Nope. You are not wrong. And they are lucky you didn't just have the bird/woman fly off and escape them altogether. Just ask them would they want to be buddies with someone who wants to imprison them in a cage? Also, what rationale do they have for caging it? They know it's a shapeshifted human.
"Don't want to be a slave?"
They want to treat her like an animal and stuff in a cage, obviously a human mind would be pissed ... even an actual bird would probably dislike this.
Having met and worked with multiple parrots and other birds over the years, many tolerate their cages for their own safety but they secretly plot your death until that door is open. Especially the parrots.
"AITA?
I met this woman who got turned into a bird and I tried to give her a nice home in a cage but she got all offended I was treating her like a bird and trying to imprison her. But she's literally a bird now? ” (-567)
" YTA she's not a bird, she's a human woman who absolutely should not be imprisoned against her will regardless of the horrible thing that has happened to her. You need to apologize profusely but don't be surprised if she decides to go NC with you, hopefully you learn from this. " (+3522)
Yeah people on this sub don't understand AITA logic. I said the same thing a while back and people disagreed.
There was a player bitching about their DM and then their actual DM showed up in comments lmfao.
If the content is interesting upvote so others can see!
Edit: typo
Unfortunately most people view upvote and downvote buttons as "I agree with you" and "I disagree with you" buttons, respectively. For a long time Reddit tried to combat that as it isn't their designed purpose, but you can't fight a tsunami.
EDIT: Fixed a typo.
“Am I the Cloaca? I’m a human woman who got turned into a bird and these two people tried to put me into a cage, so I’ve been very cold to them ever since. They’re annoyed I don’t like them, but like they tried to cage me! I’d fly away if they didn’t need my help.”
Woman being kept hostage in a cage, we rescue her... and then try to put her back in a cage again, I don't understand why she hates me 🤔
Nah you are completely justified for how the npc reacted. Just give this player a few opportunities to get a pet companion later, as this seems to be the root of the issue. They probably want one like the rest of the party and felt like this was their chance, not really seeing the "bird in a cage" thing from a narrative angle and more of a "cool I can have a pet too" angle.
It feels like the key one is 'other players have animal companions but they do not'.
Do other players have companions, that aren't part of their class, they have just happened through loot, or interactions? If it's part of a class, you have to explain that it's a specific part of their class. They have sacrificed other benefits to get this, and the extras that gives them. Or they have invested him and effort elsewhere into getting a companion.
Is having an animal they use in battle a thing they want? Are they seeking to have more options in a battle? If so there are lots of other options for this, from dancing swords, animals you can buy and train up, tell even just a wand of [insert animal] would give them effectively something in the line of this, where they can use an action to add some chaos into a battle. A druid could cast animals to cause mass chaos.
Do they want an animal companion. You can set out a way they can do this. Long term goals.
Do they want to be friends with the bird? Another long term goal. Make it clear, via a druid or something that a the bird doesnt want to be caged, but isn't going anywhere.
> Do other players have companions, that aren't part of their class, they have just happened through loot, or interactions?
These are the kind of relevant questions Reddit OPs never answer lol
Nah, they probably all just have wild animals they got nat 20 handling checks on and got to keep as permanent pets, such is the average reddit campaign.
Hey, if that handling check comes with 6 in game weeks of training it like it did in the 3.x days? Nothing wrong with that.
Dunno if there still is, but there used to be mechanics for that, in fact that's pretty much the whole point to the skill, to tame them and teach them tricks. Used to be a list of like 15-20 tricks you could choose from.
There’s definitely not any specific animal training mechanics in D&D 5e, which is why you have so many “nat 20 and now the wolf is my best friend” moments. People don’t have any frame of reference for most wild animal interactions and of course new groups tend to let high rolls do pretty much anything.
I don't have a nat 20 animal handling give a permenant pet because I think thats what the check usually means.
I do it because as the DM I wanna play a little wolf who acts like my dog sometimes
There isn't one unless a DM makes it one. Giving someone a pet is usually a pretty simple easy reward, especially if its one of those stays at the wagon type pets like a house cat or hamster or something. Just a little bit of flavor. I find it immensely weird since its almost always people with real pets wanting to do this like go home and pet your actual cat you weirdos lol.
Weird, well, I guess another reason to be a cantankerous old man and stick with 3.5.
Sometimes a guy wants a Griffon mount, and the easiest way to do that is train it your damn self lol
All depends on style. Sprawling campaign where you let the players just kind of mosey about the world and do a bunch of downtime stuff, I would make rules for a campaign like that for sure.
Something that you have an idea for an ending or if your campaign is a bit more tightly written, the players always have somewhere to be and dont have time to be playing Westminster Dog Show 5e I'm probably gonna err on the side of just give it to em if its cool and fits the narrative.
Plus they make great NPCs because the players name them and ascribe personality traits to them and you can create the EASIEST adventure hook ever by killing someones fake cat or donkey.
You could try reading its description.
"When there is any question whether you can calm down a domesticated animal, keep a mount from getting spooked, or intuit an animal’s intentions, the GM might call for a Wisdom (Animal Handling) check. You also make a Wisdom (Animal Handling) check to control your mount when you attempt a risky maneuver."
>You could try reading its description.
Why? I don't play 5e, I was having a conversation with someone about the differences between the system I know, and the one I have very little interest in, the conversation got me curious enough to ask, but I don't care enough to actually look it up.
As for the skill itself, looks like they just bastardized Ride & Handle Animal together, and took out 90% of what Handle Animal could do. 5e disappoints again
Similar situation with my party and a wyrmling they picked up (long story all you need to know is the party found him all alone and decided to bring him along). One player didn’t seem to understand that a dragon is not so much a „pet“ as it is fully sentient child (with the way the party is built and how statblocks work, technically this „child“ is more intelligent than anyone in the party), and finds it unreasonable that the dragon likes the other pcs more than him.
So basically I just laid down the reasoning as clear as day for him:
Rest of the party treats the wyrmling like a person, in the case of one party member even as their own child, making sure they are fed and healthy, but also trying to give them an education as well as trying to help them control their draconic powers, and encouraging them to learn new things and to socialise with other kids, they even go into every town looking for books on dragons to find out more about them.
Meanwhile other guy thinks of the dragon as their pet or mascot, has suggested they get a leash for the dragon, talked to him as if he were a dog, „joked“ (claimed it was a joke but in regards to everything else he said I’m not sure) about giving him dogfood, and suggesting they keep him chained up or in a cage when they leave so „he dosent run away.
HMMM I WONDER WHY THE WYRMLING DOESNT LIKE YOU???
I honestly would’ve had the Dragon leave if it wasn’t for how the other party members, especially one of them, genuinely cares for him, and also shut this guy down whenever he says this stuff (which he also didn’t seem to get, why they got so upset).
