Calling for Cases!

Hey folks, I'm the DM from the message below :) Adding my point, if the turn AND the round are both 6s, all characters should decide their actions at the start of the round, not based on initiative and actions done during the turns before their turn. Does it make sense? P.S. Lisha, you're the best!

To the supreme crit justices and lovely lovely lovely Jake! My DM does not believe in battle round rules. He says that each round takes us 1 minute, as it makes no sense to do everything in 6 seconds. I tried to argue by running and checking how much I can run within 6 seconds, he still does not agree. Is he right? I tiredly wait for your answer in the floor after running for 6 seconds.

To the Handsome Balif Jake and his Routy Gaggle of Possums. I bring before you today a case in which my player has already plead guilty. However as the GM, I know they are entitled to a Crit-torney and thus submit this case in their stead to find out if they are entitled to a retrial. Some background: We have been playing a Daggerheart campaign for about a year and a half over discord video call. At the start of a new Arc, the party was sailing to a foreign nation in order to untangle a political assassination made against one of the party's in-game fathers. The nation in question had been been described from multiple players' backstories to be extremely dangerous, enough so that they had to flee the nation in fear for their lives. At the end of a session, I spent 5 Fear (a meta-currency specifically used to cause complications) and I had the players roll three times for a scripted event. The three rolls were for the following: -A Strength roll for how much damage they would take -A Finesse roll for losing some of their equipment -And a knowledge roll for how much they remembered about the event in question afterwards. I let them know this was what the rolls were before they rolled so they could use their abilities and traits strategically, and let them know the worst that could happen to them from this event. Next session their ship was attacked by volcanic elementals above their level, which were controlled by a faction of the foreign nation they were arriving in, and my intent was that it would shipwreck and split the party for a session or two, leading them to important plot points and information that they would need for the upcoming arc. One of the players was sour about the rolls, and when the results of the rolls started to play out, they reacted very terribly toward me, accusing me of wanting to kill their character and beginning to read a book rather then engage any further in the session. This caused me to need to abruptly end the session and leave the discord call so as not to verbally lash out in the moment. The player has since apologized for their behavior, and taken full responsibility for the situation. This was not a normal occurrence for the player and was partially a result of out of game circumstances happening in their real life. However I feel as though some of the blame could have been layed at my feet. I can understand being frustrated about the loss of control over what happened to their character. I would love to hear the opinion of the court and to know if my player is entitled to a retrial.

Hello, fellow NADDPOLES! I have 1 ticket for radio city music hall that I’d like to give away as I cannot make the show. (SEC ORCH2 / Row K / Seat 203). Lmk if you want it!

Forgive me my fellow Dicesciples for i have sinned. I am currently DMing for a campaign with homebrew lore based loosely on Dark Souls and Bloodborne. I told my players from the jump that this would be a hard campaign, and that I would not be pulling any punches or perfectly level balancing the encounters they might get themselves into (sort of like how Brennan is doing currently on Critical Role). I encouraged them during character creation to min-max to their hearts extent, because these encounters were bound to be pretty tough. During our last session, my friend who is currently playing a fiend warlock was cursed by the dice devil for reasons I claim not to understand. Your honors, he didn't roll above a 4 during the entirety of that session. It got so bad that he started scrolling instagram halfway through the big combat at the end (normally, he's one of the most locked in players at the table). This is where I sinned. The party's Fighter rolled a 16 to hit. The creatures armor class was 17. But seeing the despair in my fellow players (and life long friends) eyes, I didn't want to drag the session out any longer than it had to, so I boldly and sacreligiously claimed the attack had hit, with that attack dealing just enough damage to kill the flesh golem that was frankly walloping my poor friend. I know I shouldn't have done it, but i felt bad for my friend, and embarrassed at how poorly the encounter i had designed had gone down. Even though everyone else claimed they had a good time, as a DM, I can't help but feel that there was something I could have done to prevent my friend from having such a sad time in what is otherwise our favorite hobby. I lay myself prostrate and prostate to any judgement that your holinesses and the worm wife bestow upon me.

May it please the court, I got some naddpod temporary tattoos at the Sydney show because my 2yo daughter loves temp tattoos. Anyway I put the Olaf skull on her arm because it kind of fit the best and was sort of the least weird to put on a kid. I did not think through that she was about to see all her cousins, go to daycare, swim class etc a bunch with kids who have (she hasn't) seen and love Frozen. She is a quiet kid but very proud of her tattoo and showed it to everyone she could. Was this wrong? Or very funny? Or both? Lots of love, Clive

To the honorable pope's and bishops of the OG college humor, and that one guy who knows amir. Shout out to oppa Yugo style I have a pre confession, I am about to join my first DND campaign after years of listening to your journeys through worlds beyond out own. How do you stay so honorable without faking a roll. I want to exceed infront of everyone and I fear of failing infront of experienced players (E.G roll terribly). Do you have any wisdom to share upon this newly follower of dice Christ.

To the highly esteemed judges and also bailiff jorff, I don't have a D&D case for you, but I do have a real life Grinch sighting and I truly, deeply need to know what I should have done in this scenario. On Easter Sunday, I was in my car, driving to do some errands, when I passed a local park. Suddenly, something red, green, and extremely large and furry started jogging past my car. I looked over to see someone in an adult sized Grinch costume, or hell, maybe it was the real Grinch himself. This Grinch was also in a Santa suit. I cannot stress enough how much this really, actually happened. This Easter Santa Grinch jogged into the park, over to a volleyball court where a number of people were in the middle of a game, and joined the game. By this point I couldn't keep watching events unfold without crashing my car, so I had to chose between doing my time-sensitive errands or parking and going to investigate the Grinch. I'm ashamed to admit I chose to pick up my prescription before the pharmacy closed, and have no further idea why the hell a Grinch in a Santa suit was playing volleyball in my neighborhood on Easter Sunday. I should have parked the car and forgotten about the prescription, right? I'll take any punishment you feel is appropriate.

To the most noble Justices, and the most unsightly Bailiff. I bring you the case of the fumbling fighter. I am a new DM running a game in my own homebrew setting, and I put out a call for players in a forum post. My fighter pitched me the classic edgy badass (I’m only here for selfish reasons) character. But they told me they were an experienced player, and they seemed self-aware about it, so I said it was ok. They missed the first session with zero notice (disappointing but whatever). I talked to them about cool ways we could introduce their character in the second, and we decided to give them some inside info on the bad guy that they could present to the party and hopefully bond with them. I gave them the info and asked if they had any questions for me and they said no. Come session 2, the fighter appears and helps the party defeat a giant centipede cat. But as they started to tell the party what was up, they just completely fumbled it. They awkwardly stumbled through the info I had given them and even said a couple things wrong, causing me to step in and correct them, thus making it even more awkward. They left the session early about an hour later. My players all seem like good people, and I really want to make my first game a special one. So I must ask… Did I mess up somehow? Or does the fault lie with my fumbling fighter? I humbly await your decision.

No case, but my elderly cat Pixie passed away 3 days ago. She saw me through middle school, high school, nursing school, the NCLEX. What a gift. Today is her 19th birthday. Happy birthday, Pixie ❤️

Hello to the 3 positive adjectives and the 1 potentially negative adjective. This is less a case or a confession so much as a thank you. I am a high school teacher, and run the after school Dungeons and Dragons club that has ballooned in recent years to over 50 students, with 5-6 tables running at any one time. This happened a little bit ago, but I found myself on an afternoon where all the other student DMs had other commitments, but did not express to their tables so I was left the as the only game master of any sort for well over 20 students. Thankfully I remembered back to the Twoyal Tumble and it's easy rules set. I quickly had students choose 2 characters each, for a total of 30 - found some clipart, assigned bonuses where I decided for their submissions. I had probably 12 students around a large table. I learned a lot about my students that day. Examples of their jobbers (TF2's Heavy, Pepsiman), their superstars (Rainbow Dash, Ellen Ripley), their heels (Starscream, Five Nights at Freddie's Bonnie). It developed a crowd quickly, and as players were eliminated I added a rule where by show of applause the crowd could give their choice of character still in the ring advantage. This was successful but I wonder what it says about my students when Heel Former Vice President Dick Cheney got the audience advantage for a straight 8 rounds and went on a tear. Justices, I would have loved to tell you that jobber "Weird Al" Yankovic completed the story after his whopping 16 rounds in the ring, but alas even with advantage with a series of bad rolls he lost in the final showdown to Hiccup from How to Train Your Dragon. Thanks so much for coming up with this rules set - it took only a few minutes to setup and kept my students engaged for well over 2 hours, and they talked about it for weeks afterwards. I hope sometime you return to it for a mixed bag.

To the sprightly judges and sluggish bailiff Jark, My tale begins long ago in the pre-covid times when I would meet up with friends at the local carde shoppe to play D&D. One of the newer DMs in our group ran a campaign in which we played the descendants of previous PCs, and as my paladin had become a lord of the city I was playing a ranger who was one of the scions of the most powerful houses in the city. At a certain point, we spent the party's coffers securing a MacGuffin in my safe, setting up a series of runes of warding to go off if anyone approached the safe without me. It was in my family's manor for added guards and protection. We came back from an adventure only to find it empty. I asked how, and the DM said he rolled a d20 to see how the heist went and it landed on a 20. I replied, "So? What was the roll for? Stealth? Safecracking? Noticing the runes that would go off as soon as they're close enough to detect them? The point of a layered defense is that it can't be breached with one random-ass roll." We were out of time and called the session there. When we reconvened, the DM ran the burglars through the actual business of robbing the safe, which they were still able to do, which felt better than just having a random roll invalidate my planning. Justices, was I a bad dog for big big dogging the DM, or was I right to howl foul? Fyi, the campaign continued to the very end and was tons of fun.

