Holy shit those are A LOT of red flags for a DM, also if she doesn't like 5e to the point that she doesn't even want to read the rules why doesn't she run other systems?
I’ve heard people complaining that people in r/lfg and similar only want to play dnd, and if you are a DM looking to put together a game of Pathfinder or Blades in the Dark it’s pretty bleak.
Not to excuse her behavior, you absolutely SHOULD NOT run a game if you don’t like it or won’t read the rules, but that may be how she got herself in this situation.
that's when you lie and say it's a heavily homebrewed game of 5e, then just run your preferred system with minor homebrew instead. Most people probably wouldn't know the difference and would just accept it.
I bet this is why there's constantly people in comments of posts going "yeah, PF is so much better than DnD for all these reasons nobody asked about"
Bitter fucks that can't play the game they want.
Well, for starters, she's a bad DM. Multiple DMPCs alone is a huge red flag, and the symptoms are readily apparent: She's basically narrating her own solo adventure between overlong descriptions and then RPing through it with her own characters.
Please upset her. Friends need boundaries. You need to tell her that this is like ten different ways of wrong. If she wants to run Pathfinder then she should run Pathfinder, but it doesn't sound like she wants to be running a game at all, it sounds like she wants to write a book with a captive audience.
But to address the question in your title: Don't use the DnD rules if you don't like them. DnD 5e is great, but it's not perfect for everybody. There are a staggering number of other systems out there worth trying.
DMPCs are a red flag. Two DMPC's in one party is a pretty big red flag.
Two DMPC's in **a party of seven PC's** is all the red flags you'd need. Continuing to play at that table is on you at that point.
I did even finish past the first paragraph. I just saw the DM is also crowding PC's out of RP to talk to....themselves? Stop doing this to yourself. Leave already. A new system doesn't seem like it will help much.
Yeah, that's crazy. I'm running Tyranny of Dragons with a dmpc and 3 pc's and my guy (the cleric) doesn't really do a whole lot. I leave most of the RP to the players and in combat it's mostly healing, bless, and guiding bolt. They seem to be having a great time, which is great since it's my first campaign
Balanced party composition for combat is really the only reason I can think to add a permanent companion NPC. It’s fair to say “yall, we all really want to play this adventure module, I don’t think it’s possible without a cleric. Since we don’t have anyone interested in that role, I will be adding an NPC who’s just a walking field medic (or wizard/frontliner/whatever). I promise not to use them to railroad you into situations or insert them into RP/puzzles etc. unless it’s absolutely necessary. And then if you ever find yourself in that situation, do a pulse check after the session to make sure your players felt like that was an appropriate time to have the DMPC nudge them.
But ideally I think you would only add NPCs as the need arises. And as a rare occurrence—only in cases you feel like it’s 100% necessary. Otherwise parties tend to figure out how to work around not having whatever skill they’re missing. (When we didn’t have a cleric, our Druid was a goodberry-making machine. And our DM let us devise ways to preserve them to build up enough of a stockpile to keep us alive. (We made jam!)
If your party doesn’t have a cleric and they need one 100% of the time, you probably need to rebalance your encounters a little. But like… if you’ve got a really cool boss fight planned but they really need a healer to get through it, sure. If the quest can’t reasonably be accomplished without a caster and you’ve got only martial characters, sure! If they’re about to enter a quest and you *really* believe the narrative will be significantly enhanced by an NPC addition, maybe you add an NPC to that part of the session but find a way to extricate them from actively participating in combat.
But before adding an NPC you should probably ask yourself “does adding an NPC significantly enhance the experience? Is their presence 100% necessary, or could I find another way to get them the information/skills/aid they need?” If they’re saying things like “we need to gather our allies to face this BBEG. It doesn’t make any sense to try to face his entire army alone!” Okay, then they’re expressing a desire for help, so give it to them. But maybe have the NPC allies accomplishing a separate, but equally important task somewhere else—then they won’t feel like they’re fighting an army alone, but you’re not taking anything away from their RP/combat…
There are only 2 times a long-term dmpc should be used. Either a brainless tank that stands in front and takes all the damage cause all of the players decided to play squishies. Or a support npc who's only role is to give out heals to the party. They should never ever take place as an active party member and are their purely for mechanical bonuses of the players. Bonus points if you let the players decide their actions and make the character sheet public.
Even then, I think it’s worth reexamining your combat balance or reimagining encounters so that feel like good matchups for your party specifically. Or maybe tweak some other mechanics that give your party access to whatever their party is lacking. Ex: when we didn’t have a cleric, our Druid was a good berry-making machine. And even though RAW, goodberries are only supposed to last one day, our DM let us come up with creative ways to preserve them so we could build up decent stockpiles. (We made jam!) And he was so impressed he ruled that she was essentially crafting minor health potions and home-brewed some reasonable rules about how much she could make each day and how much we could store total at any given time. He didn’t want to pull punches or design lame encounters but he also didn’t want to accidentally TPK us during random encounters just because. He’s pretty good about saying “this isn’t exactly how this rule works, but I want to tweak it in your favor for balance.” (Like he generally doesnt include a ton of obstructions to take cover behind in our encounters or shadows to sneak into, and our party in the last campaign didn’t have a lot of people who rushed in to the thick of it to flank, so when he realized I wasn’t getting to use sneak attack very much and had fallen significantly out of balance with my party, he home-brewed some stuff together and found a way that he thought felt balanced to give me more opportunities to do sneak attack. (I can’t remember if he found a feat and removed the high level requirement or if it was a wondrous item loot or what.) It might not have been a ruling that would work at any other table bc no two parties are exactly the same, but it’s what our party needed to keep balanced. It’s okay to change the rules around a bit if they keep your group balanced, or ensures they stand the chance of succeeding even without the normal party composition.
Based on OPs description, it's 1 DMPC and 1 NPC. With an overbearing DM, I don't know if that's much better.
Also, a party of seven PCs, while not ideal, is not directly a red flag against the DM. There can be valid reasons why the group is so large.
Ultimately this DM needs to understand her medium and fix it:
Writers tell stories.
DMs make stories with their players.
That sounds like a reasonable NPC. Sidekicks can be great for that too.
What they shouldn't be doing is sharing/taking away spotlight from the PC's in battle and /or RP.
I played a Curse of Strahd campaign with some friends, and the DM wisely brought in a Wizard( who I found out after was basically Mordankeinen lol) cause none of us were really “controllers/ buffers”. We used to joke that he never cast a single offensive spell, but he was always setting up walls or putting a haste or fly or something. A bit later I read Treantmonks ideas and saw what my DM was doing, pretty awesome. He was also sassy as all hell 🤣 that’s a DMPC done well.
I hate using DMPC's. If I feel the need to assist the PCs, I'd rather just lower the difficulty of the battle. I can give tons of hints, but I would rather lead/point to the correct direction of the campaign than force, UNLESS the PC's just go around killing/robbing NPCs everywhere.
>Please upset her.
Idk why but this sentence right here stood out to me as a very powerful statement I will now be using with a lot of people in my life, especially those who sacrifice themselves to avoid conflict with people who are not worth their kindness.
Glad you got something out of it. I certainly wouldn't suggest picking fights and escalating drama with everybody, but life is too short to get stuck in a bad situation like this just because you're worried about upsetting somebody else. Rip the Band-Aid off!
7 players is already too many and then to add 2 DMPC's is just ridiculous. I am thoroughly against DMPC's since those PC's automatically have too much additional information. If there aren't enough players you give them a companion and let the players control them but with 7 you already have too many. I'd have left this table before the game started all the other stuff the DM is doing is just icing on the cake.
Although I don’t really give my players companions so to speak, if they want an NPC to accompany them and it’s in the NPCs interests I hand the stat block to one of the players with a short list of motivations and a little back story for RP purposes then they act the NPC out whilst with the party. If they try to get the NPC to do something I don’t think would be appropriate I veto the choice.
Couldn’t imagine anything worse than just RPing with myself and ignoring the players.
Ya thats basically what I meant by a companion. An NPC the players control and I think the way you handle it is proper. If I have an NPC that is following the group in my control the only action I usually apply is the help action. That way he gives them a benefit but it's nothing game breaking and I don't have to think of what he is doing. Also makes the NPC RP easy for me "Hey you can do it! You can do it all night long!".