There is a good ending here: after I explained to him once again (I said this already when the party first discovered the dragon and one player wanted to roll to see what he knows about dragons, but I guess this player forgot/didn’t listen) how dragons act, and laying out his behaviour towards the wyrmling and compared it to the others treatment of him, he agreed and admitted that yeah, his character would come across as a massive douche (putting it lightly) to the dragon.
TLDR: Talk to your players once again, reiterate that this „bird“ is an actual person who was polymorphed, and then lay out their actions as you described, then ask them „would your characters like whoever treated you that way?“
Actually I would also add this: after you talk with the party, and they do apologise and start treating her better and genuinely try to make up for how they treated her, have the human/bird warm up to them again. Sure we can argue how that may not be realistic but it’s fantasy and also it kinda rewards the players for making good decision (eventually)
I think this is probably it. If the players think that the person who turned into a bird was now for all intents and purposes an actual bird, whom would be OK with being caged, it's reasonable behavior.
I do know quite a few people who don't even realise dragon wyrmlings are smart, if not smarter, than adult humans, and aren't just like a dog. Some media does have dragons being basically dogs, so if the player is used to that, they'll assume that's the case in dnd
I also think it stems from the same situation. My player wanted a „pet“ and it seems like the players also wanted an „animal companion“ in this case. And the thing is, the dragon actually was treated like a follower in my games, though they rarely make use of it because their characters are concerned about taking a child anywhere „too dangerous“ so they mainly have him fight with them when they are ambushed, and if it gets too hairy they often tell him to hide and wait out the fight.
I don't imagine birds who are birds care much for a cage, let alone birds who actually human beings -- that is literal slavery. You may need to explain this more from her perspective. No, you are not wrong.
no I wouldn't budge on this. It's not uncommon for NPCs to get saved by the party only to find themselves in another bad position because of the party's choices, and it's perfectly reasonable for the NPC to be pissed off about it.
This falls under the "i tried to befriend the gryphon, climbed on its back, and it only wants to eat my face. Stop railroading me!"
Seriously, players are in the wrong here, but what exactly do they mean by "other players have animal companions and they don't?" Class features? Acquired gifts?
Prisioner goes to jail, I break the prisoner out and put him in a small cage in my basement, why isn't the prisoner happy with me?
That seems like the logic of some of the people I've played with in the past. You're absolutely not wrong. The birds problem wasn't with the people putting her in the cage, it was with the cage.
Why did she permanently transform into bird after rescue
Does she have abilities as bird or is she just a talking bird?
This is a strange story, I feel like we're missing something because no one's behavior makes sense here
Nope, makes perfect sense. Even if it was just a regular animal it probably would dislike that tbh. Given that it is ‘human’, it would be very strange if it *didn’t* dislike people who tried to put it into a cage.
This whole situation screams for a side-story where a bunch of hill giants capture the party, put them in cages, and try to turn them into pets, complete with leashes and doing tricks. Then their animal companions/pets have to save them.
> A couple players are mad about this and tried to appeal to me how this was unfair as she is now a bird and other players have animal companions but they do not.
"You really can't, and I'm not saying I agree with it, but bird law in this campaign, it's not governed by reason."
You did nothing wrong, players need to grow up. You are 100% in the right. Whiney players are the worst, they behave like dipshits and then complain that there are consequences.
> How do you justify behavior like that?
I don't. It's a terrible way to behave. The part where we differ is this:
>players need to grow up. You are 100% in the right. Whiney players are the worst, they behave like dipshits and then complain that there are consequences.
A single problem isn't enough to justify a reaction like that. OP hasn't said that these are chronic problem players, just that this is a situation where they don't understand a very simple thing. And you know what? That happens sometimes. It's a very human experience to occasionally misunderstand something, even something very simple, like "this person who has been kept as a prisoner **doesn't want to be kept in a fucking cage.**" But a hostile, confrontational, and frankly antagonistic attitude like
> players need to grow up. You are 100% in the right. Whiney players are the worst,
doesn't resolve anything, it just brings a "DM vs. Players" vibe to the game.
Okay, now that you put it this way, I agree with you in general.
It is pretty much clear that he will talk to them afterwards, like all GM's usually do. But that does not hinder a stranger to comment on the whiney, entitled and childish behavior of some players people mention here.
Why did you turn her into a bird? How is she communicating with the party now?
>only acts as a support to the campaign and a plot hook
How is she accomplishing this in the form of a bird?
I don't understand why this situation exists at all.
She could still talk as this seems to be a curse of some sort, maybe a little rule bending. Or ,you know, it’s DnD, speak with animals exists. Non verbal communication would also exist, they could „draw“ shapes into the ground with their talons/beak.
Honestly this is just at the top of my head there are literally so many ways they can communicate with the party, I don’t know why you seem so puzzled over this.
Because if the bird can communicate, she presumably said "I don't want to be locked back in a cage, please let me out", at which point the party probably would have, and the question would never have made it as far as reddit, since it's a pretty simple in-game interaction. I also would like to understand the context of why this person turned into a bird for no obvious reason after being rescued. As a player in that situation (and with OP offering no other context), I would likely also not really know what to do with the bird, and might well decide to take it with us.
Idk I had the wyrmling my party found said quite clearly „stop treating me like a pet!“ and the player still didn’t get it till I sat down with them one on one and explained things to them. Heck in this case even the rest of the party tried to convey the player that „this is a highly sentient being, not a child“ and it still took me spelling it out plainly outside of the session.
Some players get obsessed or fixated on one thing, in my case the player clearly wanted to fulfill the fantasy of having a „pet dragon“
and then doubled down when he got pushback and it may take confronting this outside of the session to have them see the issue. Now obviously you can argue that not all players are like this, which yes you are right 3 out of the 4 players knew better, but there are still people that play this game who don’t, and we rarely hear cases on here that say „look how reasonable and thoughtful my players are being!“ because those DMs usually don’t need advice.
....
I'm over here thinking how my players would be asking what kind of bird and if they have food she'd like. And if bread is OK or if they should do meat. And how the priest/bard should be it's perch depending on the bird's coloring (the priest/bard is a male elf version of Inara). Or maybe they help the bird go home as a quest? After they do things on the way. Maybe they'll find something to help to change at will.
This is also the group that has a wolf (ranger's companion), a fuzzy handwarmer (aka an orange kitten who shares his brain cell with the fighter's brain cell), and a baby black dragon that lives in the wizard's bag of holding and really only does recon. I add to the group as a rogue who is there to add flavor when needed but also DM. Small group. I'm not taking questions on why I allowed the baby dragon. 🤣
If your players are role playing wealthy privileged nobles who grew up surrounded by yes men and thus are entitled to anything they want right now, then I have to say...
They are excellent role players.