I don’t have any stories but! I did just get 3 new foster kittens (around 3-4 weeks old, currently being bottle fed. Got to love spring!) 2 ginger and 1 black and named them Beverly, Welly (you will be happy to know she does seem weirdly shameful), and the black one is Onyxx. Just thought the kitty loving court may be pleased to hear this.

Kia Ora beautiful judges and yo it's Jake! I have a case hear to determine if I was beaned over for the story. I was part of a really fun star wars campaign where my boyfriend (of the time, no longer together) was dming. It was a great time however some things happened which were cool for the story but did screw over my character a little. 1st: my character used to be part of a team of thieves in her backstory. I created 4 npcs and said that I liked the idea that they were somewhere out there always looming. He did kill them all off screen with it being shown on security footage as an afterthought (objectively is kinda funny after all the effort I put in) but it did hurt a bit and didn't really add much to the story's heading. In response the dm said "it was great seeing your face after I killed them all off after you sent me the backstory" while laughing. 2nd: we had an intense combat after an awesome heist. My character was knocked out and almost died. After the session we had a month off for winter break and the dm wanted to do a time skip where everyone could message some things they wanted to do. Everyone levelled up and did a few cool things relating to backstory or driving the plot forward in an interesting way. The dm said I couldn't do anything or level because my character was in a bacta tank for a few months recovering. I was a bit miffed as I did want to level up and had a couple ideas planned for the time skip. But alas, I still had a good time in the campaign but there were quite a few moments like, am I crazy for being a little hurt for missing out character moments for the story. (There was also a weird plot point where the dm tried to convince me (da player) to not move abroad to New Zealand via drama with npcs which we had to solve via couple counselling). Awaiting your wise words and guidance with love from New Zealand.

To the radiant justices Axfur’d Marphy and Tenor and the bioluminescent bailiff Jake I present the case of the hurry up wolves. Our group had decided to try our hand in streaming an actual play dnd campaign of Curse of Strahd, it was 6 players an occasional guest 7th and our DM. We were all remote and new to streaming and would take 10 minute breaks midsession to refresh and potty and such. Still learning things and one thing our DM had requested was we try to speed up combat so it didn’t drag on too long, since there were 6-7 of us. We all were attempting to have our actions ready to go to move things along at a pace but with 6 people all taking turns each combat lasted longer than the dm wanted. One session we were fighting a pack of wolves there were 8 wolves and 2 stronger alphas. The battle had been going on for an hour when we took our break. The dm was very upset with us during intermission telling us we need to hurry or the entire 4 hour session would be this one combat and he wanted to get to certain point by the end of the night (a potential cliffhanger ending for the stream). We agreed to focus up more, when we came back from intermission we had 6 wolves(2 critically injured) and one alpha left. A few rounds went by we took down the 2 injured. When the alphas turn rolled back around he howled as his action and 6 more wolves came out of the woods! The combat did in fact last the entire session, and the dm was mad and passive aggressive toward us after for not finishing that up and getting to where he wanted us to be. I ask the court is it our fault that this combat went on for so long, could the alpha have just not summoned 6 additional wolves if the dm wanted to end the combat quicker? Is it us as players fault for not locking in further? Or is 6 players simply too many to play an expeditious game? Ps: this is the same campaign where I wanted to bury the weretiger monk alive with a breathing tube and the absent wizard had a plan

To the illustrious judges and the bargain bin bailiff, I bring you the case of the repugnant pizza. Our DM had been running two separate campaigns for couple years. After much debate amongst the players about which crew was best, he offered to put together a Roman Colosseum style battle so we could quote “settle things”. He even offered to provide pizza for everyone. The night came and I arrived to find 7 extra large pizzas for 12 people: 2 combination, 2 Hawaiian, 1 vegetarian, and 2 abominations called “taco pizzas”, covered in ground beef, tomato slices, and iceberg lettuce. I don’t like mushrooms so I grabbed a couple of the last slices of Hawaiian and sat to play. Our DM asked why I wasn’t having more pizza since I had joked (before seeing the pizzas) about how much I was going to eat. I said I was fine. He persisted, mocking me for having eyes bigger than my stomach. I said the toppings weren’t really my thing. He got silent, then asked why I didn’t put in a request if I wanted something special. I said I didn’t think expecting A cheese or A pepperoni in a 7 pizza order was a “special request”. At this point the vibe in the room was uncomfortably awkward and we had yet to start our game. I ask you judges, did I have unreasonable expectations for my free pizza, or is our DM guilty of food crimes? P.S. I was in high school at the time and our DM was one of the players dad.

Greetings esteemed Justices and the lowly bailiff... I think his name is Ron or something. I humbly submit the case of the Gaseous form Gambit. I was DMing a holiday themed one-shot during Christmas with each PC playing a holiday movie themed character (Krampus, Santa, Gizmo, Bumble, etc.) with the ultimate BBEG obviously being the Grinch (as a lich). We were in the end battle and the lich had finally revealed himself after the fake lich, portrayed by three goblins in a trench coat were defeated. Krampus (as a Sorcerer, I think) was being played by a seasoned DnD player and to his credit a very clever player. He had cast gaseous form on himself and was attempting to use his movement to move inside the BBEG. The suspected next move would have been to revert back to Krampus form and obliterate the lich. I ruled that he could in fact make move but that on the Lich's turn he would just move out of the gaseous form by sheer movement ability and what I ultimately did which was misty step away. Now, we have played together for many years and I have seen a similar trick when he wild shaped into one form, intentionally went inside a large creature and wild shaped into a stag with antlers in the throat of the creature. Basically choking this creature to death without needing to fully deplete its HP. My question for the court is: am I wrong in my ruling that my lich (which was established as being skeletal and skin having holes) would be able to move out of the gaseous form? Or did I allow my previous knowledge as a fellow PC seeing a similar action cloud my judgment as a DM? I kneel reverently to hear your wisdom.

Hey queens. Get into your milk bath and ponder your orbs — I’ve got a future crime to report. I’ve been a DM for a little over a decade, running many campaigns with many players, but one player has always been there. Let’s call him ‘Jake’. Jake has never missed a game. He’s always there, always on time. And he’s grown to be a friend. I care about this guy….but I’m not planning to invite him to the next campaign. He hasn’t done anything wrong, but he’s also never done anything great. His character building, his roleplay, his combat presence, even the snacks he sometimes brings…it’s all just okay, and I’ve received a lot of it over the years. I want a Jake break. Still, I fear I’m in the wrong for rewarding his years of loyal play with kicking him to the curb. Who needs to be punished? -a weary DM PS if you can, please also punish Justice Murphy. He ruined Animorphs and still hasn’t faced justice

May it please the high Crit! To the Justices with the flowiest of robes... And Jill's little wife worm Jonk. I present the case of the tired friends and the new DM. I am a new DM, having recently ran a three session mini-campaign inspired by Emily's Hot Boy Summer at Burning Man but the winter solstice. After the post-session high of being well prepped and everyone having fun, I was inspired to do it again. I home brewed a scenario where the party is sent to a coastal town with a pirate problem, but the pirates can't and won't leave, due to angry Merfolk waiting for them out at sea. Justices, the first session, we were already down one of my five players. Three others had stayed up very late playing online together, with two of them going to bed at 4 am. We had DND at 11:30. They showed up on time, but most of the session, the vibe of the table was off, and I tried very hard to keep the fun rolling. At one point one player had to step away for a few minutes and the remaining three were on their phones while I was narrating a scene. My question is, should I have made the session more upbeat or should my tired friends have rescheduled if they're too exhausted to engage and play?

Salutations to the most noble justices, and also, if I must, to Jake. We can all see you sadly watching from the outside with your nose pressed up against the glass. This one is fairly easy : I've already decided I'm quitting the campaign, and I don't even need to change friends as per the Murphy Precedent, because I don't actually know these people. My question is a purely moral/ethical one : should I tell the DM I'm leaving because he's really bad at it? I know I sound like a dick, but please let me plead my case. As a forever DM myself, I jumped at the chance to join an online campaign as a player. The DM seemed weirdly militant about "not playing DnD", but whatever, I was curious to try new systems. However, he keeps trying to play different systems that he "hacks", IE makes less intuitive. In the last 6 months, we've played 4 systems for the same campaign, and the players were never consulted about the switch. He doesn't improvise. Ever. He often puts sessions on hold for 15 to 20 minutes while he looks through his books, PDF, and own notes before making the most minor ruling or giving us the name of an NPC. On the other hand, a minor question like "do we know where the closest tavern is" can often be turned into a full-on lecture about the inner politics of his Night's Watch. This is especially painful because we only play for 90 minutes at a time. He likes to call himself a "benevolent DM" because he didn't one-shot us with whatever bullshit encounter he threw at us without any foreshadowing or checks/saving throws, while telling us "this is not DnD, you actually have to be strategic" (note : I'm the only one at the table playing DnD) Finally, he also apparently went to the Rian Urphy School of DMing, because our PCs cannot. Get. A. Win. Make it through the sewers to find a kidnapped little girl? It's fine, she was already saved by his Awesome Vampire Centurion! Make it by the skin of our teeth against a scorpion abomination? It's charmed by his Sexy Mysterious Bard and throws itself off a cliff! We have very few wins, and the few we do get are almost always narrated as being entirely thanks to his DMPCs. So, I'm tired, and I'm quitting. But do you think there's anything to gain by telling him (more politely than I did here) that this adversarial attitude is generally not conductive to table fun? I don't think he's actually mean, but that style is pretty grating, and I wonder if I should say anything before I go. I thank you in advance for your wisdom. Also, should I be the one sentenced by the court, I beg for any punishment other than staying in this campaign.

