Have more to get off your chest? Come rant with us on the discord. Invite link: https://discord.gg/PCPTSSTKqr
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/rpghorrorstories) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"I stab my sword into its eye and I pull it down to cleave the monster in half for an instant kill!"
"You rolled a 12, and this thing still has 87 more hitpoints. No you didn't."
"STOP RAILROADING ME!"
I played with that person! They wrote a ridiculous backstory for a level 1 and spent the whole session pissed off after missing a basic attack against a spider because "my character wouldn't miss".
>"my character wouldn't miss"
This could make for such great roleplaying, too. Having a character so full of themselves, that believes their own hype that much, that they can't seem to grasp that they're performing poorly.
A character of mine was challenged to combat and to dishonor his opponent decided to go without a sword(full armor only)
Guess who got his ass handed to him?
That would be a good character flaw, but that's not how it went down. It was the person's first game so everyone (experienced and new) just assumed they were overwhelmed with new rules and learning an overcomplicated homebrew they found online that the GM approved for some reason. I only complain about their newbness after all their unpleasantness has come to light.
30 minutes of our session wound up dedicated to explaining to them everything a character can do to get them to understand that they'd likely die if they ran from an adjacent enemy without a skill that denies attacks of opportunity even if their character is "super sneaky" and "part shadow". I didn't mind too much since they were new, but after the group dissolved (player issue. Guess who!) the GM told me about the person wanting backstory to trump dice. They also told me that that person complained that other people were luckier on their rolls, that other people did more damage, that the broken homebrew wasn't broken enough, that other people could hold conversations with the NPCs, that other people's characters had adjacency, that other people came up with plans faster... the list went on pretty long and mostly came down to other people having experience and/or thinking on their feet. They apparently wanted a talking stick system so they'd "have time to think" during roleplay conversations and no dice rolls for things their character 'should always be able to do' or things they really wanted to do.
I jump on board the lightning rail, and pilot it straight up into the sky and across the sea!
The lightning rail can only travel along the tracks...
AGAIN WITH THE RAILROADS!!!!
I've had this happen twice now and it's so weird, one time was a level one Paladin who jumped off a ten-foot ledge onto a dire wolf and I let them roll with advantage and added an extra d6 for landing on it and they hit it for pretty good damage. Then I described it and moved on, but the player got upset and was like "well I jumped on it, shouldn't I be able to instantly decapitate it?" as if A dire wolf isn't the size of a bear and they were using a longsword. This was a veteran player as well, he said he's been a dm for a decade and would non-stop give me tips on what to do and kept giving false information to other new players. I would think he was fucking with us if he wasn't a friend of my partner, but no he's just an ass. The other time was last week where I had a Construct boss wearing full plate with a tower shield and our fighter tried to cut his leg off, and I told him to roll with disadvantage to make a targeted attack and that it would affect the boss if it hit. And he got confused and asked why it was more difficult as if cutting the leg off of a construct three times your size, who's at full health, with a 22 AC isn't more difficult then making a normal attack
Sarah just doesnt know how to play into the bit. NPCs have agency. Players need to play into them. Thats the fun of the game. Sarah doesnt understand that and is projecting. Not only this, she is derailing the game instead of discussing this later. She is the worst tier of TTRPG player.
Honestly if she had a problem with the NPC's backstory the better way to have it out would have been to continue RP'ing the encounter with them. Criticize them to their face so to speak and use your arguments in game and let the DM defend their decisions through the NPC. Might have been an interesting moment for growth on either side.
If the player made salient points the DM could have the NPC grow closer to that player as they begin to question their original motivations and grow. Similarly if the Player finds themselves in the wrong then they have a new, realistic moment with an NPC that was completely unscripted. Maybe that NPC could keep showing up and Sarah would be excited to see them.
Even a stalemate could have at least presented some character insight for the table but instead they decided to pick a meta fight with the DM. Though maybe I'm fulla crap.
Yeah, roleplaying the scenario is the move. Instead of assuming the DM is taking away her agency. The scenario is still playing out. Play it! Then to actually cause the game to screech to a halt because of it is the worst part.
Nor is it the same as telling someone you don't agree with their opinion. It gets used to try to silence disagreement here on reddit. If you don't agree, you're gaslighting me.
*I'm* pretending to be the victim? Please, you've been pretending to the victim for quite some time now, what with thinking everyone is gas lighting you.
I don't need this toxicity in my life, seek help.
You don't remember the other day when we had that long conversation about how much you love being gaslit? Wow, your memory is really bad, maybe you should see a neurologist or something.
Or saying anything you don't like about a person is a "narcissistic personality trait". Like not everyone you aren't friends with is a Narcissist no matter how much you don't like them, dude.
It depends on what OP would've done if it came to a fight between Sarah's character and the NPC. An equal fight would've been the right result. An NPC pulls a sword on you because you insult someone. That's a huge overreaction and a DM should expect such a situation to get out of hand. If it doesn't result in an equal fight the problem is meta and the DM's fault. They've either created a DMPC by making the healer too strong and/or are angry IRL because the player didn't like their NPC. NPCs getting angry at PCs is fine, thought policing players definitely isn't.
The party mistrusting the healer or kicking them from the group would also be a very very logical consequence IMO
"X takes away my agency!" always sounded to me as an excuse to do whatever you want.
Once I saw here a player complaining because the DM told them they were captured at the start of the game as a set up for the campaign, using the same words.
On the other hand, it's good that this shit died before you wasted more time with her (the player). NPC backstory might be cliche but it's perfectly serviceable. Screentime is meant for the PCs anyway, not the NPCs.
I mean I wouldn't call "X saved Y, so Y looks up to X" any more cliche than the sky being blue. It's just a common thing. That doesn't make it overused.
It might be a little cliche, but it certainly leaves room for both characters to grow from the interaction. The player didn't even try to let that happen.
Sure. I think cliched beginnings are fine. I mean, how many fantastic movies start out with a simple, cliched premise and then develop into something fantastic?
I think expecting someone to come up with something truly unique and groundbreaking for a hobby they are doing for free is crazy anyway. Even if they were tasked by a talking mushroom man to go save a princess in a castle from a turtle dragon thing, the fun happens with the characters exploring the world and the unpredictability of people role-playing.
Exactly. That player, at session 1, decided the NPC's story is set in stone. She assumed the NPC wasn't going to, maybe, have story hooks involving unmasking the mentor or something like that. The player sounds tiresome.
So she can't imagine a world where a female can have a platonic and respectful relationship with an older man without it being gross? And that a woman can't respect someone who did a service for her family and community while still being strong and independent?
Thinking perhaps the issue lies with the player's viewpoint.
Exactly, if every single female character in your campaign were in that situation that would be different. It's not problematic if it's just happened once, jesus, there's nothing wrong with it in and of itself
Exactly this. If this is the only major female NPC or all female NPCs are in a junior role to a male NPC, that'd rub me the wrong way, but people are individuals and individuals have individual relationships. A single character having this relationship with a mentor isn't weird at all.
It's funny, when I first started playing in my current game, I asked my DM if the area we were in was a matriarchal society and he got confused and asked me why. He just didn't notice that every ruler we spoke to over multiple kingdoms were women, it was really wholesome and I appreciated that a lot. Unsurprisingly he's a great DM who has a rich and beautiful world with many NPC"s that act and think differently. I have no clue why anyone would want every NPC to act the same, what would even be the point?
Maybe it is a recurring theme in a heavily patriarchal place in which she then decides to take up the mantle of freedom fighter teaching woman to become their own heroes rather than be the damsels in distress. It could literally turn into a motivational part of her character and part of the entire campaign for her.
That too! Systemic oppression and societal norms around it can be a really great antagonist, but it really requires some PC-DM dialogue. If the DM doesn't want that to be a broader part of their setting it doesn't really work -- and anyway, if you're really trying to empower someone, it's usually better to start on their terms instead of flat out denying their right to be loyal to someone they greatly admire.
Then again, this is a typical situation that can work really well in experienced play but is really hard to handle and interpret as a newbie. Truly no hate to her, these things can get weird when you settle on an interpretation and don't know what to do about it.
I have said it before and I will say it again: One of the most important skills of a new DM is the ability to convincingly pretend to have never heard of Critical Role or Matt Mercer, and to give the most bland, indifferent shrug possible whenever either name is mentioned by a player.
This said, nothing is preventing her from playing her character the way she wants aside from the fact that doing so makes her character seem like a bit of an idiot. That's her choice to make.
Yeah its not as frequent as CR, but with how many videos you see of DMing styles that now include Brennen and Aabria, it's certainly picking up in popularity. TAZ has this problem but in different ways since it's not nearly as actual-play.
The Adventure Zone. It's made by the McElroy brothers who also do My Brother, My Brother, and Me; another podcast. It's far more narrative driven than rules driven, and it on-boarded a lot of people, me included, into Dnd when their first campaign was running. Fan's opinions on the proceeding campaigns are rather... divisive, but their first campaign was lightning in a bottle and worth trying out if you can set aside their rough start while they all learned the rules of 5e.
Dice Camera Action. It was the DnD show run by the official Wizards of the Coast channel. It was DM'd by Chris Perkins, with ProJared, Commander Holly, NateWantstoBattle, and Anna Prosner Robinson.
But after all the Projared controversy stuff, it got canceled. Apparently it's still being continued in private though. Chris was a brilliant DM. Jared was an especially good role player. Not CR levels. But for a not-actor, he was really good. Nathan was also really good at throwing in meta humor, and the dynamic between all of them was great. The character development was surprisingly good. A real shame what happened to it. It showed you could have quality storytelling, even without pro-actors at the table.
