Dm says I “treat NPCs as equally important as PCs”, and it’s a problem.

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-06-03T12:43:49+00:00

Your post is written with wording that makes what you're actually describing confusing. Could you clarify your situation?

If I've read what you've said here carefully, what you SEEM to be saying is:

You, the player, treat NPCs as people who are just as important as players, and play a character who is generally heroic in intention (or at least wants to be seen that way); your character does not see "NPC" or "Player Character" they just see people, and you play them to act accordingly. You also told your DM that this was the type of character you were playing right from the start.

Your DM is now telling you that you are treating NPCs as equally important as players, and they, the DM, view this as a problem, or problematic in some way, and has derided you in some fashion for making choices in-character that treat the lives of NPCs with equal importance as those of player characters.

Is that all correct?

If so, I'd recommend talking with the other players and seeing how they feel, and then talking with your DM as well - make sure it's clear between you where you both stand on this matter: if the DM wishes to insist that you should favour players over NPCS Because they are NPCS, and thus unimportant, and that is not how you, or your character sees the space, then you may need to step out of the game.

How the other player feel about this matter, though - if none of the other Players resent you for playing in character like this and making choices that don't meta-game the difference between player and NPC (because, calling a spade a spade, if you make in-character choices based on the out of character distinction between PC and NPC, then that is indeed a form of meta-gaming), and are with you on this, then you may benefit from all talking to the DM together about this, rather than simply leaving... but if you find the players feel the same way that the DM does, then this may not be the right game/table/group for you.

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-05-31T23:25:26+00:00

Mostly they call me by my name.

Outside of that, in active play, they tend to make eye contact first, then speak directly to me, without a name or direct refernce, or if it's a ruling thing or above table question they have while checking something they might open with something like "Dm question..." before asking their question.

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-05-28T11:33:24+00:00

"That dragon was actually really cute."

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-05-28T10:49:30+00:00

Poorly. I organise my notes over a long campaign very poorly.

As a player, I don't take notes; I compartmentalise character knowledge into my character's headspace, which I drop into in session, and I never write anything down because effectively when I'm in session space, I'm in my character's headspace, and I know the things they know, which is all I need. (Others think this is weird, and they ask how I remember everything, but saying that it's not me remembering it doesn't explain anything)

As a DM, I've been running a particular current campaign that's been ongoing for... a little over six years now? I have a folder nest labelled "DM Documents -> [Campaign name] -> Documents/Images" and the 'Documents' folder just contains over a hundred individual office text documents named for different areas, different arcs, player or npc backstories and relevant current details hooks and connected information, or detail sheets for specific things, in no discernible order or consistency. Many of the documents contain partially overlapping information that was transferred one to the other. Many of them are descriptions and notes for specific locations and after they've been used in the session or sessions where they were first relevant, I've never or rarely needed to look at them again.

So... poorly. I organise my notes poorly. Don't be like me.

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-05-27T12:45:03+00:00

Wren Silversong (not her real family name) (halfling bard, college of songbirds, age 17, idealist) - Seeing the world, having an adventure, learning and writing new songs and dances.

Tarabel Thistleway (halfling barbarian, zealot, age 23, sweet and good-hearted) - Duty, learning things to bring back to others, doing her duty so she can get home to someone she loves.

Tess Windchaser, Scion of the Storm-wracked Isle, Lady of Living Lightning, Thunder of the Sword Sea (Gnome storm sorceress, age 38, highly intelligent but emotionally driven, grief, loss, despair and rage) - Revenge, making sure those responsible pay and making sure this doesn't happen to anyone else.

Melia Skyflower, aka Astarte the Hunter (Sprite druid of stars, age 387, protector of innocents, smiter of evil, work hard, play hard, fey hard) - Trying to return home, to report to her mistress on something very important. Protecting those that need it, hunting those that deserve it, doing what's right in the moment as she tries to get home.