May it please the crit! To the esteemed justices and their little dog Jake too, I present the case of the DM cursing Curse of Strahd. My girlfriend and I were invited to play in a (virtual, but camera on) CoS campaign by our engaged friends. The campaign was described as lowkey and a way for us to have fun and keep in touch, and the DM said they were going to play a DMPC to feel part of the adventure as well. We rolled characters, but a week before we started, the DM invited their online friend to join. My girlfriend and I were confused at the vibe change, but agreed, the more the merrier. Once we started the campaign, we very quickly realized we had been relegated to background characters in the romance between the DMPC (a cleric pacifist with a traumatic backstory which involved being brought back from the dead) and the online friend’s main character syndrome blood hunter. From the start, this character could do anything: my girlfriend’s rogue failed a check to lockpick a door, and the DM allowed the blood hunter to roll to break the iron lock in their hand! The DM would also explicitly tell us to not intervene in roleplay scenes because they had already planned them out in advance with the friend. For example, in Death House, the DMPC was unable to pass an athletics check to escape the fire. I was next in initiative and was moving to help, only to be told to do something else on my turn, so the blood hunter could have a moment fireman carrying the DMPC to safety! This was all carried out in front of the DM’s fiancée, who would react to these scenes by “jokingly” shouting at them in character to get a room, or just put her head down on the table and refusing to engage. The DM never checked on their fiancée and would even tell her that she couldn’t interrupt in character because her character wasn’t present. My girlfriend and I started missing more and more sessions, until the DM messaged us the day after Christmas asking if we could commit to playing more frequently because it was hindering their development of the story (aka whatever they were plotting between sessions with the online friend, and art they would post on Instagram of their characters together with no mention of the rest of the party). When we said no, the DM said okay, and then proceeded to never talk to us again. To the justices, I ask you, did my girlfriend and I err by breaking the sacred rule of communicating when something in a campaign is making you uncomfortable? Or was this so off the rails from dungeons and dragons were we justified in refusing to no longer be witnesses to the cursed love triangle unfolding before our eyes? To be fair, I did privately talk to the DM early in the campaign about how the campaign felt very blood hunter-centric, and they took the feedback well, but nothing changed, and so I never brought it up again.

May it please the crit. To the most beneficent justices and the probably-drinks-mushroom-coffee bailiff, I present to you the case of the un-Druided druid. Way back in the day, like 10 years ago, I was brand new to dnd and started a campaign with my then-boyfriend’s friend group. I was playing a Circle of Land druid (which, honestly, a druid is a LOT for someone new to dnd and pre-DNDBeyond (so many spells!), and I wish they’d warned me away from it, but that’s not the case). One time, our party encountered a big monster blocking our path across a river. We stopped before we were noticed, and if I remember correctly, the party was in a hurry for some reason. Reviewing my spells, I had what I thought was a brilliant idea. I summoned a horse at some distance away, in the opposite direction from where we were relative to the monster. My intention was for the monster to chase the horse, and for the horse to outrun it. I did a bunch of math and made sure to summon the horse (what I thought was) far enough away from the monster that it had a decent chance at outrunning it. The DM made a shocked face at my choice, may have said something (I can’t remember), and then the monster promptly pounced on the horse and tore it limb from limb. I argued my math, but the DM insisted that the horse had no chance. One of the other players was also shocked at my action, and roleplayed standing there dumbfounded for a moment at what I’d done, while I tried to urge them along so that the monster didn’t notice us. The math argument was annoying, but what makes it really grind my gears even 10 years later is that when the party woke up after their next long rest, the DM informed me that I couldn’t access any of my spells. Apparently, “bringing a creature to life” specifically for it to be slaughtered by the monster as a distraction was so egregious that my spiritual connection to nature was severed and I would need to put concerted effort over time into meditating and reconnecting with nature to restore it I was (and still am) freaking miffed at this. It wasn’t my characters INTENTION to have the horse get slaughtered! I also tried arguing that it wasn’t a real horse because it was a summon. But the DM held firm in their belief that my actions were completely insane for a druid to do. Being super new to dnd and this being my first ever campaign, I was completely caught left field by this. There were a lot of generally understood tropes and archetypes that I wasn’t familiar with, and I just thought I was being clever with my spellwork. It definitely ruined my fun, and I never really understood why it happened, and the campaign fizzled a few sessions later. Looking back now as a very seasoned player, I can see why the DM made some of the choices he made even though I don’t agree with them (life and death and animals needing to eat other animals to survive is part of nature, which was also something I’d written as a big part of my character’s backstory and connection to nature), and it’s possible my math was way off since I didn’t really understand a lot about dnd, but I still think that basically taking away my class and abilities was super extreme, especially for a player in their first campaign. Was the DM right to take away my spellcasting and class abilities bc of this summoned horse and what happened to it? Was that choice an absolutely wild choice for a druid to make? Or was it just a clever use of a spell to get around a monster encounter that was pretty clever for a new-ish player to come up with? I put my past self at the court’s mercy and beg your assistance in putting this old salt to rest

Dear esteemed dads, aunties, and uncles of the crit, I present a case that may interest you as current or future DMs to children. As a DM, is it wrong to kill a player's character in an encounter if it is their first time ever playing D&D? What if the player is a 7 year old child? And what if the 7 year-old spent hours before the game carefully creating a character and painstakingly drawing her portrait? The kid was me, the DM was my dad. My elf wizard Moonbeam was killed by a giant centipede circa 1998 in my first ever session, and I still think about it 28 years later. Even though it was "by the books", was it the right move? Could you bring yourself to do what my dad did? Justice for Moonbeam ✊️ P.s. Not to go against my own case, but this was AD&D, so a different era of gameplay... And it didnt turn me off of D&D, I have had tons of fun playing with my dad since then. (I learned EARLY to take the game seriously).

The Case of Vigilante Justice Glorious Justices and The Pinch I seek judgment. In college I began a campaign on my dorm floor with a DM named John. John demanded the campaign be “just like Fantasy High”, but dropped NPC voices sentences after introduction and took away magic items as punishment for jokes. He skipped PCs turns intentionally and killed the only first time player, who was my girlfriend at the time, in the first session. Worst of all John fudged rolls, changed stats and increased DCs after rolls to fit his “vision”. Letting go was hard. I was the main character, a paladin whose oath was to spread free love. I was slangin ropes all over Faerun and it was cash. However the final straw occurred one evening when I was brushing my teeth, John walked into the dorm bathroom stall barefoot. For several minutes John loudly farted, grunted and shitted, he then left without washing his hands. Horrified, I convinced the group to end the campaign and start a new one without John and me as DM. To not make it awkward I spread vicious rumors to faculty that forced them to remove John from the dorms. Watching John friendlessly loading up a U-Haul was very satisfying. I humbly ask you justices and the crab claw bailiff: was I right to take justice into my own hands? P.S. My players have been happily playing ever since the joi we share is the real magic if you ask me.

Hey my old DM obliterated me with an ice wall several years ago. I was playing an 18/20 dex tabaxi monk. I had a lot of movement, a bonus action, good jump distance, the works. I asked if I could jump over the ice wall from the top deck of a ship, I cant remember if I rolled for it or assumed my jump distance would fine, but it was a super high level ice wall, did a buttload of damage, and brought me to 0 HP. I wanted to kind of jump/ride the ice wall down in what I thought would be a very cinematic moment but my tabaxi just got all his fur ripped off his back by sticking to the ice. Felt super crummy. Idk it its good enough to make the cut but I departed from that campaign because my DM was also my former boss.

To the irreproachable justices. Hello Jacob. I bring the case of the not omniscient dm. I have been running a game for my brother, his wife and a few friends for about 5 years. I was running waterdeep dragon heist and the were supposed to deliver three potions of invisiblity for a faction in town, after they had dropped them off my brother announced that they now had a potion of invisiblity. Your honors he had apparently said "here are your two potions" when we were roleplaying the handoff. I told him he didn't have the potion because we were playing dnd and not "see if your dm notices a slight change in wording". He complied begrudgingly but he and his wife both insisted the he had "got" me. Did I handle this correctly or should I have made him roll to see if they noticed or just let him have it? I humbly await your flawless judgement. Goodby Jacob, I guess we'll talk later, or not. (Ps I drive by a house with a full size Richard scary apple car on my way to work so if that's the punishment I might be able to make it happen)

The honorable judges and that other guy…Jort? This is my one of the few times I have played D&D. Can you let me know if I ruined the session? I am playing a Way of the Shadow Monk and we were in an innkeepers creepy basement/ tunnel under the inn. There was weird music and people him the town were mysteriously disappearing. My PC, a Tiefling named Anathema, used 2 Ki points to cast pass without a trace and bypassed most of the smaller battles because of high stealth checks. Once we got to the BBEG of the session I used my last 2 ki to cast silence on the piano that was playing the hypnotic music. This stopped other NPCs from being hypnotized and we cleaned the floor with the BBeG. After the session the DM scolded me for “ ruining the battle” did I really ruin it? Is it my fault for using 2 spells that helped the party. Everyone else seemed to have fun walloping the bad guy I await your verdict

Hey. I bring to you the case of the Waffle debacle of ‘26. I run a high magic urban campaign where my party plays a struggling band. We’re having big reveals; missing parents, hidden liches, betrayal, and everytime something important happens one player will undercut the moment by pulling waffles out of nowhere. He offered waffles to another PC when she found out she was kidnapped at birth. He offered waffles to a BBEG as he negotiated with the party. The other players find it to be annoying “millennial humor”. How should I stop his millennial waffle craze?

