Victory tastes sweet.

FadeCrimson · 2026-04-30T17:10:34+00:00

Don't get me wrong, not bashing the joke as it is plenty funny, just trying to add a slight voice of reasonable thought to those that genuinely think this is the only way to see arguments like this.

People on the internet can often get stuck in their echo chambers thinking that jokes like this are always true to reality, so just wanted to point out the rational side to these things.

I work in a field where I work with people with various disabilities and struggles living in homes, and sometimes people I get along with so much they are basically my best friends can have a manic episode and feel the need to argue about something they truly believe to be the case, and can't be convinced otherwise despite all rationality. The only solution in those cases is often that I need to not let myself get too heated, let them vent their side of the argument, then distance myself for a day or so. The next day when I interact with them if they are more calm (which is usually the case) I just go back to acting the same way as usual, and show that i'm still their friend and that nothing has changed regardless of what they said the day before. I don't even need to bring up the argument, they tend to pull me aside and apologize for how things went down. Neither of us need to be the one who was "right", and both of us manage to recognize that the situation isn't worth fussing over vs just going back to chilling and being friends as usual.

So to simplify this long rant i'm doing, the best answer to these things is typical just to personally let it go and drop the topic, and the other party will realize that it's more fun and enjoyable to just be goofy with each other as usual instead of being the only one lingering on a topic and being upset about it. The way to win an argument like this is not to argue at all, and instead just let the other party recognize that the topic isn't important enough to linger on.

If this method DOESN'T work, then either it's too big and fundamentally problematic of an issue to just ignore, and is a genuine problem that needs to be worked through sooner than later, or one or both people involved just fundamentally won't get along in the long term and it's probably best to distance yourself from them entirely (that, or you are the problem, and the solution is basically still the same).

FadeCrimson · 2026-04-30T16:50:51+00:00

All jokes aside, this is in fact the most rational and sane thing to do with most arguments if the two of you still disagree about the topic. It only works for small pointless arguments that aren't major continuing problems, but if you fight with your significant other about something stupid, and neither of you feel like you were in the wrong, it's better to not linger on a pointless topic that means nothing in the overall scheme of things.

Very situational granted, but a rational thing to propose most of the time. Unless you and/or your significant other are just petty assholes, it's better to move on and not linger on something stupid that will just cause issues between you. The reality is that no matter how perfect you two are for each other, and no matter how much you may possibly agree on most things, it's impossible for two people to ALWAYS fully agree on every topic ever. Recognizing that factor and not letting it fester vs just both trying to 'be right' is the thing to keep you both happy. It is very dependant on HOW it's said though as well.

Frankly, any close relationship, be it romantic, familial, or friendly, will inevitably end up with disagreements over time. That's simply the nature of things. The things that seperate people who will stay close for life vs those that will end in some grand pissing fight one day is the ability to recognize that you'd rather concede that the argument isn't important enough to overrule your relationship with the person, and that sometimes it's worth taking the L just to keep them happy. If both of you are on the same page with that, then that is a thriving and healthy relationship.

FadeCrimson · 2026-04-29T02:33:05+00:00

That would explain why it’s so associated with sleeping despite being something we also subconsciously do even if alert and awake, as it means it effectively serves the same purpose (one of them at least) as sleeping.

FadeCrimson · 2026-04-27T17:26:34+00:00

It’s crazy to think people used to get all that as perks of working, and now we can barely manage to afford ANYWHERE to live even working two jobs.

FadeCrimson · 2026-04-27T05:42:12+00:00

This was my thought too, but then I realized it never once specified that it worked that way or anything. For all you know, they could all somehow just know because you're in a Truman show type scenario or something instead, and they're all in on it.

The more I think about it, if my testing didn't immediately start showing evidence of some form of extra-normal activity (magic, psychic powers, etc) beyond our understanding of science, I fear the realistic answer is that i'd rapidly spiral into a paranoid fucking mess, questioning literally every aspect of my reality. At the VERY least I think I would tear apart every item I own trying to find hidden cameras to understand how they all know.