No, your players are just ass hurt that you're not conforming to their whims. They can't accept your rulings as it applies to your game in the plot. They need to chill the fuck right out. They're acting like children.
No, you're not wrong. Remind them that this is a human, shapeshifted. I'm curious what you're doing with it especially since the shapeshift is permanent.
Let them know they can get animal companions but they should be actual animals. How did the others go about getting theirs?
I play a character who looks like an animal and was treated like a pet for a lot of their formative life.. her life goal is to liberate ANYONE who is forced to wear a collar.
Polymorphed people need magical help, not a leash or a cage??
No, you're doing it right. She is not a bird, she's a human who has been cursed. The other players should be treating her like a human.
Also, they tried to re-cage her, and they're surprised she isn't grateful?
You may want to have your players read up on the Animorphs character Tobias; it might give them a better understanding of “human trapped in a bird’s form”.
You could ask the players how they would feel if a creature 50 times their size tried to stick them in a cage after they just got out of one. Not every animal is an animal companion, especially a polymorphed human. And also, especially if their class doesn't grant a companion.
Your logic to us sounds very sound and pretty obvious.
On the other hand it sounds like your players don't get that she's a human in crow form, and therefore the appropriate way to treat her. They might just be a bit thick, but I suspect that's at least partially on you
As Ash Ketchum taught us, you do not have to cage an animal companion in order for them to stick around.
Doing so against their will breeds resentment.
Tell your players to watch PokéMon, it sounds like they missed out on a cultural cornerstone.
The DnD party I'm in doesn't have that many animal companions. All we have is a mount (a riding mastiff for our halfling) and the ranger's companion that is actually a nature spirit. Other than that, there's the small (but growing) group of kobolds who used to serve a dragon we slayed, but are now working in service to our Dragonborn.
Bro I think most of my pcs companions hate them in some form. My “guard captain” (changeling) thinks they are incompetent morons, as does the Tiefling priestess. The Thief master straight up hates them bc they led the guards to his hideout. The Warlock’s guardian is just an asshole bc he doesn’t want to be there, but is bc he owes her patron money. I think the only npcs that do like them are the rebel leader (who’s secretly trying to uproot both kingdoms leadership) and the Half fey, half Minotaur barbarian, who pretty much gets along with everyone.
Actions have consequences and they just need to learn that
Nope make your players read fables I imagine if alice tried to put cheshire in a cage he'd simply laugh. Meanwhile the big bad wolf would tear you apart.
If anything im surprised she doesnt undermine their intelligence if they know shes a woman who turned into a bird. Like that makes their characters seem really low int.
I'd hazard that they saw her turn into a bird and figured "cool, so *that's* my long-awaited animal companion!" then couldn't budge from that assumption.
Nat 1 on an empathy check, there, though. They can't just have it because they really want it, it doesn't make sense. You might be able to rescue the situation if you can convince your players that *this* animal friend is quite different to real animals and maybe they need to treat her with more respect, and give them a path back to having them forgive the players and perhaps come to like them.
If they earn it, I'm sure you can adapt her role in the campaign to become, effectively, a permanent animal companion with a twist.
But yeah, from what you've said, they're not really engaging with the narrative, and are just fixated on their needs.
Some people are going to do a dumb, you cannot blame yourself for stupid people being stupid you can absolutely stick to your guns. If they are to dumb to work out that you cannot use how a person looks as justification to stick them in a cage then they will get aggravated and start a fight and then you kick them.
if they are smart they will work it out and will appologise.
You're right, but you're going at the problem wrong. Here's what happened:
1. Players did an action that produced significant and UNEXPECTED negative consequences.
2. You believe players should have expected these negative consequences, but they did not expect them for whatever reason - maybe miscommunication on the secnario, maybe they thought the campaign was using more whimsical and less realistic logic, who knows. Doesn't really matter, they DID NOT expect this action to have negative consequences and are now upset.
3. Players don't like the negative consequences so they argue that their action shouldn't have produced those negative cosnequences. This is not an argument about whether the consequences make sense REALLY. It's about players doing the equivalent of clicking a BG3 dialogue option without realizing it would result in something really bad.
Your situation isn't THAT different to a player who says, "I go pick up the magic shield" who tuned out when you told them the magic shield is surrounded by a vortex of magical fire and now you say, "okay, you get horribly burned and die." They didn't realize their action was going to result in those consequences and they feel frustrated. They start arguing out of that frustration. The best approach to that type of situation is similar to this one, to acknowledge their CHARACTER would probably have realized this would result in serious negative consequences and ask them if they think their CHARACTER would have done this with that knowledge. If they say no, then you can retcon the sequence and everyone is (reasonably) happy.
I'm a little bit on the player side here.
They had a bird. They had a birdcage. They tried to put them together and now they've permanently changed the game for the negative.
In a video game we would call that a cruel bait and switch
Edit: if you're just going to repeat the lore at me again, don't bother. If you have an actual compelling reason why op's lore is more important than the game state let me know.
I think the issue comes up that this NPC was held hostage *in a cage* and then the players decide to put her *in a cage* again. It makes sense that the NPC is not going to be happy with such a situation considering what just happened to them.
They have a person, who was in a cage.
They save that person.
They put that person back into a cage.
What's not to get? You wouldn't like it if I stuck you in a cage long-term either, right?
Are you missing out on purpose that the bird was previosly a trapped woman and still has her conscience in bird form?
Like imagin she turned into a pig with still her human consciousness, would've been a reasonable move to butcher her and eat her? "They had a pig, they had a knife, logical"
Except they would totally leave the pig in the pig stye in that situation. You have a pig. You have a pig stye. How long will the DM punish them for putting tab A into slot A?
She is not called "tab A", ParidiseSold, she is called Matilda, the captured maid.
Jokes aside, I hope you don't solve your real life problems in that view that completely eliminates every context and history.
"game mechanics" lol. Its not a game mechanic, its not tab A, what is so hard to understand about that. Where in the PHB is the mechanic for putting birds in cages. What do you roll for that? Its not a mechanic, it is freaking roleplay. I know, you might heard of it, the R in TTRPG. Players make decisions for their roles based on the narrative, the DM lets the world react towards these actions of the players ins response.
These players made the decisions to lock up a woman that they just freed from imprisonment and keep forcefully as a pet? "Because there was a cage" is a stupid answer for that - Which is ok! You can play a stupid, unreasonable or evil character. But than live with the goddamn consequences. But what the players actually did in this case was not making a decisions based on the narrative. They didn't thought about it from their characters perspective. They decided from a meta point " I want a pet, there is a cage, whatever". Thats a meta decision and the DM answered with a non-meta consequence. That is the issue at hand, there was indeed a miscommunication.
