem, it's that he can't let go of ideas and then punishes players for not going along with his "game", like a spoiled child.

Calm down you freak: I am not his GM and I probably wouldn't have the problem, since I'd have backup plots and wouldn't try to change his alignment for that shit. All I am saying is let the guy down easily.

I am talking about "weird shit" as in plot that can happen outside the Dungeon, which as we already established is a weird idea to some people in this thread.

No, what you said was 'go along with a shit hook to spare his feels'. Which is an extremely dumb statement.

Yeah, but shoehorning muh milf romance isn't just 'something out of dungeon'. A guy with the minimum of brain would have noticed at the first rejection that the player wasn't interested on it.

Okay we're back at the point we were when I said: Shall we proceed to call each other names? How about now?

No, as a player I will tell you right now, I don't give a fuck what kind of weird fetish you are trying to get my character into. But if I'm not in charge of it, it ain't happening, I will dodge it as hard and fast as I can. I don't care about your silly plot.

are you honestly for real? How can you not see the issue of the GM actively punishing a player for not wanting to play alongside his shitty milf romance plot.

As I said: Good general concept, bad execution.

First off you are talking with more than one person. That guy you said this wasn't me.

Second this is the part where you stop posting, not try to save face with a half baked post.

I think you might be as mentally challenged as OP's DM.

Dude it's 5e - alignment doesn't do shit.

> Good general concept
> Good
Wow, it's fucking nothing. It's not a good concept if you need to shoehorn a character that doesn't has anything to do into it.

That's not really the point and you damn well know it. Alignment was always bullshit but it's the player decides their alignment.

I'm pretty sure you're all the same person.

>user is now at the pleading phase
Yes, you are correct. It only makes the GM look like a giant fucktard.

What's a pleading phase?

When you go into 'b-but it's wasn't so bad!'

No I stand by everything I said. If we're gonna take her around again I'm just gonna copypaste from the above replies though.

That's retarded and probably fake, but since it's 5e what difference does an alignment shift even make?

>literally admiting to be trolling
Have fun acting retarded. Maybe you will bait someone else.

>everyone who disagrees with me is the same person
Jesus christ nigga. I'm probably not even on the same continent as that dude. Want me to send you pics of the favela?
Fuck you.

Give your GM a kiss from me.

>changing alignment to Neutral Good
>not changing alignment to Lawful Neutral

>lmao just eat any shit up
>what do you mean your character wouldn't do that?
>lol grow up, you shouldn't avoid things because they make you uncomfortable
>w-why are you so annoyed at being punished for not taking the hook?
>waaah mom they're teaming up on me!
Have you ever considered getting professional help, my lad?

Who hasn't.

Your mother during those 9 months.

None of my therapists will sleep with me though...

Your brain on players.