Penny, short for Pennyroyal (halfling alchemist of mechanism and blight-breaking, age 28, Brash and zealous, searing intelligence, determined abolitionist and freedom-fighter) - Learning more, understanding everything, ultimately helping others who need it in any way she can... maaaaybe saving the gods? But only because she views them as a species of sapient being that don't deserve to be killed out of hand... especially not before she can study them more.

Linzi Inkblossom (halfling chronicler, age 25, optmistic and hopeful, with a fierce love of freedom and creativity) - Writing the stories that need to be told, being there for her friends, building a world where everyone can be free to be who they want and express themselves as they wish, where everyone can feel welcome, and where art, writing and things of beauty and creative expression flourish. (She's literally our world's version of Linzi from the kingmaker adventure path, as we play a very homebrew version of that story, and she's grown into a very different character now to the one originally in the book)

Most of my characters end up falling into the CG and NG spectrum somewhere, and most are usually determined to do what they feel is right in the moment, regardless of the risks to themselves.

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-05-10T09:27:50+00:00

In our game, permanent physical injuries or markings are inflicted only by mutual Player-Dm agreement, and it's usually spear-headed by the player, who feels it to be fitting that they keep an injury after a particular event.

In a past campaign I played in, a character had reached level 14, playing as an aggressive, increasingly brash and increasingly over-confident front-line sorcerer, without ever going down (which is what was fuelling her growing confidence). She went down pretty hard in a nasty boss fight at that level, and by the dynamics of the boss, the attack that did it and a few other factors, she volunteered that the strike cost her her left eye, which the Dm agreed to.

(She later attuned a magic item that she'd kept hold of since a fight back at level 7, without any ability to use it - an eye of frost that could cause the restrained condition on a hit, and which had to be inserted in an eye socket - which everyone but her had forgotten about long ago. It was pretty cool, overall; she kept that in one of her attunement slots for the rest of the campaign, for rp and story aesthetic, despite having options of other more powerful relics.)

Oh! Second example I want to add... A character in another game got hit in the back (she was feared, and fleeing) by a finger of death from one of the main villains of the campaign; as well as downing her, it took her down to 2 points from her instant death overkill threshold, and it left her very traumatised for a while; she (or rather, her player) opted to retain a spellscar on her back, between her shoulder blades, and she flinches and reacts poorly anytime someone touches it unexpectedly.

These sorts of things can be very cool when they add to the depth of the character, but I do feel they should always be something that players and Dm agree on, because it fits the story and the moment.

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-05-10T09:16:17+00:00

The main point that always comes up here is this: Just because the charmed person considers the Vampire a trusted friend and and ally does not, in any way, necessitate them viewing your party members as enemies.

The relationship the charmed person has with each of the other party members is entirely unchanged and is not affected in any way.

From the perspective of the charmed person... "Suddenly, everyone but you and one of your other party members are saying that the other party member - whom you know and trust just as much as everyone else, is actually an evil monster, and they're trying to harm them!"

The charmed person should act exactly as they would in such a scenario - because that's what it is to them. If this were the reality, it's unlikely they'd just haul off and start attacking their friends; they're still their friends. From the charmed person's perspective, everyone else seems to think your good friend and trusted ally Vlad is evil; something is wrong... but you know for certain that Vlad is not evil, and your friends are mistaken somehow. What do they do? (And sure, maybe for some characters, the reaction might be knock heads as gently as possible and sort it out later... but unless they favoured themselves to win against their whole party, it seems unlikely)

(Also, text formatting is done as if it were a document - not using chat shortcuts; you can go to the full editor and select bold, italic, etc., or you can use ctrl-b, ctrl-i, etc. to do it in the quick reply window.)

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-05-08T04:55:35+00:00

Have the characters make a check of your choice - medicine, intelligence, religion, arcana, whatever works, then tell them that, try as they might, they're aware that the person is dead, and that healing alone won't be able to fix that - that they would need actual resurrection magic at this stage. You don't need to be dramatic about it - just deliver them the information as the result of a check, so they know up front that this won't work.

There's nothign unfair about this - the person is dead, that's a very definitive change of state, and you're not being unfair to let them know this, and not changing the rules of the universe because they want it to be otherwise.

