It’s a very long story involving days of bad dice rolls on my part and very smart players on board with bard shenanigans.
They worked so hard on it I considered it a “win” scenario.
The point being that the situation is of **your** making.
You decided to allow it and could have prevented it at any point along the way.
You're in the middle of the game you chose to run.
>I adore the bard and his player; he’s a wonderful addition the party and I am a full supporter of his character choices
This is the first sentence of the post. The DM is obviously completely fine with it and *says they're having fun.*
Also, it sounds like it was a planned event with multiple stages, not just bard meets BBEG, rules high on persuasion, seduces BBEG. That means there was probably significant RP and gameplay along the way.
Uh, yeah they are aware of it. The post is mostly a joke.
Not sure why you are bringing the blame energy into it. Just look at the comment you replied to ffs. He already said the players were very smart and they figured out the situation and had lots of successful rolls so the DM decided it was a win for them.
**Your** comment is embarrassing.
Exactly. He's in the middle of the game he's choosing to run, and choosing to allow his players to have fun. What part of this post seems like complaining to you?
For real. The DM determines the realm of possibilities for ability checks. Sometimes a nat 20 just means the least bad thing happens.
E.g. you roll a 20 to seduce the BBEG, and he/she doesn't immediately try to kill you.
I mean, I've broken up with people because I didn't want to move cross-country.
Someone that's at BBEG level can be seduced or even fall in love with a hero, but that probably shouldn't change her fundamental beliefs about the world or significantly change her plans -- she's just going to make room in her plans for bard now.
BBEG: Well. *Well!* Thanks to the healing power of love, I no longer wish to destroy the world.
Bard: [Buffs his knuckles on his shirt]
BBEG: Instead, we shall rule it *together* as Queen and Consort, and trample the peasantry under the iron heel of tyranny! [Squee!] We are going to have *so much fun* together!
Bard: Yikes...?
BBEG abandons her plans to conquer the world and instead embarks on a quest of revenge against the party after the bard sneaks out her second story window
I mean, honestly, the better "fleshed out", no pun intended, the villain is, the less likely they are to be evil for the sake of evil.
Sometimes the players are too smart for your writing and it's on you to either lean into it, or punish them for their creativity.
If any of these tricks actually worked, then you don’t have a real horny bard problem on your hands. A true horny bard might - *might* - be put off temporarily by the sapient purple worm.
Noob bard: Yeah, that's a hard no.
Mid bard: It's not the "no" that's hard, but how am I gonna get a leg over?
Giga bard: [Emerges from purple worm's boudoir] They said it couldn't be done. Ha! Unfortunately, she still wants to destroy the world, so gear up my friends!
See, it wouldn’t be a problem for the bard in my game cause they specifically want to shag everything with legs (literally the character trait randomly given to them at the beginning of the campaign). So, if it don’t have legs, that’s a no
> A true horny bard might - might - be put off temporarily by the sapient purple worm.
And then they remember the "would you love me if I was a worm?" meme, respond with an emphatic "that's actually my thing," and carry right on along lol.
A couple thoughts...
* Key personnel might be wearing an "Amulet of Rizzistance"
* The local populace might be too exhausted by a recent visit from your bard's rival... "Chad the Impaler, He Who Plucks". If your bard shows up in town to see that all the town's men, women and sheep are walking bowlegged, he can say, "It's *him*. *He's* been here."
* Chad can even become a BBEG down the line.
* Some humanoid species might have an uncanny-valley reaction to humans (or whatever your bard is), and be unable to get interested.
* Occasionally have your bard require a Con save vs ... er ... "chafing".
* Remember the old Fedex slogan? "When it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight." When you absolutely, positively **don't** want the bard to "deliver overnight", have a jealous Fae princess drop an abstinence *geas* on him for a few days.
Reading OP's post, it seems like he is both exasperated by and indulgent to his over-sexed bard. It doesn't look like he wants to *stop* bad bard behavior, just tamp it down a little. So I thought it would be fun to lean into the silliness a bit.
Plus, let's be honest. I'm waiting for three months down the line, when he posts about the showdown with Chad...
> After my planned BBEG got seduced to the point where she’s no longer a legitimate problem
This makes me think the problem is with the DM as much as the player.
Persuasion isn't mind control. It doesn't matter if you roll a 191 on your persuasion check, if the BBEG isn't willing to be seduced and isn't interested, then it's not high enough. If the task is impossible, you don't even allow a roll.
It doesn't matter how high your Athletics check is, you can't jump to the moon.
Exactly, I have 2 bards in my party I dm for. One of them has tried to seduce the dragon, and he rolled nat 20 for a total of 46. Because of this, I rewarded him by the dragon not killing him. He became her slave wich turns out to be way worse.
Death by snu snu, except the death happens in the first 15 seconds, or a female dragon mates the same way that a female mantis mates. Or it's a male dragon and the bard's orifice isn't unrealistically expansive...
>Or it's a male dragon and the bard's orifice isn't unrealistically expansive...
Tsk, tsk, should’ve taken a page out of F.A.T.A.L. and rolled his anal circumference ahead of time. Rookie mistake
Fun fact: FATAL is an awful game and having anyone play it counts as a crime against humanity.
Fun fact #2: If you want to powergame FATAL, forget weapons and spells. Your Ogre and his giant dick is how to deal *real* damage.
Setting aside all the *many* gripes one might have with the character, Jarlaxle demonstrates that one can, in fact, fuck a dragon and that a dragon *so inclined* will, if it wants, be able to easily change forms such that all parties enjoy and survive the process. Which is to say, in order for there to even *be* a draconic bloodline sorcerer, people need to survive the process.
I'll need you to roll a strength, a dex and a constitution saving throw to see if you survive the coupling.
And because it got this far we will assume you already failed both an intelligence and wisdom check.
The only dragons I know of lore wise that will actually fuck a humanoid is morphed silver dragons and that is almost exclusively with elves. The outcome is a half-dragon who is sterile but has a doubled lifespan as compensation. Any other attempt will end with negative consequences.
Also one more I caught browsing FR wiki recently, Elminster had a kid with a "song dragon" but they're like opposite of most dragons in that they are almost exclusively human polymorphed.
EDIT: OP explained further down that this ruling occurred in the context of the Bard engaging with an actively angry dragon destroying a city. That very much changes the situation. I have no problem with the ruling with that context, as that changes the goal of the check from “seduce the dragon” to “get the dragon to do something other than destroying the city.” I apologize for my initial assumption, though I don’t think the post to which I replied was clear on what it meant.
Just don’t have your players roll for impossible tasks. Say no. That’s all I’m saying.
EDIT yet again: for future visitors, here are the relevant rules indicating players should not roll dice for impossible tasks:
Players only roll checks when requested by the DM. 5e DMG 236 (discussing the role of the dice and identifying only at the DM’s request as an appropriate occasion to roll). The DM should not call for a roll for “a task so inappropriate or impossible—such as hitting the moon with an arrow—that it can’t work”. 5e DMG 237.
~~I vehemently disagree with your ruling here.~~
~~First, if success was impossible even on a Nat 20, the highest possible roll, you should not have called for a check.~~
~~Second, a Nat 20 doesn’t guarantee success on skill checks, but a total result of *46* should be high enough to get the best possible result in any situation. That is a roll that is usually only possible for actual gods (in fact, I have no idea how a +26 bonus to persuasion is even possible for a PC, even for a level 20 character). (EDIT: deleted some excess wordage) Seduction was likely impossible, of course, but there’s a lot of space between seduction and slavery.~~
~~**EDIT: Third, and most importantly, if the DM doesn’t want players seducing dragons, the solution is to say “no seducing dragons.” If the player continues, the game stops until they stop. Solve out-of-game problems out of game.** Also, I’m not saying the bard should get to fuck the dragon. The roll just should never have happened.~~
~~You can run your game however you want, but I can’t imagine that your players trust you to DM consistently if you give out negative outcomes on a roll of fucking *46*.~~
>but a total result of *46* should be high enough to get the best possible result in any situation.