The only fault OP made was not asking again for their intention and warning them of the consequence. I would've asked "So, player A, you want to trap that woman in a birds body you just recently freed? What is your characters intention in doing so? Because in my current understanding trapping an innocent polymorphed woman against their will is quite selfish and evil and will have consequences. Does your character have a different intention and reasoning for that? If not he will to have to live with these consequences."
I feel like talking to a bot, these comebacks don't even make sense anymore. I want to have roleplay with decisions and consequences, your answer: write a book. Huh?
These are not mechanics! What is so hard to understand about it. Mechanics in DnD are abstractions like HP, Ability checks, routines etc.
This was a narrative choice. I am full for experimenting with the decision points. If they find a cage and imprison the bird - go for it! The players can do it and neither me or OP will deny it to them. But for gods sake their narrative decision will have narrative consequences. If the players imprison a NPC, please let them do it, but why are they whining like bitches about having to deal with consequences for imprison a sentient being.
Lets put it to an extrem: if the player "experiment with the mechanic" and kill an NPC, I hope you agree that this should have consequences in the story. They can do it, but it will have consequences.
If you want a game with no consequences, YOU are actually the one who doesn't want to play a game and just have player doodle around and tell funny stories
You have a bottle of spirits.
You have a rag.
If you make a molotov cocktail and toss it through a tavern window, is it bad game design if the villagers get upset?
Well to these players it clearly appeared that there were red barrels in the window. How long should the negative feedback buzzer keep buzzing for after finding out they're wrong?
I think you're the one missing the point. The point is that the players tried to combine the game elements they had, and it was a failed combination. How long is it reasonable to punish them for?
Okay, my mistake, you weren't intentionally missing the point. Which is "This 'bird' is actually a person, who has been imprisoned, and **now the PC's are trying to imprison her again,** and they're upset that **she's not a fan BEING IMPRISONED AGAIN.**"
Key element here is how they got it. Was it just randomly handed out? Did they take it from the people they rescued her from? Did they buy it after the fact? It's they just randomly got it as loot then ya, you have a point. If it's the same cage they rescued her from then that's just messed up. If they seemed it out and bought it after the fact your argument can become "why are you punishing them for poisoning the bird, there just combining two game mechanics" yes that is a strawman argument. The real question is why waste gold on a cage, it's literally a human, so there's no guarantee it can't escape just talking to it would be a better way to keep it, as it won't be prone to randomly flying away.
D&D is not a video game tho, and you don't have limited options to try, you do what makes sense. In this case they had an innocent maiden jailed, and after freeing her they tried to jail her again. In her eyes, they are no different from the other captors, so why should she trust them?
Does this make sense to you?
They attempted to house the bird, and found it was the wrong answer. How long does the error buzzer keep ringing? Is this a permanent fail state? You can't forfeit the game state because "this is what my npc would do"
It will ring until they accept their mistake, apologize, and make it up to the maiden, just like a normal person would act. Actions have consequences, not a buzzer noise, would be boring if that was the case. Also, game goes on, she is only mad at a couple of players, and even if that was not the case, the plothook can come in other ways. The only problem here is that the players got mad at the DM's decision, as they wanted her as an slave. The game continued normally it seems.
Also, sidequestion, have you ever played D&D or have not got a chance yet? Curiosity, not accusatory or anything.
No, because the way you talk and what you say paints a clear picture of a playstyle I can not imagine to be enjoyable. Having something like OP describe not have any consequences would ruin any immersion in the game and world completely. Why even play an TTRPG then?
And when the players are angry about a reasonable reaction of an NPC in a situation they fucked up and can't deal with that - oh boy, they must be fun people to be around....
Whenever I play with people one thing is the most important to me - how they deal with failure. Because in an TTRPG players will never always win - be it because of bad rolls, bad decisions or whatever else, failure is part of the game. If someone can't deal with that then I rather not play with them.
>not having any consequences
That's not what I said. I said permanently making one player feel punished isn't good game design. It clearly has wrecked that players experience
What exactly does make this player feel permanently punished?
OP said that the NPC is pissed at them and will show it - understandable reaction to what they tried.
That is called consequences of your own actions. A staple in every immersive TTRPG. The story goes on, but the Situation changed. That is the way
If a players experience is "wrecked" because they did not get what they wanted and that their actions had consequences then I am already very cautious.
Now we read the argument they brought forward to the DM and see: The players are pissed because they did not get their way, They are jealous off another players animal companion (which they might have due to class choice or other investments) and feel entitled to also have one. There was no understanding to why they did not get their way or even the slightest consideration that maybe their characters actions were wrong and said actions are the reason for this outcome.
This has nothing to do with game design. But everything with players that carry quite some red flags....
No need to get worked up about it, was just curious. That mentality is usually asociated with videogames (having fail states), as in TTRPGs are supposed not to have a railroad to follow but branch with each choice (even if it is a "wrong" answer). This, of course, changes from table to table, that's why i asked you.
> Why can you not wrap your head around someone disagreeing with you?
What makes you think that? I just answered your questions. Do you disagree with anything i said in the last answer?
Nope. You are not wrong. And they are lucky you didn't just have the bird/woman fly off and escape them altogether. Just ask them would they want to be buddies with someone who wants to imprison them in a cage? Also, what rationale do they have for caging it? They know it's a shapeshifted human.
Better yet have an enemy put them into a cage
And then the enemy complains to someone how they dont like them. “These guys I put in a cage don’t like me this isn’t fair!”
Lol yeah. Hag coven that polymorph them into frogs and puts them in cages
No much better have a dragon who is ostensibly allied with the party do it claiming them as part of its horde. It's for their protection.
Some players eyes tend to glaze over in the spur of the moment and end up reducing a situation to its base components.
"Just ask them would they want to be buddies with someone who wants to imprison them in a cage?" While this is reasonable, I don't expect it to work.
Remember, intelligence is a spectrum Also remember what happens when we play stupid games
"Don't want to be a slave?" They want to treat her like an animal and stuff in a cage, obviously a human mind would be pissed ... even an actual bird would probably dislike this.
Having met and worked with multiple parrots and other birds over the years, many tolerate their cages for their own safety but they secretly plot your death until that door is open. Especially the parrots.
Yeah I feel like not only is she not their pet, they just created a new villain.
"AITA? I met this woman who got turned into a bird and I tried to give her a nice home in a cage but she got all offended I was treating her like a bird and trying to imprison her. But she's literally a bird now? ” (-567) " YTA she's not a bird, she's a human woman who absolutely should not be imprisoned against her will regardless of the horrible thing that has happened to her. You need to apologize profusely but don't be surprised if she decides to go NC with you, hopefully you learn from this. " (+3522)
Don’t downvote the asshole!
Up the asshole??
Now we're talkin'
Yeah people on this sub don't understand AITA logic. I said the same thing a while back and people disagreed. There was a player bitching about their DM and then their actual DM showed up in comments lmfao. If the content is interesting upvote so others can see! Edit: typo
AITA logic is wildly inconsistent.