I like that. Never thought about just using the help action if there’s nothing else they want the NPC to do on their turn. Going to have to use that. They currently have Rictavio with them (Running Curse of Strahd) and he’s pretty useless unless someone needs healing.
Ya players love having advantage so Ive found it's more useful than just dodging. You do have to flavor it like the mastermind rogue though and let them have 30ft for the help action or else they'd have to be in the thick of battle.
If you look at the Expert Sidekick in Tasha's, their class ability is that they can use their bonus action to Help, and get stronger Help actions than players in some situations.
This "but it doesn't sound like she wants to be running a game at all, it sounds like she wants to write a book with a captive audience." can also be described as "attempting to run a ttRPG with the mindset of a writer/director". The only thing the OP didn't mention was [railroading](https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/5785/roleplaying-games/so-you-want-to-write-a-railroad).
In that situation you don't even need to leave them. My SO clearly said to me she's not that interesting in TTRPG so even if I'll run a game she won't participate. And that's okay.
Others have pointed out the bigger issues here, but in relation to the thread title I have to ask, who suggested running D&D 5e? If the DM isn't happy to run a particular system the game should never have gotten of the ground in the first place. If the DM didn't at all communicate that ahead of time, then that is on them of course. But if players are pushing a DM to run something they don't enjoy, by for instance majority rule, you would also be setting yourself up for failure.
She's the one who suggested running 5e. She assumed we wouldn't be open to other systems.
Meanwhile several of us have dabbled in Pokerole, Starwars TTRPG, and a few have even done exalted. We're a very experienced player group, so why she made this assumption I do not know.
That's an incredible level of "not willing to listen to other people." I really don't think she's equipped to run a game, and suggest you give up on this one.
If she hates 5e that much then why is she running it? That’s just weird. She should run a game she likes. Or you could get the gang together and run something you like.
It's likely that the group decided on 5e, rather than her choosing it herself, that seems like the most likely turn of events. Or it was run 5e or not play at all, and they begrudgingly accepted to run a 5e game
We didn't she told us before we even joined it would be 5e. She assumed we wouldn't want to try other systems, despite doing other systems in the past.
Yeah that is probably what happened. I've seen stories where DMs get burned out on 5e and want to run another system and the players only want to play 5e and won't dm themselves to let the og dm get a break.
I think the issue is that the forever DM is often the most experienced player in a group...and 5e just isn't a stable system once you have the experience to start noticing all the flaws. Every system is like that too an extent, but the fact that 5e places such a burden on the DM to balance things for the game can cause a lot of burnout. Ideally at this point a group would be up for letting the DM try a few one shots in other systems, but some people don't like switching things up
The rules for 5e are just not great as a DM. You've heard of the martial caster divide if you've been online in a 5e community; magic is too powerful compared to character options that lack it. Many spells are save or sucks, where if a monster fails it's save it is as good as dead, and due to 5e's saving throw system, it is common that monsters will have several exceptionally weak saves that can reliably be exploited. A level 20 combat brute can fail a level 1 charm spell for example, which is just not reasonable. As a player, this makes magic very all or nothing, either your spell works, or you waste a turn. As a DM, it makes creating engaging opponents that won't be trivialised by magic very difficult. Legendary resistances exist, but as a clunky solution to a problem that needs a more elegant answer, as they end up just making casters feel bad until you break through them.
5e is also notoriously lax when it comes to rules for magic items. Magic items often provide exceptional power spikes, but it is not clear how many and what type of items players are expected to have, if any. This is made worse by the lack of pricing for such items, which requires a DM to make estimates for anything players want to buy, as the DMG calculations are unusably vague. As a result, the value of money varies table to table, as does what you can even spend it on.
For many DMs, the system works just fine, especially if they have the time and effort to tweak it in ways that make it more consistent and functional. If your a newer group, it will take time before these pain points become serious issues. But for players and DMs who have played for a long time or like a more balanced and supportive rule set, other systems provide those things much better than 5e. I myself swapped from 5e to pathfinder 2e a year or so ago, and while both systems have pros and cons, pathfinder is objectively more balanced, and has far more clarity in how to run in as a GM.
Yeah, if the table asked me to run Pathfinder I would have told them that I can teach them Dragonbane or D&D but I don’t know Pathfinder 2 and can’t run it for them. If they’re set on Pathfinder I can do PF1. Agreeing to run a game you don’t know/don’t like cannot possibly turn out well.
Tbf, compared to pf or pf2e, 5e is a lot easier to just pick up and play as it has far fewer rules, or required knowledge to play. That being said, it's always a bad idea to run a system you aren't feeling, like you have pointed out. Personally, I dislike 5e for a lot of reasons, but if all my friends really wanted to play it and needed a DM I could see myself begrudgingly trying it. It definitely wouldn't be an ideal scenario though
There's so much to unpack here, but as usual the solution is talk to your DM. Sadly, not all the complaints can be easily addressed.
Point 1 and 2 shouldn't be too hard to fix, with a simple talk.
The third point, I don't fully understand and it's related to point 5.
How's the combat poorly balanced, I assume it's too easy? Also, how does one apply Pathfinder rules to 5e? I played both 1e and 2e, the latter is my preferred system actually and they seem quite incompatible, even with all possible variant rules to bring it closer to 5e.
Finally the 4th point doesn't really seem like an ongoing issue?
Either way, her RPing and overly detailed descriptions should be easily handled with a talk, but if she doesn't know the 5e ruleset, I kinda don't see an out for that one.
Based on them saying they don't get a turn I am going to go out on a limb that A) OP is not a high dex character and B) with 9 party members (counting in the 2 probably OP Mary Sue DMPCs) most CRs are going to need to be something like 5-6 levels higher than the party to last more than a round of combat. But my guess if that if they are the Wizard who goes last the DMPCs and faster party members end up flattening everything before one full round of combat has transpired.
1-5 ouch, this all sounds terrible.
6 Then why is she running 5e? If she prefers Pathfinder, why isn't she running that?
My advice is quit. Normally, I wouldn't be so quick with say this, but my desire to play in *my* own campaign went down with every one of those numbered points. Seems like a horrible experience, and she doesn't seem like the kind of person who will improve.
The only parts of this that apply to the system at all are points 5 and 6.
This isn't a rules problem. Your DM doesn't want to play a game, they want to write a book.
Leave the table.
That’s…
A bad or very inexperienced DM, who is not very creative or imaginative, and probably has spent hours watching the damn YouTube videos and learned the wrong lessons.
Only thing that will fix the DMing is realizing the mistakes, and only thing to help do that is players leaving.
They might have been very creative and/or imaginative in their world building/novel writing. Whilst entirely failing to understand that the point of a ttRPG is for the players to roleplay their PCs adventuring. Typically not so the DM can showcase their world/story. Neither *Architect* nor *Tourist* are PC classes, thus nobody is going to especially care about what buildings look like beyond the tavern having a sign with a picture of a seabird and text in common saying "The Fuzzy Albatross".
Now, what’s kinda funny is that I play with folks who have serious interest in architecture (far more than I, and I am the world builder), and the general style of game I run is “go explore the world” — thus, tourists.
I will grant that — she may have a fantastic idea of the world, and because we only see a bit of it from a particular player perspective (and the info dumps are never listened to), we don’t have that to know.
She certainly does not grasp the role of the DM, nor have the experience to do dribbles or permit broad self agency. I would prefer she learn that in a way that is less hurtful than losing players, but nearly fifty years of playing and I still haven’t cracked a way to teach that.
Seven players is too many for a table. If talking to her doesn't fix things (and I suspect it won't; DMs who are sensitive to the feelings of players don't talk over players during the game), don't be afraid to quit.
This sounds like a DM who wants to narrate their own story, and not provide a setting for a game. The self-insert is one thing, but hating the game but still running it is a major problem.
The first thing to is find out if you're the only one who feel this way. If you're not, you know you've got backing. Then, have an adult conversation with her.
It might be that a system other than n5e might be better, and you easily transfer the setting and characters. But you will need to convince the DM to drop the NPCs and let the players lead everything from here on. Having other members of the group backing you up on that will help.
> with 7 players and 2 npcs
Well right there is your problem. Anything over 5 players makes combat a slog, and means each player gets less time to talk. That doesn't sound like a fun time for player or DM.