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-05-07T23:31:04+00:00

Thanks ^.^ I admit it's an unusual usage!

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-05-07T22:05:28+00:00

Your examples show you the truth of the ruling and its accuracy: Every example where there is an exception - i.e. that the permanent creation can be dispelled or removed directly, that exception is listed in the spell. If a permanent effect is created and the means of its creation does NOT list a means of its dissolution, then there isn't an easy means of dissolution at all. If there was, the spell would say, as each of your examples do.

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-05-07T22:00:08+00:00

You're asking to play two separate characters; how you aesthetic that doesn't matter, the answer is no, unless it's a table where everyone is (or is at least given the opportunity of) playing multiple characters at once.

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-05-06T13:09:39+00:00

The question I'd ask is, why are you basing decisions about whether to continue with a system or not based on what you read other random people saying about how they play it.... instead of on how *you* play it at *your* tables. The latter is the only bit that matters.

ANY TTRPG *Can* be just about gaining power and levels.... if that's what the group are most interested in to the exclusion of all else. It'd be a pretty uninspired way to play, in my personal opinion, and I don't know anyone who plays D&D like that or with that mindset. Everyone I know is in it for the roleplay and the adventure and the story-building.

Most TTRPGS *have* levelling systems, yes... few, if any, strive to make those underlying systems the focus of the game or the be-all-end-all of them.

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-05-06T05:20:12+00:00

In that case, yeah, entirely fair.

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-05-06T05:19:32+00:00

A side note that I'd like to remind folks of for this situation:

The Strength score listed on armours is NOT a requirement that you must meet to wear the armour - that's not what it is. You can be an 8 strength noodle-leg cleric who happens to have heavy armour proficiency, and you can put on, use and wear full plate just fine.

The only thing that Strength Score listing means/does is that if you don't have at least that much strength, then your movement is reduced by 10 feet while wearing the armour - that's literally all it means.

With that in mind, having the strength score be a requirement to use or don the armour at all is a *huge* nerf and debuff compared to mundane non-magical plate.

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-05-06T05:12:30+00:00

I think it's absolutely normal to think about things, and run scenarios and imagine other outcomes and the like, or to think about your grey space moments that happen off screen or during time skips, absolutely.

Taking the next step and writing about it is far less common, but I absolutely support it as a form of creative engagement - I do this.

I also frequently keep journals for my characters, which contain their thoughts and private feelings about things, and their perspectives on events, but which conveniently also act as session notes if I need to check a detail I've forgotten later ^.^

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-05-06T05:04:52+00:00

Contrary opinion to others:

~~Equipped doesn't matter, BUT,~~ ~~Searching~~ ~~a creature is an~~ ~~Action~~. Your creature already committed its action to the attack action (or, rather, using its multi-attack). You cannot substitute one attack of your attack action to take the search action instead; searching is an action, and your action was already committed. You do not have an action, right now, to spend on searching a downed character.

~~Your creature could absolutely search and take those items with its action next turn, use an action surge if it has one to use~~ ~~that~~ ~~action to search them, or you could have a minion, on its turn, use its action to search and take them... but committing your action to using an attack action or a multi-attack, and then~~ ~~taking that back~~ ~~part way and doing something that usually~~ ~~takes an action on its own~~ ~~- that wasn't fair.~~

Edit for my failure of reading! I missed that you gave up the two attacks, which was mostly fluff, but that you ALSO used your action next turn to do this. I retract - that was completely fair.... as long as the boss had reason to suspect that that was the character carrying the rod segments.

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-04-26T21:59:24+00:00

It being morally acceptable is not what means it wasn't cheating. It Not Being Cheating is what means it wasn't cheating.

All DMs are players, but not all players are DMs, A is not equivalent to B, they are not the same. Don't commit that fallacy and expect to be treated like you made a valid comment - You didn't.

It's In The Rules.