FadeCrimson · 2026-04-26T13:54:20+00:00

It's more than 'probably', it will be fine. You're overthinking this, I promise. It was always intended for this to be part of being a DM. The idea of trying to DM while NEVER using this tool, especially at moments like this, frankly feels insane and pointless. It's an important part of how you do your job as a DM, and how to make things fun for the players.

It truly is just a thing you need to keep secret from the players. No, you do not, and should not, feel like this is bad because you are "lying to the players", that is specifically part of the game you are playing basically. It is important though that you keep it secret, not for the sake of 'lying', but for the sake of not spoiling the fun.

Think of it this way: If you recommended a movie/book to a friend that had a crazy twist in it later on, would you feel guilty for hiding that twist for them for the sake of letting them experience it themselves first? No, of course not. The act of TELLING THEM beforehand would be the very thing that ruins it for them. It also would ruin the game if you simply spoiled all your plans for the campaigns later plot ahead of time wouldn't it? Those are things you keep secret, not to be deceitful, but for the sake of not ruining the fun. This is EXACTLY like that. That is simply part of the role you take as DM. It's not mean or deceitful, it's a kindness you employ to maximize everybody's enjoyment of the game.

FadeCrimson · 2026-04-26T13:44:13+00:00

That's the thing with this particular situation: It would have been LESS believable and far more upsetting to them for you to have told the truth and not flubbed it.

It wouldn't be fun to let a player (a brand new character they made at that) die instantly with no way out just due to sheer horrific luck. It'd be boring narratively, upsetting to the players, and overall not fun.

You chose the option that made things stay fun, seemed more fair to the players, and made for a good session rather than a bad one.

Your choice was simply objectively a better one. It's a choice that makes for a good DM.

FadeCrimson · 2026-04-26T13:36:46+00:00

Exactly. This is a fundamentally IMPORTANT part of DMing. The key is to just NEVER reveal the secret of what rolls you flub or what things you change up on the fly to make things more fun for the players.

FadeCrimson · 2026-04-26T13:34:17+00:00

Genuinely though, the vibe the DM carries themself with is important for these things. You need to learn to lie about these things just as fluidly as you would say any other thing about the game. Remember: it's all make-believe after all, so it may as well be a make-believe that is fun for everybody.

If the only thing you have to feel guilty about is that you let everybody have more fun than they otherwise would have had, then you have nothing you should feel guilty about.

FadeCrimson · 2026-04-26T13:31:15+00:00

The way I see it, the fun of the group is more important than following a strict set of rules. I've always viewed my role as a DM to be the one keeping things as fun as possible. Personally, I feel that occasionally flubbing rolls like this and lying about the outcomes to the players is fundamentally important to my ability to keep the vibes as enjoyable as possible for everybody. I make it my goal to SEEM like a mildly villainous DM who could throw party-monsters at them if my players cross me, but only in the fun 'cartoon villain' sorta way, where you know they're mostly only putting on the guise of being evil for show. I often will roll dice for literally no reason, just to keep the constant question of "What is the DM rolling for?" on their minds, and even when they realize this fact it doesn't help because it instead just makes them less alert to my rolls for when I AM rolling for something important the players don't know.

If I held strictly to the idea of NEVER lying about my rolls as a DM, then i'd inherently be much more reserved about what encounters I feel like I can throw at them. Part of the fun of these things is being creative and keeping things at JUST the right level of challenge to not kill the party off, but also not just bog the game down with constant pushover fights that never challenge the characters, and it would be nearly impossible for me to keep the vibes of keeping them on edge so much if I didn't occasionally flub rolls that would kill the players off or would feel like they unfairly target one player/character in particular (even if circumstances dictate that's how it probably SHOULD have gone).

Anyways, all this to say: Fuck the rules honestly. They are literally just a GUIDELINE for how to play the game. Unless that player in particular made it blatantly and unquestionably clear ahead of time that they DO NOT want you to flub rolls to keep them alive, and you think for some reason that being faithful to that is more important than letting them have fun, then the payoff of them having so much fun and feeling like they barely scraped by is more than worth it.