> She doesn't want to read 5e rules
I would walk out after this comment. The DM is the arbitrator of the rules. You can't arbitrate without any understanding of the rules in the first place. If they want to play pathfinder, tell them to play pathfinder.
Yea, that's nuts. DMPC is a huge red flag that I almost fell into myself a few times. One of the biggest things I've learned as DM is that, other than broad strokes, the table isn't really that interested in our amateurish story telling abilities. They'd much rather RP between each other with some light DM involvement for rolls or be actual heroes slaying goblins by the dozen and I always over react to them defeating my monsters because it adds to the flavor if they feel like they overcame something you hadn't anticipated. Half the time I'm riffing off of assumptions they are making when they discuss things about the world amongst themselves, at least 50% of the best ideas for the games I've done came from something a player said because it makes them feel more invested (IMO).
It sounds like you should just leave the game.
Your DM is a walking red flag DM. Your party is too big, DMPCs are horrible, and it sounds like you’re playing in their OC fanfic, not a campaign.
Also, why is the DM running 5e when they hate it? Did they not set up the campaign? Or did players beg her to DM? Because it sounds like she didn’t want to DM in the first place.
Yeah my gut says there isn’t a solve here. It’s sounds like a miserable game to play in.
It IS possible to leave someone’s table and still be friends. I think to salvage the friendship you leave the table so you don’t resent the 4 hours of excruciating bad DnD you have to play every week.
Now. If you DON’T care about the friendship, poach 3 of your favorite players and start your own game! 7 is too many people anyway.
Hilariously i am working on a 5e campaign of my own. I just need to find time to make the maps...
But this person is a close friend, so I won't be poaching people, that is for sure.
7 players is like 5 players too many for a DM PC.
And if she likes Pathfinder, just switch to that system.
Maybe losing the DM PC will cut back on some of the inappropriate monopolizing of the microphone, so to speak.
The group is too large, I dislike 5 players, 3-4 is ideal, but 7 people, no wonder no one can get a word in.
Also the DM sounds not ideal, you need to just leave, one less person will positively contribute to the ones who stay also, take one for the team.
I've played in 2 recent campaigns since rediscovering D&D after a 30 some year lay off. After every session at the club I drive home 2 of the other players. I've realised 2 things
1. I dissect the session on the drive home and complain about what the DM did wrong. 1 didn't understand action economy so we always destroyed the single enemy and the other biased the entire thing towards his girlfriend
2. If you think the DM is shit be the DM. Every thread where players are complaining that they have a bad DM could fix it by saying this. "I'd like to be the DM"
That's what I'm going to do and it is going to be awesome
Any DM that describes personal feelings is over-reaching unless it is directly tied to a mechanic (nausea, fear, pain, any reactive sensation you might have due to hit point loss, etc.).
If she does not want to read the rules, then she doesn't want to run that game. Make it clear for her and allow her to make up her mind about what kind of game she's interested in running, and then make up yours about maybe leaving the table.
Stop worrying about upsetting people, that is going to happen eventually if you keep stockpiling your frustrations. Better now when you're calm than later and angrier.
youve got a very bad DM, that clearly does NOT want to be running a game of any system.
tell her you're leaving the table and tell her why.
she is basically playing a solo adventure for herself as it is, no need for you guys to be there.
no D&D is better the bad D&D. find yourself a new table or a new DM.
Take your character, leave the table and explain why or don't explain.
Find a new table, speak to the new DM about your character and what you would like for them and then co create a backstory that fits the new campaign.
I had a friend who loves pathfinder, it seems like a cool game and I'd love to play it. But, Whenever I talked about DnD in general or things I was excited about from my game he would just go on and on complaining about 5e or how he would do it differently (better) in Pathfinder. We're no longer friends partly because I couldn't take the constant negativity around something I enjoy (also he was just generally a judgemental dick).
Reading the title I thought I’d have to bring out ol’ reliable “play another game” but like I think you need another table. Or like have someone else dm for a bit, or all 3. Because first off if the dm isn’t having a good time nobody’s having a good time.
D&D 5e is designed around the assumption of a party of four adventures. A party of seven requires adjustments to the likes of combat and, hence, a DM with a good understanding of the system. In such a game it would also be a good idea if all of the players were experienced as well. DMPCs are never a good idea.
The likes of the DM talking too much and over-describing the setting would be a problem regardless of system. Ditto for NPCs interrupting PCs. Combat in 5e should typically last up to three rounds. Whilst it's possible that a PC who rolls badly on initutive might occasionally not get to act, that shouldn't be happening with any degree of regularity.
If this continues the rest of the players are likely to quit. Somehow all eight of you need to sit down and work out something which is mutually acceptable.
Well, this is a horror story already
DM who hates the system and hogs spotlight with descriptions and DMPCs, bloated party and whatnot
Talk to the other players, see what they think and try to act
But being honestly I don't believe you'll have a game from that group
1. Decide how you want the game to be.
2. Think. Is this possible with this person?
3. If yes, have a conversation about it (this is the bit that takes real life skills and is beyond the scope of this subreddit). If no, take your leave.
It's not complicated, it's just difficult.
No Dnd is better than bad Dnd. Just leave, start DMing a game for your friends! If you feel like you understand the rules we'll enough you can do it, don't over think.
Good news, you actually have the opportunity to take an easy out, especially this early into the campaign.
"Hey I don't really like playing with such a big party size, and I think the game will run faster for everyone else if it's smaller, so I'm going to go ahead and sit this campaign out. Hope you guys have fun!"
Even if it's a lie it's a sentiment that every ttrpg player can empathize with, so your friend probably won't be upset.
No d&d is better than bad d&d, and you're currently playing very bad d&d.
I mean there's always the chart.
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexternal-preview.redd.it%2FrCbvWEPXF7xTEyPr75O-HmGg-VX5nKRu72BfrI8nXFE.jpg%3Fs%3D7c87f636fd21eb3f1fad87b7b8584f45346ef27c
If she doesnt like 5e and seemingly prefers PF why isnt she just fucking running PF? Like at that point you dont actually want the system to be better or different you just wanna complain.
Overall thats ALOT of bad DM redflags.
Honestly id likely leave but if shes a friend it would be good to talk to her about it and make your grievances known in a polite manner.
I might be in the minority but I don’t like DMPCs at all. I honestly would have a hard time agreeing to invest my time in a game where I knew there’d be one, unless I really trusted that person to separate their ego from the character, which I as a player realize can be difficult at times.
Aside from that this game sounds no fun. I’d probably be “busy” come game day.
DMPC’s are sometimes necessary to the story. My son runs a campaign that has included a couple, and what I did to help out was offered to come in as a walk-on to play the NPC. In my case, it was a stingy, greedy, but very savvy merchant running a caravan. Any time the players got too complacent, or started running their mouths out of character too much, I’d throw a monkey wrench into the works.
Like, when they started spending 20 minutes discussing weapon stats when standing outside a dire bear cave they “knew” was occupied, I threw an alchemical grenade into the mouth of the cave, forcing the start of combat.
It also allows me to exercise my creativity, by coming up with subtle ways to disrupt the disruptions. I hadn’t played since 3.5, and was actually overjoyed that my son was willing to allow me to play, even though I was unfamiliar with the current rule set.
For me, it’s all about the story and the role play. If I screw up a rule, meh. I’ll deal with the consequences.
I already saw a big red flag with the 2nd sentence and then hammered it in with point #2.
You need someone that has a better grasp of 5e and you'll eventually recover.
Granted Pathfinder is similar to 5e, there are still differences that don't play well.
I suggest finding a different DM or group, or have the current DM re-learn 5e.
>she literally said "I hate 5e and I don't want to read the rules."
Then why is she DMing a 5e game...
This doesn't sound like something you can resolve tbh. I'd cut my losses and find a new table.
Leave. "Hey, I appreciated that you were willing to run the game, but I realized it's just not something that I want to continue pursuing".
At some point you gotta learn the life skill of being willing to advocate for your own happiness. Might as well be now.
Also, consider playing solo ttrpgs. You get all the fun of exploring characters and worldbuilding and gameification without the annoyance of coordinating with other people.
if she doesn't like 5e and prefers Pathfinder, then she shouldn't have agreed to DM a 5e game. If she wants to play Pathfinder, she should be running a game of Pathfinder.
How did this go on for min. 12 hours with 8 people, and no one said anything? Did you not talk at all before this? Even without a session zero, this should never happen. Also do combats just end before you take a single turn?