To the gently juxtaposed judges and also if need be; to unc in the corner. I come as a simple nephew with a case of great consequence. A classic problem with a problematic twist. I bring to you the case of the unhappy teen who's favorite topic is his own unhappiness. I am in high school (I know that's a bad start), and I used to gm a game of Shadow Dark for three of my friends. Let's call friend one, Emily, friend two, Caldwell, and friend three, Jake. This game was pretty dang fun. All of my players were slowly but surely learning role play, and I was learning more and more about gming (Shadow Dark's main thing kinda is you only have a torch for light, so we played in candlelight the whole time. Pretty cool.) The only problem was Jake would always be talking about his very personal life and emotions well we played. Now it's not like I didn't care about Jakes emotions, but that being I really did not want Jake to fully stop the game to talk about his himself (and I'm pretty sure the others also didn't). I had also mentioned to the table multiple times that the point of rpgs was to work together to make a story and ESCAPE normal life. Now, Jake talks about his personal life every time I talk to him. He talks about his ex to me in every conversation that's more than a minute long (They were together for one week and it has been almost two months since they broke up. it was just because his ex did not want a relationship at that time). He also has never listened to one piece of advice I have given him, and the last time I sincerely tried to give him a piece of advice (I told him that telling jokes about depression that just made other people uncomfortable would not help anyone), I found him outside throwing rocks at walls and muttering over and over again what I had said to him. My current solution is just to try to drop the subject as quickly and nonchalantly as possible if he brings up anything in his personal life, because truly, I just don't really want to talk about it. We had to stop our Shadow Dark game about three months ago because of scheduling problems, but we are soon started a new game who Emily will be gming. It is going to be a Call of Cthulhu game, and everyone (excluding Jake) is very excited about it. Me and Caldwell both are at least a little nervous that Jake will either not stop talking about his personal life during this game or not be involved. PLEASE, my jocoserious judges, what should I do in my first session this afternoon after Jake begins again talking about how he wants to have grandchildren and a stable life (he is 16) when the rest of us are trying to play a game with eldritch gods. PS. I organized the game both times and asked for commitment before we started. Me, Murph and Caldwell have all been friends for over a decade, and we met Jake last year. He acquired friends quickly and is very extroverted. PSS. Love the show! See you guys at radio city! I'll be the teenager in the back row with a confused smile.

To the mighty justices of the court I bow, and to Jake, I offer a "Sup". I am running a campaign for my friends, many first time players but dear friends. Recently they battled a number of ice mephits who were terrorizing a farming community. At the end of the battle they wanted to loot but being these were simple creatures there was nothing on them. One of my players wished to cut off one of the penis of a mephit to which I allowed for the lols. Later in town he tried to convince a blacksmith that this was in fact a magical straw that cooled any drink. I attempted to argue that this role could be made with disadvantage but he argued it should be a flat roll. It was so hilarious that I went along with the request but as punishment for his actions he took damage for trying to suck scalding hot liquid through the remains of this ice mephit. I plead to the court, should I have stuck to my guns and imposed the disadvantage or was I justified in the consequence of 1d4 "coffee damage" that was imposed on my friend?

To whom it may concern, I do not have a grievance, but seek generic advice for a first time DM starting a homebrew campaign. Sincerest apologies for the most basic of requests, but I have the IQ of a corndog.

Dearest justices (and Jake), I bring to you a case of spell semantics and the grappled condition. During my most recent session of our 5.5 Eberron campaign, we ran into an issue that involved the 4th level spell grappling vine. My character (8th lvl kalashtar druid) had a 4th lvl grappling vine spell cast that had successfully attacked and grappled the halfling crime boss we were after. Our DM had the boss attack my character and subsequently crit on the first of his three attacks. The DM made this attack without the disadvantage that would normally be imposed by the grappled condition because he said I qualified as the grappler rather than the vine. We argued about whether the vine qualifies as a grappler because it's not a creature with a stat block a la Bigby's hand. The DM's arguement was because the grappling was applied by a spell effect without a stat block that could not be targeted by an attack said spell would not apply the entirety of the grappled condition and therefore the boss could attack without disadvantage against my character. I disagreed but was willing to follow the DM's initial ruling, but the party's sorcerer agreed with my read and continued with my initial arguments. After a few minutes the DM relented, agreed to the disadvantage, and all the bosses attacks missed. But justices(and Jake), if the attack didn't have disadvantage it would have crit, downed my druid, released the boss from the grapple, and given him his two more attacks against two other critically injured party members. We did end up winning but I felt like I ruined the stakes of the fight by arguing. After the session the DM let us know that he relented to move the session along but that he will be using his reading of the grappling vine spell going forward. I'm happy that I didn't lose my druid but I don't think I'm incentivized to use this spell in the future as it feels like a waste of a 4th lvl if I will not be able to apply the entirety of the grappled condition when I use it and successfully hit. Are either of us right or is this a semantic gray area between a grappling spell and the grappled condition? I humbly await your judgement, Saga

To the most faithful clerics of Dice Christ (and the guy who keeps making confessions public??? I don't think you're supposed to do that?). I have a confession that sounds like boasting- but I promise it is not meant that way. I have been a listener of your podcast for over half a decade, and Dungeon Court is what got me into it. However, every time you call out for new cases, I realize... I am truly in the perfect group. And I feel bad. I have played with the same general group for 7 years. ONLINE (voice only). Some people have come and gone due to time constraints, but otherwise, we are the same group, who have been playing in the same collaborative fictional universe this whole time. We used to play weekly, but now bi-weekly, with very few time conflict. I have tried to think of things I could submit to the High Crit for years, but I have genuinely no case that require justice come up. I love my group so much that I wrote my Master's thesis about our 3-year long campaign (in the field of Theatre and Roleplay- and I passed! I literally have a degree in TTRPGs now!). We are not toxicly positive- but we give eachother great feedback and communicate when things come up. However, I feel bad after hearing years of unfortunate cases of bad experiences in the TTRPG world, that I somehow hit the jackpot on the first try- especially when its online only. I My greed and gluttony is apparently insatiable. Forgive me of my sins... but also kinda dont- I want this to continue this great nerdiness forever, to be real. Thank you for hearing out my confession, and give a blessing to Ilija if they are listening! Fantastic GM and co-player of many years, who set up this group. I mean uh, forgive me, for I have sinned, or whatever.

O mighty judges and barf or buccaneer depending on how we are feeling today, I present the case of Master Oogway. I am a new player who joined a campaign with a friend of mine (the monk). This was my first real time playing a game, so I was hype. We were working on character creation. I was a little uncomfortable coming up with role play and did my best to make mine sensible but still interesting. And oh boy, The monk’s backstory sure was something. Come a few sessions in, I wanted to develop more bonds between party members, so I started a talking to the monk about his monastery. “Did you have any friends?” “What did you do?” Stuff like that. Very basic. Judges, all he would talk about was his master, you guessed it, master Oogway. He said master Oogway had taught him everything and he had no other friends other than master Oogway himself. The conversation fizzled with nothing else to build off of then master Oogway. We have not played in a while since then. Judges, is my friend at fault for having such a focus on the benevolent teacher of Kung fu panda, or am I at fault for not trying hard enough to add more depth. I anxiously await your judgement. “Yesterday is history, but tomorrow is a mystery.” - Master Oogway

I don’t have a case. I just want to hear y’all talk about the new Animorphs news please and thank you 🥹🥹💛💛

To the honourable Judges Emily, Caldwell, and Murph, as well as the balif, Amir's friend. I am the usual DM for my group, but a player took the opportunity to DM a one shot for the first time while I was gone. Another player, who was a Monk, became a bit of a problem player, playing on his phone during explanations, and then taking up to 8 minutes to decide what to do and insisting "He can take his time and do what he wants" when pressured. But the real issue was when he spent an extended period of time arguing that he should be able to shoot a firebolt at a pile of caltrops, scattering them in all directions, damaging multiple enemies. The DM shut it down, and had a conversation with me about it later. I feel extremely protective of the DM as I know he put a lot of effort into the adventure and put himself out there. How do I get my friends to show better table ettiquette? Timers? Phone bans? Good old fashioned razzing? Any help is appreciated.

