My First Ever Experience With Chaotic Stupid | Narrated D&D Story

2nd story: Sounds like the DM didn't actually want the FTP to contribute as a player at all, and was using the game as a way to exert control over the player. This was a start of a new campaign too, so plan to insert a new player character later in the story doesn't work here - it's almost always better to have players appear in the same place and introduce themselves by going around the table, sometimes in-game too. The DM was setting up the FTP from the very start to have a bad experience.

Second story. It honestly sounds like dm didnt really want op at their table in the first place but didn't want to say no so they came up with a scenario that will give them excuses to kick out op. Also this is just a theory but considering 2 out of 3 "issues" the gm had with op included the druid I would t be surprised if gm has the hots for druids player and felt intimidated by op showing interest in their character

I know how my DM would have handled the first story: "Little boy, roll a 20 or pass out from smoke inhalation....ok, you're unconscious, and you quickly die a fiery death. The rest of you, as the flames die down, a man identifying himself as the mayor approaches and requests your help to deal with the town's goblin problem, telling you that as of late they've been disguising themselves as children in order to cause mischief and mayhem."

2nd story: "The other players say I'm in the right." "My friends all say I'm in the right." "AITA? 🤔🤔🤔"

"Play this character in the exact way I picture it even thought this is your first time playing and this isn't the story you had in mind or I'll kick you out." Bruh f**k that GM

2nd story be like: FTP: "What's going on? Where am I? Can I join the party?" That DM: "STOP ASKING PROVOCATIVE QUESTIONS AND SPOTLIGHT HOGGING! I'M KICKING YOU OUT OF MY CAMPAIGN!"

Ok, first story DOES highlight the need for a session zero. At the same time, the term "Three strikes you're out" exists for good reason. Second story. Yes, the DM was a gaslighting egotistical asswipe that can't stand anyone not liking his forced direction when it makes no sense.

Yea overall creepy vibe from the D.M. In the second story. The first story should be handled by excluding murder hobo’s from playing.

1st story sounds like someone who plays vanilla Skyrim, like the players in the bandit story campaign, while the 2nd one is something that DMs should really know better than to do.

Have I ever said how much I love the art backgrounds you have for your videos? No because this is the first time I have left a comment on one of your videos? Well, now you know! Also, you are my favorite Youtube D&D stories teller. So there is that too. Keep making these!

Sounds to me like, the DM had a certain story narrative in mind that he wanted the FTP to play out, at the beginning of the game, as an evil character. Since the FTP was not playing the evil character the way the DM was expecting him to, the DM came up with excuses to kick him out of the game.

2nd story: The DM is an Idiot and an @$$hole setting up the player to fail like that, Would have got up and him that I will not play a Patsy that I'm trying to bond with party and MY CHARACTER was being hamstrung at every Level and left

Cursive Strahd... undead calligraphy?

The first story, the DM should have stopped the session and told the play that they need to cool it. If they persist, then it should have been an immediate ejection from the game and kicked out of their home. The second story, the DM was 100% in the wrong. They took away the new players agency on how he could roleplay and failed to give context to the new player on the other players public backstory or character info. They should have said "The Druid woke up next to Carla, the Druids adoptive daughter" to immediately clarify who Carla was to rule out confusion. Just because a new player is not with the players at the start, doesn't mean the DM should fail to share basic context for the new player. Also shoehorning them into a role they don't want to be is just down right rude, ignorant, and wrong. NEVER as a DM do that to your players, it's a roleplaying game for a reason, so let your players do their own roleplaying.

Chaotic stupid can be entertaining. The low Int, Low Wis PC with no self cojtrol, does whatever odd thing they think of and is essentially unable to learn from the bad (or sometimes good) results. Curly of the 3 Stooges with a broadsword in chaimail (he keeps the broadsword wrapped in chainmail to protect it, so it's essentially a club)

DM's red flags are not kicking that player after "redflag numbers three through six" I wouldn't want to play with a DM who makes it the other players' problem to deal with 1 person sabotaging the game for them when pvp of any kind isn't allowed.

2nd story - To me it sounds like the DM has a thing for Druid. Likely OP is also above average looking so DM viewed him as a possible threat to his chances in asking out Druid. Recall DM had created a child NPC who has wormed its way into Druid's bed. Yikes all around.

No. The OP of the second story wasn't in the wrong. Even if it's an FTP, it's poor form to make a player feel like an NPC.

First story: Ok, how I fix this is; 1. Enable PvP if majority if the party wants to stop someone 2. Have consequences for actions 3. the 2 is most important

I 100% agree that forcing a player, especially a new player, to come in as an adversial character is wrong. Gms should be working to strength character bonds at the start, not test them.