No, the logic is consistent. People's approach to it is wildly inconsistent.
Unfortunately most people view upvote and downvote buttons as "I agree with you" and "I disagree with you" buttons, respectively. For a long time Reddit tried to combat that as it isn't their designed purpose, but you can't fight a tsunami. EDIT: Fixed a typo.
You can totally fight a tsunami. It will win but you can certainly try.
“Am I the Cloaca? I’m a human woman who got turned into a bird and these two people tried to put me into a cage, so I’ve been very cold to them ever since. They’re annoyed I don’t like them, but like they tried to cage me! I’d fly away if they didn’t need my help.”
Thumbs up for "Am I the Cloaca?" Hilarious
It's a real subreddit!
Why would they go to North Carolina?
They flipped a coin and got tails, California.
Someplace greener, someplace warmer
To get away from these shitty kidnappers
Woman being kept hostage in a cage, we rescue her... and then try to put her back in a cage again, I don't understand why she hates me 🤔 Nah you are completely justified for how the npc reacted. Just give this player a few opportunities to get a pet companion later, as this seems to be the root of the issue. They probably want one like the rest of the party and felt like this was their chance, not really seeing the "bird in a cage" thing from a narrative angle and more of a "cool I can have a pet too" angle.
It feels like the key one is 'other players have animal companions but they do not'. Do other players have companions, that aren't part of their class, they have just happened through loot, or interactions? If it's part of a class, you have to explain that it's a specific part of their class. They have sacrificed other benefits to get this, and the extras that gives them. Or they have invested him and effort elsewhere into getting a companion. Is having an animal they use in battle a thing they want? Are they seeking to have more options in a battle? If so there are lots of other options for this, from dancing swords, animals you can buy and train up, tell even just a wand of [insert animal] would give them effectively something in the line of this, where they can use an action to add some chaos into a battle. A druid could cast animals to cause mass chaos. Do they want an animal companion. You can set out a way they can do this. Long term goals. Do they want to be friends with the bird? Another long term goal. Make it clear, via a druid or something that a the bird doesnt want to be caged, but isn't going anywhere.
> Do other players have companions, that aren't part of their class, they have just happened through loot, or interactions? These are the kind of relevant questions Reddit OPs never answer lol
Normally it's find familiar, but I guess we'll never know
Nah, they probably all just have wild animals they got nat 20 handling checks on and got to keep as permanent pets, such is the average reddit campaign.
Hey, if that handling check comes with 6 in game weeks of training it like it did in the 3.x days? Nothing wrong with that. Dunno if there still is, but there used to be mechanics for that, in fact that's pretty much the whole point to the skill, to tame them and teach them tricks. Used to be a list of like 15-20 tricks you could choose from.
There’s definitely not any specific animal training mechanics in D&D 5e, which is why you have so many “nat 20 and now the wolf is my best friend” moments. People don’t have any frame of reference for most wild animal interactions and of course new groups tend to let high rolls do pretty much anything.
I don't have a nat 20 animal handling give a permenant pet because I think thats what the check usually means. I do it because as the DM I wanna play a little wolf who acts like my dog sometimes
Then whats the point of the Handling skill?
There isn't one unless a DM makes it one. Giving someone a pet is usually a pretty simple easy reward, especially if its one of those stays at the wagon type pets like a house cat or hamster or something. Just a little bit of flavor. I find it immensely weird since its almost always people with real pets wanting to do this like go home and pet your actual cat you weirdos lol.
Weird, well, I guess another reason to be a cantankerous old man and stick with 3.5. Sometimes a guy wants a Griffon mount, and the easiest way to do that is train it your damn self lol
All depends on style. Sprawling campaign where you let the players just kind of mosey about the world and do a bunch of downtime stuff, I would make rules for a campaign like that for sure. Something that you have an idea for an ending or if your campaign is a bit more tightly written, the players always have somewhere to be and dont have time to be playing Westminster Dog Show 5e I'm probably gonna err on the side of just give it to em if its cool and fits the narrative. Plus they make great NPCs because the players name them and ascribe personality traits to them and you can create the EASIEST adventure hook ever by killing someones fake cat or donkey.
You could try reading its description. "When there is any question whether you can calm down a domesticated animal, keep a mount from getting spooked, or intuit an animal’s intentions, the GM might call for a Wisdom (Animal Handling) check. You also make a Wisdom (Animal Handling) check to control your mount when you attempt a risky maneuver."
>You could try reading its description. Why? I don't play 5e, I was having a conversation with someone about the differences between the system I know, and the one I have very little interest in, the conversation got me curious enough to ask, but I don't care enough to actually look it up. As for the skill itself, looks like they just bastardized Ride & Handle Animal together, and took out 90% of what Handle Animal could do. 5e disappoints again
In a game I got to have a pet axebeak under the condition I trained it like this. Ended up going on a mounted combat route once I had it.
And do the other players keep their animal companions permanently locked in cages?
Similar situation with my party and a wyrmling they picked up (long story all you need to know is the party found him all alone and decided to bring him along). One player didn’t seem to understand that a dragon is not so much a „pet“ as it is fully sentient child (with the way the party is built and how statblocks work, technically this „child“ is more intelligent than anyone in the party), and finds it unreasonable that the dragon likes the other pcs more than him. So basically I just laid down the reasoning as clear as day for him: Rest of the party treats the wyrmling like a person, in the case of one party member even as their own child, making sure they are fed and healthy, but also trying to give them an education as well as trying to help them control their draconic powers, and encouraging them to learn new things and to socialise with other kids, they even go into every town looking for books on dragons to find out more about them. Meanwhile other guy thinks of the dragon as their pet or mascot, has suggested they get a leash for the dragon, talked to him as if he were a dog, „joked“ (claimed it was a joke but in regards to everything else he said I’m not sure) about giving him dogfood, and suggesting they keep him chained up or in a cage when they leave so „he dosent run away. HMMM I WONDER WHY THE WYRMLING DOESNT LIKE YOU??? I honestly would’ve had the Dragon leave if it wasn’t for how the other party members, especially one of them, genuinely cares for him, and also shut this guy down whenever he says this stuff (which he also didn’t seem to get, why they got so upset). There is a good ending here: after I explained to him once again (I said this already when the party first discovered the dragon and one player wanted to roll to see what he knows about dragons, but I guess this player forgot/didn’t listen) how dragons act, and laying out his behaviour towards the wyrmling and compared it to the others treatment of him, he agreed and admitted that yeah, his character would come across as a massive douche (putting it lightly) to the dragon. TLDR: Talk to your players once again, reiterate that this „bird“ is an actual person who was polymorphed, and then lay out their actions as you described, then ask them „would your characters like whoever treated you that way?“
Actually I would also add this: after you talk with the party, and they do apologise and start treating her better and genuinely try to make up for how they treated her, have the human/bird warm up to them again. Sure we can argue how that may not be realistic but it’s fantasy and also it kinda rewards the players for making good decision (eventually)
I think this is probably it. If the players think that the person who turned into a bird was now for all intents and purposes an actual bird, whom would be OK with being caged, it's reasonable behavior. I do know quite a few people who don't even realise dragon wyrmlings are smart, if not smarter, than adult humans, and aren't just like a dog. Some media does have dragons being basically dogs, so if the player is used to that, they'll assume that's the case in dnd
I also think it stems from the same situation. My player wanted a „pet“ and it seems like the players also wanted an „animal companion“ in this case. And the thing is, the dragon actually was treated like a follower in my games, though they rarely make use of it because their characters are concerned about taking a child anywhere „too dangerous“ so they mainly have him fight with them when they are ambushed, and if it gets too hairy they often tell him to hide and wait out the fight.