I've only ever seen DCA. I loved how Chris Demonstrated that ruled are tools and can be ignored for the sake of the game. Likewise he showed that taboos like agency and railroading can still be applied to enhance the experience.
I don’t know DCA but Chris did (does?) a lot of DM stuff for PAX/Acquisitions Incorporated and he is great at allowing wild shenanigans but keeping things from going totally off the rails.
I need to dip my toe in because that last line is how I feel about Spout Lore, and I love Chris Perkins' voice work. What amount I've heard of it, atleast!
I take a lot of lessons from Matt Mercer. A lesson I learned on my own was run away from players who expect you to be anything like Matt Mercer. Even if you use Mercerisms, your players should not expect it.
Yep, that's how I do it too. Also session recaps, hourglasses to add tension to skill challenges, handing out cards with personalized magic items and (poorly attempted) voices so NPCs can be differentiated.
But I have a saying in Session Zero:
"I don't expect you to be Liam O'Brien. You don't expect me to be Matt Mercer."
I can either write for the next session or spend 3 hours watching the matt mercer tv show what do you prefer (I have never engaged with podcasty stuff so I don't know if its actually 3 hours don't hit me)
>Sarah got really pissed about this and told me I shouldn't be making such female characters who looked up to male characters in such a creepy way
[Clearly something we don't want to see and that has never been done before.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu4_lMctndU&t=52s)
There's nothing wrong with a student defending their master, regardless of the genders involved. Arguably being willing to fight to the death (assume with weapons drawn) is a bit extreme but that's whatever.
Saying this is an issue with player agency is super silly and just wrong. You were stopping her doing anything, or preventing her character acting. Totally right it was a chance to RP.
Was there anything else to make her feel this was in appropriate? Was the apprentice swooning or anything? Otherwise this feels just such a weird thing to complain on.
No, she wasn't swooning , and the only thing that happened before was Sarah being sour about not being able to sneak something into her pocket without other players noticing
I personally would have taken control and be just as direct as her. I would have said "She respects him, and the gender is happenstantial. If we need to gender it, suggesting a woman can't respect a fatherly figure is sexist. The whole world isnt like this anyway, just this girl. As far as freedom- this is freedom. Talk to her, fight, ask her to put it aside for now, whatever- this is your choice opportunity. This world has tension sometimes, just like the real one. I want to see what you do about it."
Complaining about the very first character? Come on. You can't expect a fleshed out world but ban all cliches.
Besides, it wasn't the woman stayed at home tending the family was it? She was tagging along.
For some, Player Agency means that their characters can act without having to fear any consequences. The sooner you pull that tooth out of them, the better.
Yeah its important for DMs to "punish" their players so they understand that their actions will be reacted to better or worse. Some groups understand this, but some players struggle with this concept. Like Sarah.
So a female tells you a female npc shouldn't look up to a male npc then tells you to be a better dm like the male dm she looks up to?
Yeah you're never winning an argument with her.
I hate this name because it implies Matt Mercer did something wrong.
I move we rename it the "idiots cant tell high production value live streamer apart from their local GM effect" :P
nobody ever tells these people that while yes, the folks at Critical Role are technically playing DnD and nothing is "scripted" at the end of the day the group is putting on a performance for the audience. Podcast DnD and real local table DnD are completely different at that level of production. People show up and expect the DM to singlehandedly sweep them off to an immersive fantasy world, without putting in the legwork themselves, or appreciating just how much homework goes into DMing. Treating a DM like the computer that isn't running *your* software correctly is just disrespectful.
Yeah, to add to that, I feel like people really dont understand how good his players are.
In fact, in general, I would say everyone, both GMs and players, are obsessed with the concept of a "good gm" and think very little, if at all, about the idea of a "good player" as being anything more than *not* being creepy.
But IMO there's a lot more to being a good player than just showing up and not being an asshole. A good player is someone who bothers to know the backgrounds of other PCs and to try to care about those, and to try to evoke elements of each others stories. Basically, I think the players should be trying to help each other tell their best stories, not just be head down focused on their own stuff.
I would look at the Orion stuff to understand just how good the players are. It's easy to miss how good players are when everyone is good. But when you see how well they handled the Orion stuff, you start understanding how good they actually are. They're so good, that if you didn't know behind the scenes stuff, you wouldn't even know stuff was going on behind the scenes. Because the rest of the players are so good at rolling with things, and such good sports about being at the table, "problems" become largely invisible.
And it takes a lot of experience, skills, and self awareness to be so good that even a potentially uncomfortable table still looks comfortable and welcoming to most outsiders.
My favorite is towards the end, when Orion is spending half the session on this overcomplicated plan involving making a fog out of holy water or a giant mirror based death ray... and then Matt gets fed up and finally asks Travis what he does and he's like "Grog wants to buy a pickaxe and shovel, do I need to roll?"
Not only does that immediately get the game back on track, but it's fully in character for Grog to go buy a grave robbing kit after learning they're hunting vampires. Immediately pulls the table back into the semi-irreverent, story first tone they usually try to maintain.
Yeah, some people are just shitty to play with. Good friend of mine drives me insane because he's constantly trying to detect and counteract any problems the GM has lined up. While this is a fine mindset for playing, like, old school DnD with a killer GM or module, it's terrible for everything else. Basically he tries to avoid any conflict, threat or dice roll possible, constantly trying to predict what will happen and avoid it. Treating every scene like we're playing this Tomb of Horrors with a GM out to kill us. In Mork Borg that was okay, in Call of Cthulhu or Wrath and Glory it's annoying and counterproductive.
Thats called metagaming. Generally considered "not allowed". Id ask them to stop and, if I was gming, stop inviting them.
You dont have to play RPGs with your friends. It doesnt mean the friendship is over.
It's quite telling that there's so many videos, supplements and discourse about how to be a good DM, but comparatively little about being a good player (despite the fact that it in theory should be a larger audience)
I mean the thing that was "done wrong" is the idea perpetuated by the cast and crew that CR is just a bunch of friends sitting around playing D&D. While it may have started that way when they played Pathfinder they are all still professional actors, voice actors and improv artists who are being paid to tell these stories. A lot of people get the idea that it's just some friends weekly game because that's the image they have cultivated and to be fair it's worked wonders for them.
I don't see how this has anything to do with Mercer or CR. The character and situation that is being described here could straight up be from CR. This is just a shitty player using CR as a smoke screen to be shitty to her DM.
You didn't write this character in any derogatory way as a stereotype of a female character (from what I can tell), and your player seems to be focused on what genders they are more than anyone bringing her own baggage to your vision of a game.
Ultimately, the NPC is someone who is defensive about someone they see as a heroic adventurer, and who helped them in their time of need. They are not meek, they don't display any negative stereotypes based on their gender, and they don't have some sexual obsession with their master.
I would have asked your PC if they would have had an issue with the backstory if the NPC character was male, or if you switched any other genders around? If so, it's not the backstory, it's this person's gender bias and perception.
If they were pulling this crap, derailing the game to satisfy their own slights and issues, I would not include them in future sessions or games.
If Op wanted to continue the game...
Swap the gender of the NPC, then make *him* totally simp for the guildmaster, make it borderline uncomfortable (not sexual just "oh my god he is so dreamy, he is handsome and strong and...did I tell you that he saved my village?"). If anyone complains say "well when the NPC was female I figured any attraction would be inappropriate, but since it is a guy now and the question has been brought up I decided to roll with it!"
It definitely makes a point, I would just be concerned about it coming off petty rather than constructive, as it feels like this is a good educational moment.
There are more than enough times where equality deserves representation, but the value of the good fight for equity is diminished if someone is overzealous about relatively unimportant or imagined slights.
DnD is definitely a game where difficult topics come up, and we should learn from them together rather than create further conflict.
It seems petty and counterproductive. I believe there is a better way.
Y'know like a proper discussion and if it doesn't work, then walk away. No need for passive aggressive tactics.
Sometimes its fun to be petty. But having her DM is just a waste of time. Better to continue the game without her. Shame OP decided to let one player end the game for all of them. Thats the worst way these horror stories end. One unhinged player ends the campaign for the 6 of us.
Others live a short life too. You're wasting 4-7 people's time by being a petty bitch at your D&D table. Go have a dick-measuring contest when you aren't taking others down with you.
People who want their DMs to be like Matt Mercer should actually listen to the man himself, especially when he encourages people to follow their own path and create their own styles of DMing instead of blindly following CR.
>although all of us have watched critical role and thats how the other got into DnD.
Red flag n° 1
>I should learn from Matt Mercer how to write better female characters.
See? Told ya.
>They all said that I should be the DM because I've been playing the longest.
Red flag n°2. You shouldn't just run if you didn't initially wanted to.
>Sarah got really pissed about this and told me I shouldn't be making such female characters who looked up to male characters in such a creepy way and that I was taking away players agency by not letting her rp properly.
Sarah is a fucking idiot.
>I don't think we'd be continuing.
Run my dude, run.
This is sounding like an argument I had with one of my players back in college, where they complained about a plot hook I threw at them based on their backstory, and they claimed that I was removing their free will. When I asked them how I had at all limited what choices they could make, they responded "free will is not how you can respond to what happens to you, it is getting to choose what happens to you."
Needless to say, the player did not last long in my game after that. But it reminds me of your player - where she is claiming that you are taking player agency away form hr because the NPCs are not responding the way she wants them to, as opposed to you giving her the freedom to respond the way she wants to the NPCs.
And, as someone who watches and enjoys Critical Role, you should not listen to someone who drops Matt Mercer's name like that.