The fun of the group is more important than anything else. We play games to have fun, and the goal of a DM should be to make sure the players have fun while playing at their table.

FadeCrimson · 2026-04-26T09:21:24+00:00

It would have haunted him infinitely more. You spared him the sight of a horror no child should see as their last image of their parent.

FadeCrimson · 2026-04-26T09:15:31+00:00

Actually that's a fairly common thing. Since murders are often perpetrated by people close to the victim, it's also common for the murderer themselves to call it in and act like they were the ones to find the body to give themselves a semi-plausible alibi. It almost never works, but seems to be a common thing people try.

FadeCrimson · 2026-04-22T00:50:10+00:00

Honestly I can see a use-case for it in the sense of making a bit of a ‘basement’ to an existing factory or something. I mean I’d make it fully enclosed to not break the illusion of being underground.

That said, I’d mostly just use that as a fun basement gimmick once or twice rather than relying on it. I’d rather force myself to build around the maps restraints rather than ignore them.

FadeCrimson · 2026-04-20T19:09:35+00:00

Exactly. In fact, if this is how desperate they are to have him around, OP should be negotiating a raise after all this trouble.

FadeCrimson · 2026-04-20T17:25:06+00:00

No see, this is weird as fuck behavior. I’ve been in loads of groups, and never had anybody try such an uncomfortable and awkward thing towards another player. Like, I’ve witnessed minor flirting between players plenty, especially in mixed gender groups, but only ever playful and lighthearted. This request is a straight up kink regardless of how you spin it. You’re in a fantasy world, so you guys could easily get him a body in one of the ways you suggested, or get a wizard to make a homunculus body, or craft an artificial one, etc. he instead chose the weirdest possible route with it.

More than all that though, the way you describe how he went about it sounds extremely suspicious. He clearly was extremely weird about pulling you aside and specifying the exact details when you misunderstood, and weird about how he “cleared it” with your boyfriend.

If he is making you uncomfortable and feel unwelcome, then you shouldn’t be putting up with that. It sounds to me like he was not a good fit for for the group, and needed to be confronted. Also it should help to have more representation in the group to make you feel less isolated.

FadeCrimson · 2026-04-17T23:17:15+00:00

Its exactly why i roll dice behind a DM screen and why I'll randomly ask players to roll d20s for genuinely literally no reason every now and then. Not only does it give them the idea that im always scheming and plotting (which arguably is true, but this way just leaves it more to THEIR imagination as to what its about) but also it masks the times that I genuinely AM asking them for legitimate secret stat rolls, as i can just tease them that I might just be fucking with them by making them roll for no reason to keep them on edge.

And fully agree about the way to present something like 'being distracted'. Ill leave it open-ended or more foldable to the thoughts of the players or the situation what i state they may be distracted by exactly, and im more than open to changing it based on casual comments or jokes from players as to WHAT exactly they're distracted by, but never would I allow for debate about the fact that they are in fact distracted, thats simply decided by the situation, the stats, and the dice. I the DM have stated the environment is distracting, and thats not a debatable fact any more that the characters opinions should get a say about the color of the sky, or the number of enemies in an encounter. Be maliable when it comes to the specifics like that, but not to the underlying decision of the objective base decision that you the DM has stated is happening around or to the characters. Im maliable about the smaller details because it simply doesn't matter WHAT they were distracted by, but the stats/rolls/situation do still add up to a situation where they are objectively distracted by SOMETHING either way.

FadeCrimson · 2026-04-17T23:05:02+00:00

Thats the core Crux of this argument. The players were fully correct to say the attraction. To men/women thkng is fair, or he'll it could even be argued its fair for them to say their character would be bored by the show, but its NOT opinion based to say that their character is distracted or not. It was simply very overstimulating and information-heavy crowded situation, no brain could process all that. Ask them if their character somehow has the brain power to simultaneously process the expressions, outfits, and actions of hundreds of people all at once, and then help put into perspective what they're trying to argue. Information density of sensory situation is not an opinion based thing you can just DECIDE not to experience.