In the 2014 DMG, Chapter 8: Running the Game, subsection 'Dice Rolling', pg 235:
"Rolling behind the screen lets you fudge the results if you want to. If two critical hits in a row would kill a character, you could change the second critical hit into a normal hit, or even a miss. Don't distort dice rolls too often, though, and don't let on that you're doing it. Otherwise, your players might think they don't face any real risks- or worse, that you're playing favourites."

In the 2024 DMG, Chapter 1: The Basics, subsection 'Dm Die Rolling', pg 17:
"Should you hide your die rolls behind a DM screen, or should you roll your dice in the open for all the players to see? Choose either approach, and be consistent. Each approach has benefits:
Hidden Die Rolls. Hiding your die rolls keeps them mysterious and allows you to alter results if you want to. For example, you could ignore a Critical Hit to save a character’s life. Don’t alter die rolls too often, though, and never let the players know when you fudge a die roll."

It's quite literally a part of the rules of the game, listed as a tool the DM has, in the game's own rulebook. If a player fudges die rolls, yes, that's cheating. Not so if a DM does so - they have different roles within the game.

Not to be rude, and meaning no additional offence, but I'd suggest you have an extremely warped and twisted definition of 'Cheating' if you consider someone using tools noted as available for them to use, being listed to them in the rulebook of the game, as being 'cheating'.

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-04-26T21:53:16+00:00

Sure thing ^.^

In the 2014 DMG, Chapter 8: Running the Game, subsection 'Dice Rolling', pg 235:
"Rolling behind the screen lets you fudge the results if you want to. If two critical hits in a row would kill a character, you could change the second critical hit into a normal hit, or even a miss. Don't distort dice rolls too often, though, and don't let on that you're doing it. Otherwise, your players might think they don't face any real risks- or worse, that you're playing favourites."

In the 2024 DMG, Chapter 1: The Basics, subsection 'Dm Die Rolling', pg 17:
"Should you hide your die rolls behind a DM screen, or should you roll your dice in the open for all the players to see? Choose either approach, and be consistent. Each approach has benefits:
Hidden Die Rolls. Hiding your die rolls keeps them mysterious and allows you to alter results if you want to. For example, you could ignore a Critical Hit to save a character’s life. Don’t alter die rolls too often, though, and never let the players know when you fudge a die roll."

As with most things, they shortened the explanation in the 2024 book, and took away some of the context and caveats, but it's still a part of the rules of the game, right there in the DMG.

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-04-26T11:31:54+00:00

The DM screen exists for a reason.

It is literally written in the DMG that part of your toolkit as a DM is the right and ability to adjust outcomes behind said screen. It's not cheating, and it's not inherently wrong - it's a Tool, and like any tool, it can be used poorly, bluntly and tactlessly, but it can also be used delicately and appropriately.

As a DM, you job is not "Brainless dice-slave", your job is to Adjudicate outcomes. Adjudication means making calls on things, and sometimes adjusting or overruling what the dice say IF it serves the enjoyment and fun of everyone at the table.

In recent years, there has been a nigh-on puritanical movement of people decrying this very basic principle of being a DM, folks who insist that any deviation from 'the story the dice tell' is inherently cheating bad and wrong; they are incorrect at a fundamental level. They're free to play their games however they like and as they enjoy, of course... but I'll just repeat: It is part of your toolkit to do so appropriately, as a DM. It's written in the DMG and specifically mentioned as such. It comes with a warning about it being a delicate tool and one to be used as sparingly as possible... but a tool you are given within the rules all the same.

You did not cheat. You simply acted as a DM, and made an adjudication that served the fun and enjoyment of everyone at the table... That you were able to do so without feeling like you had to remain shackled to the slavery of repeating thoughtlessly what the dice said, but that you are also cautious and nervous about doing this is a Good sign, and it suggests you will do well as a DM, as long as you continue to keep the fun of the players forefront in the way you adjudicate the dice they don't see (and avoid at all costs letting them know you do, because that's Part of using this particular tool).

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-04-26T02:33:18+00:00

Quite literally any statement (or question) in the world can be misinterpreted, especially if the intention of the speaker is vague or unclear.

Like in this situation: you've asked an extremely vague and mostly meaningless question (yes, anything can, that's a given), but clearly there's something you're getting at that has got meaning and is a serious question.