To the honourables and the dishonourables (I’m not saying who’s who), I present the case of “masc. lesbian v Kyle.” I got included in a D&D group because my friend went on a Grindr date with a guy and they quickly agreed to just be friends. Typical small town gay stuff. Surprisingly, that’s not what got messy. The group already had 3 players, one of whom was named Kyle. First off, Kyle assumed I didn’t know how to play. He frequently asked to see my roles and character sheet so he could double-check my math. Any time I did make a mistake, he would bring it up for sessions afterward. He constantly made fun of me for my character build. He frequently interrupted my role play to “keep things moving.” Unlike me, my friend had never played D&D before, but Kyle never did any of this to him. He only acted like that to me, the only woman at the table. During sessions, Kyle was on his laptop doing online shopping and scrolling Twitter more often than not. And in our “downtime,” he insisted on investing all our earnings into a fantasy version of the stock market he’d made up. One session, Kyle’s character made fun of my character for not doing anything during a fight. I went to say “you little bitch, I’d like to see you last a round without me using all my bonus actions to heal you,” but after “you little bitch,” he slammed his hand on the table, stormed out, and skipped the next session. This is when I found out that the rest of the group also didn’t like him. Before my friend and I joined, Kyle had spent an uncomfortable amount of time sharing his very right-wing beliefs and got mad whenever the other players didn’t do exactly what he wanted. One player had gotten in multiple heated arguments with him, to the point they weren’t allowed to sit next to each other anymore. When I asked him why, he said “I don’t like how he talks about his [pregnant] wife.” The DM admitted that he’d hoped my friend and I (a brown gay man and a masc. lesbian) would diversify the group enough that Kyle would just leave. When Kyle returned, I apologized for calling him a little bitch. Our dynamic actually improved after that, but he did eventually leave the group. Judges, I am not asking for your ruling on the “little bitch” incident. You can punish me if you want, but I know in my heart that my words were good and true and that the Holy Spirit of Role Play guided my tongue that night. Instead, I ask: was it right for the DM to bring me and my friend on as DEI hires, knowing that Kyle was gunna be a little bitch about it? P. S. Emily gets two votes because she’s a woman. JE

To the honorable justices and the bailiff (tbd on the vibe)- I bring a case from the table but pertaining to spills and look to the expert Spill Boy, Caldwell Tanner. My table has lovingly adopted the razz of “Spill Girl” when any major spills happen in our friend group and we have a clarifying question and a case. First, can a spill be a solid object, dropping food or a dice bag? The case- years ago another player were entering a car, I was climbing into the backseat (headfirst to get into the back row) and my friend entered the car matcha latte first from the other side. Her matcha hit my head and spilled on me. I contend that she is the Spill Girl in this scenario and she says it’s my fault because I wasn’t looking where I was going. All judges may say in but we defer to Spill Boy Caldwell’s expertise.

To the almighty and very pretty judges and ummm uh cake I think. I bring to you a case of players who just want their sex toy back. In the first dnd campaign I have ever run I placed my two players in a magic academy college (think Hogwarts but raunchy or something). During their investigation into the college they found a dildo (I put that there as a joke) in the bbeg's classroom. My players proceeded to kill the lieutenant of this campaign with it. Now here is where my quandary begins. These two players that were in this previous campaign are in my latest with a total of 6 players and won't stop asking me if someone has a dildo with them. Justices I thought this was pretty funny at first but 10 sessions in they keep asking. While their attempts are flattering because they never bring it up in the important part of the stories and just want to bring back some of the excitement they felt in their first campaign it has started to wear on my after so many session of asking about sex toys. So I bring to the court am I right to be a bit annoyed by my previous players insistence on getting a dildo that i know they will try to use against one of my story bosses or are they right in wanting a dildo back in the game. I humbly await your judgement. P.S. They both have told me multiple times that they don't really want it for any reason in particular other than to use it against my BBEG.

To the High Clerics of the Grand Cathedral of Dice Christ, I come to thee covered in torn clothes and dirt carrying the burdens of what I believe to be a curse given to me by none other than Dice Christ. I pray ye have mercy and offer guidance for I fear my past wrongdoings as a dungeon master haunt me to this day. Four years ago, I was running my first homebrew campaign with my wife and three friends. We played that campaign for about a year and a half going through adventures such as a casino heist, defending a kingdom from demon-worshipping cultists, and searching for a party member who lost their mind after using a magic item in an enchanted forest. Then we started a new story arc where the party was tracking down Hamclick Gambits, the legendary Minotaur arcane blacksmith who was in hiding. As the party was traveling, they had the (dangerous) option of walking through the jungle on their own or having a lizard folk river boat captain named “Razor” (pronounced Razaah because all NPCs used Australian accents on this continent) ferry them down river (safer option) for 50 gold, which was going to be donated to a local village. The party tried negotiating a lower price but they failed. The players were upset about failing the persuasion check (despite having more than enough gold to pay) and chose to walk through the jungle. Annoyed by their selfish attitude, I made up an extra encounter on the spot just so I could deal out some more damage. I immediately felt bad after the session because truthfully, I was also annoyed that they skipped my river boat encounter. I realized that being a good DM means accepting the choices players make and remembering the game is about collaborative storytelling. With the new wisdom, I planned encounters for their hike including a heavy rain storm that separated the party, stumbling upon quicksand, and navigating a mud pit filled with spikes, and catching infectious diseases (I had a table of illnesses for when characters failed a con save, and one of them managed to contract gonorrhea in the middle of the jungle). Everything seemed fine for a few weeks but then one player had to drop out unexpectedly. Everyone else decided they didn’t want to play the campaign anymore so the story was left unfinished. Fortunately, we found two new players and started a different campaign inspired by Celtic and Germanic folklore. We played that campaign for another year or so and everything seemed to be going fine. Then, one players quit his job and decided to move away and another decided to stop playing DND all together. Again, another game of mine fell apart with the story left unfinished. How is it possible for two of my games to end in a similar, unfinished manner? Is this a penance Dice Christ has given me for my sins as a DM? Please, tell me what needs to be done to remove this curse from my soul. If necessary, I will choose trial by combat in the form of a Jiu Jitsu roll… but no leg locks… I’m only a white belt. It is my dream to pass the joy of DND on to my son (who is currently a toddler) one day, but I don’t want my curse to affect him. Thank you for your time. PS – NADPODD has brought so much joy to my wife and me. We’ve been listening since 2019 and have been to multiple live shows (Minneapolis, MN). I relisten to the Grimhawk arc of the Shadowfell Saga from Campaign 1 at least once a year because it continues to be my favorite DND actual play content. Sorry, Murph— I know that it’s a lot of you getting whomped by Brennan, but the characters and story is unforgettable!

To the honkin chonkers Ashley, Tinker, and Merl and their lil yapper Jake (pronounced Joke), I bring to you the case of "Player or DM." I'm the DM (I think) of a modified Decent into Avernus campaign. We've recently welcomed a new player who guested on a session a year ago (it was their first time playing) and recently asked to play full time. During our most recent session they repeatedly narrated the introduction of ancient artifacts (with names and powers I wasn't prepared for), NPCs, and entirely new locales. Narrated as in visually reading from their screen (we play on Discord video calls). Eventually, they rolled a nat 20 stealth to sneak away from the group and launched into a long and colorful narration about a dank stairway they found leading to a salt crusted arched tunnel leading down into sea caves under the library. I had to awkwardly stop them there and, feeling like the railroadiest DM, say that yes, there are sea caves (meant to be a surprise for a later session) but there's already something happening down there. They were very cooperative about me rejoining them with the group but I felt like the worst DM for refusing to "yes and" them and for throwing them straight back into the path to exposition. For added context, they were repeatedly saying things like "I'm a ranger so it says here I should be able to slip into the shadows". I suspect they were on reddit or using AI for prompts. How do I embrace their enthusiasm without losing all control of this game? I promise I usually like it when players go off the rails but I felt like they were taking huuuuge swings and narrating large chunks of text that not only meaningfully changed the game for all players but also occasionally brushed up against specific events from the module that I already planned to use differently than written in the book.

Dearest Justices and Darlingest Bailiff slash Dashing Dice Deacons, I humbly submit to you my case/ confession. I believe my friend and I who have strayed from the light of Dice Christ would greatly benefit from your wisdom as authorities of both the church and state if it's not too much to ask. This is a long case, but I beseech you to give it due care as it involves someone who has previously been on Dnd Court for a Dice Christ Confession. One of my best friends, Rory, and I met several years ago in grad school, and we actually became good friends kind of because of NADDPOD (I noticed they had a Campaign 2 flag at their birthday party and we bonded over having both been at your Vancouver show). This winter, I agreed to DM for some of our mutual friends who had never played Dnd before. As an intermediate but rusty DM, I only really wanted to DM for 4 new players, but since Rory had a bit of experience with some one-shots and listens to NADDPOD, I caved and accepted 5 players and agreed to run a one-shot for them. Despite me pleading with my players in the group chat and individually messaging people to come prepared to sessions, some of them simply would or could not lock in. Rory hosted our sessions and made us delicious soup, even making it vegan so that I could have some, and people would show up and just kinda hang out on the couch talking about non-Dnd stuff and eat soup for a while. I realize that some home games have a chill atmosphere, but I expressed to Rory on our second session that I was worried that what was supposed to be one-shot would become a three-shot and I felt like a jerk for feeling the need to crack the proverbial DnD whip, but they kind of brushed it off and said “I think we’ll still have time to play, and people are having fun so it’s okay”. On our third and final session is where we strayed from the light. One of our players had another social engagement after our session so we couldn’t go overtime, and there were no times for us to schedule another session in the foreseeable future. I really tried to give my players grace as they were all new, but at this point I was feeling really overwhelmed by having to coach them all under the time constraints. In the final room of the dungeon, things were going south quickly so I called a timeout to think and ended up ruling to stop letting the Giant Rats have advantage on my players using Pack Tactics. This helped a bit but both characters with healing ended up being knocked out and the party was out of health potions. In a stroke of DM panic, I remembered that Rory’s warlock had cast the spell Armor of Agathys and I recalled that it does cold damage to the attacker on a hit. On their turn I suggested that they could use their movement to provoke as many opportunity attacks as possible from the rats (who each only had 1HP in this instance) to get rid of them. Rory took my suggestion, and at the end of the next round, the three remaining characters dragged their unconscious friends out of the dungeon! The players were relieved and celebrated, and I did too, but I couldn’t help but feel it was anti-climactic. As we started packing up, Rory cheekily mentioned that they cheated using the Armor of Agathys. As it turns out, attackers are only supposed to take 5 cold damage on a hit if the caster still has 5 temp HP the spell gives them, which Rory’s warlock no longer had. I asked them why they didn’t say anything after I suggested it to them and they said (I’m paraphrasing) “actually I did say something, but you were distracted so I just did it anyways”. I told Rory that I was hurt and disappointed that they would cheat at my table and felt like they didn’t trust me to DM and they responded by saying “I didn’t realize you would actually be so upset”. When I asked Rory why they felt the need to cheat, their answer was “but we HAD to finish the dungeon and succeed.” Reverent Deacons, I must now bear my own confession as both Rory and I have sinned against Dice Christ. After this confession from Rory, I told them that I too had already been fudging some rolls throughout the session to help the party out a bit (on things like spell attacks from traps, hits from Flying Swords, and damage from the Giant Rats). They said “I know, but if I hadn't done that then we all would have died”. Justices, what Rory did not know is that there was a teleport heal mechanic for any characters who failed all of their death saves. And the real kicker is… Rory’s previous transgression against Dice Christ was from the episode posted on Jan 27, 2022 titled “Psychic Kittens and Abyssal Chickens”. They are the player who decided to choose a +4 magic hammer on a random drop down menu and just hoped their DM didn’t notice (and they didn’t). I understand my friend's desire to be "good" at Dnd and "win", but I believe that the ways they are going about it undermines the integrity of the game. I left the session crying because I really felt like the effort I put into running this game was not matched by my new players, and felt like my best friend had betrayed my trust. Justices and Deacons, is this my fault for taking on more new players than I should have in the first place? Should I have been a stricter or perhaps even more relaxed DM? Is there any way I could have avoided tempting my friend to sin again? Do DMs have more of a licence to fudge than players, if at all? Is it on me for not noticing Rory quietly correcting me about their spell, or is it on them for taking advantage of their overwhelmed tunnel-visioning DM? Should I be less upset because my friend made me soup? I have already taken justice into my own hands to an extent and punished Rory by not awarding them the XP from the final rat chamber of the dungeon, which I split evenly amongst the other players. Your Honours, Your Graces, please have mercy upon my lowly lowly soul and punish me and/ or my players as you see fit. I thank you for your great wisdom and swift deliverance of justice. Please come back to Vancouver at your earliest convenience. With great reverence, Melissa (they/ them) PS Rory, when you hear this, fuck you, I love you, eat a rat.