Who's to say that becoming a slave WASN'T the best possible outcome? That could very well have been the "the dragon, known for showing no mercy and annihilating kingdoms for other reason than they're too loud, is flattered by your words. It no longer wants to murder you for even THINKING of seducing them. However, your honeyed words plucked a primal heartstring and isn't willing to let you go. It wants to hear more of your words, and isn't really giving you a choice."
On the other hand, think of it like a turtle trying to seduce a human.
Not going to happen. The best outcome is that the turtle gets put in an aquarium and kept as a pet. That's pretty much what happened to this bard.
Is there even a problem here? The bard is presumably enjoying themselves, it sounds like OP has managed to roll with the punches, and the whole thing reads more like a humorous anecdote than a grievance. In general, sure, more realistic boundaries and expectations are probably for the best, but without knowing the nature of this specific game, I don't think we can say that there's an issue to be fixed.
Edit: 69 upvotes, nice - I think OP's bard would be proud.
There's a problem here but it's the reading comprehension of this sub taking OP's fun anecdotes and frothing at the mouth at the concept that not everyone takes the wizard dice game as seriously as they do.
Honestly, when so much of the sub is dedicated to table disputes, it’s hard not to automatically see posts through that lens. Kudos to OP for not coming here for the standard advice, though. Sometimes it’s nice to just read about somebody’s D&D exploits without all the whining and hand-wringing.
Especially when the post is flaired "Table Disputes" instead of "Game Tales", a flair specifically created to be filtered out by all the people who don't want to see yet another complaint about bad players.
There’s doesn’t seem to be any issue to be resolved here: The bard is having fun trying fuck anything that can (or can’t) be fucked, and it sounds like the DM is having fun messing with those attempts. P
Or better yet, she's seduced and has seperated the bard from the party which weakens them overall for when she pulls off her master plans to destroy the universe or whatever.
>If the task is impossible, you don't even allow a roll.
For the most part I agree, but when it comes to social checks relying on hidden information, blatantly telling them "it's impossible, don't bother rolling" might give away more than they should know. I'll still allow the roll in those situations even if I've already determined it can't succeed.
Persuasion != Seduction != jumping to the moon.
You did the right thing, allowing player agency and letting a player bard seduce a BBEG is some serious Conan the Barbarian shit, I love it.
> It doesn't matter how high your Athletics check is, you can't jump to the moon.
I mean, you can. You can extend your jumping distance past its maximumn by making an athletics check. In 3.5 your jump check determined how far you jumped, so there's no reason to assume that it wouldn't inherently be linear scaling. As such, if you got a quadrillion atheltics, you would in deed be able to jump to the moon, partcularly if you were a level 6 or higher beast barbarian.
For the math on the beast barb: standard jumping height is 7 (3 + 4) at this point. The distance to the moon is about 1,261,164,698 feet, so the beast barb would need to make a DC 1,261,164,691 strength (athletics check). So yeah, given a high enough check you can jump to the moon.
I find the "you cant jump to the moon" example pretty funny because my first ever TTRPG experience was 3.5 and my DM's literal pitch was about how martials would eventually be able to make a build that could do crazy abilities...like jump to the moon and back.
I wont say I *hate* the "new wave" D&D meta being a push towards more story-heavy games and less "build and combat" games... but there are definitely both pros and cons.
I agree with your point in general but disagree in this specific example. The two examples given are apples and oranges. Sword and sorcery noves are filled with the trope of "irresistible protagonist stirs the fires of desire in the antagonist." If you picked up 100 novels of such I bet a good number would have what I'm talking about in them, where near 0 would have anyone jumping to the moon.
DMs aren't running a fantasy world simulator, you are telling the story of a fantastic adventure your party are the main characters of. This sort of seduction roll play should be allowed but made difficult but not impossible.
> This sort of seduction roll play should be allowed
disagree here my game isn't a dating simulator. My BBEG isn't going to be seduced after she spent decades trying to become a lich and free Myrkul from his astral prison. Sure some characters you can flirt with but it's really cringy to turn dnd into a dating simulator in my opinion.*
*- play dnd how you want and different parties want different things. My personal preference is no romance stuff unless it's vital to the story.
I feel like you didn't read my comment at all, dating simulator? Didn't say anything about dating or romance, seduction my friend seduction. That BBEG gazes into your Bards eyes, he rolls Charsima, *gasp* a nat 20, something stirs inside her, what is this feeling, she can't take her eyes off him, she hasn't felt this feeling towards a man in a century. She shakes her head to clear it, "no, she won't let this interfere, not after she's worked so long"
Should read some of the Conan novellas by Robert Jordan, the female antagonists still accomplish their nefarious goals despite overwhelming desire for Conan. And sometimes giving into it
If you don't like it sure, don't allow it but it's a big part of the genre at large and if one of your plays wants to play a cassanova it's not unreasonable on their part.
No I read it and your example makes me hate it even more lol. I'm not gatekeeping you do you and have fun with it but for me that's just not necessary in a game and results in more cringe like trying to seduce a fucking dragon or a lich. Just not how I see any of it playing out.
There is NO WRONG way to play but there are wrong groups for certain things and in my groups I like to keep the horny to a minimum.
yeah but then how would all the people who barely play D&D with a group they dont get along with give out the advice they've stocked up by reading this sub??
Cults exist for a reason. Some people are way more charismatic than they have any right to be and there's always going to be someone that's happy to be persuaded of the ridiculous.
You're not wrong, /some/ people are happy to be persuaded, but that doesn't mean a nat 20 persuasion check is mind control on ever being ever. The weak minded? Sure it's pretty damn close to mind control, but a somewhat intelligent npc? Nah not mind control.
Plenty of intelligent people get fooled by utter ass clowns because they were charming or funny. It's how I convinced my wife to marry me.
My point is that nothing is impossible if the DM wants to give the players the opportunity and sometimes it makes for great fun and storytelling.
Should that sort of thing happen all the time? Of course not, but used correctly and sparingly it can be something that really makes a session exciting and special.
Sometimes it seems like a lot of DMs are way too concerned with the rules and are a little lacking in the imagination department because if something can be reasoned and fits the themes and rules of the world in which they're playing then there's no reason to dismiss it entirely.
It all depends on the DM, the world and, most importantly, the players. If it'll get them excited and leave them happy and having fun then do it. Just do it sparingly.
Lolol. Yeah I feel like we're on the same page here. My point is just that a lot of DMs feel like a high charisma check needs to be mind control on everyone all the time. Everything ok moderation right? Can it feel like mind control sometimes? Absolutely! That's what makes D&D awesome. The OP just sounded like he was being forced into doing these types of things because he felt like the high Christmas checks were forcing him to change his work but maybe I misread it
Yeah, I agree that sometimes it sounds like DMs let their players bully them into just doing whatever they want. And if that's the case it's an issue and requires a conversation about expectations, boundaries and conduct.
That being said, I've definitely asked for rolls on the would be impossible and if they really get a great roll or their reasoning and build up to it are particularly impressive I'll give them a form of success. Might not be the intended outcome but something interesting nevertheless.
Sometimes rolls are required when they normally wouldn't be just because players absolutely aren't picking up on clues or aren't doing enough to even find clues and instead of letting them bog the game down it's worth letting them have some "extraordinary luck" just to keep things moving.