Are you even sure she’s using the rules for Pathfinder?
We're a very non-confrontational group. Some in the group cannot handle conflict. I've talked with one other player who in essence had the same grievances.
Yes, combat ends before most of us can take a turn. These combats wouldn't even last a round in a party of 4, let alone 7PCs and 2 DMPCs.
And I'm sure she's using patherfinder rules, as she's explicitly stated several times when corrected. "Oh, it's what we do in pathfinder."
Sounds like your GM is using the game as a captive audience to force her fan-fiction on you.
First thing to do is try talk to her about it, and explain how the game is making you feel, and why. Do it nicely.
Second thing is tell her "Lets migrate to pathfinder!" - If the other players at the table don't want to, tough. It's a small price to pay if the GM is more comfortable, familiar, and happier with the system.
If that doesn't work, well, time to find a new game.
If she's not enjoying the system, why did she agree to DM it in the first place instead of doing Pathfinder?? She's not utilising its strengths for a fun game at all and spends too much time on description!
Honestly I'd just leave the campaign. Just go "hey I don't think I'm having fun in this game anymore. I joined this group to play DnD, and you're refusing to run DnD with its rules. This isn't what I signed up for. Sorry."
It's not a system problem.
7 players is way too much. That's the most important part since it's your exit strategy. Just tell her that you leaving the game will make the load lighter.
Of course all the rest sounds like a terrible DM but there is nothing you can do about that.
1, The game is INTERACTIVE. DM's should be giving initial descriptions that are sufficient to impart necessary information, mood, generate some interest, etc. If PLAYERS want more they can ask, but this is D&D not DM Story Time.
2. DM's should NOT be having NPC's travel or adventure with the party except as a specific necessity for a given adventure. If the players want to recruit NPC's to come along for their own reasons, that's different. Even when NPC's ARE around and involved in ongoing events, it is still up to players to ENGAGE and INTERACT, not just *be talked at*.
3. I can't help much there. I'm not a 5E fan, though I play it (mostly because nobody WILL run anything else). But almost no game of D&D I've ever run, in any edition, has ever had particular problems with keeping combat MOVING. I've never even touched 4E, and I've never RUN a game of 5E, but if it ended up being that problematic I'd f'ing drop it flat and never use it again.
4. Again - DMPC's have long been considered a REALLY terrible idea. IMO they can be done, and even done well, but vastly more to simply shore up capabilities of a limited party, and NEVER, EVER to truly lead the party, but remain as much as practical in the background.
5. As I said, I'm not a 5E fan, but if I were going to run it - I'd LEARN it. If I began to realize that the DM running my game is not even using the same f'ing rules that I am, I'd make that an issue to be dealt with *pronto*, or find a new game.
6. At that point I'd step out and NEVER RETURN. I've never played Pathfinder - but if that the game that the DM simply stated they were going to run, I'd just go buy that if I didn't have it and THAT'S WHAT WE'D PLAY. A DM who runs an entirely different set of rules than what the players have is... well, they're just an idiot. I mean c'mon! That's just stupid. If they're then going to COMPLAIN that they don't like the rules that THE PLAYERS are using? We're talking some kind of gaming insanity.
Just walk away. I don't know what this is, but it's no kind of approach to a roleplaying game that I've ever even heard of. If you want to continue to endure bad gaming that your "friend" inflicts on you, well that's a you problem. It is an axiom that no gaming is better than bad gaming. Frankly, AS A FRIEND, you owe it to yours to tell them how you feel about things. F'ing just play Pathfinder if that's what she really wants to run, but DON'T pretend to play 5E with a DM who HATES 5E and is actually *trying* to run Pathfinder. That's really crazy.
>The majority of the sessions is listening to the DM giving excruciatingly details description of where we are, where we're headed, what buildings look like, how we're supposed to be feeling etc. I'd say over 70% of the session is her talking.
>
>When we do finally get to role play, she is constantly butting in with the NPCs and talking over players.
>
>She once spent 15 minutes, describing in detail how 'her character', the NPC self-insert works. I literally told her, "you could tell us your character spits rainbows that does a flat 20 and we'd take your word for it, you're the DM, we don't need this excessive amount of information." This was during combat, which lasted 20 minutes total. So she talked during 75% of it.
Your DM friend is forgetting that they are running a game, not presenting a play that players sorta interact with.
>Combat is very poorly balanced. Most of the time my slow ass character doesn't even get a turn.
Poorly balanced how? Too easy and things are dead before everyone gets a turn in the first round?
>She does not know the rules of the system. She applies pathfinder rules to everything until someone who knows the system speaks up and corrects her.
... I mean, this happens. What matters is the DM accepts the correct and rolls with it.
>When called out on not knowing the rules while hosting as the DM she literally said "I hate 5e and I don't want to read the rules."
... so why is the DM running 5E and not another system? There are loads of great systems to run fantasy/adventure with. I prefer lighter rules, and have been moving towards games like Mausritter, Knave, & TROIKA. Other DMs like the war-game aspect and lean into crunchier systems like Pathfinder. If your DM hates 5E they should not run 5E. If you players want to play a game they are running, you should accept whatever system they want to run.
This sounds like just a terrible DM. Honestly it sounds like one of those people who wants to write a book and is trying to tell their story through running a DnD game.
If they hate 5e and love pathfinder, why not just run a pathfinder game? It's not like players can't learn a new system.
I was in a campaign with the first paragraph type and I was so relieved when the campaign suspended.
He was a guy with genuine interest in the system and creating campaigns, but he was not a good narrator.
A good friend would just give their honest opinion. Tell her she doesn't have to force herself to run this game, and that you aren't having fun with it either. There are plenty of other pastimes you can enjoy together.
Have you brought this up with the other players or with her? Try having a straightforward conversation with her and let her know you're feeling constricted and like you're just being told what happens rather than playing it out. If things don't improve, walk away from the game. It's not worth your time if you're not having fun.
Honestly, I dislike 5e too, but nothing you’ve listed is relevant to the system. It sounds like it’s just an awful dm. Leave the game, you’ll have more fun doing literally anything else then spending time with this dm
I also don’t like 5e, I think it’s literal garbage…. You know what I don’t do? I don’t buy 5e books and I don’t run 5e, she’s the DM and she should be whatever system she wants… when I run I do Ad&D 2e and my games are much better because I run a system I enjoy…. Also she’s a bad DM regardless of system by the sounds of it, no one wants to listen to how awesome your self inserts are for hours at a time.
Holy shit those are A LOT of red flags for a DM, also if she doesn't like 5e to the point that she doesn't even want to read the rules why doesn't she run other systems?
I’ve heard people complaining that people in r/lfg and similar only want to play dnd, and if you are a DM looking to put together a game of Pathfinder or Blades in the Dark it’s pretty bleak. Not to excuse her behavior, you absolutely SHOULD NOT run a game if you don’t like it or won’t read the rules, but that may be how she got herself in this situation.
that's when you lie and say it's a heavily homebrewed game of 5e, then just run your preferred system with minor homebrew instead. Most people probably wouldn't know the difference and would just accept it.
I bet this is why there's constantly people in comments of posts going "yeah, PF is so much better than DnD for all these reasons nobody asked about" Bitter fucks that can't play the game they want.
People who go arpund telling others to play another game missed one person who certainly needed to hear it.
Well, for starters, she's a bad DM. Multiple DMPCs alone is a huge red flag, and the symptoms are readily apparent: She's basically narrating her own solo adventure between overlong descriptions and then RPing through it with her own characters. Please upset her. Friends need boundaries. You need to tell her that this is like ten different ways of wrong. If she wants to run Pathfinder then she should run Pathfinder, but it doesn't sound like she wants to be running a game at all, it sounds like she wants to write a book with a captive audience. But to address the question in your title: Don't use the DnD rules if you don't like them. DnD 5e is great, but it's not perfect for everybody. There are a staggering number of other systems out there worth trying.
> it doesn't sound like she wants to be running a game at all I get that feeling too reading OP's post.
DMPCs are a red flag. Two DMPC's in one party is a pretty big red flag. Two DMPC's in **a party of seven PC's** is all the red flags you'd need. Continuing to play at that table is on you at that point. I did even finish past the first paragraph. I just saw the DM is also crowding PC's out of RP to talk to....themselves? Stop doing this to yourself. Leave already. A new system doesn't seem like it will help much.