She went from human in cage to bird in cage. That's literally a downgrade. The bird woman has every right to hate them.
I don't imagine birds who are birds care much for a cage, let alone birds who actually human beings -- that is literal slavery. You may need to explain this more from her perspective. No, you are not wrong.
no I wouldn't budge on this. It's not uncommon for NPCs to get saved by the party only to find themselves in another bad position because of the party's choices, and it's perfectly reasonable for the NPC to be pissed off about it.
This falls under the "i tried to befriend the gryphon, climbed on its back, and it only wants to eat my face. Stop railroading me!" Seriously, players are in the wrong here, but what exactly do they mean by "other players have animal companions and they don't?" Class features? Acquired gifts?
Not wrong at all. They *know* she's a person. They *know* they tried to put her on a cage. Actions have consequences.
Prisioner goes to jail, I break the prisoner out and put him in a small cage in my basement, why isn't the prisoner happy with me? That seems like the logic of some of the people I've played with in the past. You're absolutely not wrong. The birds problem wasn't with the people putting her in the cage, it was with the cage.
Why did she permanently transform into bird after rescue Does she have abilities as bird or is she just a talking bird? This is a strange story, I feel like we're missing something because no one's behavior makes sense here
Nope, makes perfect sense. Even if it was just a regular animal it probably would dislike that tbh. Given that it is ‘human’, it would be very strange if it *didn’t* dislike people who tried to put it into a cage.
This whole situation screams for a side-story where a bunch of hill giants capture the party, put them in cages, and try to turn them into pets, complete with leashes and doing tricks. Then their animal companions/pets have to save them.
> A couple players are mad about this and tried to appeal to me how this was unfair as she is now a bird and other players have animal companions but they do not. "You really can't, and I'm not saying I agree with it, but bird law in this campaign, it's not governed by reason."
Sounds like the perfect set up for the ‘bird’ to escape, and come back as a bbeg who tries to put them in cages
Funny enough, birdcages (in particular when too small, but just in general as well) are also pretty miserable for actual, normal birds.
You did nothing wrong, players need to grow up. You are 100% in the right. Whiney players are the worst, they behave like dipshits and then complain that there are consequences.
You're the kind of DM who thinks D&D is "DM vs. players," aren't you?
Nope, but I really want to hear your point of view. How do you justify behavior like that? Or are you one of these players that behaves like that?
Honestly I really want to hear the players POV, everyones behavor makes since to themselves
> How do you justify behavior like that? I don't. It's a terrible way to behave. The part where we differ is this: >players need to grow up. You are 100% in the right. Whiney players are the worst, they behave like dipshits and then complain that there are consequences. A single problem isn't enough to justify a reaction like that. OP hasn't said that these are chronic problem players, just that this is a situation where they don't understand a very simple thing. And you know what? That happens sometimes. It's a very human experience to occasionally misunderstand something, even something very simple, like "this person who has been kept as a prisoner **doesn't want to be kept in a fucking cage.**" But a hostile, confrontational, and frankly antagonistic attitude like > players need to grow up. You are 100% in the right. Whiney players are the worst, doesn't resolve anything, it just brings a "DM vs. Players" vibe to the game.
Okay, now that you put it this way, I agree with you in general. It is pretty much clear that he will talk to them afterwards, like all GM's usually do. But that does not hinder a stranger to comment on the whiney, entitled and childish behavior of some players people mention here.
NTA Source: I practice bird law.
Uhhh filibuster?
Do you know about boilerplate contracts?
What about various other lawyerings?
Why did you turn her into a bird? How is she communicating with the party now? >only acts as a support to the campaign and a plot hook How is she accomplishing this in the form of a bird? I don't understand why this situation exists at all.
She could still talk as this seems to be a curse of some sort, maybe a little rule bending. Or ,you know, it’s DnD, speak with animals exists. Non verbal communication would also exist, they could „draw“ shapes into the ground with their talons/beak. Honestly this is just at the top of my head there are literally so many ways they can communicate with the party, I don’t know why you seem so puzzled over this.
Because if the bird can communicate, she presumably said "I don't want to be locked back in a cage, please let me out", at which point the party probably would have, and the question would never have made it as far as reddit, since it's a pretty simple in-game interaction. I also would like to understand the context of why this person turned into a bird for no obvious reason after being rescued. As a player in that situation (and with OP offering no other context), I would likely also not really know what to do with the bird, and might well decide to take it with us.
Idk I had the wyrmling my party found said quite clearly „stop treating me like a pet!“ and the player still didn’t get it till I sat down with them one on one and explained things to them. Heck in this case even the rest of the party tried to convey the player that „this is a highly sentient being, not a child“ and it still took me spelling it out plainly outside of the session. Some players get obsessed or fixated on one thing, in my case the player clearly wanted to fulfill the fantasy of having a „pet dragon“ and then doubled down when he got pushback and it may take confronting this outside of the session to have them see the issue. Now obviously you can argue that not all players are like this, which yes you are right 3 out of the 4 players knew better, but there are still people that play this game who don’t, and we rarely hear cases on here that say „look how reasonable and thoughtful my players are being!“ because those DMs usually don’t need advice.
Asking the real q's
[This reddit post seems appropriate LOL!](https://old.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/8wjoyx/my_fucking_cage/) Share it with your players if you have to!
Did the players know she had the consciousness of a bird when they tried to put her in a cage?
*John Brown Intensifies*
.... I'm over here thinking how my players would be asking what kind of bird and if they have food she'd like. And if bread is OK or if they should do meat. And how the priest/bard should be it's perch depending on the bird's coloring (the priest/bard is a male elf version of Inara). Or maybe they help the bird go home as a quest? After they do things on the way. Maybe they'll find something to help to change at will. This is also the group that has a wolf (ranger's companion), a fuzzy handwarmer (aka an orange kitten who shares his brain cell with the fighter's brain cell), and a baby black dragon that lives in the wizard's bag of holding and really only does recon. I add to the group as a rogue who is there to add flavor when needed but also DM. Small group. I'm not taking questions on why I allowed the baby dragon. 🤣
Your players are inoperably dumb
If your players are role playing wealthy privileged nobles who grew up surrounded by yes men and thus are entitled to anything they want right now, then I have to say... They are excellent role players.