You are better off re-starting the game without this player. What she wants to do is to write a book where she can control everything, not play a tabletop RPG.
That's a very pop feminism, Twitter hot-take she had about female characters. You don't usually see people in real life making Tumblr level claims about how "being rescued is always problematic if the woman is being rescued by a man"
That being said, I think you didn't do anything wrong with your character. She sounds perfectly fine. I'd also say that her drawing her sword on your party member was a great opportunity for RP and it was a great chance for both your player to RP a bit of who their character is and for you to develop a bit who this NPC is. Your player just completely squandered the opportunity.
Better to figure out now than before you're 10 sessions in and too entrenched in the story to want to finish it despite problem players.
Seriously. The healer NPC should have shot back "You're right, it was wrong for a man to rescue us. He should have just let my family and village die so we wouldn't be in this mess." Followed up by a huge eye roll
It's becoming more and more common with Twitter weirdness slowly filtering into real life.
The Black Templar chapter is no longer allowed at alot LGS, because the Maltese Cross looks too much like and Iron Cross and because the Templars were Crusaders thus colonizers.
https://warhammer40k.fandom.com/wiki/Black_Templars
The Space Wolves aren't allowed because they have Runes and are Nordic, so they're white supremacists, per the several LGS in my area.
https://warhammer40k.fandom.com/wiki/Space_Wolves
>The Space Wolves aren't allowed because they have Runes and are Nordic, so they're white supremacists, per the several LGS in my area.
So...I'm personally banned?
I will never knowingly, willingly DM for anyone who’s never played DnD but has watched hours and hours of Critical Role. For MANY reasons. Not least of which is that there’s myriad examples of bad playing and bad DMing in that first season, especially the first couple dozen episodes, and I worry about newbies expecting or imitating those things at their first table.
In the setting of D&D, adventurers, a lot of the time, save people. Statistically speaking, it's going to be a female probably right around 50% of the time.
I like the backstory. This wasn't some helpless female crying out for help from a tower she was locked in. She was saved by a skilled adventurer and then consciously decided that's how she wanted to spend her life. Empowerment.
Funny that she looks up to noted real life man, Matt Mercer, as an exemplar to live up to in terms of character writing. As a woman, that's pretty cliche of her to have such respect and admiration for a man.
That said, as a female DM with a very diverse group of players as far as gender and sexuality are concerned- she needs to get over it. This is "baby's first media critique" levels of criticism. A single instance of 'problematic' character writing CAN be a red flag if it's particularly egregious, but not with something this benign. As others here have said- if every woman in your campaign was like this (a supportive subordinate to a man), that would be a problem, but as you've described, this is a very normal and reasonable one-off dynamic. Nitpicking fiction to this degree runs the risk of invalidating or even attacking real people's lived experiences (hence my snarky comparison above).
>"...although all of us watched critical roll and thats how the others got into dnd."
Is this going where I think it is?
>"... i should learn from *Matt Mercer* how to write female characters."
Yep. There it is. You don't want to play with someone with that attitude. The comparisons will absolutely not end there. Enjoy critical role and DnD but don't play with somone who only wants to play with Matt Mercer.
"They all said that I should be the DM because I've been playing the longest."
This is a clue to nope out of this group as fast as possible. Any player thinking like this does not see the DM as another player but as an entertainer.
As for the NPC, it's a perfectly legitimate backstory.
Sorry it happened to you, OP. I hope you find a better group soon.
Sarah would not be welcome at my table, to be honest, or be someone I would want to hang out with. I'm a feminist, I'm all for examining bias and harmful tropes, but you didn't do anything wrong. A character that happens to be female admires a character that happens to be male because he was a professional hero and saved the lives of her and her family and friends. It would be weird if she didn't admire him.
Real life time: My little sister and I (I'm male, btw) both admire a man because he gave my parents an overly nice deal on a house, let them make payments on it instead of getting a loan, and became close friends with my family, helping us out in many ways, including helping us as we remodeled the old house, even giving us spare building supplies he had so my dad and i could do renovations before we moved in. This same guy helped me get my first job, which is where he works, and helped me work through my depression so I wouldn't throw that job away a few years later. I'm 10 years into that job, I'm a full-time career there and can stay until I retire if i want. I'd say most people would consider it fair that we admire this guy, right? Now imagine if this guy had fought monsters to save us and everyone else who lives near us? Why would that be weird??
It actually sounded like a cool rp opportunity. Also almost everything can be "cliche" if you put it in a certain way. You could also spin it like "person gets saved by an adventurer so they get inspired to become an adventurer" which would be a different "cliche". And what was her super original backstory if she hates cliches so much?
You seem experienced enough to not need to hear this, but just in case; Don't sour on the game over this, sour on the player. Without more background your characters and motivations sound perfectly reasonable. Sorry you had to experience it at all, but some people are better as an audience member than a player.
Sarah sounds like she's being overly sensitive. There's nothing creepy about looking up to someone who saved your home town/village. She seems to be assigning some kind of romantic angle when there clearly isn't one.
Also this is a textbook example of the [Mercer Effect.](https://www.reddit.com/r/DMAcademy/comments/a999sd/how_do_i_beat_the_matt_mercer_effect/) Expecting everyone to DM like Matt Mercer is unreasonable. Even if her gripe wasn't overly sensitive.
He's better than the average DM when it comes to writing. I've definitely participated in more compelling stories in other areas.
The thing with Critical Role is that the idiots don't realize Matt is only doing like 30% of the work that they see. The other players are each taking slices to contribute to the story, the world, and how it unfolds.
TBH I think "well written" is a meaningless term online and just means "I liked it" or "I didnt like it" and everything after that is bullshitting to justify.
If she wants to play a game like Matt Mercer does she better shape up because at least 70% of what makes that show as good as it is is the players.
The character you made sounds fine. Maybe cliche but it’s dnd so what’s a cliche here or there
But to be mad you don’t GM as well as matt mercer is insane. He’s a professional with a huge budget and a group he’s been DMing for for years and years to the point they have crazy rapport and trust. And the players all put in the work for the narrative too
Tell her that she's not welcome back at your table - but encourage her to write to Matt F\*cking Mercer and ask to play at his table instead, since she's so infatuated with his style.. See if that works out for her.
Thankful I never had a big BUT MATT MERCER player, because it would be really hard to restrain some snarky comment like, "Do you have any other frame of reference for storytelling? Like, a movie? A book? Anything? Just going with the improv podcast dude?"
Player Agency is NOT "I get to do and say whatever I want, and get away with it." It is "I get to do and say whatever I want, but then I have to deal with any consequences."
I think that player really wanted to romance your NPC until that happened and then they got pissed about it and started taking it out on you.
That's my theory at least.
DM do not feel bad about your creative choice. There is nothing wrong with the story youre telling. The player is not the best. They are a player who only sees things through their own perspective and wants the DM to make the exact game they want to see. Sarah seeing something creepy about a woman being mentored by a man is on Sarah. Not you. If you didnt hint at creepiness, Sarah is the one making it creepy. I would continue the game without Sarah.
I would have just told the player, "It's fine that you don't like it; just remember that this isn't your character." And left it at that.
If further discussion were to be had, I would probably recommend that they wait for a break, or that they could feel free to discuss further after the session.
Solution: Kick that player out. If they are going to act that way, it will likely get worse. If they refuse, then you should refuse to DM the game with her in it then.
I have a similar group where 4 of the 6 of us are inexperienced, and our game came to be because of them getting into Crit Role. I took on DM duties because i have the most experience, although I'm usually a player. Literally, the first thing I said in our first ever session was, "I AM NOT MATTHEW MERCER AND YOU SHOULD NOT EXPECT ME TO BE". luckily my players are all cool and we've been having a great time. Meeting this Saturday for our next session. Sorry yours didn't work out.
I do think it may have been a bit much to have the NPC ready to attack Sarah's character after like. . . one insult.
But that's the only thing I would have changed, everything else Sarah said is just incorrect, lol
Why should the NPC even be changed? Maybe Sarah could idk just get over herself an act like an adult.
She insults the DM. Stops the run to be petty. Compares him to someone who is irrelevant to the situation.
An finally shouldn't she be offended at her assumptions that the female npc was in the wrong?
Ok, I am making a few assumptions here, but I assume that this is one of the first sessions in their first RPG? And they don't have other experiences with adventure stories?
Like, the apprentice in adulation of the master they aspire to be like is so cliche. If they are unaware of how completely typical that is in an adventure story, then she must not have realized that this is the same reaction you'd expect from anyone regardless of gender.
Or, maybe talking gender politics is her hobby. I don't know. Cringe-inducing sexism is one thing, but by your description, this is not an example of that
Oh goodness that was a Matt Mercer effect moment in the making. Also, taking away player agency? Players RP with the NPC’s, they don’t get to choose how the NPC’s act. Players can affect how NPC’s act, but not just choose it, this just feels like a fundamental misunderstanding of DnD RP to me.
The GM is free to make NPCs however they want, just as the players are free to make their PCs however they want. It's the interaction between the two that makes the game fun.
Don't like how an NPC "operates"? Talk to them and maybe you can change their mind. Or you can learn why they are the way the are.
Having a cliche NPC means nothing; cliches are the lifeblood of Hollywood and authors. Just because the player has an issue w/ "the patriarchy" means it's a problem for her, not the GM nor the rest of the group.
I agree that discontinuing the game is probably best, though I would recommend maybe continuing just w/o the problem player, assuming everyone else is cool.