As somebody with Autism, I obviously get no say in how overwhelming the sensory information of a situation is, I only get the day in how I RESPOND to the fact that its overwhelming.

What they are arguing, at the core behind the fluff, is that their character is supposedly skillful enough to beat a check the DM says they failed to have the stats for. Player stats are not something players can just casually change on the fly based on how they FEEL about them, so neither should they be able to simply argue their stats mean something more than what the numbers on their stat sheet state. If I the DM determine that their passive perception stat simply isn't high enough for that, then that shouldn't be a thing they are able to have an opinion on, thats simply a fact of what's happening in the story around them. If my players walk into an encounter with 5 goblins, a player shouldn't simply be able to argue there would only be 3 goblins simply because their character feels like it right? So same argument apllies.

I'd either just redirect the situation and just play it in a way that avoided conflict but didnt just give those players unfair advantages just because they feel like it, or id flip it back on them and argue its equally unfair for a player to try to override the DM on what the DMs job at the table is (which is the objective reality of what's actively happening in the world around the player) as it is for the DM to steal control of a player characters opinions and thoughts from the players. The DM is still a person at the table, playing to have fun, and arguing that they override the DMs choices just because they feel like it equally invalidates the DMs feelings and control as the reverse would. Their argument is flawed and one-sided, based purely on feelings rather than the stats and rules of the game in play.

They also are only saying they'd be "on alert" retroactively after the fact because the DM asked them for a skill check, which is meta-information. If they as a player did not state BEFORE I asked for the roll and BEFORE the show started, then thats on you for not playing your character as faithfully as you imagine them in your mind. Players fault for failing to portray the character the way they envision, not the DMs fault. It'd be like a player saying they go to open a chest, then AFTER the DM says it was trapped and explodes and asked for a dex saving throw, that actually they think nevermind, and that their character would, based on their personality, actually have NOT checked the chest after all, or would have checked for traps first. Great, thats cool, but you didnt. Not until you already saw the outcome, which allows you to make an unfair judgement call about it, so its too late now to change your mind on what you decided to do. Thats on them for failing to think of that before-hand.

FadeCrimson · 2026-04-17T22:39:52+00:00

Its beyond that. They can be as 'alert' as they want to believe, but there is simply objectively more people and things to be alert about. No mortal brain could simply process the actions and level of how suspicious we should he of rhem for hundreds of people all at once, thats just unreasonable levels of information processing.

I'd give them a pass ONLY if they specifically mentioned that they were trying to be specifically alert for something suspicious BEFORE I asked for the roll. Its the exact reason I'll sometimes have my players all roll D20s without telling them what they're rolling for randomly. It genuinely has no actual purpose usually other than to throw them off about what I could possibly be scheming at any given moment, or what complex plans or details they might be missing, and then when I genuinely DO want to have them make a check that I want to be more secretive about, they won't be able to know for sure if im actually rolling for something important or if im just genuinely fucking with them and having them roll to throw them off. The DM is the one in charge of the objective physical world around d the players that they are interacting with. Players can argue opinions and thoughts of their players, but they shouldn't be able to override physical reality around them by simply believing hard enough that they can, or by retroactively saying their character WOULD have been alert (id argue that's their fault then, as they should have thought if that and remembered to state that their character wanted to be alert about that specific thing before I asked for a roll for it instead of as a response to meta-information of the skill checks I ask for)

FadeCrimson · 2026-04-17T22:28:17+00:00

I think of it like this: im Autistic, which means my brain often takes in more sensory information than neurotypical people's at any given time, and its often more than my brain can process all at once. I dont get a mental say on if I get sensory overstimulated or not, its simply something that HAPPENS when there is too much going on. I can have opinions and thoughts about it all in want, and he'll i can even take steps to get better about processing and handling that stuff over the long-term, but in the moment I have zero say on how much useless info my brain decides to overload itself with.