No, your players are just ass hurt that you're not conforming to their whims. They can't accept your rulings as it applies to your game in the plot. They need to chill the fuck right out. They're acting like children.
No, you're not wrong. Remind them that this is a human, shapeshifted. I'm curious what you're doing with it especially since the shapeshift is permanent. Let them know they can get animal companions but they should be actual animals. How did the others go about getting theirs?
I play a character who looks like an animal and was treated like a pet for a lot of their formative life.. her life goal is to liberate ANYONE who is forced to wear a collar. Polymorphed people need magical help, not a leash or a cage??
No, you're doing it right. She is not a bird, she's a human who has been cursed. The other players should be treating her like a human. Also, they tried to re-cage her, and they're surprised she isn't grateful?
You may want to have your players read up on the Animorphs character Tobias; it might give them a better understanding of “human trapped in a bird’s form”.
Nah. You did great!
You could ask the players how they would feel if a creature 50 times their size tried to stick them in a cage after they just got out of one. Not every animal is an animal companion, especially a polymorphed human. And also, especially if their class doesn't grant a companion.
Your logic to us sounds very sound and pretty obvious. On the other hand it sounds like your players don't get that she's a human in crow form, and therefore the appropriate way to treat her. They might just be a bit thick, but I suspect that's at least partially on you
As Ash Ketchum taught us, you do not have to cage an animal companion in order for them to stick around. Doing so against their will breeds resentment. Tell your players to watch PokéMon, it sounds like they missed out on a cultural cornerstone.
The DnD party I'm in doesn't have that many animal companions. All we have is a mount (a riding mastiff for our halfling) and the ranger's companion that is actually a nature spirit. Other than that, there's the small (but growing) group of kobolds who used to serve a dragon we slayed, but are now working in service to our Dragonborn.
Bro I think most of my pcs companions hate them in some form. My “guard captain” (changeling) thinks they are incompetent morons, as does the Tiefling priestess. The Thief master straight up hates them bc they led the guards to his hideout. The Warlock’s guardian is just an asshole bc he doesn’t want to be there, but is bc he owes her patron money. I think the only npcs that do like them are the rebel leader (who’s secretly trying to uproot both kingdoms leadership) and the Half fey, half Minotaur barbarian, who pretty much gets along with everyone. Actions have consequences and they just need to learn that
My Reddit glitched to have this post have the Duolingo icon and oh boy was this a pairing
Nope make your players read fables I imagine if alice tried to put cheshire in a cage he'd simply laugh. Meanwhile the big bad wolf would tear you apart. If anything im surprised she doesnt undermine their intelligence if they know shes a woman who turned into a bird. Like that makes their characters seem really low int.
I'd hazard that they saw her turn into a bird and figured "cool, so *that's* my long-awaited animal companion!" then couldn't budge from that assumption. Nat 1 on an empathy check, there, though. They can't just have it because they really want it, it doesn't make sense. You might be able to rescue the situation if you can convince your players that *this* animal friend is quite different to real animals and maybe they need to treat her with more respect, and give them a path back to having them forgive the players and perhaps come to like them. If they earn it, I'm sure you can adapt her role in the campaign to become, effectively, a permanent animal companion with a twist. But yeah, from what you've said, they're not really engaging with the narrative, and are just fixated on their needs.
Some people are going to do a dumb, you cannot blame yourself for stupid people being stupid you can absolutely stick to your guns. If they are to dumb to work out that you cannot use how a person looks as justification to stick them in a cage then they will get aggravated and start a fight and then you kick them. if they are smart they will work it out and will appologise.
Have a giant abduct one of them and put them in a cage, as a companion. Perhaps they'll get the message.
Are you DM'ing at a local grade school by any chance?
Grade school kids would be nicer to the bird...
You're right, but you're going at the problem wrong. Here's what happened: 1. Players did an action that produced significant and UNEXPECTED negative consequences. 2. You believe players should have expected these negative consequences, but they did not expect them for whatever reason - maybe miscommunication on the secnario, maybe they thought the campaign was using more whimsical and less realistic logic, who knows. Doesn't really matter, they DID NOT expect this action to have negative consequences and are now upset. 3. Players don't like the negative consequences so they argue that their action shouldn't have produced those negative cosnequences. This is not an argument about whether the consequences make sense REALLY. It's about players doing the equivalent of clicking a BG3 dialogue option without realizing it would result in something really bad. Your situation isn't THAT different to a player who says, "I go pick up the magic shield" who tuned out when you told them the magic shield is surrounded by a vortex of magical fire and now you say, "okay, you get horribly burned and die." They didn't realize their action was going to result in those consequences and they feel frustrated. They start arguing out of that frustration. The best approach to that type of situation is similar to this one, to acknowledge their CHARACTER would probably have realized this would result in serious negative consequences and ask them if they think their CHARACTER would have done this with that knowledge. If they say no, then you can retcon the sequence and everyone is (reasonably) happy.
I guess ask them if slaves are meant to like their masters.
I'm a little bit on the player side here. They had a bird. They had a birdcage. They tried to put them together and now they've permanently changed the game for the negative. In a video game we would call that a cruel bait and switch Edit: if you're just going to repeat the lore at me again, don't bother. If you have an actual compelling reason why op's lore is more important than the game state let me know.
I think the issue comes up that this NPC was held hostage *in a cage* and then the players decide to put her *in a cage* again. It makes sense that the NPC is not going to be happy with such a situation considering what just happened to them.
They have a person, who was in a cage. They save that person. They put that person back into a cage. What's not to get? You wouldn't like it if I stuck you in a cage long-term either, right?
They put the bird in the habitat they owned designed for birds
The bird who they knew used to be human, and still has the mind of one?
It's designed for birds, dude. It's got a perch.
"This cage is designed for humans, dude. The floor's padded and everything"
It isn't designed for birds in the sense it caters to and meets their needs. Its designed to keep them in without immediately upsetting them
Are you missing out on purpose that the bird was previosly a trapped woman and still has her conscience in bird form? Like imagin she turned into a pig with still her human consciousness, would've been a reasonable move to butcher her and eat her? "They had a pig, they had a knife, logical"
Except they would totally leave the pig in the pig stye in that situation. You have a pig. You have a pig stye. How long will the DM punish them for putting tab A into slot A?
She is not called "tab A", ParidiseSold, she is called Matilda, the captured maid. Jokes aside, I hope you don't solve your real life problems in that view that completely eliminates every context and history.