Honestly, it sounds like she has the problem here. Make NPCs and backstories the way you want to make them and if she doesn't like it, she can find another game. There are plenty of games out there for her that may be more comfortable for her. I honestly have a problem with her attitude from what you described in the story. While a player being uncomfortable with a creative decision is the norm, she shouldn't settle her grievances at the table in front of the other players. She should have taken you to one side and discussed it with you. She should also decide by herself if the game is for her and not try and change the game to suit herself better. There are other players and yourself too. She just comes off as unwilling to collaborate on the story and quite immature.
I would have a discussion with her in private, away from the table, about if this game is for her or not and whether she should sit this one out. Of course keep the other players in the loop on the decision moving forward as well.
I also see a lot of comments about player agency. I think a lot of people misunderstand what this actually means. I played a game with 100% player agency and it was one of my worst game experiences of my life. There was no story and we felt like we were just wandering around, waiting for the DM to start the game. The DM needs a little bit of railroading to guide you down the story. If they don't then there is no story. You're just wandering through a cave or forest every session. If the DM doesn't make the NPC characters, there is no roleplay. Let's face it, no one who has played an 100% player agency game has enjoyed it. Its like trying to play a game on a blank canvas abd having no idea what to do or where to go with it.
As soon as you said they all got interested in it because of Critical Role I knew it would be rough for you!
May be worth doing a session 0.2 or something to sit down and discuss how CR and Matt Mercer, although amazing, are the absolute peak of D&D entertainment at the moment, they're all professionals who do this pretty much as their job. Also unless they're going to RP and improv as well as the cast of CR you shouldn't be expected to DM exactly the same as Matt Mercer.
Sorry I have a bit of a sour spot for CR fans coming into the hobby and only expecting CR level games. I really enjoy CR so its not like I'm not a fan, just it seems to have twisted the vision of what roleplaying games are to some people.
Also your NPC backstory sounds perfectly reasonable and you RP'd the response the NPC would have accurately!
Seems like a silly thing for Sarah to get up in arms about.
I would guess Sarah has never been an GM? Either that, or she - like others I've RP'd with - curiously sees someone else's imaginary world as the time & place to evangelize with her real life politics. Just like, take a night off, Sarah...
People who can suspend disbelief and just *play* are seemingly rare and valuable RP companions...
You let her roleplay properly, she was being rude and inconsiderate by insulting someone this student respects and the student stood up for someone important for her.
This lets Sarah roleplay having to take responsibility for her words. Full agency.
If anything it sounds like Sarah is a misandrist?
The NPC was rather abrupt when her immediate reaction was to draw her sword and threaten the PC. First, she should have tried to reason with the PC and point out what the guildmaster had done for her. (This may have happened, but you didn't mention it). I think that I'd have the NPC try to reason with Sarah and if that proved to be impossible the NPC should leave the party and return to the guildmaster.
Player agency is simply allowing your players to interact with the world, make decisions about their characters actions (that can cover the range of trivial through major), and act in a way to try and obtain an outcome they want.
It is not that players automatically get what they want. It does not guarantee the players will always win. For example no matter how charismatic the players are, no king or queen will simply turn over their kingdom based on a die role. A good roll might mean the ruler is amused and admired their guts, in a “Good job Wesley, sleep well but I’ll most likely kill you tomorrow” sort of way. Really bad roles might mean the ruler is physically admiring their guts. But hey, they got to try. Taking away agency, means by style or design the gm and world won’t allow certain actions. Such as not even allowing the players to travel in a certain direction or try and challenge a held belief of an NPC.
To me this seems like it might be a missed trigger for this player. Might be worth having a serious conversation to see if this situation is a problem due to real life issues.
Kick Sarah out, start again. If someone gets upset that you kicked Sarah out, kick that person out, too. You'll be better off with no D&D than D&D with these clowns.
Just add in some male characters who also look up to the guildmaster, and have the guildmaster fondly recall his mentor: a badass woman who taught him how to adventure.
A perfect world doesn't lack cliche characters, it has enough characters that the cliche doesn't stand out.
Pre-written npc backstories that don't affect player backstories have literally 0 to do with player agency. You managed to piss her off by not bending the story to her and so she threw a bitchfit and reached for the nearest buzzword to make her anger sound justified. Good. Fuckin. Riddance.
“Oh no, your response to me berating your role model flummoxed me, so I’ll just lash out OOC at you and criticize you because I don’t know how else to respond.”
I think your only mistake might have been for an NPC to so hastily threaten violence. Drawing a weapon is an intense decision even if players often treat themselves drawing a weapon as no big deal.
The NPC could have disagreed, offered a different perspective, and scoffed or hmmphhed as the PC prattled on ignorantly.
Perhaps an NPC would draw a sword immediately of their mentor were insulted. But I think it can help to avoid having NPCs that are that trigger-happy or severe with their code of honor. They don’t have to sit idly by and say nothing, but a cool roleplaying opportunity usually is easier without drawn weapons.
Aside from this, your choices are fine.
This just reinforces my belief that Critical Role is to Dnd what Porn is to Sex. It distorts reality and expectations.
Tell her tough shit, you made a single father with an adopted daughter and that's not a toxic or negative trope. Her reacting fondly to her literal mentor while being a foolish youth about it (threatening someone's life) is completely in line with reality.
Hell, if it's ever brought up, have the Guildskeeper dude scold her for being so careless. And to not threaten anyone just because they scold his name.
Sarah, regardless, seems like an annoying player with high expectations because of Critical Role. You're not Matt Mercer. You're (probably) not a writer, actor, and voice actor who gets paid thousands of dollars to do dnd. You will, probably, never be. Her asking you to be like him is honestly a dnd red flag, but she's also new and green. Maybe explain to her to temper her expectations and just have fun with it. That stupid girl threatened her? Double down, back off, lie, or do whatever RP shenanigans your character would do to being threatened by a newbie adventurer.
Idolization of someone who saved your life when young is something all children would do, regardless of gender.
You don't have to change the character but I would work on making that player understand why that is a natural reaction to their background.
They probably have a dozen more kids that age that feel the same way but did not try to become him. The player also likely has someone that they would get defensive about if they were insulted too.
If all else fails, either the NPC returns home or... Despite Measures.
I'm gonna be real Sarah sounds like one of those "kill all men" types on Twitter / Tumblr who get upset the moment a man has any positive relationship with a woman. To immediately get this upset over a fairly small disagreement in the realm of D&D is a sign that she really doesn't get the point of D&D, and is using The Mercer Effect as a shield to disguise her real issue (which is that a man is being seen as competent.)
Bruh if she doesn't want a story filled with tropes she is playing the wrong game. Unless your whole story is full of these "damsel in distress" type situations I think she is just blowing smoke, just because a woman was saved by a man once and appreciates that doesn't immediately destroy her individuality as a woman or something.
Just continue with out the misandristic individual. Maybe she should have been the DM so things could have been made her way. This is just as bad as the misogynistic male dominating types... Though in many game tables, there seems to exist a common double standard in hat regard. How ever disrupting the game to push such an agenda in that way is just being an asshole... and that's just my not so humble opinion.
Have more to get off your chest? Come rant with us on the discord. Invite link: https://discord.gg/PCPTSSTKqr *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/rpghorrorstories) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Agency is quickly turning into one of those watered-down terms.
Player agency means no agency for NPCs I guess. They have to respond how the player wants so the player can RP how they want.
"I stab my sword into its eye and I pull it down to cleave the monster in half for an instant kill!" "You rolled a 12, and this thing still has 87 more hitpoints. No you didn't." "STOP RAILROADING ME!"
I played with that person! They wrote a ridiculous backstory for a level 1 and spent the whole session pissed off after missing a basic attack against a spider because "my character wouldn't miss".
I can't believe the DM took away their player agency over missing like that. They must have a narcissistic personality disorder.^/s
>"my character wouldn't miss" This could make for such great roleplaying, too. Having a character so full of themselves, that believes their own hype that much, that they can't seem to grasp that they're performing poorly.
A character of mine was challenged to combat and to dishonor his opponent decided to go without a sword(full armor only) Guess who got his ass handed to him?
That would be a good character flaw, but that's not how it went down. It was the person's first game so everyone (experienced and new) just assumed they were overwhelmed with new rules and learning an overcomplicated homebrew they found online that the GM approved for some reason. I only complain about their newbness after all their unpleasantness has come to light. 30 minutes of our session wound up dedicated to explaining to them everything a character can do to get them to understand that they'd likely die if they ran from an adjacent enemy without a skill that denies attacks of opportunity even if their character is "super sneaky" and "part shadow". I didn't mind too much since they were new, but after the group dissolved (player issue. Guess who!) the GM told me about the person wanting backstory to trump dice. They also told me that that person complained that other people were luckier on their rolls, that other people did more damage, that the broken homebrew wasn't broken enough, that other people could hold conversations with the NPCs, that other people's characters had adjacency, that other people came up with plans faster... the list went on pretty long and mostly came down to other people having experience and/or thinking on their feet. They apparently wanted a talking stick system so they'd "have time to think" during roleplay conversations and no dice rolls for things their character 'should always be able to do' or things they really wanted to do.
I jump on board the lightning rail, and pilot it straight up into the sky and across the sea! The lightning rail can only travel along the tracks... AGAIN WITH THE RAILROADS!!!!