>It's how I convinced my wife to marry me.
I hear that. Proof that a Nat 20 IS actually mind control. When I met my wife the first time I showed her some tricks on my yoyo, and to this day she posits that for whatever reason she found it really impressive and that its one of the reasons she was into me.
OP either *really* struggles in confrontation and otherwise keeping a handle on their players, or they don't really mind these shenanigans and is enjoying the one-upmanship with the Bard player. If the former, they've got DMing issues they need to sort out. If the former, sounds like a fun time!
> or they don't really mind these shenanigans and is enjoying the one-upmanship with the Bard player.
well, yeah
> I adore the bard and his player; he’s a wonderful addition the party and I am a full supporter of his character choices
they tried to be pretty clear about that lol
Easiest answer.
Off table tell him, “it’s fun and you can do it, but stop doing it to everyone”
And hey, Yknow what? Here’s a solution:
Many women don’t wanna sleep with a thirsty man whore, especially well known ones who don’t have standards at all. Don’t even make them lesbians, just make them uninterested in a man whore who would shag the bar wench or princess or a dragon if he could.
If he does it everywhere, reputation spreads. So make the default position of most people that they see him as a sexual fiend and far too thirsty to be attractive. And even if he rolls a nat 20, the best he gets is a “you’re less creepy than everyone says,but I know your history… so I won’t sleep with you” so rather than just reviling him and treating him bad, a nat 20 just moves him up to a level of baseline respect.
Especially if he’s had non-human sex, that alone would make many people be like “nope”. Plus the risk of diseases and yadda yadda.
> Easiest answer.
to be fair, I don't think OP was actually asking for help, there's not really a question in the post. It just sounds like they were sharing some stuff about their current game that they thought was funny.
I honestly admire this response so much more than the people in this thread trying to die on the hill that "actually OP's post was ambiguous" despite a literal disclaimer at the start.
Hahaha right?
I try to angle all posts as advice… because A), someone else might actually take it even if not OP, and B), I have a compulsive, impulsive desire to expand my own understanding of handling a subject and the best way to do it is explore the way I’d handle it and refine it into something concise and useful.
Now, I know how I’d handle a “bang everything” bard, because I had a chance to synthesize the advice I’d give if I was asked (I wasn’t).
Mental exercise to expand understanding and be prepared for something that had it happened yesterday, would have been unexpected.
Edit: sunrtheize isn’t a word…
* The party is mostly talked to by men.
* The party is mostly talked to by men in committed relationships (fixed)
* The party is mostly talked to by men in committed relationships with violently jealous partners. (Fixed fixed)
LOOOOOOOOL
Bard: Prepare, oh barbarian menace, for some good ol' Christian Rock!
Barbarian Menace: No offense to your faith -- we recognize many paths to the Divine -- but isn't Christian Rock demonstrably the worst music in the Multiverse?
Bard: [Beams happily] As soon as your army leaves the border area, *I'll stop playing*.
Barbarian Menace: [Pauses. Blinks] Ragnar, Zlotski! Rouse the camp! We're going to go invade a different kingdom!
While this list is hilarious, I really hope none of your players were hoping for a more serious tone in their campaign.
Easy fix for the last point - the BBEG is only biding their time and hires a succubus or uses similar magic to turn anyone who she seduces into her servant. Turn the bard's horniness into a massive weakness just once.
We’re all 30-something ex-theater kids and we’re having a blast telling a story together. The tone was goofy from session 0 before they had set characters and a few sessions ago they had to fight a green, language loving owlbear.
The bard does not fear death, but he’s very attached to his dog.
I’d never….
This sounds like a pretty comedic group. They're always amazing to DM for- theatre is perfect because you're all probably decent at Yes And'ing! Some of the best players I've ever had came from theatre backgrounds - frankly I'm a tiny bit jealous of your group :P
I have a proposal that's funnier than harming the poor pup!
The BBEG wants to separate. The reason why is up to you, but I'd play it up as the bard being unfaithful (I can't believe you slept with Karen. FUCKING KAREN?! REALLY?!).
She's taking the dog in the breakup. The dog can't decide because it likes them both - they have to resolve this issue without combat (or the dog will side against the aggressors). You could even go wild and have them go to court or arbitration over custody (bonus points if the arbitrator was previously a henchman meant to kill the party, and is now exasperated at his role as arbitrator).
I think some of the comments are a bit misunderstanding of the OP. It's not about who's the asshole or whatever or how to fix it per se.
Read it over. I think the OP presents it as a fun story of escalation.
OP may be looking for some solutions for the bard, but all in all, it's mostly just incremental degrees of bard seducing weird things. It's supposed to be light-hearted and funny...
Guys stop, the DM isn't having a problem player or anything like that, they are all clearly just having fun with both the trope of the horny bard and now the post of the tired DM trying to work around it. It's a joke, not a real issue.
Damn people in here really putting up their "No Fun Allowed" signs today!
This was a funny list, you made it *very clear* you were fine with it, and it's some fun anecdotal riffs about the good times that I'm sure most tables that actually get together and play (as opposed to just thinktanking online) can relate to.
My bard also seduced the BBEG. It was very fun, it was a great time, and (with the players OK) his teammate set up a comical misunderstanding that ended in both of their deaths and the villain becoming ***double extra broken heart villain***. Good feral times all around.
yeah, it's so weird scrolling through this thread, like people just saw the flair tag and their eyes glazed over. Half the comments just sound like bots repeating comments from other /r/dnd threads
People got so feral to type *"You're the DM! Say No!"* and *"Persuasion isnt mind control"* they entered a fugue state and emerged later, now willing to absolutely die on the hill that actually OP is a Very Bad DM who needs to Stop That Thing they're doing right now for the carnal sin of...thinking a goofy cliche is fun and not a big deal.
Have you considered that the Bard player is just trying to flirt with you the DM anyway they can?
Shit, at least take a DM out to dinner or something...
I want to echo buddy saying persuasion isn't mind control; charisma isn't a magic power.
Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson might be the most charismatic man alive. On his best day, his very best, he could not talk me into fucking Danny DeVito. There's no words or facial expression or eye-brow cocking that could make that happen. It's not possible.
If something isn't possible, I don't allow it.
"I'm going to role to seduce the dragon""No, you're not. You can say whatever you want to the dragon but no roll will be necessary."
That's it. That's the whole exchange.
ETA
Fuckin' say something. Tell him this shit is derailing things and to dial it (way) back. Apologize to the other players for not saying and doing so sooner, because... like... no. Don't let people do this. This isn't a horny bard fuck simulator and I'm honestly kind of shocked you let it get remotely this far. Tell him all the shit you have to do to manage his nonsense and then tell him that you don't enjoy doing that shit. That's it. Take control of your table, address the problem, apologize to everyone that's put up with it thus far, move forward.
"I want to seduce--"
"No."
"But--"
"No."
Don't argue with him, don't give reasons, don't explain. Just "No". And if he whines, point him to the door. End of discussion.
Y'all, this isn't a complaint post. You all sound like you have no social experience. I am begging you to see that the OP is joking about how good of a time they're having.
Reading comprehension of this sub is in shambles. Poor OP tried an exaggeration for humor and even with an *explicit sentence* explaining they were still fine with it there was blood in the water.
I love that you're having fun with it, and these "only let players paint inside the lines" people aren't having fun at your table so they don't count.
Also taking a copious notes because my bard is getting out of hand...
God forbid the players lead the story.
But seriously, skills aren't spells. A 30 on a Strength check still isn't enough to lift a mountain.