To the angelic justices Axford, Murphy, Tanner, and the cherubic bailiff Jaique (pronounced Jake, just spelled wrong). I come to you with a case of cowardice in conflict with Aarakocra insanity. In the land of Barovia was an Aarakocra bard, ‘Lactimus Prime’. A dairy enthusiast with a songbook full of cheese based puns. Things were mostly fine, until it was revealed that some pastries our party had been enjoying were made with ground up children. The witches responsible for this offense of nature offered us gold in exchange for more kids, which we all refused. All but one of us. Lactimus insisted that it was ‘no big deal, let’s get the cash’. We disagreed. He grew impatient. We put our foot down, exclaiming the morality of it all. A frustrated Lactimus threw his hands up and yelled “It’s just a game, none of this matters.” And the room soured. Your honors, and cute little baby boy bailiff. The crime is how I responded. Being conflict averse, some might say a social coward, I got quiet, and dipped out of the party after that session without stating why. The party did not meet again and I feel I am responsible for leaving a world in peril to a child eating Aarakocra and the arguably less evil Strahd von Zarovich. I lay myself at the feet of your judgment, covered in shame and a comfort blanket. Note: Since this falling out, I went on to become a forever DM and only 2 campaigns I’ve DM’d have ended due to divorces (not due to my DMing, I think), but that’s a story for another time.

Big dogs and little dog Jakery, I hesitantly come to represent uninterested player vs DM. In a curse of strahd campaign after escaping Strahds's castle, a very new player who barely looked at her character sheet was brought in at DM's invitation. Instead of a beginners encounter, we came upon an encounter where a young blue dragon was summoned upon the failure to unlock a mage tower, the new player's rogue character, after missing her attack was one shotted by dragons breath. Before this encounter, we were allowed a short rest, but not a long rest before this encounter (at the dismay of the paladin) and faced the possibillity of being wiped. Big dogs, while we did survive the encounter I represent the uninterested player as I see the encounter was a severe escalation for someone just barely joining. I bring my DM before you for his judgement if you so have it for him.

To the incandescent Justices, and insipid balif J'blorbathin. The case of affected my long term mental health. About 10 years ago i finally convinced my friends in uni to agree to play with me. This was my first game since my long suffering mum and sister played along to humor me. I was so excited and already had multitudes of home brew prepped. I was essentially a new DM, and was trying my best but it likely wasn't great. A friend of a friend asked to join and two people none of us knew came on board, however they knew how to play d&d. After a bit the one experienced DM asked to take over since i didn't know what i was doing. I sadly relinquished, he was nice about it. Made my first character and was excited to try being a player for the first time. The other experienced player was immediately suspicions of my little halfling turning up and wanting to join the party. Leading to no one ever trusting me and i was always an outsider. I believe i did tell them i wasn't having fun with that and got the classic, "its what my character would do". So i quit. Here's the sin, it wasn't enough for me. I couldn't handle my 3 friends playing my game with some randoms. I told my then boyfriend, now ex-husband (and maybe that's why) that he HAD to quit the group. He told me if i made him, he'd never play with me again, but i insisted (spoiler we did play again but it took convincing). After that the group fell apart. I know i was a little bitch, but i still feel like i was wronged. Should my painful flashbacks remain as partially righteous, or should i accept that i acted like a spoiled toddler and deserve divorce.

Your highness’s and bailiff joke, I bring before you the case of Neil Anaton vs The state of tone consistency. I am DMing a homebrew campaign in a steampunk/final fantasy-inspired world I’ve built and run several times,knights with guns, and Warhammer fantasy inspired. My new party has five players, two of whom are new. Their characters include a kalashtar samurai with a ghostly “mage hand” familiar of a fallen brother he is trying to put to rest, a Cajun crocodile gun smuggling rogue, and a Comanche/Praetorian fighter on a spirit quest for atonement after his chief was killed, a spiteful dwarf grudge bearer barbarian with a list of every wrong committed against him or his ancestors(essentially thorgrim). One of the new players created “Neil Anaton” (not an alien backwards), hoping to return to his home planet à la E.T. Style, and is very excited and proud of his creativity and wants to play him straight. I’m unsure how to integrate him without breaking tone and world building maybe fey, gith, or astral elf but he kind of just wants to be an alien. Should I work him into my world, or ask him to make a new character? I don’t want to discourage him because he’s new but I also am racking my brain to make it work. I yield all authority to the Court’s judgment.

To the Judges who judge the best and the bailiff who bawls the best. I come to you with the case of indestructible fan versus indestructible sphere. I was running the tomb of the nine gods for some friends The halfling wizard triggered a trap and started a indestructible fan to spin up. The wizard cast Resilient Sphere around himself and was drawn into the fan. The adamantine propeller has AC 20, 30 hit points, and immunity to all damage except force damage. I ruled that the sphere bounced up against the fan as it was spinning and wouldn't fit through the blades, and their indestructible features canceled each other out. What happened was that the wizard was stuck bouncing up against the fan, making constitutions saves to not throw up inside of the orb. Eventually all was settled when the dwarf cleric sacrificed himself like the Iron Giant covered in the flames of his god was able to destroy the fan. While everyone thought this was fine with the result, because this dungeon was set up as a meat grinder, I still feel bad for not having a better option for the halfling wizard. Honorable Judges and bailiff Jorts, what should I have done in this situation?

Blessings upon you after this sacred Dice Christ holiday last weekend, I come to you to confess and seeking guidance In my first game of d&d, I forgot to bring my dice with me so my friend loaned me a set of hers. My first two rolls were nat 1’s, so I asked for a new set of dice. When she took her dice back and used them, SHE proceeded to roll a nat one. If I had kept the dice, I would have had an instant PC death in my first game (3 nat ones in a row= insta kill) I feel guilty for pushing a nat one on her, but I also secretly wonder if that was divine intervention. Dice Christ be with you 💜

To the Honorable Judges Murphy, Tanner, and Afford, and… uh… Balif John? Your honors, I come before you not as a mere mortal, but as a victim of narrative injustice. This is The Case of the Misnaming Dragonborn. I play in a campaign where your race and stats are random due to rolls and you're reincarnated from our world to a harsh dnd world. Here is Carl: My purple dragonborn cleric with bad luck, worse dice, and the shortest life expectancy. Carl met an early grave, as is tradition for a level 1, with no spell slots left. And so, from the ashes of Carl’s tragic nat 1s, rose Randy, a new hero. Cool I thought a fresh start, new stats, try a new class, yet I somehow rolled the same race. Dragonborn again, but this time Golden! Here lies the tragedy: For nearly a year, I have walked the path of Randy. I have fought, bled, and role played admirably in his scaled boots. And yet… my party those I trusted most still call me Carl. Not in passing. No, Your Honors. As a habit. A casual disregard for Randy’s existence. Every time they call me "Carl," another part of Randy dies inside. And while I correct them, they laugh. Tell me, your Honors — do all humans look the same to you? Are all elves interchangeable? Is this racial profiling?! Randy deserves better. And now I stand before you with a plea. A crossroads. Should I just embrace this mockery, give in to the peer pressure, and change my name back to Carl — thereby erasing poor Randy’s identity forever… or continue this struggle to be recognized for who I truly am, not who I once was? Your Honors, I am tired. Randy is tired. Even Carl’s ghost is tired. All I seek is justice… or at least a ruling. Sincerely, Randy "Definitely Not Carl" the Dragonborn Paladin

To the stylish justices and will somebody get that stinky man out of here thank you. I bring to you the case of The DM’s Secret Sessions. I’ve been playing in a D&D campaign for almost 2 years now, and most of us are new players. We are all friends from college, and the DM and one other player are especially good friends. This player’s character fell in love with one of the NPC’s, and as a party we worked together to get them to go on a date; the two characters are now dating. The relationship has been really beneficial to help develop this player’s character. I have no issues with this relationship, however… I have recently found out that the DM and this player have hooked up, and are now dating. This would not be weird if not for the fact that they are roleplaying as these characters in the bedroom. Is this wrong for them to do? I feel weird about it, but they’re not doing anything at the table, so does the ruling “no harm no foul” hold? I leave the judgement up to you.

