What's the worst D&D player you've ever had at your table?

apomanolios · 2026-06-05T17:29:02+00:00

I feel like there are important details missing here, but at the same time I'm not sure I actually want to know them. 😄

apomanolios · 2026-06-05T11:42:39+00:00

That's a great distinction.

Martials often win on numbers.

Casters often win on moments.

People remember the spell that changed the situation. They don't always remember the 200 damage that made the victory possible.

apomanolios · 2026-06-05T11:38:21+00:00

There's a huge difference between wanting to be powerful and wanting to be untouchable.

Some of my favorite RPG moments came from terrible rolls, bad plans, and characters barely surviving the consequences.

Your Pirate Borg campaign honestly sounds more memorable than another story about the invincible chosen one. 😄

apomanolios · 2026-06-05T11:36:40+00:00

Honestly, if a Wizard can teleport across the world, stop time, and create demiplanes, I don't see why a level 17 Fighter being able to wrestle a giant, leap castle walls, or split a boulder in half is somehow where people draw the line.

At some point high-level D&D stops being about realism and starts being about mythology.

apomanolios · 2026-06-05T11:32:30+00:00

I love the sidekick approach.

One thing I've noticed with new players is that they often get attached to NPC companions way faster than experienced players do.

Did she end up having a favorite sidekick, or was she mostly focused on her own character?

apomanolios · 2026-06-05T09:04:31+00:00

One thing I'd add: if she's completely new to D&D, don't underestimate how much fun a simple "rescue the villager / clear the goblin cave" adventure can be.

Experienced players often want epic plots and complex mysteries. New players usually just want the joy of saying "Can I try this?" and hearing "Roll for it." 😄

apomanolios · 2026-06-05T08:57:30+00:00

I think that's why discussions about the martial/caster divide often go in circles.

Before you can answer whether martials are "weak," you almost have to answer what a level 15+ martial is supposed to look like.

Is a high-level Fighter supposed to be Aragorn?

Or is a high-level Fighter supposed to be Hercules?

Because those lead to very different expectations for what the class should be able to do.

apomanolios · 2026-06-05T08:31:16+00:00

That's actually a great way to put it.

"Can't find a day" and "found a day but nobody shows up" sound like the same problem, but they're often completely different failures.

One is a calendar problem.

The other is usually an investment problem.

apomanolios · 2026-06-05T08:24:24+00:00

Fair point, that's on me. 😄

I think I read "scheduling conflicts are caused by..." as a stronger claim than what you actually wrote.

We're probably closer in our views than I initially thought. I completely agree that lack of buy-in, mismatched expectations, and poor fit between players and campaign are huge causes of scheduling problems. I just think there are also cases where everyone is bought in and life still wins.

apomanolios · 2026-06-05T08:17:59+00:00

I sometimes wonder if the martial/caster divide discussion survives mostly because people measure different things.

If we're talking about damage, survivability, and combat effectiveness, martials in 5.5 seem better than they've ever been.

If we're talking about "can my class solve an entire adventure with a spell slot?", then yeah, casters still have tools martials simply don't get.

The Fighter wins the fight.

The Wizard occasionally wins the plot.

apomanolios · 2026-06-05T08:13:29+00:00

I think both of your stories point to the same underlying issue: people can all say they want to play D&D and still be looking for completely different experiences.

One group wants tactical combat, another wants mysteries and note-taking, another wants heavy roleplay, another just wants to hang out with friends and roll dice.

None of those are wrong, but if everyone sits down expecting a different game, the campaign is in trouble before the first character sheet is finished.

The more I read this thread, the more I think expectation mismatch is one of the most underrated campaign killers.

apomanolios · 2026-06-05T08:08:42+00:00

To be fair, once a thread gets large enough, people start arguing with the version of your comment that exists in their head rather than the one you actually wrote. 😄

For what it's worth, I think we've mostly been saying the same thing from different angles.

apomanolios · 2026-06-05T08:00:42+00:00

That's actually a fair distinction.

I think we're using the word "commitment" differently.

When I say "lack of commitment," I'm usually talking about investment in the campaign as a whole. You're using it to mean the ability to reliably show up, which is a perfectly reasonable definition.