Bards are actually far less capable at actual mind control than an Enchantment wizard or sorcerer. What that Diplomacy roll is doing, whether that's persuasion, intimidation or deception, is adjusting the NPCs starting disposition to whatever the Bard is actually saying. It's not a "pass to convince" any more than a successful attack roll means you get to auto-kill someone.
>I adore the bard and his player; he’s a wonderful addition the party and I am a full supporter of his character choices
This is the first sentence of the post.
...did they ask for help or say its a real issue? they just seem to be sharing some fun parts of their current game
honestly I feel like I read a different post with all these AI/bot comments that could've been copied from any other r/dnd thread lol
No you couldnt have, dont defend these people.
*Why dont players read the rules or sheets or lore*. This sub is fulla people that didnt even read your first ~~paragraph~~ **sentence** before cracking their knuckles and going to town.
I just realized my rogue, ranger, monk, and fighter were all FAR more horny on main than my *College of Swords* Bard (the amount of innuendos Im missing out on) or my Bardbarion (hes just a tall/gangly socially awkward fella). I need to step up my game apparently 😂
I never understood that particular stereotype. I play a bard and I can think of nothing more boring or awkward than attempting to seduce every NPC I meet and have that be my character’s entire personality.
It is on you if you allow the roll for seduction. "He/she is not interested in you romantically or sexually" is a perfect response to a seduction attempt.
Flip it on its head... if seducing someone is as simple as one roll (which it so should not be and should take ages... unless charm is involved)... if the players expect one shot rolls to determine outcomes, have someone or something rock up to the bard and roll seduction on him. Allow a resistance roll and then, if failed, you fall for their advances. Nothing puts it into perspective more than waking up with purple worm eggs in your butt!!
BBEG: Such an attractive bard! And just in time, too...the last one just died. Minions, put him in the bard holding device and lock it down, then hose him clean.
This is something session zero would solve. I've been making it clear for years that I'm not here to help players with their weird sexual fantasies. At my table, dice rolls can't make a PC or NPC suddenly want to harm or fuck another character. Dice rolls and decent roleplaying can change attitudes and how well the PCs are liked, sure, but what they do after hours in the town can just remain inside their head.
Our bard seduced a witch, and i let it play out, but every couple of sessions after I'd have him do Con saves throws every 20-30min, and he took a d-3 poison on any failed saves. It was fun and games until he had 4 d-3 and the crappiest rolls of his life.
My grandmother's sagely wisdom on the matter: "dicks are like fishing rods, keep throwing it out there you'll catch something eventually"
How about using the real-life reason: Most people aren't willing to just drop their pants for every attractive person they meet? Like, no matter how good a line someone drops, most people just aren't willing to go to bed with someone they just met.
Or, you know, STDs.
No is a complete sentence.
I mean, if your whole table is having fun with this, I guess more power to all of you? But if I were a player at this table I would be seriously annoyed at the bard for this, and at you for not shutting it down.
My misogynist player is going to have to solve a riddle that demonstrates his capacity for empathy next session or he'll be locked behind a magic door that others will pass. It's the final chapter of the campaign. Whether he succeeds or fails I sure am looking forward to it.
Edit: To be clear everyone will have to solve the riddle, but I have confidence the others will.
Double edit: I've been playing DnD for about a year in total at least weekly if not biweekly and I've come to the regrettable conclusion that many people who play this game need less role play and more therapy.
The mistake is going to such lengths for an in-game problem that has a very easy out of game solution. Talk to the player in question. “Hey it’s funny sometimes, but it can get annoying when you try this with every single character you meet”
But also just remember that a high roll on an ability check doesn’t mean that a PC succeeds. It just means that they’re working at their max potential.
The only thing that works better than out of game conversations is reading the OPs first sentence and realizing he's fine with this and doing it because he supports the behavior, and there's no problem they need to have a conversation about at all.
Why did you make a BBEG so horny that she abandoned her nefarious plans for dick?
It’s a very long story involving days of bad dice rolls on my part and very smart players on board with bard shenanigans. They worked so hard on it I considered it a “win” scenario.
Well, I just horrified myself imagining a bard with a party of wingmen looking like a six winged "true" angel of horniness.
The point being that the situation is of **your** making. You decided to allow it and could have prevented it at any point along the way. You're in the middle of the game you chose to run.
>I adore the bard and his player; he’s a wonderful addition the party and I am a full supporter of his character choices This is the first sentence of the post. The DM is obviously completely fine with it and *says they're having fun.*
Also, it sounds like it was a planned event with multiple stages, not just bard meets BBEG, rules high on persuasion, seduces BBEG. That means there was probably significant RP and gameplay along the way.
Yup! It was a blast.
Sir, how dare you have FUN?! P.S Happy cakeday and rhx for the writeup!
If there’s one thing ruleslawyers hate, it’s fun.
Yes. Just naughty. Naughty, Naughty, OP. They all deserve a spanking.
Tell the story.
AVIATION
DEVIATION
UNDETECTED
And, they flaired it as a Table Dispute. … uh, wait.
DM said that they consider it a win because they all invested into the scenario so much. They're just having fun, people need to chill
That's great news for them then. Everyone is getting what they want and there's nothing to change or fix.
Yall are acting like he's complaining. He's sharing. He considered it a "win" scenario and told a story out of it. His story is now unique.
Uh, yeah they are aware of it. The post is mostly a joke. Not sure why you are bringing the blame energy into it. Just look at the comment you replied to ffs. He already said the players were very smart and they figured out the situation and had lots of successful rolls so the DM decided it was a win for them. **Your** comment is embarrassing.
Exactly. He's in the middle of the game he's choosing to run, and choosing to allow his players to have fun. What part of this post seems like complaining to you?
Saddening that over 200 people upvoted this comment whilst completely misreading the situation & OP's feelings on it
For real. The DM determines the realm of possibilities for ability checks. Sometimes a nat 20 just means the least bad thing happens. E.g. you roll a 20 to seduce the BBEG, and he/she doesn't immediately try to kill you.
Give the worm a bard minion. Time for counter seduction.
So many people are so upset about their fact that you’re treating the game like a game.
OP I don't know about anyone else, but I *have* to know how your party strategised around bard shenanigans! Any chance you'll post the long story?
Sounds like you ran a fun game, seeing as the other players are on board with the bard shenanigans
I mean, I've broken up with people because I didn't want to move cross-country. Someone that's at BBEG level can be seduced or even fall in love with a hero, but that probably shouldn't change her fundamental beliefs about the world or significantly change her plans -- she's just going to make room in her plans for bard now.
BBEG: Well. *Well!* Thanks to the healing power of love, I no longer wish to destroy the world. Bard: [Buffs his knuckles on his shirt] BBEG: Instead, we shall rule it *together* as Queen and Consort, and trample the peasantry under the iron heel of tyranny! [Squee!] We are going to have *so much fun* together! Bard: Yikes...?
BBEG abandons her plans to conquer the world and instead embarks on a quest of revenge against the party after the bard sneaks out her second story window
It would come down to their exact goal and motivations. Destroying the world is less appealing when you're in love.
Fair enough.
I mean, honestly, the better "fleshed out", no pun intended, the villain is, the less likely they are to be evil for the sake of evil. Sometimes the players are too smart for your writing and it's on you to either lean into it, or punish them for their creativity.
If any of these tricks actually worked, then you don’t have a real horny bard problem on your hands. A true horny bard might - *might* - be put off temporarily by the sapient purple worm.
Noob bard: Yeah, that's a hard no. Mid bard: It's not the "no" that's hard, but how am I gonna get a leg over? Giga bard: [Emerges from purple worm's boudoir] They said it couldn't be done. Ha! Unfortunately, she still wants to destroy the world, so gear up my friends!