To the highly decorated justices of the supreme crit and the long pitied bailiff, I bring to you the case of the Faceless Dungeon Master My friends and I are big fans of ttrpgs, with our group having two concurrent games running, one ran by me and the other by my friend, let's call him Alan. This is great because not only do the DMs get a chance to consistently be players, but both games are different genres which gives the players variety; my game is a sci-fi mech based campaign and Alan's is a dark fantasy campaign. Recently, Alan has preparing to run another dark fantasy campaign in a different homebrew setting, much to my excitement. As soon as he sent out a lore doc for us I rushed to make a couple of character concepts, all of which he said he liked. A month or so went by and the topic of this new campaign came up in one of our sessions. While discussing his plans Alan proclaimed that he would like me to not be a player but a co-dm. Justices, this was news to me. Feeling put on the spot I said I'd have to look into the concept but was still interested. I later asked him how the co-dming would work between us, and he told me that I would help him write the sessions and plan combats, but I would rarely be at the table since he didn't like the idea of two people behind the dm screen. He said I would be able to dm some sessions, but would largely be absent from the table. I asked if I could potentially play a rotating cast of NPCs when I wasn't dming so that I could at least be participating in the game I was helping to build, but this was "not [his] vision of the game". After much thought I told him that I wasn't liking the idea and would rather just be a player if possible, which he allowed though he seemed a little short with me. Ultimately everything if good now and we have our session 0 in a few weeks, but justices was I right in being peeved that I had been essentially relegated to a writer's position for a home game? Or should I have acquiesced to Alan's wishes and enjoyed the collaboration between us? I humbly await the outcome of the court.

To the absolutely nutty Supreme crit justices and everyone's favorite legume Jorp, I bring to you a confession of a crime that I know I will commit, but don't know the specifics of. A year ago, as I was in talks with my DM preparing for a new campaign (which we are currently playing), I asked my DM the following theee things. First, can I be a warforged? Second, can I be a sleeper cell type figure who gets activated at some point and commits... some unknown horrible thing? Third, can I play as an Illrigger? My DM was hesitant at first but grew more and more optimistic as time passed, eventually signing off on all three. I now play as a Warforged who looks exactly like a regular human, and he gets his power (unbeknownst to him OR the party) from Asmodeus. Judges and Jorp, I know that I will *at some point* hear an activation phrase in the campaign, at which point my character will enact some of tragic events. Whether this will be against an NPC, or whether I'll betray another player, I have literally no idea. All I know is that I've got a rather climactic surprise in store that even *I* fully know zero details about. I've always thought the archetype of a sleeper cell type character was a fun one, so, my question/confession is... am I good in the eyes of both dice christ and/or the dice devil? I did make sure to ask my DM to make absolutely crystal clear that I the player am not in control during whatever "the incident" is.

To the most devout and holy followers of Dice Christ, I have come today to clean my name in the eyes of the Dice Gods During my friends and I’s 8 year campaign, my friends had always said that if you touch another persons dice that it is to curse them. I however, did not believe them. This was until before a large battle, I went to the DM’s house and wanted to temp Dice Christ itself by rolling his dice without anyone in the room .As a result my DM who normally womps us with higher than average rolls proceeded to not roll above a 5 during the entire next session. The session was full of laughter and it comes up from time to time during conversations and I can’t help but be asked for a cleanse so I may believe in washed of this sin that I have committed.

To the magnificient Supreme Crit Justice and Jill's side piece, praise be. I sumbit to you a confession, not for a dice roll but for the sin of homebrew while being too new to DMing. After a few one shots, I went into the Red Hand of Doom campaign, originally for 3.5 edition. I managed to find lots of sources online to adapt this awesome campaign to 5e and prepped accordingly. However, my players rolled over everything, so I intended to spike the very last fight a little, even if it is Azarr Kul and immiately after an avatar of Tiamat he finally invoques as he dies. The found homebrew had the avatar had 4 legendary actions instead of the classic 3, which meant 2 breath attacks per round instead of 1). I killed my players oe by one, letting them express final words or thoughts, and even pursued the last one as he was fleeing by flying. The worst part is there were close to finish it but the new DM I was didn't thought about just ending it leaving the last PC alive instead so he could ask for help to resurrect the party. I apologized after some time to avoid spoiling the ending even more, but this was the only TPK I had and I'm affraid it weights on me as I avoid to go too hard now, even in the very eve of the start of our Curse of Strahd campaign (for which I anticipated the possible deaths). I await your judgement on this matter, knowing I'll get what I deserve. PS : english isn't my first language, sorry if there were some errors

To the, let’s be honest, sexy justices and the otherwise pretty handsome bailiff I bring the case of the secret code. I play in a campaign with 4 of my really good friends who I’ve played with for about 7 years now. At our last session we were interrogating the main baddie on a particular mission and needed the password to her laptop. She couldn’t tell us because of a demonic curse set upon her, so the party’s Warlock thought of a genius plan to have her write the password in a language that she made up 100% on her own so that we couldn’t read it, then he cast comprehend languages on himself. Our DM ruled that it didn’t work because it was a “secret code” and not a language. So I, the party’s artificer, used tinkering to make a Wand of Secrets to work in conjunction with the spell so that we could decipher it. Our DM once again ruled that it wouldn’t work. Justices, were we wrong for trying to be creative with our spells and abilities or was our DM right in disallowing these MILD shenanigans? PS we just moved on with the session and kept playing and everything’s fine because we are adults and not maniacs

Dear deacons of the dice, I have come forth with a confession. I play in a Dragonlance campaign at a local game store; in the session the party was attending a festival and partook in low-stake competitions which included: fishing, pole vault, limbo, and swimming. My PC, a dwarf monk, had lost the fishing and pole vault competitions. I didn’t mind, since I knew I was guaranteed a win in the limbo competition. My spiritual siblings, I rolled a natural 5 in the first round of the limbo competition (missing the DC by one). When the DM asked for my roll, I lied and said I had gotten a 15. Dice Christ was swift with his punishment and in the next round I rolled a natural 2. The party’s Elf Warlock won the limbo competition. Your holiness-es, I still feel guilty about fibbing this inconsequential roll. Especially since it was only the 4th session I played with this new group. I pray for absolution for my sins. PS: The entire party failed their DC checks in the swimming competition. We all lost to an NPC who was a pre-teen girl.

To the honourable justices and the disembodied voice that reads the cases. I bring you the case of "counter spell X2". A few years ago, a player of a long term DnD group put their hand up to DM for the first time. We enthusiastically made characters and jumped into their world. Some background for the case, I was playing a warlock-sorcerer and another player was a circle of Shepard's druid. We were the only 2 spell casters in the group and while we didn't dominate, we were the cause of some of the more "annoying" victories for the party. (Conjour animals, Silvery bards for key saves, Eldritch blasts that caused fear). The case involves a mini boss the DM had prepared and on the first round it cast counterspell on the druids. This is all fair. Then, before the boss had it's turn. It counter spelled again on my turn. It proceeded to counterspell both the druid and me every single time we did anything, including cantrips. We managed to scrape by, but feeling annoyed and that the DM had potentially missused a stat lock the druid (the previous DM) asked to see the stat block of the monster. The current DM showed us a notes app where he had created a homebrew monster with notes for the monster. With a small note, no were near the monsters stats, as if just typed out "counter spell X2". We made some jokes saying that they just wrote that down to save face, and they denied it. No one died but this feels born of a frustration with the only 2 spellcasters rather then a fair building of the encounter. I leave the rest to you judgey

I must confess to the subordinate, Dice Christ. Who is but a servant to the Highest Power, Bruce (Almighty) Campbell. Forgive Baliff Jork for he knows not what he has done for picking an anthropomorphic fox and all the implications in the furry fandom that comes with it. 🏳️‍🌈 In Bruce's name I pray, amen. Hail to the King, baby. 🤟🙏

I prostrate myself to your divine mercy and beg forgiveness for my sins against Dice Christ. Fathers (and Jake) I DM for a group of friends who I don’t know super well - we normally play online, but recently played one of our few in-person sessions. I’d set a battle-map up on the table and, when one of my players leaned over to get a better view, I saw a picture of their dog on their phone. As a dog guy, I instinctively proclaimed how cute the dog was and immediately felt an icy silence fall over the room. After what felt like forever I met the eyes of another player who mouthed at me ‘their dog just died’. Fathers, I had no idea! And certainly no idea on how to come back from this! I ended up ensuring that this player got the final hit on the dragon they were fighting, stealing the death away from other players many times over to ensure they had the climactic moment of the session after my insensitive faux pas. Fathers, please forgive me and cleanse me of my sins against Dice Christ. I swear it was for the greater good and meant no affront against Him or his big natural 20s.