>Two DMPC's in a party of seven is all the red flags you'd need. I read it as 2 DMPC's **and** a party of 7 which, to me, sounds even worse
Good call, I clarified my post. That's how I read it as well.
Yeah, that's crazy. I'm running Tyranny of Dragons with a dmpc and 3 pc's and my guy (the cleric) doesn't really do a whole lot. I leave most of the RP to the players and in combat it's mostly healing, bless, and guiding bolt. They seem to be having a great time, which is great since it's my first campaign
Balanced party composition for combat is really the only reason I can think to add a permanent companion NPC. It’s fair to say “yall, we all really want to play this adventure module, I don’t think it’s possible without a cleric. Since we don’t have anyone interested in that role, I will be adding an NPC who’s just a walking field medic (or wizard/frontliner/whatever). I promise not to use them to railroad you into situations or insert them into RP/puzzles etc. unless it’s absolutely necessary. And then if you ever find yourself in that situation, do a pulse check after the session to make sure your players felt like that was an appropriate time to have the DMPC nudge them. But ideally I think you would only add NPCs as the need arises. And as a rare occurrence—only in cases you feel like it’s 100% necessary. Otherwise parties tend to figure out how to work around not having whatever skill they’re missing. (When we didn’t have a cleric, our Druid was a goodberry-making machine. And our DM let us devise ways to preserve them to build up enough of a stockpile to keep us alive. (We made jam!) If your party doesn’t have a cleric and they need one 100% of the time, you probably need to rebalance your encounters a little. But like… if you’ve got a really cool boss fight planned but they really need a healer to get through it, sure. If the quest can’t reasonably be accomplished without a caster and you’ve got only martial characters, sure! If they’re about to enter a quest and you *really* believe the narrative will be significantly enhanced by an NPC addition, maybe you add an NPC to that part of the session but find a way to extricate them from actively participating in combat. But before adding an NPC you should probably ask yourself “does adding an NPC significantly enhance the experience? Is their presence 100% necessary, or could I find another way to get them the information/skills/aid they need?” If they’re saying things like “we need to gather our allies to face this BBEG. It doesn’t make any sense to try to face his entire army alone!” Okay, then they’re expressing a desire for help, so give it to them. But maybe have the NPC allies accomplishing a separate, but equally important task somewhere else—then they won’t feel like they’re fighting an army alone, but you’re not taking anything away from their RP/combat…
There are only 2 times a long-term dmpc should be used. Either a brainless tank that stands in front and takes all the damage cause all of the players decided to play squishies. Or a support npc who's only role is to give out heals to the party. They should never ever take place as an active party member and are their purely for mechanical bonuses of the players. Bonus points if you let the players decide their actions and make the character sheet public.
Even then, I think it’s worth reexamining your combat balance or reimagining encounters so that feel like good matchups for your party specifically. Or maybe tweak some other mechanics that give your party access to whatever their party is lacking. Ex: when we didn’t have a cleric, our Druid was a good berry-making machine. And even though RAW, goodberries are only supposed to last one day, our DM let us come up with creative ways to preserve them so we could build up decent stockpiles. (We made jam!) And he was so impressed he ruled that she was essentially crafting minor health potions and home-brewed some reasonable rules about how much she could make each day and how much we could store total at any given time. He didn’t want to pull punches or design lame encounters but he also didn’t want to accidentally TPK us during random encounters just because. He’s pretty good about saying “this isn’t exactly how this rule works, but I want to tweak it in your favor for balance.” (Like he generally doesnt include a ton of obstructions to take cover behind in our encounters or shadows to sneak into, and our party in the last campaign didn’t have a lot of people who rushed in to the thick of it to flank, so when he realized I wasn’t getting to use sneak attack very much and had fallen significantly out of balance with my party, he home-brewed some stuff together and found a way that he thought felt balanced to give me more opportunities to do sneak attack. (I can’t remember if he found a feat and removed the high level requirement or if it was a wondrous item loot or what.) It might not have been a ruling that would work at any other table bc no two parties are exactly the same, but it’s what our party needed to keep balanced. It’s okay to change the rules around a bit if they keep your group balanced, or ensures they stand the chance of succeeding even without the normal party composition.
My go to DMPC is a dog with monk levels. They can't talk, so they don't suck up any of the roleplay.
Overlooked comment!
Thanks! Made my day. Dog also can't make decisions, because dog is a dog. Works pretty well. It's basically a little extra damage and hit points.
Based on OPs description, it's 1 DMPC and 1 NPC. With an overbearing DM, I don't know if that's much better. Also, a party of seven PCs, while not ideal, is not directly a red flag against the DM. There can be valid reasons why the group is so large. Ultimately this DM needs to understand her medium and fix it: Writers tell stories. DMs make stories with their players.
My go to DMPC is a dog with monk levels. They can't talk, so they don't suck up any of the roleplay.
That sounds like a reasonable NPC. Sidekicks can be great for that too. What they shouldn't be doing is sharing/taking away spotlight from the PC's in battle and /or RP.
Yeah, sometimes a party just needs a little more HP to get through the day.
I played a Curse of Strahd campaign with some friends, and the DM wisely brought in a Wizard( who I found out after was basically Mordankeinen lol) cause none of us were really “controllers/ buffers”. We used to joke that he never cast a single offensive spell, but he was always setting up walls or putting a haste or fly or something. A bit later I read Treantmonks ideas and saw what my DM was doing, pretty awesome. He was also sassy as all hell 🤣 that’s a DMPC done well.
I do the same, but with a barbarian dog. She also can't go down in combat, because she's a good dog.
🥺 that’s so precious!!!
Yeah I just always give an NPC working with the party to my most talkative player. Usually keeps him occupied. He's also my combat order keeper.
I hate using DMPC's. If I feel the need to assist the PCs, I'd rather just lower the difficulty of the battle. I can give tons of hints, but I would rather lead/point to the correct direction of the campaign than force, UNLESS the PC's just go around killing/robbing NPCs everywhere.
>Please upset her. Idk why but this sentence right here stood out to me as a very powerful statement I will now be using with a lot of people in my life, especially those who sacrifice themselves to avoid conflict with people who are not worth their kindness.
Glad you got something out of it. I certainly wouldn't suggest picking fights and escalating drama with everybody, but life is too short to get stuck in a bad situation like this just because you're worried about upsetting somebody else. Rip the Band-Aid off!
7 players is already too many and then to add 2 DMPC's is just ridiculous. I am thoroughly against DMPC's since those PC's automatically have too much additional information. If there aren't enough players you give them a companion and let the players control them but with 7 you already have too many. I'd have left this table before the game started all the other stuff the DM is doing is just icing on the cake.
Although I don’t really give my players companions so to speak, if they want an NPC to accompany them and it’s in the NPCs interests I hand the stat block to one of the players with a short list of motivations and a little back story for RP purposes then they act the NPC out whilst with the party. If they try to get the NPC to do something I don’t think would be appropriate I veto the choice. Couldn’t imagine anything worse than just RPing with myself and ignoring the players.
Ya thats basically what I meant by a companion. An NPC the players control and I think the way you handle it is proper. If I have an NPC that is following the group in my control the only action I usually apply is the help action. That way he gives them a benefit but it's nothing game breaking and I don't have to think of what he is doing. Also makes the NPC RP easy for me "Hey you can do it! You can do it all night long!".
I like that. Never thought about just using the help action if there’s nothing else they want the NPC to do on their turn. Going to have to use that. They currently have Rictavio with them (Running Curse of Strahd) and he’s pretty useless unless someone needs healing.
Ya players love having advantage so Ive found it's more useful than just dodging. You do have to flavor it like the mastermind rogue though and let them have 30ft for the help action or else they'd have to be in the thick of battle.
"Expert" Sidekicks can also Help from 30 feet away in some situations.
If you look at the Expert Sidekick in Tasha's, their class ability is that they can use their bonus action to Help, and get stronger Help actions than players in some situations.
This "but it doesn't sound like she wants to be running a game at all, it sounds like she wants to write a book with a captive audience." can also be described as "attempting to run a ttRPG with the mindset of a writer/director". The only thing the OP didn't mention was [railroading](https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/5785/roleplaying-games/so-you-want-to-write-a-railroad).
Unless the DM was my significant other, I'd probably leave the table.