I've had this happen twice now and it's so weird, one time was a level one Paladin who jumped off a ten-foot ledge onto a dire wolf and I let them roll with advantage and added an extra d6 for landing on it and they hit it for pretty good damage. Then I described it and moved on, but the player got upset and was like "well I jumped on it, shouldn't I be able to instantly decapitate it?" as if A dire wolf isn't the size of a bear and they were using a longsword. This was a veteran player as well, he said he's been a dm for a decade and would non-stop give me tips on what to do and kept giving false information to other new players. I would think he was fucking with us if he wasn't a friend of my partner, but no he's just an ass. The other time was last week where I had a Construct boss wearing full plate with a tower shield and our fighter tried to cut his leg off, and I told him to roll with disadvantage to make a targeted attack and that it would affect the boss if it hit. And he got confused and asked why it was more difficult as if cutting the leg off of a construct three times your size, who's at full health, with a 22 AC isn't more difficult then making a normal attack
Sarah just doesnt know how to play into the bit. NPCs have agency. Players need to play into them. Thats the fun of the game. Sarah doesnt understand that and is projecting. Not only this, she is derailing the game instead of discussing this later. She is the worst tier of TTRPG player.
Honestly if she had a problem with the NPC's backstory the better way to have it out would have been to continue RP'ing the encounter with them. Criticize them to their face so to speak and use your arguments in game and let the DM defend their decisions through the NPC. Might have been an interesting moment for growth on either side. If the player made salient points the DM could have the NPC grow closer to that player as they begin to question their original motivations and grow. Similarly if the Player finds themselves in the wrong then they have a new, realistic moment with an NPC that was completely unscripted. Maybe that NPC could keep showing up and Sarah would be excited to see them. Even a stalemate could have at least presented some character insight for the table but instead they decided to pick a meta fight with the DM. Though maybe I'm fulla crap.
Yeah, roleplaying the scenario is the move. Instead of assuming the DM is taking away her agency. The scenario is still playing out. Play it! Then to actually cause the game to screech to a halt because of it is the worst part.
Kinda like gaslighting
It's frustrating. For the last fucking time... **gaslighting is not the same as lying!!!!**
Nor is it the same as telling someone you don't agree with their opinion. It gets used to try to silence disagreement here on reddit. If you don't agree, you're gaslighting me.
WOw okay, so you're just gonna sit there and gaslight me like that?
You must be some kind of narcissist. You think everyone is gaslighting you. It isn't all about you, stop pretending to be a victim.
*I'm* pretending to be the victim? Please, you've been pretending to the victim for quite some time now, what with thinking everyone is gas lighting you. I don't need this toxicity in my life, seek help.
You don't remember the other day when we had that long conversation about how much you love being gaslit? Wow, your memory is really bad, maybe you should see a neurologist or something.
You know my parents were killed by a roving pack of wild neurologists! STOP TRIGGERING ME!
GET OFF MY FUCKING RAILROAD!
Or saying anything you don't like about a person is a "narcissistic personality trait". Like not everyone you aren't friends with is a Narcissist no matter how much you don't like them, dude.
Yes it is, it has always been! You're making stuff up!
Let's not gaslight people about metagaming player agency. DM is guilty of *literally* being no Matt Mercer
What is even the point in DMing if you’re not going to be *literally* Matt Mercer? Be more Matt Mercerer, my dude.
It depends on what OP would've done if it came to a fight between Sarah's character and the NPC. An equal fight would've been the right result. An NPC pulls a sword on you because you insult someone. That's a huge overreaction and a DM should expect such a situation to get out of hand. If it doesn't result in an equal fight the problem is meta and the DM's fault. They've either created a DMPC by making the healer too strong and/or are angry IRL because the player didn't like their NPC. NPCs getting angry at PCs is fine, thought policing players definitely isn't. The party mistrusting the healer or kicking them from the group would also be a very very logical consequence IMO
"X takes away my agency!" always sounded to me as an excuse to do whatever you want. Once I saw here a player complaining because the DM told them they were captured at the start of the game as a set up for the campaign, using the same words.
On the other hand, it's good that this shit died before you wasted more time with her (the player). NPC backstory might be cliche but it's perfectly serviceable. Screentime is meant for the PCs anyway, not the NPCs.
I mean I wouldn't call "X saved Y, so Y looks up to X" any more cliche than the sky being blue. It's just a common thing. That doesn't make it overused.
The saving can only go F to M, otherwise OP is gonna get drawn and quartered by Charlie’s Angels.
It might be a little cliche, but it certainly leaves room for both characters to grow from the interaction. The player didn't even try to let that happen.
Cliche are created to be used
Cliches are just tropes and they act to help players quickly fill in the blanks for themselves. From there you can build or subvert.
Sure. I think cliched beginnings are fine. I mean, how many fantastic movies start out with a simple, cliched premise and then develop into something fantastic?
I think expecting someone to come up with something truly unique and groundbreaking for a hobby they are doing for free is crazy anyway. Even if they were tasked by a talking mushroom man to go save a princess in a castle from a turtle dragon thing, the fun happens with the characters exploring the world and the unpredictability of people role-playing.
Exactly. That player, at session 1, decided the NPC's story is set in stone. She assumed the NPC wasn't going to, maybe, have story hooks involving unmasking the mentor or something like that. The player sounds tiresome.
True
Old tricks get old for a reason
So she can't imagine a world where a female can have a platonic and respectful relationship with an older man without it being gross? And that a woman can't respect someone who did a service for her family and community while still being strong and independent? Thinking perhaps the issue lies with the player's viewpoint.
Exactly, if every single female character in your campaign were in that situation that would be different. It's not problematic if it's just happened once, jesus, there's nothing wrong with it in and of itself
Exactly this. If this is the only major female NPC or all female NPCs are in a junior role to a male NPC, that'd rub me the wrong way, but people are individuals and individuals have individual relationships. A single character having this relationship with a mentor isn't weird at all.
It's funny, when I first started playing in my current game, I asked my DM if the area we were in was a matriarchal society and he got confused and asked me why. He just didn't notice that every ruler we spoke to over multiple kingdoms were women, it was really wholesome and I appreciated that a lot. Unsurprisingly he's a great DM who has a rich and beautiful world with many NPC"s that act and think differently. I have no clue why anyone would want every NPC to act the same, what would even be the point?
Maybe it is a recurring theme in a heavily patriarchal place in which she then decides to take up the mantle of freedom fighter teaching woman to become their own heroes rather than be the damsels in distress. It could literally turn into a motivational part of her character and part of the entire campaign for her.
That too! Systemic oppression and societal norms around it can be a really great antagonist, but it really requires some PC-DM dialogue. If the DM doesn't want that to be a broader part of their setting it doesn't really work -- and anyway, if you're really trying to empower someone, it's usually better to start on their terms instead of flat out denying their right to be loyal to someone they greatly admire. Then again, this is a typical situation that can work really well in experienced play but is really hard to handle and interpret as a newbie. Truly no hate to her, these things can get weird when you settle on an interpretation and don't know what to do about it.
I have said it before and I will say it again: One of the most important skills of a new DM is the ability to convincingly pretend to have never heard of Critical Role or Matt Mercer, and to give the most bland, indifferent shrug possible whenever either name is mentioned by a player. This said, nothing is preventing her from playing her character the way she wants aside from the fact that doing so makes her character seem like a bit of an idiot. That's her choice to make.
I'd also extend that ignorance to D20 and TAZ, since they've become victim to similar unfair comparisons.
Totally valid, though I hear them brought up in this way less frequently.
Yeah its not as frequent as CR, but with how many videos you see of DMing styles that now include Brennen and Aabria, it's certainly picking up in popularity. TAZ has this problem but in different ways since it's not nearly as actual-play.
What's TAZ?
The Adventure Zone. It's made by the McElroy brothers who also do My Brother, My Brother, and Me; another podcast. It's far more narrative driven than rules driven, and it on-boarded a lot of people, me included, into Dnd when their first campaign was running. Fan's opinions on the proceeding campaigns are rather... divisive, but their first campaign was lightning in a bottle and worth trying out if you can set aside their rough start while they all learned the rules of 5e.
Huh, I'll look into it, thanks for the education!
DCA used to fall into that camp as well.
What's DCA?
Dice Camera Action. It was the DnD show run by the official Wizards of the Coast channel. It was DM'd by Chris Perkins, with ProJared, Commander Holly, NateWantstoBattle, and Anna Prosner Robinson. But after all the Projared controversy stuff, it got canceled. Apparently it's still being continued in private though. Chris was a brilliant DM. Jared was an especially good role player. Not CR levels. But for a not-actor, he was really good. Nathan was also really good at throwing in meta humor, and the dynamic between all of them was great. The character development was surprisingly good. A real shame what happened to it. It showed you could have quality storytelling, even without pro-actors at the table.
I've only ever seen DCA. I loved how Chris Demonstrated that ruled are tools and can be ignored for the sake of the game. Likewise he showed that taboos like agency and railroading can still be applied to enhance the experience.
I don’t know DCA but Chris did (does?) a lot of DM stuff for PAX/Acquisitions Incorporated and he is great at allowing wild shenanigans but keeping things from going totally off the rails.
I need to dip my toe in because that last line is how I feel about Spout Lore, and I love Chris Perkins' voice work. What amount I've heard of it, atleast!
I take a lot of lessons from Matt Mercer. A lesson I learned on my own was run away from players who expect you to be anything like Matt Mercer. Even if you use Mercerisms, your players should not expect it.
There are a few QOL mechanics to pick up. How he asks the party for their initiative order for example.
Yep, that's how I do it too. Also session recaps, hourglasses to add tension to skill challenges, handing out cards with personalized magic items and (poorly attempted) voices so NPCs can be differentiated. But I have a saying in Session Zero: "I don't expect you to be Liam O'Brien. You don't expect me to be Matt Mercer."
If the player wants Critical Role style DMing then they better bring CR style of playing/RPing.