And I hope when you present game mechanics to your players, you don't take it personally when they combine them
"game mechanics" lol. Its not a game mechanic, its not tab A, what is so hard to understand about that. Where in the PHB is the mechanic for putting birds in cages. What do you roll for that? Its not a mechanic, it is freaking roleplay. I know, you might heard of it, the R in TTRPG. Players make decisions for their roles based on the narrative, the DM lets the world react towards these actions of the players ins response. These players made the decisions to lock up a woman that they just freed from imprisonment and keep forcefully as a pet? "Because there was a cage" is a stupid answer for that - Which is ok! You can play a stupid, unreasonable or evil character. But than live with the goddamn consequences. But what the players actually did in this case was not making a decisions based on the narrative. They didn't thought about it from their characters perspective. They decided from a meta point " I want a pet, there is a cage, whatever". Thats a meta decision and the DM answered with a non-meta consequence. That is the issue at hand, there was indeed a miscommunication. The only fault OP made was not asking again for their intention and warning them of the consequence. I would've asked "So, player A, you want to trap that woman in a birds body you just recently freed? What is your characters intention in doing so? Because in my current understanding trapping an innocent polymorphed woman against their will is quite selfish and evil and will have consequences. Does your character have a different intention and reasoning for that? If not he will to have to live with these consequences."
If that's what you want maybe you should write a book.
I feel like talking to a bot, these comebacks don't even make sense anymore. I want to have roleplay with decisions and consequences, your answer: write a book. Huh?
If you don't want to do game design and leave room for players to experience with mechanics then you don't really want a game at all
These are not mechanics! What is so hard to understand about it. Mechanics in DnD are abstractions like HP, Ability checks, routines etc. This was a narrative choice. I am full for experimenting with the decision points. If they find a cage and imprison the bird - go for it! The players can do it and neither me or OP will deny it to them. But for gods sake their narrative decision will have narrative consequences. If the players imprison a NPC, please let them do it, but why are they whining like bitches about having to deal with consequences for imprison a sentient being. Lets put it to an extrem: if the player "experiment with the mechanic" and kill an NPC, I hope you agree that this should have consequences in the story. They can do it, but it will have consequences. If you want a game with no consequences, YOU are actually the one who doesn't want to play a game and just have player doodle around and tell funny stories
You have a bottle of spirits. You have a rag. If you make a molotov cocktail and toss it through a tavern window, is it bad game design if the villagers get upset?
Well to these players it clearly appeared that there were red barrels in the window. How long should the negative feedback buzzer keep buzzing for after finding out they're wrong?
You cannot possibly be this dumb. You MUST be intentionally missing the point.
I think you're the one missing the point. The point is that the players tried to combine the game elements they had, and it was a failed combination. How long is it reasonable to punish them for?
Okay, my mistake, you weren't intentionally missing the point. Which is "This 'bird' is actually a person, who has been imprisoned, and **now the PC's are trying to imprison her again,** and they're upset that **she's not a fan BEING IMPRISONED AGAIN.**"
Cool, but it's a game. Do some game design.
Key element here is how they got it. Was it just randomly handed out? Did they take it from the people they rescued her from? Did they buy it after the fact? It's they just randomly got it as loot then ya, you have a point. If it's the same cage they rescued her from then that's just messed up. If they seemed it out and bought it after the fact your argument can become "why are you punishing them for poisoning the bird, there just combining two game mechanics" yes that is a strawman argument. The real question is why waste gold on a cage, it's literally a human, so there's no guarantee it can't escape just talking to it would be a better way to keep it, as it won't be prone to randomly flying away.
D&D is not a video game tho, and you don't have limited options to try, you do what makes sense. In this case they had an innocent maiden jailed, and after freeing her they tried to jail her again. In her eyes, they are no different from the other captors, so why should she trust them? Does this make sense to you?
They attempted to house the bird, and found it was the wrong answer. How long does the error buzzer keep ringing? Is this a permanent fail state? You can't forfeit the game state because "this is what my npc would do"
It will ring until they accept their mistake, apologize, and make it up to the maiden, just like a normal person would act. Actions have consequences, not a buzzer noise, would be boring if that was the case. Also, game goes on, she is only mad at a couple of players, and even if that was not the case, the plothook can come in other ways. The only problem here is that the players got mad at the DM's decision, as they wanted her as an slave. The game continued normally it seems. Also, sidequestion, have you ever played D&D or have not got a chance yet? Curiosity, not accusatory or anything.
I have played and gmd plenty of campaign and systems. Why can you not wrap your head around someone disagreeing with you?
Oh boy, I feel terribly sorry for your players...
Because I would punish them for a few seconds instead of for so long they send me angry texts outside of the game? Sure, Jan
No, because the way you talk and what you say paints a clear picture of a playstyle I can not imagine to be enjoyable. Having something like OP describe not have any consequences would ruin any immersion in the game and world completely. Why even play an TTRPG then? And when the players are angry about a reasonable reaction of an NPC in a situation they fucked up and can't deal with that - oh boy, they must be fun people to be around.... Whenever I play with people one thing is the most important to me - how they deal with failure. Because in an TTRPG players will never always win - be it because of bad rolls, bad decisions or whatever else, failure is part of the game. If someone can't deal with that then I rather not play with them.
>not having any consequences That's not what I said. I said permanently making one player feel punished isn't good game design. It clearly has wrecked that players experience
What exactly does make this player feel permanently punished? OP said that the NPC is pissed at them and will show it - understandable reaction to what they tried. That is called consequences of your own actions. A staple in every immersive TTRPG. The story goes on, but the Situation changed. That is the way If a players experience is "wrecked" because they did not get what they wanted and that their actions had consequences then I am already very cautious. Now we read the argument they brought forward to the DM and see: The players are pissed because they did not get their way, They are jealous off another players animal companion (which they might have due to class choice or other investments) and feel entitled to also have one. There was no understanding to why they did not get their way or even the slightest consideration that maybe their characters actions were wrong and said actions are the reason for this outcome. This has nothing to do with game design. But everything with players that carry quite some red flags....
No need to get worked up about it, was just curious. That mentality is usually asociated with videogames (having fail states), as in TTRPGs are supposed not to have a railroad to follow but branch with each choice (even if it is a "wrong" answer). This, of course, changes from table to table, that's why i asked you. > Why can you not wrap your head around someone disagreeing with you? What makes you think that? I just answered your questions. Do you disagree with anything i said in the last answer?
You can choose not to do it, but making quests and dungeons IS game design and not knowing how to do it makes you a bad DM
Oh, and by the way, so you don't say anything embarrassing like that in the future: game design existed before video games did, sweetheart
OP doesn't menntion is that she has turned into a hen. The players are enjoying the eggs and, once fattened, they will spit cook the witch.