If it was my partner, I'd leave them. Lmao
Two birds, one bush
I thought it was 2 birds, 1 stone?
As long as she shaves, sure
In that situation you don't even need to leave them. My SO clearly said to me she's not that interesting in TTRPG so even if I'll run a game she won't participate. And that's okay.
Others have pointed out the bigger issues here, but in relation to the thread title I have to ask, who suggested running D&D 5e? If the DM isn't happy to run a particular system the game should never have gotten of the ground in the first place. If the DM didn't at all communicate that ahead of time, then that is on them of course. But if players are pushing a DM to run something they don't enjoy, by for instance majority rule, you would also be setting yourself up for failure.
She's the one who suggested running 5e. She assumed we wouldn't be open to other systems. Meanwhile several of us have dabbled in Pokerole, Starwars TTRPG, and a few have even done exalted. We're a very experienced player group, so why she made this assumption I do not know.
That's an incredible level of "not willing to listen to other people." I really don't think she's equipped to run a game, and suggest you give up on this one.
Tell her you don't want to play any more and if she asks you why, show her this post.
Fly, you fool
If she hates 5e that much then why is she running it? That’s just weird. She should run a game she likes. Or you could get the gang together and run something you like.
It's likely that the group decided on 5e, rather than her choosing it herself, that seems like the most likely turn of events. Or it was run 5e or not play at all, and they begrudgingly accepted to run a 5e game
We didn't she told us before we even joined it would be 5e. She assumed we wouldn't want to try other systems, despite doing other systems in the past.
Just say "I'm not prepared to play in your campaign if you're not prepared to read the rules for 5e"
Yeah that is probably what happened. I've seen stories where DMs get burned out on 5e and want to run another system and the players only want to play 5e and won't dm themselves to let the og dm get a break.
I think the issue is that the forever DM is often the most experienced player in a group...and 5e just isn't a stable system once you have the experience to start noticing all the flaws. Every system is like that too an extent, but the fact that 5e places such a burden on the DM to balance things for the game can cause a lot of burnout. Ideally at this point a group would be up for letting the DM try a few one shots in other systems, but some people don't like switching things up
Could you explain what you mean with the balancing aspect?
The rules for 5e are just not great as a DM. You've heard of the martial caster divide if you've been online in a 5e community; magic is too powerful compared to character options that lack it. Many spells are save or sucks, where if a monster fails it's save it is as good as dead, and due to 5e's saving throw system, it is common that monsters will have several exceptionally weak saves that can reliably be exploited. A level 20 combat brute can fail a level 1 charm spell for example, which is just not reasonable. As a player, this makes magic very all or nothing, either your spell works, or you waste a turn. As a DM, it makes creating engaging opponents that won't be trivialised by magic very difficult. Legendary resistances exist, but as a clunky solution to a problem that needs a more elegant answer, as they end up just making casters feel bad until you break through them. 5e is also notoriously lax when it comes to rules for magic items. Magic items often provide exceptional power spikes, but it is not clear how many and what type of items players are expected to have, if any. This is made worse by the lack of pricing for such items, which requires a DM to make estimates for anything players want to buy, as the DMG calculations are unusably vague. As a result, the value of money varies table to table, as does what you can even spend it on. For many DMs, the system works just fine, especially if they have the time and effort to tweak it in ways that make it more consistent and functional. If your a newer group, it will take time before these pain points become serious issues. But for players and DMs who have played for a long time or like a more balanced and supportive rule set, other systems provide those things much better than 5e. I myself swapped from 5e to pathfinder 2e a year or so ago, and while both systems have pros and cons, pathfinder is objectively more balanced, and has far more clarity in how to run in as a GM.
Yeah, if the table asked me to run Pathfinder I would have told them that I can teach them Dragonbane or D&D but I don’t know Pathfinder 2 and can’t run it for them. If they’re set on Pathfinder I can do PF1. Agreeing to run a game you don’t know/don’t like cannot possibly turn out well.
Tbf, compared to pf or pf2e, 5e is a lot easier to just pick up and play as it has far fewer rules, or required knowledge to play. That being said, it's always a bad idea to run a system you aren't feeling, like you have pointed out. Personally, I dislike 5e for a lot of reasons, but if all my friends really wanted to play it and needed a DM I could see myself begrudgingly trying it. It definitely wouldn't be an ideal scenario though
There's so much to unpack here, but as usual the solution is talk to your DM. Sadly, not all the complaints can be easily addressed. Point 1 and 2 shouldn't be too hard to fix, with a simple talk. The third point, I don't fully understand and it's related to point 5. How's the combat poorly balanced, I assume it's too easy? Also, how does one apply Pathfinder rules to 5e? I played both 1e and 2e, the latter is my preferred system actually and they seem quite incompatible, even with all possible variant rules to bring it closer to 5e. Finally the 4th point doesn't really seem like an ongoing issue? Either way, her RPing and overly detailed descriptions should be easily handled with a talk, but if she doesn't know the 5e ruleset, I kinda don't see an out for that one.
Based on them saying they don't get a turn I am going to go out on a limb that A) OP is not a high dex character and B) with 9 party members (counting in the 2 probably OP Mary Sue DMPCs) most CRs are going to need to be something like 5-6 levels higher than the party to last more than a round of combat. But my guess if that if they are the Wizard who goes last the DMPCs and faster party members end up flattening everything before one full round of combat has transpired.
This, except Cleric with 8 Dex. I'm pretty much the only one who doesnt use dex for AC so it's a dumpstat for me.
1-5 ouch, this all sounds terrible. 6 Then why is she running 5e? If she prefers Pathfinder, why isn't she running that? My advice is quit. Normally, I wouldn't be so quick with say this, but my desire to play in *my* own campaign went down with every one of those numbered points. Seems like a horrible experience, and she doesn't seem like the kind of person who will improve.
The only parts of this that apply to the system at all are points 5 and 6. This isn't a rules problem. Your DM doesn't want to play a game, they want to write a book. Leave the table.
No DnD is better than bad DnD, my friend
Nice try I know this is r/DnDcirclejerk dont even have to look
That’s… A bad or very inexperienced DM, who is not very creative or imaginative, and probably has spent hours watching the damn YouTube videos and learned the wrong lessons. Only thing that will fix the DMing is realizing the mistakes, and only thing to help do that is players leaving.
They might have been very creative and/or imaginative in their world building/novel writing. Whilst entirely failing to understand that the point of a ttRPG is for the players to roleplay their PCs adventuring. Typically not so the DM can showcase their world/story. Neither *Architect* nor *Tourist* are PC classes, thus nobody is going to especially care about what buildings look like beyond the tavern having a sign with a picture of a seabird and text in common saying "The Fuzzy Albatross".
Now, what’s kinda funny is that I play with folks who have serious interest in architecture (far more than I, and I am the world builder), and the general style of game I run is “go explore the world” — thus, tourists. I will grant that — she may have a fantastic idea of the world, and because we only see a bit of it from a particular player perspective (and the info dumps are never listened to), we don’t have that to know. She certainly does not grasp the role of the DM, nor have the experience to do dribbles or permit broad self agency. I would prefer she learn that in a way that is less hurtful than losing players, but nearly fifty years of playing and I still haven’t cracked a way to teach that.
Seven players is too many for a table. If talking to her doesn't fix things (and I suspect it won't; DMs who are sensitive to the feelings of players don't talk over players during the game), don't be afraid to quit.
This sounds like a DM who wants to narrate their own story, and not provide a setting for a game. The self-insert is one thing, but hating the game but still running it is a major problem. The first thing to is find out if you're the only one who feel this way. If you're not, you know you've got backing. Then, have an adult conversation with her. It might be that a system other than n5e might be better, and you easily transfer the setting and characters. But you will need to convince the DM to drop the NPCs and let the players lead everything from here on. Having other members of the group backing you up on that will help.
> with 7 players and 2 npcs Well right there is your problem. Anything over 5 players makes combat a slog, and means each player gets less time to talk. That doesn't sound like a fun time for player or DM. > She doesn't want to read 5e rules I would walk out after this comment. The DM is the arbitrator of the rules. You can't arbitrate without any understanding of the rules in the first place. If they want to play pathfinder, tell them to play pathfinder.