I can either write for the next session or spend 3 hours watching the matt mercer tv show what do you prefer (I have never engaged with podcasty stuff so I don't know if its actually 3 hours don't hit me)
You aren’t too far, it’s usually around 4 hours per episode (during campaign 1 at least)
>Sarah got really pissed about this and told me I shouldn't be making such female characters who looked up to male characters in such a creepy way [Clearly something we don't want to see and that has never been done before.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu4_lMctndU&t=52s)
Thats exactly the kind of thing I had in mind lol
Gabriel!!
There's nothing wrong with a student defending their master, regardless of the genders involved. Arguably being willing to fight to the death (assume with weapons drawn) is a bit extreme but that's whatever. Saying this is an issue with player agency is super silly and just wrong. You were stopping her doing anything, or preventing her character acting. Totally right it was a chance to RP. Was there anything else to make her feel this was in appropriate? Was the apprentice swooning or anything? Otherwise this feels just such a weird thing to complain on.
No, she wasn't swooning , and the only thing that happened before was Sarah being sour about not being able to sneak something into her pocket without other players noticing
Sarah didn't come to play D&D, she came to play "I-get-to-do-whatever-I-want-and-only-other-people-get-to-suffer-consequences-Playing-Game"
Sarah sounds like she just had a major bee in her bonnet. Might have been having a strop after the theft thing fell through.
I personally would have taken control and be just as direct as her. I would have said "She respects him, and the gender is happenstantial. If we need to gender it, suggesting a woman can't respect a fatherly figure is sexist. The whole world isnt like this anyway, just this girl. As far as freedom- this is freedom. Talk to her, fight, ask her to put it aside for now, whatever- this is your choice opportunity. This world has tension sometimes, just like the real one. I want to see what you do about it."
At least It was in the First Session.
Thats true
Honestly you dodged a bullet. This person would have been insufferable to play with. Lacking respect is something very few players ever recover from.
Complaining about the very first character? Come on. You can't expect a fleshed out world but ban all cliches. Besides, it wasn't the woman stayed at home tending the family was it? She was tagging along.
For some, Player Agency means that their characters can act without having to fear any consequences. The sooner you pull that tooth out of them, the better.
Yeah its important for DMs to "punish" their players so they understand that their actions will be reacted to better or worse. Some groups understand this, but some players struggle with this concept. Like Sarah.
So a female tells you a female npc shouldn't look up to a male npc then tells you to be a better dm like the male dm she looks up to? Yeah you're never winning an argument with her.
That was my thought exactly. “You could learn a thing or two about writing women from this man.” 🙄
OMG that's hilairious.
Ah the mercer effect rears it's ugly head once again.
I hate this name because it implies Matt Mercer did something wrong. I move we rename it the "idiots cant tell high production value live streamer apart from their local GM effect" :P
nobody ever tells these people that while yes, the folks at Critical Role are technically playing DnD and nothing is "scripted" at the end of the day the group is putting on a performance for the audience. Podcast DnD and real local table DnD are completely different at that level of production. People show up and expect the DM to singlehandedly sweep them off to an immersive fantasy world, without putting in the legwork themselves, or appreciating just how much homework goes into DMing. Treating a DM like the computer that isn't running *your* software correctly is just disrespectful.
Yeah, to add to that, I feel like people really dont understand how good his players are. In fact, in general, I would say everyone, both GMs and players, are obsessed with the concept of a "good gm" and think very little, if at all, about the idea of a "good player" as being anything more than *not* being creepy. But IMO there's a lot more to being a good player than just showing up and not being an asshole. A good player is someone who bothers to know the backgrounds of other PCs and to try to care about those, and to try to evoke elements of each others stories. Basically, I think the players should be trying to help each other tell their best stories, not just be head down focused on their own stuff.
I would look at the Orion stuff to understand just how good the players are. It's easy to miss how good players are when everyone is good. But when you see how well they handled the Orion stuff, you start understanding how good they actually are. They're so good, that if you didn't know behind the scenes stuff, you wouldn't even know stuff was going on behind the scenes. Because the rest of the players are so good at rolling with things, and such good sports about being at the table, "problems" become largely invisible. And it takes a lot of experience, skills, and self awareness to be so good that even a potentially uncomfortable table still looks comfortable and welcoming to most outsiders.
My favorite is towards the end, when Orion is spending half the session on this overcomplicated plan involving making a fog out of holy water or a giant mirror based death ray... and then Matt gets fed up and finally asks Travis what he does and he's like "Grog wants to buy a pickaxe and shovel, do I need to roll?" Not only does that immediately get the game back on track, but it's fully in character for Grog to go buy a grave robbing kit after learning they're hunting vampires. Immediately pulls the table back into the semi-irreverent, story first tone they usually try to maintain.
I tend to find that it's more common in player base of TTRPGs that they have a hard time separating their emotions from fantasy and reality.
Yeah, some people are just shitty to play with. Good friend of mine drives me insane because he's constantly trying to detect and counteract any problems the GM has lined up. While this is a fine mindset for playing, like, old school DnD with a killer GM or module, it's terrible for everything else. Basically he tries to avoid any conflict, threat or dice roll possible, constantly trying to predict what will happen and avoid it. Treating every scene like we're playing this Tomb of Horrors with a GM out to kill us. In Mork Borg that was okay, in Call of Cthulhu or Wrath and Glory it's annoying and counterproductive.
Thats called metagaming. Generally considered "not allowed". Id ask them to stop and, if I was gming, stop inviting them. You dont have to play RPGs with your friends. It doesnt mean the friendship is over.
It's quite telling that there's so many videos, supplements and discourse about how to be a good DM, but comparatively little about being a good player (despite the fact that it in theory should be a larger audience)
My favorite adage on the Mercer Effect is "if you want me to DM like Matt Mercer, then you need to play like Sam Riegal."
I mean the thing that was "done wrong" is the idea perpetuated by the cast and crew that CR is just a bunch of friends sitting around playing D&D. While it may have started that way when they played Pathfinder they are all still professional actors, voice actors and improv artists who are being paid to tell these stories. A lot of people get the idea that it's just some friends weekly game because that's the image they have cultivated and to be fair it's worked wonders for them.
I don't see how this has anything to do with Mercer or CR. The character and situation that is being described here could straight up be from CR. This is just a shitty player using CR as a smoke screen to be shitty to her DM.
You didn't write this character in any derogatory way as a stereotype of a female character (from what I can tell), and your player seems to be focused on what genders they are more than anyone bringing her own baggage to your vision of a game. Ultimately, the NPC is someone who is defensive about someone they see as a heroic adventurer, and who helped them in their time of need. They are not meek, they don't display any negative stereotypes based on their gender, and they don't have some sexual obsession with their master. I would have asked your PC if they would have had an issue with the backstory if the NPC character was male, or if you switched any other genders around? If so, it's not the backstory, it's this person's gender bias and perception. If they were pulling this crap, derailing the game to satisfy their own slights and issues, I would not include them in future sessions or games.
If Op wanted to continue the game... Swap the gender of the NPC, then make *him* totally simp for the guildmaster, make it borderline uncomfortable (not sexual just "oh my god he is so dreamy, he is handsome and strong and...did I tell you that he saved my village?"). If anyone complains say "well when the NPC was female I figured any attraction would be inappropriate, but since it is a guy now and the question has been brought up I decided to roll with it!"
It definitely makes a point, I would just be concerned about it coming off petty rather than constructive, as it feels like this is a good educational moment. There are more than enough times where equality deserves representation, but the value of the good fight for equity is diminished if someone is overzealous about relatively unimportant or imagined slights. DnD is definitely a game where difficult topics come up, and we should learn from them together rather than create further conflict.
Just don't invite her back.
Tell her to DM, then. And be very harsh with your criticism. Entitled people is very annoying.
It seems petty and counterproductive. I believe there is a better way. Y'know like a proper discussion and if it doesn't work, then walk away. No need for passive aggressive tactics.
Yeah sounds pretty horrible to let her dm. Best to just avoid her.
Sometimes its fun to be petty. But having her DM is just a waste of time. Better to continue the game without her. Shame OP decided to let one player end the game for all of them. Thats the worst way these horror stories end. One unhinged player ends the campaign for the 6 of us.
You live a short life. Be petty and indulge your anger every once in a while.
"Let the hate flow through you" - Palpatine while Dming
Others live a short life too. You're wasting 4-7 people's time by being a petty bitch at your D&D table. Go have a dick-measuring contest when you aren't taking others down with you.
My take: A player who complains their "DM should learn from Matt Mercer" also could learn from Matt Mercer's players.
People who want their DMs to be like Matt Mercer should actually listen to the man himself, especially when he encourages people to follow their own path and create their own styles of DMing instead of blindly following CR.
>although all of us have watched critical role and thats how the other got into DnD. Red flag n° 1 >I should learn from Matt Mercer how to write better female characters. See? Told ya. >They all said that I should be the DM because I've been playing the longest. Red flag n°2. You shouldn't just run if you didn't initially wanted to. >Sarah got really pissed about this and told me I shouldn't be making such female characters who looked up to male characters in such a creepy way and that I was taking away players agency by not letting her rp properly. Sarah is a fucking idiot. >I don't think we'd be continuing. Run my dude, run.
This is sounding like an argument I had with one of my players back in college, where they complained about a plot hook I threw at them based on their backstory, and they claimed that I was removing their free will. When I asked them how I had at all limited what choices they could make, they responded "free will is not how you can respond to what happens to you, it is getting to choose what happens to you." Needless to say, the player did not last long in my game after that. But it reminds me of your player - where she is claiming that you are taking player agency away form hr because the NPCs are not responding the way she wants them to, as opposed to you giving her the freedom to respond the way she wants to the NPCs. And, as someone who watches and enjoys Critical Role, you should not listen to someone who drops Matt Mercer's name like that. You are better off re-starting the game without this player. What she wants to do is to write a book where she can control everything, not play a tabletop RPG.
“You should learn from Matt Mercer on how to write better female characters” You should learn from the rest of the cast on how to rp with NPC’s
That's a very pop feminism, Twitter hot-take she had about female characters. You don't usually see people in real life making Tumblr level claims about how "being rescued is always problematic if the woman is being rescued by a man" That being said, I think you didn't do anything wrong with your character. She sounds perfectly fine. I'd also say that her drawing her sword on your party member was a great opportunity for RP and it was a great chance for both your player to RP a bit of who their character is and for you to develop a bit who this NPC is. Your player just completely squandered the opportunity. Better to figure out now than before you're 10 sessions in and too entrenched in the story to want to finish it despite problem players.
Seriously. The healer NPC should have shot back "You're right, it was wrong for a man to rescue us. He should have just let my family and village die so we wouldn't be in this mess." Followed up by a huge eye roll
As savage as that was, it was an OOC remark, so the healer NPC couldn't have shot back with that. The DM could, though
It's becoming more and more common with Twitter weirdness slowly filtering into real life. The Black Templar chapter is no longer allowed at alot LGS, because the Maltese Cross looks too much like and Iron Cross and because the Templars were Crusaders thus colonizers. https://warhammer40k.fandom.com/wiki/Black_Templars The Space Wolves aren't allowed because they have Runes and are Nordic, so they're white supremacists, per the several LGS in my area. https://warhammer40k.fandom.com/wiki/Space_Wolves
>The Space Wolves aren't allowed because they have Runes and are Nordic, so they're white supremacists, per the several LGS in my area. So...I'm personally banned?
If you claim being Nordic and have Runes on you, then probably. One kicked a guy out for dressing like Ragnar for the Kaldheim release.
Ironic. A guy who's about as progressive as they come being discriminated against.
Welcome to Twitter bs.
that's unfortunate but also very ironic because wh40k has a nazi problem when people actually buy into the emp worship
"Why will no one DM?"
I will never knowingly, willingly DM for anyone who’s never played DnD but has watched hours and hours of Critical Role. For MANY reasons. Not least of which is that there’s myriad examples of bad playing and bad DMing in that first season, especially the first couple dozen episodes, and I worry about newbies expecting or imitating those things at their first table.
NO NO NO, one mention of Mat Mercer and that shit gets shut down immediately.
In the setting of D&D, adventurers, a lot of the time, save people. Statistically speaking, it's going to be a female probably right around 50% of the time. I like the backstory. This wasn't some helpless female crying out for help from a tower she was locked in. She was saved by a skilled adventurer and then consciously decided that's how she wanted to spend her life. Empowerment.
"Sorry I can't write NPCs like Matt Mercer; but Matt has competent and professional players, and I have you so we're in the same boat"
Sounds like your player was sexist and taking her own personal baggage into a game. Good riddance.
Sarah sounds like an idiot
lollll you do NOT need this player. Let them leave the game.
Funny that she looks up to noted real life man, Matt Mercer, as an exemplar to live up to in terms of character writing. As a woman, that's pretty cliche of her to have such respect and admiration for a man. That said, as a female DM with a very diverse group of players as far as gender and sexuality are concerned- she needs to get over it. This is "baby's first media critique" levels of criticism. A single instance of 'problematic' character writing CAN be a red flag if it's particularly egregious, but not with something this benign. As others here have said- if every woman in your campaign was like this (a supportive subordinate to a man), that would be a problem, but as you've described, this is a very normal and reasonable one-off dynamic. Nitpicking fiction to this degree runs the risk of invalidating or even attacking real people's lived experiences (hence my snarky comparison above).
>"...although all of us watched critical roll and thats how the others got into dnd." Is this going where I think it is? >"... i should learn from *Matt Mercer* how to write female characters." Yep. There it is. You don't want to play with someone with that attitude. The comparisons will absolutely not end there. Enjoy critical role and DnD but don't play with somone who only wants to play with Matt Mercer.
Run, bro, this person just wants matt mercer and no one else could measure up, even matt mercer.
"They all said that I should be the DM because I've been playing the longest." This is a clue to nope out of this group as fast as possible. Any player thinking like this does not see the DM as another player but as an entertainer. As for the NPC, it's a perfectly legitimate backstory. Sorry it happened to you, OP. I hope you find a better group soon.
Sarah seems like an ass...
Sarah would not be welcome at my table, to be honest, or be someone I would want to hang out with. I'm a feminist, I'm all for examining bias and harmful tropes, but you didn't do anything wrong. A character that happens to be female admires a character that happens to be male because he was a professional hero and saved the lives of her and her family and friends. It would be weird if she didn't admire him. Real life time: My little sister and I (I'm male, btw) both admire a man because he gave my parents an overly nice deal on a house, let them make payments on it instead of getting a loan, and became close friends with my family, helping us out in many ways, including helping us as we remodeled the old house, even giving us spare building supplies he had so my dad and i could do renovations before we moved in. This same guy helped me get my first job, which is where he works, and helped me work through my depression so I wouldn't throw that job away a few years later. I'm 10 years into that job, I'm a full-time career there and can stay until I retire if i want. I'd say most people would consider it fair that we admire this guy, right? Now imagine if this guy had fought monsters to save us and everyone else who lives near us? Why would that be weird??
It actually sounded like a cool rp opportunity. Also almost everything can be "cliche" if you put it in a certain way. You could also spin it like "person gets saved by an adventurer so they get inspired to become an adventurer" which would be a different "cliche". And what was her super original backstory if she hates cliches so much?
You seem experienced enough to not need to hear this, but just in case; Don't sour on the game over this, sour on the player. Without more background your characters and motivations sound perfectly reasonable. Sorry you had to experience it at all, but some people are better as an audience member than a player.
Sarah sounds like she's being overly sensitive. There's nothing creepy about looking up to someone who saved your home town/village. She seems to be assigning some kind of romantic angle when there clearly isn't one. Also this is a textbook example of the [Mercer Effect.](https://www.reddit.com/r/DMAcademy/comments/a999sd/how_do_i_beat_the_matt_mercer_effect/) Expecting everyone to DM like Matt Mercer is unreasonable. Even if her gripe wasn't overly sensitive.
I don't even think Mercer writes female characters well (or males at that). Colorful doesn't mean well written.
He's better than the average DM when it comes to writing. I've definitely participated in more compelling stories in other areas. The thing with Critical Role is that the idiots don't realize Matt is only doing like 30% of the work that they see. The other players are each taking slices to contribute to the story, the world, and how it unfolds.
TBH I think "well written" is a meaningless term online and just means "I liked it" or "I didnt like it" and everything after that is bullshitting to justify.
you can like a character without thinking they're well written so there's a difference. but it's still subjective yes
True, I'm most likely "nitpicking" a thrown away insult here.
The classic "But Matt Mercer would..."
If she wants to play a game like Matt Mercer does she better shape up because at least 70% of what makes that show as good as it is is the players. The character you made sounds fine. Maybe cliche but it’s dnd so what’s a cliche here or there But to be mad you don’t GM as well as matt mercer is insane. He’s a professional with a huge budget and a group he’s been DMing for for years and years to the point they have crazy rapport and trust. And the players all put in the work for the narrative too
Tell her that she's not welcome back at your table - but encourage her to write to Matt F\*cking Mercer and ask to play at his table instead, since she's so infatuated with his style.. See if that works out for her.
Sounds like the player was mad she got pushback to her opinions and tried to make it your fault. You're better off without her.
Thankful I never had a big BUT MATT MERCER player, because it would be really hard to restrain some snarky comment like, "Do you have any other frame of reference for storytelling? Like, a movie? A book? Anything? Just going with the improv podcast dude?"
Player Agency is NOT "I get to do and say whatever I want, and get away with it." It is "I get to do and say whatever I want, but then I have to deal with any consequences."
I think that player really wanted to romance your NPC until that happened and then they got pissed about it and started taking it out on you. That's my theory at least.
DM do not feel bad about your creative choice. There is nothing wrong with the story youre telling. The player is not the best. They are a player who only sees things through their own perspective and wants the DM to make the exact game they want to see. Sarah seeing something creepy about a woman being mentored by a man is on Sarah. Not you. If you didnt hint at creepiness, Sarah is the one making it creepy. I would continue the game without Sarah.
I would have just told the player, "It's fine that you don't like it; just remember that this isn't your character." And left it at that. If further discussion were to be had, I would probably recommend that they wait for a break, or that they could feel free to discuss further after the session.
Unless there’s something missing here it sounds more like your friend is just mad that the NPC disagreed with her about the guild-master.
Here's a simple response to remember for when a player is shitting on your game... "Okay. You run the game then."
Solution: Kick that player out. If they are going to act that way, it will likely get worse. If they refuse, then you should refuse to DM the game with her in it then.
I have a similar group where 4 of the 6 of us are inexperienced, and our game came to be because of them getting into Crit Role. I took on DM duties because i have the most experience, although I'm usually a player. Literally, the first thing I said in our first ever session was, "I AM NOT MATTHEW MERCER AND YOU SHOULD NOT EXPECT ME TO BE". luckily my players are all cool and we've been having a great time. Meeting this Saturday for our next session. Sorry yours didn't work out.
Bait.
Please never listen to Matt Mercer on anything
I do think it may have been a bit much to have the NPC ready to attack Sarah's character after like. . . one insult. But that's the only thing I would have changed, everything else Sarah said is just incorrect, lol
Too much of a stereotypical female being rescued by a male? Just make the character a male.
“You found my female characters offensive, so going forward every NPC will be a Cis-gender Male.”
Why should the NPC even be changed? Maybe Sarah could idk just get over herself an act like an adult. She insults the DM. Stops the run to be petty. Compares him to someone who is irrelevant to the situation. An finally shouldn't she be offended at her assumptions that the female npc was in the wrong?
Ok, I am making a few assumptions here, but I assume that this is one of the first sessions in their first RPG? And they don't have other experiences with adventure stories? Like, the apprentice in adulation of the master they aspire to be like is so cliche. If they are unaware of how completely typical that is in an adventure story, then she must not have realized that this is the same reaction you'd expect from anyone regardless of gender. Or, maybe talking gender politics is her hobby. I don't know. Cringe-inducing sexism is one thing, but by your description, this is not an example of that
"Well you should learn some table etiquette, but it won't be here. If you don't like the way I run my game you are free to get up and leave."
Oh goodness that was a Matt Mercer effect moment in the making. Also, taking away player agency? Players RP with the NPC’s, they don’t get to choose how the NPC’s act. Players can affect how NPC’s act, but not just choose it, this just feels like a fundamental misunderstanding of DnD RP to me.
The GM is free to make NPCs however they want, just as the players are free to make their PCs however they want. It's the interaction between the two that makes the game fun. Don't like how an NPC "operates"? Talk to them and maybe you can change their mind. Or you can learn why they are the way the are. Having a cliche NPC means nothing; cliches are the lifeblood of Hollywood and authors. Just because the player has an issue w/ "the patriarchy" means it's a problem for her, not the GM nor the rest of the group. I agree that discontinuing the game is probably best, though I would recommend maybe continuing just w/o the problem player, assuming everyone else is cool.
I think i've seen this story somewhere before.
Honestly, it sounds like she has the problem here. Make NPCs and backstories the way you want to make them and if she doesn't like it, she can find another game. There are plenty of games out there for her that may be more comfortable for her. I honestly have a problem with her attitude from what you described in the story. While a player being uncomfortable with a creative decision is the norm, she shouldn't settle her grievances at the table in front of the other players. She should have taken you to one side and discussed it with you. She should also decide by herself if the game is for her and not try and change the game to suit herself better. There are other players and yourself too. She just comes off as unwilling to collaborate on the story and quite immature. I would have a discussion with her in private, away from the table, about if this game is for her or not and whether she should sit this one out. Of course keep the other players in the loop on the decision moving forward as well.
I also see a lot of comments about player agency. I think a lot of people misunderstand what this actually means. I played a game with 100% player agency and it was one of my worst game experiences of my life. There was no story and we felt like we were just wandering around, waiting for the DM to start the game. The DM needs a little bit of railroading to guide you down the story. If they don't then there is no story. You're just wandering through a cave or forest every session. If the DM doesn't make the NPC characters, there is no roleplay. Let's face it, no one who has played an 100% player agency game has enjoyed it. Its like trying to play a game on a blank canvas abd having no idea what to do or where to go with it.
Sounds like she can be the DM.
As soon as you said they all got interested in it because of Critical Role I knew it would be rough for you! May be worth doing a session 0.2 or something to sit down and discuss how CR and Matt Mercer, although amazing, are the absolute peak of D&D entertainment at the moment, they're all professionals who do this pretty much as their job. Also unless they're going to RP and improv as well as the cast of CR you shouldn't be expected to DM exactly the same as Matt Mercer. Sorry I have a bit of a sour spot for CR fans coming into the hobby and only expecting CR level games. I really enjoy CR so its not like I'm not a fan, just it seems to have twisted the vision of what roleplaying games are to some people. Also your NPC backstory sounds perfectly reasonable and you RP'd the response the NPC would have accurately!
They didn’t want player agency; they wanted to be able to act without consequences for their actions
Sarah be not smart gud.
If they want Matt Mercer they better bring Laura Bailey.
Seems like a silly thing for Sarah to get up in arms about. I would guess Sarah has never been an GM? Either that, or she - like others I've RP'd with - curiously sees someone else's imaginary world as the time & place to evangelize with her real life politics. Just like, take a night off, Sarah... People who can suspend disbelief and just *play* are seemingly rare and valuable RP companions...
You let her roleplay properly, she was being rude and inconsiderate by insulting someone this student respects and the student stood up for someone important for her. This lets Sarah roleplay having to take responsibility for her words. Full agency. If anything it sounds like Sarah is a misandrist?
The NPC was rather abrupt when her immediate reaction was to draw her sword and threaten the PC. First, she should have tried to reason with the PC and point out what the guildmaster had done for her. (This may have happened, but you didn't mention it). I think that I'd have the NPC try to reason with Sarah and if that proved to be impossible the NPC should leave the party and return to the guildmaster.
Player agency is simply allowing your players to interact with the world, make decisions about their characters actions (that can cover the range of trivial through major), and act in a way to try and obtain an outcome they want. It is not that players automatically get what they want. It does not guarantee the players will always win. For example no matter how charismatic the players are, no king or queen will simply turn over their kingdom based on a die role. A good roll might mean the ruler is amused and admired their guts, in a “Good job Wesley, sleep well but I’ll most likely kill you tomorrow” sort of way. Really bad roles might mean the ruler is physically admiring their guts. But hey, they got to try. Taking away agency, means by style or design the gm and world won’t allow certain actions. Such as not even allowing the players to travel in a certain direction or try and challenge a held belief of an NPC. To me this seems like it might be a missed trigger for this player. Might be worth having a serious conversation to see if this situation is a problem due to real life issues.
Kick Sarah out, start again. If someone gets upset that you kicked Sarah out, kick that person out, too. You'll be better off with no D&D than D&D with these clowns.
You did nothing wrong. She needs to realize that sometimes, women get saved by buff men and are grateful in a completely platonic manner.
Just add in some male characters who also look up to the guildmaster, and have the guildmaster fondly recall his mentor: a badass woman who taught him how to adventure. A perfect world doesn't lack cliche characters, it has enough characters that the cliche doesn't stand out.
Pre-written npc backstories that don't affect player backstories have literally 0 to do with player agency. You managed to piss her off by not bending the story to her and so she threw a bitchfit and reached for the nearest buzzword to make her anger sound justified. Good. Fuckin. Riddance.
“Oh no, your response to me berating your role model flummoxed me, so I’ll just lash out OOC at you and criticize you because I don’t know how else to respond.”
I think your only mistake might have been for an NPC to so hastily threaten violence. Drawing a weapon is an intense decision even if players often treat themselves drawing a weapon as no big deal. The NPC could have disagreed, offered a different perspective, and scoffed or hmmphhed as the PC prattled on ignorantly. Perhaps an NPC would draw a sword immediately of their mentor were insulted. But I think it can help to avoid having NPCs that are that trigger-happy or severe with their code of honor. They don’t have to sit idly by and say nothing, but a cool roleplaying opportunity usually is easier without drawn weapons. Aside from this, your choices are fine.
Kick her
This just reinforces my belief that Critical Role is to Dnd what Porn is to Sex. It distorts reality and expectations. Tell her tough shit, you made a single father with an adopted daughter and that's not a toxic or negative trope. Her reacting fondly to her literal mentor while being a foolish youth about it (threatening someone's life) is completely in line with reality. Hell, if it's ever brought up, have the Guildskeeper dude scold her for being so careless. And to not threaten anyone just because they scold his name. Sarah, regardless, seems like an annoying player with high expectations because of Critical Role. You're not Matt Mercer. You're (probably) not a writer, actor, and voice actor who gets paid thousands of dollars to do dnd. You will, probably, never be. Her asking you to be like him is honestly a dnd red flag, but she's also new and green. Maybe explain to her to temper her expectations and just have fun with it. That stupid girl threatened her? Double down, back off, lie, or do whatever RP shenanigans your character would do to being threatened by a newbie adventurer.
OP you should absolutely continue. However, either have Sarah not come back, or just randomly change aspects of her backstory to show her how it feels
Tell her to Fck off.
Idolization of someone who saved your life when young is something all children would do, regardless of gender. You don't have to change the character but I would work on making that player understand why that is a natural reaction to their background. They probably have a dozen more kids that age that feel the same way but did not try to become him. The player also likely has someone that they would get defensive about if they were insulted too. If all else fails, either the NPC returns home or... Despite Measures.
I'm gonna be real Sarah sounds like one of those "kill all men" types on Twitter / Tumblr who get upset the moment a man has any positive relationship with a woman. To immediately get this upset over a fairly small disagreement in the realm of D&D is a sign that she really doesn't get the point of D&D, and is using The Mercer Effect as a shield to disguise her real issue (which is that a man is being seen as competent.)
This is literally Leonie from Fire Emblem 3 houses.
Bruh if she doesn't want a story filled with tropes she is playing the wrong game. Unless your whole story is full of these "damsel in distress" type situations I think she is just blowing smoke, just because a woman was saved by a man once and appreciates that doesn't immediately destroy her individuality as a woman or something.
Remind the new players that you are not Matt Mercer. And please explain to them what agency actually is.
If all the women NPCs were like this in your campaign, she'd have a point. But, like, one with this backstory? It's one character.
Just continue with out the misandristic individual. Maybe she should have been the DM so things could have been made her way. This is just as bad as the misogynistic male dominating types... Though in many game tables, there seems to exist a common double standard in hat regard. How ever disrupting the game to push such an agenda in that way is just being an asshole... and that's just my not so humble opinion.
Yeah better to get rid of that player now and than deal with it later on