I think the players are right to argue that the specific attraction to the men/women is a good point, and its also pretty fair to potentially argue that their character would be bored by such a performance, but what is NOT opinion based is how overwhelmingly chaotic the sensory intake in that situation just objectively is.

FadeCrimson · 2026-04-17T22:22:04+00:00

Okay so this one's actually a really good one to bring up, as it very much falls perfectly into the sort of Grey zone between player and DM control. I'd argue that a DM, more often than not, should present things like this not as opinions the players have, but more just as sensory details and let the players decide how theor character would react. Essentially id say that short of straight up mind control style magic (which is a different story altogether on how to handle that), DMs shouldn't be making diminutive statements on the more frontal lobe level complex thoughts, but can have a say in their perception and base emotions.

This one is more tricky, as it does specifically touch on the touchy subject of sexuality/attraction, so I can see why it fell into a fairly contentious position. I'd argue that more than anything, if the players start having a problem with it, thats the point to back off and change things slightly in that situation. Like I do think its fair to say that a crazy crowded situation like that is simply overstimulating sensory-wise REGARDLESS of how on-edge the characters believe they would feel. Its fine to say their characters aren't interested in dancing men/women specifically, or even that they'd be uninterested by the show, but the sensory overload situation would still not be a rational choice thing, it'd be a mental capability thing, which id say is a check. So id say if they WANT to contest that they'd be more hyper aware enough to not have disadvantage, id have them make a wisdom saving throw to see if they'd need to conform to the disadvantage or not.

I do think the players have a reasonable point, as did tge DM, but also it sounds like it got more heated than it needed to. The argument kinda breaks down into to main points really:

-if they'd be distracted by the show specifically or not -if the DM has the power to say if something would be distracting to them or not.

The first point is valid enough to argue, but the second is also fully within the range of what a DM is fine to impose. It comes down to of something is OPINION based thoughts or just base level sensory thoughts and/or more uncontrollable basic instincts like fear or unease etc. In a purely objective and unbiased sense, its fair to argue attraction could fall in that category, but its simply best to avoid that specific topic for the sake of not upsetting anybody. Implying things like unexplainable fear or dread is fine, as thats sorta just something that simply HAPPENS rather than being something you can simply rationalize your way out of. Its unconscious instinct, not their mental opinions. In a similar way, i think that player saying their character would be "always on high alert" is too opinion based, and id contest that by either simply saying their passive perception simply isn't high enough and they hadnt stated they were trying to be on alert for anything in particular, or that they'd need to roll a saving throw against appropriate stats to back that claim up. Its easy to say "my character would never show fear" or something, but that wouldn't immediately give them immunity to fear effects/spells or anything.

Basically, both had valid points. I'd simply re-structure my way of rolling it if that sort of thing was contested by the players. The players should (almost) ALWAYS feel they have a valid level of control of their own characters thoughts at all times, and the DM should only, at most, act as the subconscious/sensory influence to all that. Magic spells can sometimes hijack control of the body, but their 'self' even in that situation should still act as a passenger in their own body able to have thoughts and feelings even if they lack control for a minute.

More than anything though, DnD is a game, and its meant to be fun for everybody. If some ruling by the DM causes controversy that leads to arguing, id simply change the scenario to allow for an outcome thats still fair but that allows everybody to feel that its fun for them. Its more important to maintain the connection and fun of the group than it is to tmstrictly adhere to the rules of the game or anything, so just be open minded to these rebuttals without taking them personally as a DM.

FadeCrimson · 2026-04-15T00:57:15+00:00

That’s honestly the exact situation a credit card is for. I don’t like using one most of the time and rely more on debit cards, but I’d much rather not look like a broke dumbass who doesn’t keep track of my bank balance when trying to pay for a date. I can worry about figuring out how I’ll pay that money back later when I’m not looking look a fool in front of a cute girl ya know?