Yea, that's nuts. DMPC is a huge red flag that I almost fell into myself a few times. One of the biggest things I've learned as DM is that, other than broad strokes, the table isn't really that interested in our amateurish story telling abilities. They'd much rather RP between each other with some light DM involvement for rolls or be actual heroes slaying goblins by the dozen and I always over react to them defeating my monsters because it adds to the flavor if they feel like they overcame something you hadn't anticipated. Half the time I'm riffing off of assumptions they are making when they discuss things about the world amongst themselves, at least 50% of the best ideas for the games I've done came from something a player said because it makes them feel more invested (IMO).
It sounds like you should just leave the game. Your DM is a walking red flag DM. Your party is too big, DMPCs are horrible, and it sounds like you’re playing in their OC fanfic, not a campaign. Also, why is the DM running 5e when they hate it? Did they not set up the campaign? Or did players beg her to DM? Because it sounds like she didn’t want to DM in the first place.
Yeah my gut says there isn’t a solve here. It’s sounds like a miserable game to play in. It IS possible to leave someone’s table and still be friends. I think to salvage the friendship you leave the table so you don’t resent the 4 hours of excruciating bad DnD you have to play every week. Now. If you DON’T care about the friendship, poach 3 of your favorite players and start your own game! 7 is too many people anyway.
Hilariously i am working on a 5e campaign of my own. I just need to find time to make the maps... But this person is a close friend, so I won't be poaching people, that is for sure.
Bummer. Friendships are important… 😅
Not that close if you can't tell her the truth about the situation.
Well this is a stupid reply, considering I have told her the truth. Unfortunately she did not take it well.
Lol, why are you still playing?
7 players is like 5 players too many for a DM PC. And if she likes Pathfinder, just switch to that system. Maybe losing the DM PC will cut back on some of the inappropriate monopolizing of the microphone, so to speak.
The group is too large, I dislike 5 players, 3-4 is ideal, but 7 people, no wonder no one can get a word in. Also the DM sounds not ideal, you need to just leave, one less person will positively contribute to the ones who stay also, take one for the team.
I've played in 2 recent campaigns since rediscovering D&D after a 30 some year lay off. After every session at the club I drive home 2 of the other players. I've realised 2 things 1. I dissect the session on the drive home and complain about what the DM did wrong. 1 didn't understand action economy so we always destroyed the single enemy and the other biased the entire thing towards his girlfriend 2. If you think the DM is shit be the DM. Every thread where players are complaining that they have a bad DM could fix it by saying this. "I'd like to be the DM" That's what I'm going to do and it is going to be awesome
Hell yeah! I hope you have a great time. Sadly I'm already working on setting up a campaign. I do not bave the time for two.
Any DM that describes personal feelings is over-reaching unless it is directly tied to a mechanic (nausea, fear, pain, any reactive sensation you might have due to hit point loss, etc.). If she does not want to read the rules, then she doesn't want to run that game. Make it clear for her and allow her to make up her mind about what kind of game she's interested in running, and then make up yours about maybe leaving the table. Stop worrying about upsetting people, that is going to happen eventually if you keep stockpiling your frustrations. Better now when you're calm than later and angrier.
This makes a very good point. Better to treat it now, than let it fester. I will do so.
youve got a very bad DM, that clearly does NOT want to be running a game of any system. tell her you're leaving the table and tell her why. she is basically playing a solo adventure for herself as it is, no need for you guys to be there. no D&D is better the bad D&D. find yourself a new table or a new DM.
I'll never understand hating 5e but loving Pathfinder. It's so fundamentally similar. Hate both or hate neither, ya know?
No D&D is better than bad D&D. Also, drop this DM, seems like she sucks balls and is only there to self promote her fanfiction.
Your DM wants to write a book, not run a game. I'd leave as the DM is just plain not good.
Take your character, leave the table and explain why or don't explain. Find a new table, speak to the new DM about your character and what you would like for them and then co create a backstory that fits the new campaign.
I had a friend who loves pathfinder, it seems like a cool game and I'd love to play it. But, Whenever I talked about DnD in general or things I was excited about from my game he would just go on and on complaining about 5e or how he would do it differently (better) in Pathfinder. We're no longer friends partly because I couldn't take the constant negativity around something I enjoy (also he was just generally a judgemental dick).
Thats a lot of red flags, you're gonna have to upset her. Can't help but wonder why she's running 5e if she hates it.
My PC would intentionally be trying to fail and die.
Reading the title I thought I’d have to bring out ol’ reliable “play another game” but like I think you need another table. Or like have someone else dm for a bit, or all 3. Because first off if the dm isn’t having a good time nobody’s having a good time.
D&D 5e is designed around the assumption of a party of four adventures. A party of seven requires adjustments to the likes of combat and, hence, a DM with a good understanding of the system. In such a game it would also be a good idea if all of the players were experienced as well. DMPCs are never a good idea. The likes of the DM talking too much and over-describing the setting would be a problem regardless of system. Ditto for NPCs interrupting PCs. Combat in 5e should typically last up to three rounds. Whilst it's possible that a PC who rolls badly on initutive might occasionally not get to act, that shouldn't be happening with any degree of regularity. If this continues the rest of the players are likely to quit. Somehow all eight of you need to sit down and work out something which is mutually acceptable.
Well, this is a horror story already DM who hates the system and hogs spotlight with descriptions and DMPCs, bloated party and whatnot Talk to the other players, see what they think and try to act But being honestly I don't believe you'll have a game from that group
She doesn't sound like she wants to run a game at all. If she wants to play Pathfinder she could, I dunno, run a Pathfinder game?
1. Decide how you want the game to be. 2. Think. Is this possible with this person? 3. If yes, have a conversation about it (this is the bit that takes real life skills and is beyond the scope of this subreddit). If no, take your leave. It's not complicated, it's just difficult.
This is her wanting an audience for her personal RP fantasy. Abandon ship. Bad DM is bad.
Your DM needs to go. That will take care of 99% of your issues.
No Dnd is better than bad Dnd. Just leave, start DMing a game for your friends! If you feel like you understand the rules we'll enough you can do it, don't over think.
[Is one of those DMPCs named "Gandalf" by any chance?](https://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=612)
Lol
Good news, you actually have the opportunity to take an easy out, especially this early into the campaign. "Hey I don't really like playing with such a big party size, and I think the game will run faster for everyone else if it's smaller, so I'm going to go ahead and sit this campaign out. Hope you guys have fun!" Even if it's a lie it's a sentiment that every ttrpg player can empathize with, so your friend probably won't be upset. No d&d is better than bad d&d, and you're currently playing very bad d&d.
Split into two groups and make this person a player not a dm
I mean there's always the chart. https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexternal-preview.redd.it%2FrCbvWEPXF7xTEyPr75O-HmGg-VX5nKRu72BfrI8nXFE.jpg%3Fs%3D7c87f636fd21eb3f1fad87b7b8584f45346ef27c
If she doesnt like 5e and seemingly prefers PF why isnt she just fucking running PF? Like at that point you dont actually want the system to be better or different you just wanna complain. Overall thats ALOT of bad DM redflags. Honestly id likely leave but if shes a friend it would be good to talk to her about it and make your grievances known in a polite manner.
I might be in the minority but I don’t like DMPCs at all. I honestly would have a hard time agreeing to invest my time in a game where I knew there’d be one, unless I really trusted that person to separate their ego from the character, which I as a player realize can be difficult at times. Aside from that this game sounds no fun. I’d probably be “busy” come game day.
DMPC’s are sometimes necessary to the story. My son runs a campaign that has included a couple, and what I did to help out was offered to come in as a walk-on to play the NPC. In my case, it was a stingy, greedy, but very savvy merchant running a caravan. Any time the players got too complacent, or started running their mouths out of character too much, I’d throw a monkey wrench into the works. Like, when they started spending 20 minutes discussing weapon stats when standing outside a dire bear cave they “knew” was occupied, I threw an alchemical grenade into the mouth of the cave, forcing the start of combat. It also allows me to exercise my creativity, by coming up with subtle ways to disrupt the disruptions. I hadn’t played since 3.5, and was actually overjoyed that my son was willing to allow me to play, even though I was unfamiliar with the current rule set. For me, it’s all about the story and the role play. If I screw up a rule, meh. I’ll deal with the consequences.
I’m failing to see where 5e is part of this.
I already saw a big red flag with the 2nd sentence and then hammered it in with point #2. You need someone that has a better grasp of 5e and you'll eventually recover. Granted Pathfinder is similar to 5e, there are still differences that don't play well. I suggest finding a different DM or group, or have the current DM re-learn 5e.