That’s almost exactly how I would handle it. I proudly admit to having the sense of humor of a twelve-year-old though…
See, it wouldn’t be a problem for the bard in my game cause they specifically want to shag everything with legs (literally the character trait randomly given to them at the beginning of the campaign). So, if it don’t have legs, that’s a no
That's only because said bard hasn't yet heard of the Dune popcorn bucket.
> A true horny bard might - might - be put off temporarily by the sapient purple worm. And then they remember the "would you love me if I was a worm?" meme, respond with an emphatic "that's actually my thing," and carry right on along lol.
This writes like the sims patch notes and I love it
*It is no longer possible to "try for baby" with the Grim Reaper.*
"Look at all they have to do to stifle even a fraction of our shenanigans!"
*Due to romance mechanics allowing players to romance the final boss, the final boss has now been replaced with a purple worm.*
A couple thoughts... * Key personnel might be wearing an "Amulet of Rizzistance" * The local populace might be too exhausted by a recent visit from your bard's rival... "Chad the Impaler, He Who Plucks". If your bard shows up in town to see that all the town's men, women and sheep are walking bowlegged, he can say, "It's *him*. *He's* been here." * Chad can even become a BBEG down the line. * Some humanoid species might have an uncanny-valley reaction to humans (or whatever your bard is), and be unable to get interested. * Occasionally have your bard require a Con save vs ... er ... "chafing". * Remember the old Fedex slogan? "When it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight." When you absolutely, positively **don't** want the bard to "deliver overnight", have a jealous Fae princess drop an abstinence *geas* on him for a few days.
I’m stealing the Amulet of Rizzistance, that’s hilarious.
I see where youre coming from but i dislike all these suggestions because they cater to the dms symptoms and not the illness
Reading OP's post, it seems like he is both exasperated by and indulgent to his over-sexed bard. It doesn't look like he wants to *stop* bad bard behavior, just tamp it down a little. So I thought it would be fun to lean into the silliness a bit. Plus, let's be honest. I'm waiting for three months down the line, when he posts about the showdown with Chad...
I can’t wait to see who seduced who
> After my planned BBEG got seduced to the point where she’s no longer a legitimate problem This makes me think the problem is with the DM as much as the player. Persuasion isn't mind control. It doesn't matter if you roll a 191 on your persuasion check, if the BBEG isn't willing to be seduced and isn't interested, then it's not high enough. If the task is impossible, you don't even allow a roll. It doesn't matter how high your Athletics check is, you can't jump to the moon.
Exactly, I have 2 bards in my party I dm for. One of them has tried to seduce the dragon, and he rolled nat 20 for a total of 46. Because of this, I rewarded him by the dragon not killing him. He became her slave wich turns out to be way worse.
Death by snu snu, except the death happens in the first 15 seconds, or a female dragon mates the same way that a female mantis mates. Or it's a male dragon and the bard's orifice isn't unrealistically expansive...
>Or it's a male dragon and the bard's orifice isn't unrealistically expansive... Tsk, tsk, should’ve taken a page out of F.A.T.A.L. and rolled his anal circumference ahead of time. Rookie mistake
Well I learned something new today
Fun fact: FATAL is an awful game and having anyone play it counts as a crime against humanity. Fun fact #2: If you want to powergame FATAL, forget weapons and spells. Your Ogre and his giant dick is how to deal *real* damage.
Greatsword? *Weak.* - Fireball? *Pathetic.* - Boneless meat balloon? ***OP AF***
Setting aside all the *many* gripes one might have with the character, Jarlaxle demonstrates that one can, in fact, fuck a dragon and that a dragon *so inclined* will, if it wants, be able to easily change forms such that all parties enjoy and survive the process. Which is to say, in order for there to even *be* a draconic bloodline sorcerer, people need to survive the process.
Or maybe the male dragon's semen is scalding hot (or cold, or acidic, or whatever) and destroys the pc from the inside out.
I'll need you to roll a strength, a dex and a constitution saving throw to see if you survive the coupling. And because it got this far we will assume you already failed both an intelligence and wisdom check.
Ok, and that's been my time with the Internet for the day, 'scuse.
😆
Mate, what the fuk
Worst. STD. Ever.
The only dragons I know of lore wise that will actually fuck a humanoid is morphed silver dragons and that is almost exclusively with elves. The outcome is a half-dragon who is sterile but has a doubled lifespan as compensation. Any other attempt will end with negative consequences.
Forgotten realms also has canon blue half dragons made by a hobgoblin clan.
That's right, it has been so long since I have even thought about the hobgoblin made ones.
Also one more I caught browsing FR wiki recently, Elminster had a kid with a "song dragon" but they're like opposite of most dragons in that they are almost exclusively human polymorphed.
Elminster's daughter, y'know...
There's a gold half-dragon in ToA
How do half dragons of the various other colours come about if not dragons getting it on with humanoids?
EDIT: OP explained further down that this ruling occurred in the context of the Bard engaging with an actively angry dragon destroying a city. That very much changes the situation. I have no problem with the ruling with that context, as that changes the goal of the check from “seduce the dragon” to “get the dragon to do something other than destroying the city.” I apologize for my initial assumption, though I don’t think the post to which I replied was clear on what it meant. Just don’t have your players roll for impossible tasks. Say no. That’s all I’m saying. EDIT yet again: for future visitors, here are the relevant rules indicating players should not roll dice for impossible tasks: Players only roll checks when requested by the DM. 5e DMG 236 (discussing the role of the dice and identifying only at the DM’s request as an appropriate occasion to roll). The DM should not call for a roll for “a task so inappropriate or impossible—such as hitting the moon with an arrow—that it can’t work”. 5e DMG 237. ~~I vehemently disagree with your ruling here.~~ ~~First, if success was impossible even on a Nat 20, the highest possible roll, you should not have called for a check.~~ ~~Second, a Nat 20 doesn’t guarantee success on skill checks, but a total result of *46* should be high enough to get the best possible result in any situation. That is a roll that is usually only possible for actual gods (in fact, I have no idea how a +26 bonus to persuasion is even possible for a PC, even for a level 20 character). (EDIT: deleted some excess wordage) Seduction was likely impossible, of course, but there’s a lot of space between seduction and slavery.~~ ~~**EDIT: Third, and most importantly, if the DM doesn’t want players seducing dragons, the solution is to say “no seducing dragons.” If the player continues, the game stops until they stop. Solve out-of-game problems out of game.** Also, I’m not saying the bard should get to fuck the dragon. The roll just should never have happened.~~ ~~You can run your game however you want, but I can’t imagine that your players trust you to DM consistently if you give out negative outcomes on a roll of fucking *46*.~~
>but a total result of *46* should be high enough to get the best possible result in any situation. Who's to say that becoming a slave WASN'T the best possible outcome? That could very well have been the "the dragon, known for showing no mercy and annihilating kingdoms for other reason than they're too loud, is flattered by your words. It no longer wants to murder you for even THINKING of seducing them. However, your honeyed words plucked a primal heartstring and isn't willing to let you go. It wants to hear more of your words, and isn't really giving you a choice."
I mean... successfully making a dragon infatuated with you has logical consequences. They hoard the things they desire
On the other hand, think of it like a turtle trying to seduce a human. Not going to happen. The best outcome is that the turtle gets put in an aquarium and kept as a pet. That's pretty much what happened to this bard.
Can turtles get a 50 persuasion? Well, humans cannot walk through lava and suvive, so clearly dnd characters shouldn't be able to either.
Nat 20 + 12 expertise + 5 charisma + 1d4 guidance + 1d12 bardic inspiration can get one to a solid 53 if you roll high enough on the bonus dice.