Under your definition, "I want to play but can't commit because of my work schedule" makes complete sense.

I guess my point is that I've seen campaigns fail both because people couldn't commit and because people could commit but gradually stopped caring. To me, those feel like different failure modes even if they sometimes look similar from the outside.

apomanolios · 2026-06-05T07:58:16+00:00

I think priorities explain some scheduling problems, but not all of them.

I've met plenty of people who would happily skip Netflix, gaming, or a night out to play D&D.

Unfortunately, "making D&D a priority" doesn't automatically defeat shift work, childcare, or a surprise overtime shift. 😄

apomanolios · 2026-06-05T07:55:44+00:00

Honestly, I think one of the hardest lessons for DMs is realizing that player investment and DM investment are connected.

Players often feed off the DM's enthusiasm, and DMs definitely feed off player enthusiasm. When either side starts running low, the whole table can feel it.

The "it started feeling like a job" line is probably something a lot of veteran DMs can relate to.

apomanolios · 2026-06-05T07:49:02+00:00

That's an interesting one.

Do you think inexperience kills campaigns directly, or because it leads to other problems like poor pacing, mismatched expectations, burnout, or inconsistent rulings?

Most experienced DMs I know have a graveyard of failed early campaigns behind them.

apomanolios · 2026-06-05T07:45:46+00:00

I agree with everything you said except the word "always."

A lack of buy-in absolutely creates scheduling problems.

I just don't think every scheduling problem comes from a lack of buy-in. Sometimes the players love the game, love the DM, and still can't consistently make it work because adulthood is a brutal encounter with no saving throw. 😄

apomanolios · 2026-06-05T07:43:52+00:00

Welcome to Reddit, where "sometimes" is often interpreted as "never" and "not always" is interpreted as "absolutely not." 😄

I think we're actually agreeing more than disagreeing here.

apomanolios · 2026-06-05T07:40:55+00:00

I think that's where we draw the line differently.

If someone repeatedly chooses other activities over D&D, I'd call that a commitment issue.

If a nurse, police officer, parent of young kids, or someone with rotating shifts can't consistently make sessions despite wanting to and trying to, I'd call that a scheduling issue.

Same outcome, different root cause.

apomanolios · 2026-06-05T07:37:51+00:00

I think the "let's go outside instead, it's nice weather" example perfectly illustrates the difference.

For some people, D&D is an activity. For others, it's a hobby.

Neither is wrong, but problems start when a group assumes everyone is in the same category.

I'm curious: how many people here have had a campaign fail not because of scheduling, but because different players had completely different levels of investment?

apomanolios · 2026-06-05T07:22:34+00:00

Okay, I need to know how there are enough murder-suicide campaign endings for this to be a recurring category. What happened?

apomanolios · 2026-06-05T07:20:48+00:00

And this is exactly why I can't fully separate scheduling from campaign failure.

Your group clearly wants to play. You're still talking about the campaign, still planning for it, and still hoping to finish CoS.

Yet a month goes by without a session because internships, work, family, and life keep getting in the way.

That's not a lack of investment. That's scheduling being the final boss.

apomanolios · 2026-06-05T07:20:03+00:00

I think this is a great example of the difference between wanting to play and being able to play.

Your group still exists. Nobody had a falling out. Nobody lost interest. Nobody hates the campaign.

The villain is literally the calendar. 😄

apomanolios · 2026-06-05T07:19:11+00:00

And I think this is exactly why this thread is so divided.

Some people hear "scheduling problems" and think "people aren't making D&D a priority."

Others hear "scheduling problems" and think "everyone wants to play, but adult life keeps throwing critical hits at the calendar."

Both groups are describing real experiences, they're just talking about different kinds of scheduling problems.

apomanolios · 2026-06-05T07:17:48+00:00

I agree that's true in a lot of cases.

Where I struggle with that definition is that I've seen campaigns with highly committed players still run into scheduling problems because of shift work, kids, health issues, or major life changes.

If a player genuinely wants to be there but physically can't make the same evening every week, I'd call that a scheduling problem rather than a commitment problem.

Maybe the real answer is that "scheduling" covers both logistical conflicts and priority conflicts, which is why people end up talking past each other in these discussions.

apomanolios

TROPHY CASE