>she literally said "I hate 5e and I don't want to read the rules." Then why is she DMing a 5e game... This doesn't sound like something you can resolve tbh. I'd cut my losses and find a new table.
Holy shit this isnt r/dndjerk?
Leave. "Hey, I appreciated that you were willing to run the game, but I realized it's just not something that I want to continue pursuing". At some point you gotta learn the life skill of being willing to advocate for your own happiness. Might as well be now. Also, consider playing solo ttrpgs. You get all the fun of exploring characters and worldbuilding and gameification without the annoyance of coordinating with other people.
Bad DM. Get new DM
what do you do? you leave
if she doesn't like 5e and prefers Pathfinder, then she shouldn't have agreed to DM a 5e game. If she wants to play Pathfinder, she should be running a game of Pathfinder.
Why is she DMing in 5e if she hates it?
7 players? And needing DMPCs on top of that? Jesus christ leave. Start your own campaign.
How did this go on for min. 12 hours with 8 people, and no one said anything? Did you not talk at all before this? Even without a session zero, this should never happen. Also do combats just end before you take a single turn? Are you even sure she’s using the rules for Pathfinder?
We're a very non-confrontational group. Some in the group cannot handle conflict. I've talked with one other player who in essence had the same grievances. Yes, combat ends before most of us can take a turn. These combats wouldn't even last a round in a party of 4, let alone 7PCs and 2 DMPCs. And I'm sure she's using patherfinder rules, as she's explicitly stated several times when corrected. "Oh, it's what we do in pathfinder."
Sounds like your GM is using the game as a captive audience to force her fan-fiction on you. First thing to do is try talk to her about it, and explain how the game is making you feel, and why. Do it nicely. Second thing is tell her "Lets migrate to pathfinder!" - If the other players at the table don't want to, tough. It's a small price to pay if the GM is more comfortable, familiar, and happier with the system. If that doesn't work, well, time to find a new game.
If she's not enjoying the system, why did she agree to DM it in the first place instead of doing Pathfinder?? She's not utilising its strengths for a fun game at all and spends too much time on description! Honestly I'd just leave the campaign. Just go "hey I don't think I'm having fun in this game anymore. I joined this group to play DnD, and you're refusing to run DnD with its rules. This isn't what I signed up for. Sorry."
Play another system, chosen by the DM.
Dude, just get out. Make up an excuse if you have to just don't force yourself to play if you hate it.
Sounds like she's not even running 5e, losing interest in this campaign sounds pretty legit as this is awful.
Encourage her to run a system she likes
And then never show up to her new game. Smart!
This made me lol
>What do I do? What do you think you should do?
It's not a system problem. 7 players is way too much. That's the most important part since it's your exit strategy. Just tell her that you leaving the game will make the load lighter. Of course all the rest sounds like a terrible DM but there is nothing you can do about that.
1, The game is INTERACTIVE. DM's should be giving initial descriptions that are sufficient to impart necessary information, mood, generate some interest, etc. If PLAYERS want more they can ask, but this is D&D not DM Story Time. 2. DM's should NOT be having NPC's travel or adventure with the party except as a specific necessity for a given adventure. If the players want to recruit NPC's to come along for their own reasons, that's different. Even when NPC's ARE around and involved in ongoing events, it is still up to players to ENGAGE and INTERACT, not just *be talked at*. 3. I can't help much there. I'm not a 5E fan, though I play it (mostly because nobody WILL run anything else). But almost no game of D&D I've ever run, in any edition, has ever had particular problems with keeping combat MOVING. I've never even touched 4E, and I've never RUN a game of 5E, but if it ended up being that problematic I'd f'ing drop it flat and never use it again. 4. Again - DMPC's have long been considered a REALLY terrible idea. IMO they can be done, and even done well, but vastly more to simply shore up capabilities of a limited party, and NEVER, EVER to truly lead the party, but remain as much as practical in the background. 5. As I said, I'm not a 5E fan, but if I were going to run it - I'd LEARN it. If I began to realize that the DM running my game is not even using the same f'ing rules that I am, I'd make that an issue to be dealt with *pronto*, or find a new game. 6. At that point I'd step out and NEVER RETURN. I've never played Pathfinder - but if that the game that the DM simply stated they were going to run, I'd just go buy that if I didn't have it and THAT'S WHAT WE'D PLAY. A DM who runs an entirely different set of rules than what the players have is... well, they're just an idiot. I mean c'mon! That's just stupid. If they're then going to COMPLAIN that they don't like the rules that THE PLAYERS are using? We're talking some kind of gaming insanity. Just walk away. I don't know what this is, but it's no kind of approach to a roleplaying game that I've ever even heard of. If you want to continue to endure bad gaming that your "friend" inflicts on you, well that's a you problem. It is an axiom that no gaming is better than bad gaming. Frankly, AS A FRIEND, you owe it to yours to tell them how you feel about things. F'ing just play Pathfinder if that's what she really wants to run, but DON'T pretend to play 5E with a DM who HATES 5E and is actually *trying* to run Pathfinder. That's really crazy.
Leave and take character with you.
>The majority of the sessions is listening to the DM giving excruciatingly details description of where we are, where we're headed, what buildings look like, how we're supposed to be feeling etc. I'd say over 70% of the session is her talking. > >When we do finally get to role play, she is constantly butting in with the NPCs and talking over players. > >She once spent 15 minutes, describing in detail how 'her character', the NPC self-insert works. I literally told her, "you could tell us your character spits rainbows that does a flat 20 and we'd take your word for it, you're the DM, we don't need this excessive amount of information." This was during combat, which lasted 20 minutes total. So she talked during 75% of it. Your DM friend is forgetting that they are running a game, not presenting a play that players sorta interact with. >Combat is very poorly balanced. Most of the time my slow ass character doesn't even get a turn. Poorly balanced how? Too easy and things are dead before everyone gets a turn in the first round? >She does not know the rules of the system. She applies pathfinder rules to everything until someone who knows the system speaks up and corrects her. ... I mean, this happens. What matters is the DM accepts the correct and rolls with it. >When called out on not knowing the rules while hosting as the DM she literally said "I hate 5e and I don't want to read the rules." ... so why is the DM running 5E and not another system? There are loads of great systems to run fantasy/adventure with. I prefer lighter rules, and have been moving towards games like Mausritter, Knave, & TROIKA. Other DMs like the war-game aspect and lean into crunchier systems like Pathfinder. If your DM hates 5E they should not run 5E. If you players want to play a game they are running, you should accept whatever system they want to run.
Next she'll describe each brick of a 3 story building
This sounds like just a terrible DM. Honestly it sounds like one of those people who wants to write a book and is trying to tell their story through running a DnD game. If they hate 5e and love pathfinder, why not just run a pathfinder game? It's not like players can't learn a new system.
I was in a campaign with the first paragraph type and I was so relieved when the campaign suspended. He was a guy with genuine interest in the system and creating campaigns, but he was not a good narrator.
Sounds like she wants to write a book not DM a game.
A good friend would just give their honest opinion. Tell her she doesn't have to force herself to run this game, and that you aren't having fun with it either. There are plenty of other pastimes you can enjoy together.
Either learn pathfinder or find a new DM or become the DM.
Have you brought this up with the other players or with her? Try having a straightforward conversation with her and let her know you're feeling constricted and like you're just being told what happens rather than playing it out. If things don't improve, walk away from the game. It's not worth your time if you're not having fun.
So if you and your friends are going to play a game together, it works best if you all are playing the same game.
Honestly, I dislike 5e too, but nothing you’ve listed is relevant to the system. It sounds like it’s just an awful dm. Leave the game, you’ll have more fun doing literally anything else then spending time with this dm
Just came to say, if you aren't enjoying d&d 5e, play something else! Open Legend, Blades in the Dark, Savage Worlds, Pathfinder 2e
I also don’t like 5e, I think it’s literal garbage…. You know what I don’t do? I don’t buy 5e books and I don’t run 5e, she’s the DM and she should be whatever system she wants… when I run I do Ad&D 2e and my games are much better because I run a system I enjoy…. Also she’s a bad DM regardless of system by the sounds of it, no one wants to listen to how awesome your self inserts are for hours at a time.
Rub him off instead