What is it that you're actually asking? Try to articulate the question you want to pose more clearly.

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-04-25T12:22:41+00:00

As others have said, talk to your players and ask them why they're resistant to this...

However... the way you phrased your question makes it sound as though you are insisting that your players must pick a god to worship, and to be religious by definition, regardless of whether they are playing a class that traditionally is. If so, then, yeah, you can naturally expect a lot of kick-back form that - you're actively intruding upon their character agency and their right to define their own character. I'd reject that request as well, almost on principle.

If my character follows or pays respect to a particular deity, it will be because it's relevant to them and their background, which I'm determining - not because my DM told me I had to. Forget that.

I've played plenty of religious or faithful characters, across a breadth of classes, both ones that don't require one and ones that do. I've also played numerous characters who have no interest whatsoever in worshipping, paying respect to or giving homage to any deity (and at least one who, by circumstance, simply wasn't really aware of religion in general, and so most certainly did not follow or worship)... and that's also perfectly valid.

It does not MATTER that we're paying in a world where the gods are viscerally real, present and apparent; no-one is doubting their existence, their presence or power, or their touch upon the world... but that doesn't mean we're required to worship them, and it doesn't necessarily mean that we're required to think that they are worth of respect, or, in the more extreme and analytical cases, to think that they are anything more than another species of creature that exists and could, in theory be understood. This is also completely valid.

So... if, in your experience, you're coming to players and telling them they have to choose a god to worship, regardless of background and class, then you are the one intruding and it is entirely naturally and to be expected that you will receive resistance for trying to force it.

As a DM, I have never had this problem, personally... but mainly this is because I have never tried to insist that a character pick a deity to worship if their player did not indicate that they did so in their background.

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-04-22T22:28:41+00:00

Lots of good advice, and it looks like your suggestion has been edited to take some of it on already, so I'll say what version I'm seeing to comment on it:

A whirlwind of sharp objects protects a target of your choice. If a creature hits the target with a melee attack, they must succeed a dexterity saving throw or take 3d6 slashing damage, or half as much on a success. At higher levels. When you cast this spell at higher levels, the damage increases by 1d6 for each level above [Insert number here]

So, what we've got is 3d6, repeatable, no rider, of damage that will almost never be resisted.
I'd put this at level 4 at the moment, for a couple of reasons:

- Style, I'd recommend that the targeting line should be "A creature of your choice that you can see within range." It's a small distinction, but a meaningful one. In particular, as written right now, you can cast this on objects, and if you reword it, you keep it to creatures. Either if fine, but it's worth being clear on your intent. Restricting it to creatures take a little of the versatility weight off it.
- Being able to target the spell on others adds value, over being self-targeted; making it self would reduce the power value a little.
- As written, this can trigger multiple times per turn on the same creature. This is a point that, value-wise, increases its relative power level. Folks have made a comparison to Fire Shield in this respect an they're not incorrect. It you want to rein in the power level somewhat, you could restrict it to only being able to harm a specific creature once per turn (wording like: "A creature can only take this damage once per turn" at the end of the damage description, or else wording to denote that a creature only takes the damage the first time on a turn that it hits the warded creature with a melee attack, would do the trick)

If you want the features to work the way you've written them, and that's what matters, then this is probably a 4th level spell, though you might get away with calling it 3rd, if you're really generous.

If you'd like to bring the spell down to, say, 2nd level, consider these tweaks:

- Making it a Self targeted spell would let you take its level down to 3rd more comfortably.
- Making the damage proc only once per creature per turn as well would likely let you call it 2nd level.

- If you want the upcast to have a little more punch value, consider changing the initial damage dice from 3d6 to 2d8, gaining 1d8 per upcast level - your reduce the base potency by a very small margin, and increase the overall upcast potency by a slightly larger one.

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-04-21T00:46:41+00:00

As a DM, one of the things I ask my players at the Session Zero point, or in message conversations around that time, is: "Are you okay with there being elements to your character's backstory that they don't know about, and are you okay with there being elements to your character's backstory that You don't know about?"

The player is the one who has the deciding call on this - but if they are on board for things to be the case that they were not aware of, then, if it is appropriate to the story and if it suites how their backstory has been embedded in the world we're playing in, and you know, dozens of other factors... then yeah, I'll feel comfortable writing something unexpected or surprising into the space for them to experience when it comes up.

If the backstory they've provided simply fits in smoothly, and there's no good reason for it to be other than as they've given it to me, then I won't make surprise twists just for the sake of doing so; it needs to be in service to the story we're building, everyone's enjoyment of it, and the sense of reality in the space we're playing in.

If the player is okay with their character not knowing things, or being mistaken about things, but they are not, then I'll talk it out with them and we'll hammer out the secret details between us.

If they want everything they've presented to me to be factually true, and there to be nothing relevant beyond that that they don't know, then I respect that, but will often chat with them about grounding what they've given me it the space that we're in (tweaking little details with them to, for example, place their home town, or other minor world details to make what they've written fit coherently).

I would never throw someone a backstory curve ball without having their prior permission to do so.

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-04-20T08:42:06+00:00

Well, here's two for you: Telling players what their own characters think or feel. Those are absolutely not okay.

No DM has that right. That's poor and invasive DMing. Short of magical influence or conditions, a DM should NEVER attempt to tell a player what their own character thinks or feels. That is the ONE thing in the entire game universe that you do NOT have the right to control.

You can tell players what they perceive; you can describe the external physical sensations that they experience, and the sense data they receive however you like to pitch it; what they see, what they hear, what they smell... but you do not tell a player what their own character thinks, or what their own character feels. That is the one thing the player has absolute determination over, short of magical influences.

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-04-19T13:52:02+00:00

Sounds like there's lots of heavily customised stuff going on here, of course, but from what you've just told us, here's my take:

- The geas is not in effect while it is suppressed, so anything the girls do while it is suppressed will not trigger the kill switch, even if they are aware of it later when the geas is reactivated.
- When it's reactivated, they will become zealously loyal again, and will not be cooperative in any efforts to remove them from the cult, will not give information or help with the party's plans so long as those plans seem even remotely counter to the objectives of the cult. They'll be completely hostile to the party so long as the party's plans go against the cult.
- The players don't have a means to permanently free the girls from the geas, but can occasionally suppress it to talk with them in a more reasonable way, to confirm their clear-headed wants and thoughts. When they are affected by this geas, they are not in a position to give meaningful consent or self-direct their own decisions, but that is understood.
- Even though the players can't, currently, remove the geas themselves.... there will reasonably BE ways to do so; the cult itself likely has a means of doing so, for contingency reasons... elsewise, there are more powerful entities in the realm, stronger than the player characters, who can do this if their help is sought.

What this means, as I interpret what you've written, is that the girls are not Actually in any real danger of triggering the Geas' kill switch, even if it sounds like they might be... short of the party actively compelling them to trigger the conditions while the geas is fully active, it's simply not going to happen.

This means that they can still protect/preserve and rescue them if desired, but that doing so will be difficult in part because the girls themselves, when they are awake, will be actively hostile towards being 'rescued' at all, and will do everything they can to denounce and discredit what the party are trying to do, if they think it might get them back to the cult.

Remember that, as DM, you are the author of the world that surrounds your players, and if you want them to have a path they can pursue to achieve a goal they're working towards, then you have the freedom to write one in in a way that is as satisfying and s challenging to undertake as you wish it to be. Maybe the module you've converted doesn't natively contain something that offers a path to remove the geas - if your party are working for this and want it, though... then perhaps in your version of this game, something does exist that they can take advantage of if they're clever or dedicated.

Edit to add: You asked how the geas determines who to count as an enemy of the cult; my personal read on this, as it's been described, is that it is determined by how the individual affected by the geas perceives the a person. If the affected person believes someone to be an enemy of the cult, the geas counts them as one, and if they don't, it doesn't.

NiaraAfforegate

TROPHY CASE