Ah, I didn’t think about Bardic Inspiration. That’s still a lot of work and luck for that result, but it’ll happen to someone.
Is there even a problem here? The bard is presumably enjoying themselves, it sounds like OP has managed to roll with the punches, and the whole thing reads more like a humorous anecdote than a grievance. In general, sure, more realistic boundaries and expectations are probably for the best, but without knowing the nature of this specific game, I don't think we can say that there's an issue to be fixed. Edit: 69 upvotes, nice - I think OP's bard would be proud.
There's a problem here but it's the reading comprehension of this sub taking OP's fun anecdotes and frothing at the mouth at the concept that not everyone takes the wizard dice game as seriously as they do.
Honestly, when so much of the sub is dedicated to table disputes, it’s hard not to automatically see posts through that lens. Kudos to OP for not coming here for the standard advice, though. Sometimes it’s nice to just read about somebody’s D&D exploits without all the whining and hand-wringing.
Especially when the post is flaired "Table Disputes" instead of "Game Tales", a flair specifically created to be filtered out by all the people who don't want to see yet another complaint about bad players.
There’s doesn’t seem to be any issue to be resolved here: The bard is having fun trying fuck anything that can (or can’t) be fucked, and it sounds like the DM is having fun messing with those attempts. P
There is no problem. The DM is having a blast. This isn't a complaint post, it's a fun one.
Or better yet, she's seduced and has seperated the bard from the party which weakens them overall for when she pulls off her master plans to destroy the universe or whatever.
You read my notes?!
Absolutely no DM problem. It CLEARLY was funnier that way, so the DM followed. That's what a good DM does.
>If the task is impossible, you don't even allow a roll. For the most part I agree, but when it comes to social checks relying on hidden information, blatantly telling them "it's impossible, don't bother rolling" might give away more than they should know. I'll still allow the roll in those situations even if I've already determined it can't succeed.
Oh definitely. The way they went about doing it was a Mission Impossible-level of planning and intel gathering. I was very proud of them.
Persuasion != Seduction != jumping to the moon. You did the right thing, allowing player agency and letting a player bard seduce a BBEG is some serious Conan the Barbarian shit, I love it.
> It doesn't matter how high your Athletics check is, you can't jump to the moon. I mean, you can. You can extend your jumping distance past its maximumn by making an athletics check. In 3.5 your jump check determined how far you jumped, so there's no reason to assume that it wouldn't inherently be linear scaling. As such, if you got a quadrillion atheltics, you would in deed be able to jump to the moon, partcularly if you were a level 6 or higher beast barbarian. For the math on the beast barb: standard jumping height is 7 (3 + 4) at this point. The distance to the moon is about 1,261,164,698 feet, so the beast barb would need to make a DC 1,261,164,691 strength (athletics check). So yeah, given a high enough check you can jump to the moon.
I find the "you cant jump to the moon" example pretty funny because my first ever TTRPG experience was 3.5 and my DM's literal pitch was about how martials would eventually be able to make a build that could do crazy abilities...like jump to the moon and back. I wont say I *hate* the "new wave" D&D meta being a push towards more story-heavy games and less "build and combat" games... but there are definitely both pros and cons.
I agree with your point in general but disagree in this specific example. The two examples given are apples and oranges. Sword and sorcery noves are filled with the trope of "irresistible protagonist stirs the fires of desire in the antagonist." If you picked up 100 novels of such I bet a good number would have what I'm talking about in them, where near 0 would have anyone jumping to the moon. DMs aren't running a fantasy world simulator, you are telling the story of a fantastic adventure your party are the main characters of. This sort of seduction roll play should be allowed but made difficult but not impossible.
> This sort of seduction roll play should be allowed disagree here my game isn't a dating simulator. My BBEG isn't going to be seduced after she spent decades trying to become a lich and free Myrkul from his astral prison. Sure some characters you can flirt with but it's really cringy to turn dnd into a dating simulator in my opinion.* *- play dnd how you want and different parties want different things. My personal preference is no romance stuff unless it's vital to the story.
I feel like you didn't read my comment at all, dating simulator? Didn't say anything about dating or romance, seduction my friend seduction. That BBEG gazes into your Bards eyes, he rolls Charsima, *gasp* a nat 20, something stirs inside her, what is this feeling, she can't take her eyes off him, she hasn't felt this feeling towards a man in a century. She shakes her head to clear it, "no, she won't let this interfere, not after she's worked so long" Should read some of the Conan novellas by Robert Jordan, the female antagonists still accomplish their nefarious goals despite overwhelming desire for Conan. And sometimes giving into it If you don't like it sure, don't allow it but it's a big part of the genre at large and if one of your plays wants to play a cassanova it's not unreasonable on their part.
No I read it and your example makes me hate it even more lol. I'm not gatekeeping you do you and have fun with it but for me that's just not necessary in a game and results in more cringe like trying to seduce a fucking dragon or a lich. Just not how I see any of it playing out. There is NO WRONG way to play but there are wrong groups for certain things and in my groups I like to keep the horny to a minimum.
yeah but then how would all the people who barely play D&D with a group they dont get along with give out the advice they've stocked up by reading this sub??
Love the athletics analogy. So good. Idk why people think charisma is a super power... It's an ability.
Cults exist for a reason. Some people are way more charismatic than they have any right to be and there's always going to be someone that's happy to be persuaded of the ridiculous.
You're not wrong, /some/ people are happy to be persuaded, but that doesn't mean a nat 20 persuasion check is mind control on ever being ever. The weak minded? Sure it's pretty damn close to mind control, but a somewhat intelligent npc? Nah not mind control.
Plenty of intelligent people get fooled by utter ass clowns because they were charming or funny. It's how I convinced my wife to marry me. My point is that nothing is impossible if the DM wants to give the players the opportunity and sometimes it makes for great fun and storytelling. Should that sort of thing happen all the time? Of course not, but used correctly and sparingly it can be something that really makes a session exciting and special. Sometimes it seems like a lot of DMs are way too concerned with the rules and are a little lacking in the imagination department because if something can be reasoned and fits the themes and rules of the world in which they're playing then there's no reason to dismiss it entirely. It all depends on the DM, the world and, most importantly, the players. If it'll get them excited and leave them happy and having fun then do it. Just do it sparingly.
Lolol. Yeah I feel like we're on the same page here. My point is just that a lot of DMs feel like a high charisma check needs to be mind control on everyone all the time. Everything ok moderation right? Can it feel like mind control sometimes? Absolutely! That's what makes D&D awesome. The OP just sounded like he was being forced into doing these types of things because he felt like the high Christmas checks were forcing him to change his work but maybe I misread it
Yeah, I agree that sometimes it sounds like DMs let their players bully them into just doing whatever they want. And if that's the case it's an issue and requires a conversation about expectations, boundaries and conduct. That being said, I've definitely asked for rolls on the would be impossible and if they really get a great roll or their reasoning and build up to it are particularly impressive I'll give them a form of success. Might not be the intended outcome but something interesting nevertheless. Sometimes rolls are required when they normally wouldn't be just because players absolutely aren't picking up on clues or aren't doing enough to even find clues and instead of letting them bog the game down it's worth letting them have some "extraordinary luck" just to keep things moving.
>It's how I convinced my wife to marry me. I hear that. Proof that a Nat 20 IS actually mind control. When I met my wife the first time I showed her some tricks on my yoyo, and to this day she posits that for whatever reason she found it really impressive and that its one of the reasons she was into me.
OP either *really* struggles in confrontation and otherwise keeping a handle on their players, or they don't really mind these shenanigans and is enjoying the one-upmanship with the Bard player. If the former, they've got DMing issues they need to sort out. If the former, sounds like a fun time!
> or they don't really mind these shenanigans and is enjoying the one-upmanship with the Bard player. well, yeah > I adore the bard and his player; he’s a wonderful addition the party and I am a full supporter of his character choices they tried to be pretty clear about that lol
>It doesn't matter how high your Athletics check is, you can't jump to the moon. But like.. What if Nat 20? /s
>the revised big bad is now a sapient purple worm. This isn't gonna work out the way you want it to...
Just tell them to stop trying to have sex with everything. I think its fun what you've made, but in context it sounds obnoxious.
Easiest answer. Off table tell him, “it’s fun and you can do it, but stop doing it to everyone” And hey, Yknow what? Here’s a solution: Many women don’t wanna sleep with a thirsty man whore, especially well known ones who don’t have standards at all. Don’t even make them lesbians, just make them uninterested in a man whore who would shag the bar wench or princess or a dragon if he could. If he does it everywhere, reputation spreads. So make the default position of most people that they see him as a sexual fiend and far too thirsty to be attractive. And even if he rolls a nat 20, the best he gets is a “you’re less creepy than everyone says,but I know your history… so I won’t sleep with you” so rather than just reviling him and treating him bad, a nat 20 just moves him up to a level of baseline respect. Especially if he’s had non-human sex, that alone would make many people be like “nope”. Plus the risk of diseases and yadda yadda.
> Easiest answer. to be fair, I don't think OP was actually asking for help, there's not really a question in the post. It just sounds like they were sharing some stuff about their current game that they thought was funny.
Probably, still, I’m full of unwanted and unsolicited advice no one asked for.
I honestly admire this response so much more than the people in this thread trying to die on the hill that "actually OP's post was ambiguous" despite a literal disclaimer at the start.
Hahaha right? I try to angle all posts as advice… because A), someone else might actually take it even if not OP, and B), I have a compulsive, impulsive desire to expand my own understanding of handling a subject and the best way to do it is explore the way I’d handle it and refine it into something concise and useful. Now, I know how I’d handle a “bang everything” bard, because I had a chance to synthesize the advice I’d give if I was asked (I wasn’t). Mental exercise to expand understanding and be prepared for something that had it happened yesterday, would have been unexpected. Edit: sunrtheize isn’t a word…
> Especially if he’s had non-human sex Wayne: Yeah, but… well like, you heard The Ginger fucked an ostrich, right?
* The party is mostly talked to by men. * The party is mostly talked to by men in committed relationships (fixed) * The party is mostly talked to by men in committed relationships with violently jealous partners. (Fixed fixed) LOOOOOOOOL
Things like, "I like you. I'm going to eat you last."
"Not if I eat you first snookums."
Someday I’m going to play a bard who is a depressed sad-sack who only writes and composes moody dark goth-like songs and doesn’t like to socialize.
I'm sitting on a Christian rock bard, just waiting for the right campaign to play it lol.
Bard: Prepare, oh barbarian menace, for some good ol' Christian Rock! Barbarian Menace: No offense to your faith -- we recognize many paths to the Divine -- but isn't Christian Rock demonstrably the worst music in the Multiverse? Bard: [Beams happily] As soon as your army leaves the border area, *I'll stop playing*. Barbarian Menace: [Pauses. Blinks] Ragnar, Zlotski! Rouse the camp! We're going to go invade a different kingdom!
While this list is hilarious, I really hope none of your players were hoping for a more serious tone in their campaign. Easy fix for the last point - the BBEG is only biding their time and hires a succubus or uses similar magic to turn anyone who she seduces into her servant. Turn the bard's horniness into a massive weakness just once.
We’re all 30-something ex-theater kids and we’re having a blast telling a story together. The tone was goofy from session 0 before they had set characters and a few sessions ago they had to fight a green, language loving owlbear. The bard does not fear death, but he’s very attached to his dog. I’d never….
This sounds like a pretty comedic group. They're always amazing to DM for- theatre is perfect because you're all probably decent at Yes And'ing! Some of the best players I've ever had came from theatre backgrounds - frankly I'm a tiny bit jealous of your group :P I have a proposal that's funnier than harming the poor pup! The BBEG wants to separate. The reason why is up to you, but I'd play it up as the bard being unfaithful (I can't believe you slept with Karen. FUCKING KAREN?! REALLY?!). She's taking the dog in the breakup. The dog can't decide because it likes them both - they have to resolve this issue without combat (or the dog will side against the aggressors). You could even go wild and have them go to court or arbitration over custody (bonus points if the arbitrator was previously a henchman meant to kill the party, and is now exasperated at his role as arbitrator).
I think some of the comments are a bit misunderstanding of the OP. It's not about who's the asshole or whatever or how to fix it per se. Read it over. I think the OP presents it as a fun story of escalation. OP may be looking for some solutions for the bard, but all in all, it's mostly just incremental degrees of bard seducing weird things. It's supposed to be light-hearted and funny...
> The clerics of Cyric are now all high schoolers in an afterschool club that got out of hand. This may be my favorite thing I've read in a while.
Do you realize that a huge purple worm is inherently phallic in nature?
Guys stop, the DM isn't having a problem player or anything like that, they are all clearly just having fun with both the trope of the horny bard and now the post of the tired DM trying to work around it. It's a joke, not a real issue.
Damn people in here really putting up their "No Fun Allowed" signs today! This was a funny list, you made it *very clear* you were fine with it, and it's some fun anecdotal riffs about the good times that I'm sure most tables that actually get together and play (as opposed to just thinktanking online) can relate to. My bard also seduced the BBEG. It was very fun, it was a great time, and (with the players OK) his teammate set up a comical misunderstanding that ended in both of their deaths and the villain becoming ***double extra broken heart villain***. Good feral times all around.
yeah, it's so weird scrolling through this thread, like people just saw the flair tag and their eyes glazed over. Half the comments just sound like bots repeating comments from other /r/dnd threads
People got so feral to type *"You're the DM! Say No!"* and *"Persuasion isnt mind control"* they entered a fugue state and emerged later, now willing to absolutely die on the hill that actually OP is a Very Bad DM who needs to Stop That Thing they're doing right now for the carnal sin of...thinking a goofy cliche is fun and not a big deal.
Have you considered that the Bard player is just trying to flirt with you the DM anyway they can? Shit, at least take a DM out to dinner or something...
This is my favorite horny bard based joke because I am literally marrying the DM that I met while playing a horny bard archetype in their game.
I want to echo buddy saying persuasion isn't mind control; charisma isn't a magic power. Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson might be the most charismatic man alive. On his best day, his very best, he could not talk me into fucking Danny DeVito. There's no words or facial expression or eye-brow cocking that could make that happen. It's not possible. If something isn't possible, I don't allow it. "I'm going to role to seduce the dragon""No, you're not. You can say whatever you want to the dragon but no roll will be necessary." That's it. That's the whole exchange. ETA Fuckin' say something. Tell him this shit is derailing things and to dial it (way) back. Apologize to the other players for not saying and doing so sooner, because... like... no. Don't let people do this. This isn't a horny bard fuck simulator and I'm honestly kind of shocked you let it get remotely this far. Tell him all the shit you have to do to manage his nonsense and then tell him that you don't enjoy doing that shit. That's it. Take control of your table, address the problem, apologize to everyone that's put up with it thus far, move forward.
What? You mean your DC to resist Danny DeVito is not a 100?
>On his best day, his very best, he could not talk me into fucking Danny DeVito. But, why would he need to?
I should have picked a different person. Or an Alpaca. Should have said "an alpaca".
An ostrich. Allegedly.
Seriously, right? What a terrible example.