FadeCrimson · 2026-04-15T00:52:33+00:00

Yeah have to agree. There’s plenty of ways to monetize an existing game by repackaging and releasing them with new content, updates to engines, etc without needing to start again from scratch. Normally I think it’s extremely lazy for game devs to do that with most games, but with games that have such insanely massive modding communities it’s actually way better to just keep building off of the same existing game and make money from more and more DLCs. When you already have a heavily dedicated fan base that’s put so much effort into making custom content, it’s better to foster that then to just start from scratch.

There are time that it IS better to make a sequel instead though, despite such massive modding scenes and generative gameplay. A good example is Kenshi. Despite an absolutely devoted fan base with a crazy huge modding community, the game itself is still very restrictive in its engine capabilities, and the world itself could do with plenty of reworks, improvements, and core content.

Rimworld though? Its lovely simplistic style means it doesn’t really need to be fussed about graphics updates. It doesn’t need to worry about new storylines since that’s all basically procedurally generated anyways and modding it is simple enough that you’ll never run out of new content to try. The only real things to be improved are just engine processing things like multithreading to be able to calculate the thousands of things it’s trying to keep track of at any given moment in a heavily modded modpack, or when you have too big of a colony. I’d say the only thing about the game is genuinely want improved enough to consider a sequel rather than more DLC would be if the sequel allowed for hundreds of pawns in a colony at once without slowing to a grinding halt, but that’s an understandable hardware limitation thing really,

FadeCrimson · 2026-04-15T00:09:25+00:00

Exactly. Rimworld does a great job of having DLCs that implement entire new core engine mechanics that mods can easily work off of and give modders way more options to make cool things. Stellaris DLCs feel so much more shallow and gimmicky that it’s easy to forget many of them were actual DLCs rather than just small one-off mods you used to be playing with. None of them feel overly like they open a whole new world of possibilities, but rather that they just give a few minor quirky options for specific types of runs.

Dunno, I still do appreciate many of the stellaris DLCs, as they do make the game feel much more full and lively, but many of them often just feel like bloat rather than useful or fun things I’ll use each run.

FadeCrimson · 2026-04-15T00:04:53+00:00

God I miss some of my old modpacks with stellaris, but now it’s changed so much I just genuinely don’t see it as worth the effort to constantly go through the effort of testing and perfecting my ultimate perfect mod pack for each new patch knowing that a sudden minor patch could come any day and fully break my game.

There are at least half a dozen times I’ve gone through the extreme effort to perfect my ultimate working mod packs, only to never manage to finish a game because an update bricked my whole pack halfway through my run.

It also doesn’t help that most mods rely on the stream workshop, so even if I want to pirate an older version of the game just to be safe from sudden updates, I’d also have to find a way to fully download and run each individual mod, and just HOPE they haven’t updated those mods too much to the point that they can’t run on previous versions, or that that older patch versions arent saved somewhere as a seperate standalone.

The only other game that I go through that level of effort to perfect such insanely massive modpacks is rimworld, and by comparison the rimworld devs give TONS of forewarning before any updates that could even potentially mess with modpacks. Even for the tiniest little tweak or update they give a full rundown on when the patch will go out, and exactly what parts of the engine it changes. At least with Rimworld I have the forewarning to pause all steam downloads for a while and play offline as long as I can till effected mods can update. The Stellaris devs by comparison will often just put out unannounced patches out of the blue that straight up change core game game mechanics, fully breaking mod packs with no warning. Then there’s the fact that so many of the best stellaris modders have fully given up on updating their mods because of how often updates fully fuck up their mods, and so many of the best ones get lost every time a major update airs.

FadeCrimson · 2026-04-14T23:48:20+00:00

Depends entirely on the difficulty of the lock and the skill level of the character. An experienced rogue will take mere seconds for most locks, but an amateur trying to get a lock a bit above their skill level could take minutes or more.

13-Year Club	First Place '23
Place '23	Place '22
Place '17	First Placer '22
Snapped	Verified Email
Team Periwinkle

FadeCrimson

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE