bel-mont-bae:

raejin99:

zambamboz:

bardicknowledgeblogger:

lair-master:

bel-mont-bae:

bel-mont-bae:

Hey DnD Community

How many of you have been banned from playing a bard in campaigns? I need to know for science.

For anyone that might ask- I had to sign a legally binding contract to not play bard characters if I wanted to join a campaign in my old group.

this is an outrage.

here’s what you do:

• be a half-elf. the skill versatility trait is similar to the bard’s starting skill proficiencies
• play a warlock. again, similar starting proficiencies. charisma is your spellcasting ability. very bardy
• your otherworldly patron is the great old one. or the archfey. except call them your “otherworldly muse” or “otherworldly patron of the arts”
• pick spells on the bard spell list, such as minor illusion, mage hand, dissonant whispers, or Tasha’s hideous laughter
• take the entertainer background. much bard. wow.
• choose pact of the blade if you’re a valor bard or pact of the tome if you’re a lore bard. i recommend the latter. pick the vicious mockery cantrip (because bard), as well as guidance and resistance (to emulate bardic inspiration)
• for eldritch invocations, take beguiling influence for more skill proficiencies and book of ancient secrets to ape the bard’s magical secrets feature
• if you miss having expertise, splash in a level or six of rogue, perhaps at fifth level
• voila! you’re a bard in all but name. that’ll show ‘em

Stealth bard-ing

Tbh if you fucked up being a bard so bad that your group absolutely does not want you to play a bard then if u use these “tips” to be a stealth bard you’re just a dick.

I have a friend who DMs for their own group and they straight up told me that if it got to the point that they had to ban someone from playing a bard and they pulled the “stealth bard” shit they would literally just give up and not want to DM at all because that’s such a shitty shitty thing to do.

Like it’s one thing to be an asshole to the DM but then there’s being THAT asshole that no one wants to play with or DM for.

Instead of thinking of ways to bypass the rule against you not being able to be a bard maybe y’all should reevaluate why your team has banned you from being a bard in the first place.

I doubt they were banned from playing bard because they played it poorly in the past, since 9 times out of 10 a ban like that usually comes from a GM who takes the stereotype of the typical bard player as the “guy/girl who tries to seduce and sleep with everything and everyone and throws the campaign off the rails” a little too seriously.

Like most of the time these GMs ban ALL of their players from playing bards because they think it’ll ruin the atmosphere of their campaign. Which is shitty GMing, mind you, because you should be talking to your players about everyone’s expectations, not just your own, as you can usually come to a compromise that everyone finds reasonable and enjoyable.

I do agree that “stealth barding” isnt going to solve the problem either way, though. It might be cathartic for like a minute, but by that point you’re better off finding a DM who’s more flexible about player options.

Uh OP here, I got banned becuase my GM was a control freak that actually had EVERYONE in our group sign something before our first game. The only thing he didn’t count on was someone (me) playing a bard.

Like he was so obsessed w/ the campaigns playing out how HE wrote them, that the first time I derailed it he was actually a bit mature about it. After 6 other campaigns tho he went back and revised his shitty little contract so no one was allowed to play bards and told me to “retire” my bard- whom I’ve been using for all of our campaigns since all the other players wanted it to be like a series of adventures for our ban of misfits- and make a new character to join the adventures. It made both me and the others upset becuase we all already established relationships among our characters and didn’t want a “stranger” joining.

So in the end I made a new character and it wad a bard. It was my final “fuck you” to him and I haven’t played w/ that asshole since. As for the other players, the GM literally threatened to ban other players from playing in his group if they talked to me.

Pretty astounded that zambamboz immediately came to the conclusion that OP was being a dick and the GM was faultless. It’s pretty obvious that the GM isn’t ideal.

If a GM is making you sign a legally binding contract not to be a bard before letting you play, that’s a bad sign. It’s a sign that they’re not only inflexible, but that they lack the out-of-the-box thinking required to be a good GM.

That’s not just because they’ve banned a player from an entire class. That’s a huge part of it, and it shouldn’t be ignored – if you’re resorting to legally binding contracts rather than just, say, talking to the player, you’re trying to be too much of a dictator and not caring enough about the players having fun. GMs aren’t supposed to just make sure they themselves have fun at any cost. They have to look out for the players, too.

As some people might point out, this goes both ways – conversely, the players have to follow rule #1 of roleplaying, I.e. Don’t Be A Dick. The definition of “being a dick” is pretty nebulous and varies by circumstance, so it’s once again up to the GM to determine if a player is ruining the enjoyment of other players and/or themselves, and to take them aside if they are, and peacefully (hopefully) come to a compromise with them. Tell them *why* what they’re doing is Being A Dick, and work with them on a way to change that aspect WITHOUT eliminating their enjoyment.

So back to the Bard thing: telling a player “you can’t be a Bard, period” is RARELY a good way to get that peaceful compromise. For one thing, it’s not considering what that Bard-playing player wants out of it at all. For another, it doesn’t even remotely get to the root of the problem. Is the problem that the player keeps singing songs of their own composition to be in character, tormenting everyone else in the room? Is it that the Bard character keeps having sex with enemies, derailing the violence and action? Is it that the player derails quests in other ways? Is it the awful, awful puns?

These are all completely separate issues, and none of them are caused just by the character being a Bard – you can play a Bards without creating these issues. By that same token, none of these issues can be stopped just by having the player stop playing Bards. It’s irresponsible of any GM to say “alright, stop playing Bards and the problem will be solved”, instead of figuring out what about playing a Bard causes problems, and how to talk to players about it. And, frankly, it’s naive and a clear sign of inexperience.

Of course, sometimes you get a player who can’t be reasoned with, and then the solution would just be to not play with them. If you can’t handle that player, don’t GM for them. Trying to stop them by having them sign such a broad-yet-generic contract is just asking for them to exploit loopholes. If they’re enough of a dick to ignore you when you’ve talked to them about their behavior multiple times, they’ll definitely find a way around the contract, unless you can define with clear legal precision what “Being A Dick” means in your campaign. I wouldn’t recommend it unless you’ve been through at least two years of law school (or if you’re a genius and you’ve already passed the bar).

But this brings us back to the other reason why OP’s GM is not a great GM. They not only aren’t familiar enough with DnD to realize that you can be a Bard without being a Bard – they don’t even realize you can create any of the problems that Bards stereotypically create without even Stealthing the class! Humans can enjoy puns. Anyone with curiosity and creativity can derail a quest. Druids can try to have sex with everyone they meet. Hell, horny humans with seduction magic can do that. And as for singing, you can always insist your elf is from a region or clan that sings whenever they feel strong emotions. DnD is flexible enough that you can’t just solve all Bard-related problems by banning Bards. A lot of popular games are. Hence the “Stealth Bard” suggestion.

Finally, great GMs roll with the punches. Your Bard seduces the latest big bad and you haven’t come up with any other monsters? Throw in some other problems. There’s a kitten sleeping in front of a door you have to open. A magical item causes conflict among the characters and they start fighting over something trivial. The big bad gets possessive and won’t let the Bard leave, and now the other players have to rescue their resident headache. Players aren’t going to follow the exact campaign you have in mind; things are going to get derailed, at least a little, sooner or later. And you have to be prepared for that as well. It’s true that things can get derailed too far, and you sometimes have to reign it in; and there are many cases where players derail because they’re being dicks, and you have to have words with them. But not every imperfect campaign is the result of players being dicks. Usually it’s the result of players being humans. If you really, desperately want things to play out a certain way, use the rules and mechanics to try and keep things along that path – make failed rolls worse if they’re taking action for something other than to achieve the goal. Raise thresholds of success for trying to seduce a monster.

Otherwise, don’t GM – just write a book.

*Caveat that I’ve never actually DM’d DnD in particular before, but I’ve played and GM’d a few games, and that’s more than enough to tell that if the GM keeps an open conversation going with players outside the game, it’s a lot more likely to get players to not Be Dicks than if the GM made them sign blanket contracts with pretty seriously huge loopholes. Feel free to point out game mechanics I’m getting wrong for DnD in particular, though – it’s probable I used names incorrectly.

**Disclaimer that I don’t actually think writing a book means your plot can’t get derailed. Characters are like players except when they derail your plot, the only person you can blame for it is yourself. Not that that’s a bad thing.