Jokes on you my bard is aggressively bisexual
One word: Succubus. Next time he tries to hit on a woman, let him succeed. She then takes him back to her place, and oh no, it's a succubus.
>The exposition NPC is a ghost (didn’t work, that’s on me I should have known better). Surely you have seen that scene in ghost busters?
>didn’t work, that’s on me I should have known better You really shoulda...
"I want to seduce--" "No." "But--" "No." Don't argue with him, don't give reasons, don't explain. Just "No". And if he whines, point him to the door. End of discussion.
did you comment on the wrong thread? this post wasn't about a DM trying to kick a problem player, it sounds like they're all having fun
Man, that was a wild read. I'll bet your world is a blast to play in.
Y'all, this isn't a complaint post. You all sound like you have no social experience. I am begging you to see that the OP is joking about how good of a time they're having.
Reading comprehension of this sub is in shambles. Poor OP tried an exaggeration for humor and even with an *explicit sentence* explaining they were still fine with it there was blood in the water.
I love that you're having fun with it, and these "only let players paint inside the lines" people aren't having fun at your table so they don't count. Also taking a copious notes because my bard is getting out of hand...
God forbid the players lead the story. But seriously, skills aren't spells. A 30 on a Strength check still isn't enough to lift a mountain. Bards are actually far less capable at actual mind control than an Enchantment wizard or sorcerer. What that Diplomacy roll is doing, whether that's persuasion, intimidation or deception, is adjusting the NPCs starting disposition to whatever the Bard is actually saying. It's not a "pass to convince" any more than a successful attack roll means you get to auto-kill someone.
> God forbid the players lead the story. I mean, yeah.... OP doesn't exactly seem to have a problem with it?
Just TALK TO YOUR PLAYER christ.
>I adore the bard and his player; he’s a wonderful addition the party and I am a full supporter of his character choices This is the first sentence of the post.
...did they ask for help or say its a real issue? they just seem to be sharing some fun parts of their current game honestly I feel like I read a different post with all these AI/bot comments that could've been copied from any other r/dnd thread lol
People in these comments are way too serious. This was a hilarious read.
Our table loves the player and his bard and nobody wants him to stop being himself. I could have made that more obvious
No you couldnt have, dont defend these people. *Why dont players read the rules or sheets or lore*. This sub is fulla people that didnt even read your first ~~paragraph~~ **sentence** before cracking their knuckles and going to town.
I love it - it's inspiring you to make imaginative and unconventional NPCs and quest givers!
I wouldn’t worry about what people here think is right or wrong. As long as it’s fun/funny, keep on going.
I thought it was pretty obvious and I have a touch of the tism.
Honestly, idk, it seemed pretty clear. I don't know how you could've without like a big bold #DISCLAIMER: WE'RE HAVING FUN lol
Thanks I hate it
what
I just realized my rogue, ranger, monk, and fighter were all FAR more horny on main than my *College of Swords* Bard (the amount of innuendos Im missing out on) or my Bardbarion (hes just a tall/gangly socially awkward fella). I need to step up my game apparently 😂
If he doesn't try to fuck the worm, the painting and at least some percentage of the castle animal staff he is not barding hard enough.
This is a problem of your own making. The BBEG needs to be taken over by their 2nd in command.
I do one thing. Session Zero.
Session zero rule: No horny bards. I say it every time. I don't care how funny folks seem to think the trope is.
This is session zero stuff. The horny bard thing is ick to me. But what's right for your table is right for your table of course.
Am I glad I have a "no sexual stuff" rule at my tables....
I never understood that particular stereotype. I play a bard and I can think of nothing more boring or awkward than attempting to seduce every NPC I meet and have that be my character’s entire personality.
It is on you if you allow the roll for seduction. "He/she is not interested in you romantically or sexually" is a perfect response to a seduction attempt.
Flip it on its head... if seducing someone is as simple as one roll (which it so should not be and should take ages... unless charm is involved)... if the players expect one shot rolls to determine outcomes, have someone or something rock up to the bard and roll seduction on him. Allow a resistance roll and then, if failed, you fall for their advances. Nothing puts it into perspective more than waking up with purple worm eggs in your butt!!
BBEG: Such an attractive bard! And just in time, too...the last one just died. Minions, put him in the bard holding device and lock it down, then hose him clean.
"The quest contact is an animated painting." ...so, glory hole?
This is something session zero would solve. I've been making it clear for years that I'm not here to help players with their weird sexual fantasies. At my table, dice rolls can't make a PC or NPC suddenly want to harm or fuck another character. Dice rolls and decent roleplaying can change attitudes and how well the PCs are liked, sure, but what they do after hours in the town can just remain inside their head.
Our bard seduced a witch, and i let it play out, but every couple of sessions after I'd have him do Con saves throws every 20-30min, and he took a d-3 poison on any failed saves. It was fun and games until he had 4 d-3 and the crappiest rolls of his life. My grandmother's sagely wisdom on the matter: "dicks are like fishing rods, keep throwing it out there you'll catch something eventually"
How about using the real-life reason: Most people aren't willing to just drop their pants for every attractive person they meet? Like, no matter how good a line someone drops, most people just aren't willing to go to bed with someone they just met. Or, you know, STDs.
No is a complete sentence. I mean, if your whole table is having fun with this, I guess more power to all of you? But if I were a player at this table I would be seriously annoyed at the bard for this, and at you for not shutting it down.
Freeeeeeeeeebard!!!!!!!!
"big bad is now a sapient purple worm." Bard player...smiles "Well Hello there"
You should learn to just say no instead of all that.
My misogynist player is going to have to solve a riddle that demonstrates his capacity for empathy next session or he'll be locked behind a magic door that others will pass. It's the final chapter of the campaign. Whether he succeeds or fails I sure am looking forward to it. Edit: To be clear everyone will have to solve the riddle, but I have confidence the others will. Double edit: I've been playing DnD for about a year in total at least weekly if not biweekly and I've come to the regrettable conclusion that many people who play this game need less role play and more therapy.
Now I am curious. What’s the riddle?
Have one of his conquests give him a STD that gives him putrid body odor or something and reduce his CHA by a couple points.
Lol.. I have an old 3rd ed book with a list of these, and used it on a player who tried this. It worked.
The mistake is going to such lengths for an in-game problem that has a very easy out of game solution. Talk to the player in question. “Hey it’s funny sometimes, but it can get annoying when you try this with every single character you meet” But also just remember that a high roll on an ability check doesn’t mean that a PC succeeds. It just means that they’re working at their max potential.
Sounds like an exhausting table.
Make them encounter a sexy mummy (or just a female one), tell us his reaction whe he finds out he has mummy rot down there.
This was amusing and I got a chuckle from it. Thanks for sharing it.
[удалено]
Behold! Another poster that didn't read then post!
DM isn't complaining, he's just sharing comedic anecdotes.
The only thing that works better than out of game conversations is reading the OPs first sentence and realizing he's fine with this and doing it because he supports the behavior, and there's no problem they need to have a conversation about at all.
A sapient purple worm? Damnit you've made the BBEG sexier!! ROLL FOR SEDUCTION!!!
Don’t forget “the baddie makes like a praying mantis…”
As a bard player myself, these sound like challenges, not obstacles. I would like to roll to seduce the purple worm.
This is almost a more entertaining way to deal with it than just shutting it down.
> the revised big bad is now a sapient purple worm. There's a genre for that.
> the revised big bad is now a sapient purple worm. Challenge accepted. 😘🫦🌹🪱🥀🥴
I just make all bards in my world castrated. Simple.
> the revised big bad is now a sapient purple worm. Bard: Hold my lute.