I once had a player in my game play a changeling who swapped places with someone, then forgot they were a changeling. So naturally, I had the rest of the party meet the original without her. That was a fun reveal.

I’m trying to think of which robot dystopia/apocalypse this most closely resembles.

Why would a campaign not need a tabaxi journalist?

Possibly. It’s hard to say you don’t talk about something without talking about it. And it’s hard to say if we’re actively forgetting something or if we just forgot something, and if we remember either, it isn’t forgotten anymore.

I was once explaining a rules lite system I wanted to try to someone, and he kept complaining about how difficult it would be for him to learn a new system. I had to point out that I had already fully explained the rules while we were talking, and we weren’t even talking long.

I think some people just think every system is as complex as D&D.

“That’ll show those poor!”
“Why are you cheering? You’re not rich.”
“True, but someday, I might be. And then people like me had better watch their step!”

Dragon Age quote from Iron Bull: Some high-ranking women wear ornamental crap with tits hammered into it. One good shot, and all that cleavage gets knocked right into the sternum. Real messy. Good on you for going practical. …Leaves something to the imagination, too.

Then use your words and say “dude, stop” or “could you maybe turn it down?” If the DM let it go on and never did anything to stop it, then it’s the DM’s fault it got as far as it did. Just because someone else is a villain in the story doesn’t mean you’re not.

And this is in the hypothetical situation that the bard is the specific strange kind of person who learns of a possible gloryhole in a TTRPG and uses it without question.

All I see is a DM making a castration joke, which is a dick joke but more gruesome, while blaming a player for a situation entirely within the DM’s power to stop by any number of peaceful, less disruptive means. They could have spoken to them, but they chose to cut off their dick.

That only clears the first hurdle. It only lets the player recognise it as a gloryhole. But if you were to give someone a fleshlight in a public place, do you honestly expect them to use it right there? Or to even accept the fleshlight? Same applies with a gloryhole in a ttrpg. Even were they inclined, there are other people there.

And if everyone there is down for it, you’re now the asshole ruining everyone’s fun by putting chili in the fleshlight.

The DM clearly had a fantasy of the bard engaging in some perverted act, then thought of a way to punish the bard for the DM’s fantasies, and is now presenting it before the table and thinking it makes the bard look bad.

I want to point out that the player would need to identify it as a glory hole and not just a peephole or something. They would also need to think it’s a normal thing to find in the world and not something out of place. They would also need to be comfortable enough with the other players to engage in sexual roleplay with a wall. And in this case, you have clearly created a very perverse game world for your players.

The alternative is you just deciding to tell your players “you see a hole in a wall that you think could be a glory hole. …Anything you wanna do about that?” to which most players would either ignore it or check the hole for traps before ignoring it.

In short, I don’t think the problem is the BARD being horny here.

I feel like that campaign is just begging for Lolth to show up and just be like “I see you’ve done… well for yourself. Are you going to introduce me to your new friends or…?”

I do like the idea that elves just change their entire lifestyle every hundred years or so. They spend 80 years as a warrior, then decided to take up magic and became a wizard for the next 80 years.

I also like the idea of a human village that accidentally built 4 statues of the same elf who kept saving them with different skills.

The problem with the fediverse is that not enough people get how it works, so they don’t use it, so there’s not enough content, so there’s less incentive to use it. The benefits of the fediverse are that you can’t exploit and ruin something for everyone if there’s an alternative readily available for them to use instead, and the fediverse is BUILT on those alternatives.

The problem with web3 is it does nothing practical enough to justify its existence. The only people who found a use case for it just used it like stock shares, being something worthless that might be valuable if enough time passes. Calling it an alternative to money is absurdly naive at best, manipulative at worst.

Imagine if you had a boss who told you they would only pay you in company stock, and tried to say that it’s better than being paid money. That’s what this is.

No, like you’re part of some tech-bro cult. Which is worse, I will point out. Rejection of the current status quo doesn’t mean we want a WORSE status quo.

And we already have plenty of people in the current establishment who want to pay their employees with something other than actual money. We call those people scumbags. At least being paid in exposure isn’t bad for the environment.

A little sad they skipped over the actual confession, and the end credits had me panic for a second.

I wrote it on a pc, then looked later using Jerboa and saw what you saw. Definitely a Jerboa issue.

Look, everyone knows that <previous thing> was much better than <current thing> because it was <comparator> and more <adjective>. Just look at how much <comparator> <element> became! They completely ruined it.

Fingers crossed this gets fixed in <next thing>.

No, sorry, that still doesn’t answer my question.

Cosmically controlled goblins are doing the same thing as bandits, but the bandits made the choice to do evil things and the goblins didn’t get a chance to refuse. Surely, the people choosing to do evil are worse than those forced to do evil, right? So why are bandits better than goblins?

The suggestions you gave fall kinda flat to me, really. No matter what the in-universe reason is, the DM made the universe. “It’s what my character would do” doesn’t excuse bad behaviour, and neither does “it’s what my gods decided.” You’re the one who made them do that. You’re the one that decided an entire culture of thinking, feeling people are born objectively evil and can be killed en masse. And that’s fucked up.

I feel like this is related to the meme you just posted about turning an insect swarm spell into a cloud of falling elephants. That’s not “player shennanigans”, that’s theory-crafting a gotcha moment and failing because of how the spells actually work.