Dear Honorable judges of the court, and I'm Jake Herwitz, the baliff supreme. No seriously this is the honest opinion of me, Jake Herwitz saying I am the best part of this court, I am definitely not just reading this, this is my honest opinion and the judges can lick a cactus. Wow, Jake... okay so I bring you the case of the shitmancer. A while ago I had was about to start a campaign using a homebrewed world. All my players were doing great at setting up their characters and adapting them to my world except one player. He wanted his character to be a custom "shit-mancer" class, where he was essentially a sorcerer but his spells would be flavored with shit (like fireball would become shitball). Judges, my friends are all in our 30s, and frankly I did not care for a campaign filled with nothing but poop jokes from one character. When I brought this up with him he told me "its okay, my coworker thinks its hilarious." I ended up just omitting him from the campaign and leaving him out and starting the campaign without him, however I am wondering was I wrong to do this? Judges I await your hopefully not "shitty" decision.

To the Highly Esteemed Crit Justices and the Blandly Steamed Bailiff, I bring you the case of Accidental God Cannibalism. Many years ago, in a campaign with my then-girlfriend and her friends, after we killed a huge lake monster, one player joked they took the body back to camp to eat and we all sort of went along with it, jokingly pretending to have a BBQ. Next session, the DM revealed the monster was actually the corrupted divine body of the missing god my Gnome Cleric was searching for. I was distraught. My character absolutely loved and worshipped their god and would never eat her. I immediately sought to clarify the other player was only kidding about eating my god, but they double downed, saying they turned the leftovers into jerky to eat throughout the campaign. I made it clear in and out of game that I wasn't okay with that, but they argued we all participated in the initial god-BBQ, and I just had to be cool with it. After lengthy debate, I managed to convince the table that we had at least not eaten the heart (which I needed as part of my quest to restore her to divinity), but it still haunts me. Justices. Was this extremely weird behaviour and I'm justified in feeling wronged, or do I need to own up to my own part in the god BBQ and let it go?

I humbly prostrate myself before Church of Dice Christ with a confession of the DM Who Peeked. I ask the Deacons of Dice and the tiny turdy alter boy Jakeypoo for forgiveness as I am the sinner in this story. My sin takes place during a one shot I was playing with my sister and a couple old friends from my home town over discord. It was a Level 2 one shot with the simple goal of infiltrating a stronghold guarded by a bunch of lizardfolk. My friend Al (that's a lowercase L and not an I) was the DM for us and said he had ran this one shot many times before (he is a classic forever DM). For context, I am also a forever DM, but on this hallowed day I was on the other side of the screen as a player. What should have been an easy one shot turned into a TPK before we could even cross the drawbridge to the castle. As soon as we neared the gate, four lizardfolk charged us and we became embroiled in close quarters combat. It was a meat grinder, and we were the chuck roast. What followed was a long slog where players died one by one. This was the first time my friend Jean had played D&D and she died first after taking only a couple of turns. As we were being massacred, I took note of the Lizardfolk fighting us and grew suspicious, and this is where I committed the gravest of sins. As a longtime DM, I was familiar with Lizardfolk stat blocks and had a feeling this fight was heavily imbalanced. With the wicked dice devil on my shoulder, I opened my Monster Manual and peeked at the Lizardfolk stats and calculated the challenge rating for this fight. Sure enough, this fight was beyond deadly with two lizardfolk (100 xp each) and two lizardfolk shamans (450 a pop) for a total adjusted difficulty rating of 2200 XP. (800 is the threshold for a deadly encounter with four level 2 PCs.) And did I keep this to myself? No fucking way. I immediately called out the DM and told him he needs to balance his encounters better. Al stood his ground that the fight was balanced, but started to narrate that one of the Lizardfolk shaman was actually very elderly and maybe even sickly, and it was quick to die after a couple more attacks. But ultimately the damage was done. Jean was our healer and had died first so the rest of us fell one by one. All in all it was still a fun night, but mostly because we were razzing Al about the unbalanced combat. I still mention it to him whenever we play but the guilt of looking up statblocks to undermine the DM has haunted me ever since. Praise be and all hail the salt. Your pal, Howling Salt Sam

To the Astute Justice Axford, the Meticulous Justice Murphy, and the Trenchant Justice Tanner. And Bailiff Jake: I present to you the case of the unintended vouching. I am running Curse of Strahd. My players are in Vallaki, and they've been getting deliciously enmeshed in local politics. My party met a scheming, coup-plotting noble who is in league with Strahd, and Strahd's alter ego, at an afternoon tea. On a subsequent session, my partner, a player in the campaign, asked Rictavio, a party-aligned PC, what he thought of the innkeeper family and of the NPC who is secretly Strahd. I had already signaled to the party that Rictavio was more cunning than his sort of foppish facade let on. Rictavio said that the innkeepers were really solid, trustworthy, etc., although he did not let slide their secret corvine identities. As for the NPCount, I rolled an insight check for Rictavio to see if he had ever interacted with the Secret Strahd, rolled low, and had Rictavio tell the party that he seemed "fine." Meanwhile, this Strahd NPC had ingratiated himself to the party and was offering to do little errands for them, or keep an eye on Ireena and Ismark for them while they did various adventures 👀. Cut to last session, when my partner rolled a nat20 investigation in a particular attic, and learned that the NPCount was secretly Strahd and that the noble was in league with him. Justices, my partner was so offended. They claimed that by having Rictavio say that the NPC seemed fine, I had given them a DM wink that they could trust him. They jokingly have even suggested that it was SO deceptive they worry they can't trust ME irl😬. I really don't want to misdirect a party so much that they feel like they don't have any sturdy ground. But also, I said "fine." I didn't say, oh yeah he's my best friend, I would trust him with my life. Did I go too far with Strahd's social engineering? If it helps, although the party had an extremely dangerous encounter, they actually caught on to what was happening and moved quickly enough that they managed to somewhat muck up Strahd's plans and also formed a new religion with the coffin shop as a new consecrated holy site before Strahd and his vampire spawn could kill them. I throw myself on the mercy of the Court.

To Ye, the Most High Pontifexes of Dice Christ and also Jake, who I assume is some kind of... like a vicar or something? Maybe a rector? I come seeking redemption for my sins. I was GMing professionally for a group during the pandemic - a family group getting into the hobby to pass the time. The agency I worked for had told them I was a very experienced GM. Your Holinesses, this was a lie. I had at this point only GM'd a campaign of White Wolf's Aberrant (a superhero game) and three sessions of Scion. I only got the job because I lied on my CV. Despite this, the first few sessions went really well, except for combats. I had absolutely no idea how to balance a fight properly. To ensure I didn't let paying customers walk away unhappy, I resorted to that most grievous of sins. I fudged the dice rolls. Throughout the entire campaign, I lied about dice rolls in the PCs' favour to stave off nigh-constant TPKs caused by my inability to properly grapple with building a fight properly. In one particularly egregious fuck up I ended up fudging 27 rolls in a row on one PC because I'd added too many goblins to a horde. It's been several years, and I've gotten the hang of properly balancing combat since, in DnD and other systems, but the guilt haunts me. I ask ye, the living saints of the church of dice christ, for an appropriate penance.

I come to the priests of dice Christ needing atonement, and advice. In our last session a wild magic surge turned a character invisible, and then that character went down from an AoE effect an enemy had, radiating fire damage. We were asked to roleplay that we did not know he went down as he stayed invisible, it was not a concentrating effect, but I did not listen. I lied, and told my DM that I would push the enemy away, though I would be pushing it towards my other party members, but it saved our downed friend. It was revealed after he was eventually saved that he had two failures. I fear death comes for my character as atonement, how can I come back from this? Can I be forgiven?

To the fair and impartial justices and the biased and corrupt bailiff, I present the case of the banked critical hit. At the height of the pandemic, I joined an online game, hosted over Discord, with a rather inexperienced DM. They did fine up to a certain point with their most egregious ruling being allowing a young black dragon to take an opportunity attack, on our fleeing artificer, using its breath weapon. That hiccup aside we were having fun in an introductory dungeon crawl that culminated in a fight against a Paladin to get out. At one point, the Paladin roll a Nat 20 to hit, but before damage was rolled the DM realized their Paladin did not have as many attacks as they thought and decided to not only bank the roll for a later roll, but specifically for their next attack on their turn. Justices, we were only level 3 and this far into combat a stray crit could be lethal. This effectively put us on a clock to kill the Paladin before his next turn. We failed and on his turn, the DM had the paladin attack AND smite not one of the three characters in melee range, but our poor bard. Their intent being to give us three opportunity attacks to finish the Paladin, which we, once again, were unable to do. The DM then narrated our Bard getting cut in half as their critical hit did just enough to fully kill the squishy bard. Justices, was it fair for our DM to bank a nat 20 and save is specifically for their next attack, not even just their next immediate roll, if at all? PS: After this session, the DM attempted to ghosted us by leaving the Discord server with no explanation. We only realized they were gone because someone checked the roster on a whim and we had to message them to ask them what was going on (they said they were too busy to continue running the campaign), so maybe sentence them for that too.

To the most jawsome judges Murphy, Axford, and Tanner, and the lowly life-worm bailiff Axford, pulling double duty after Bailiff Jake’s most unfortunate Grinching, R.I.G., I present the case of the Resentful Revenant. I was running a campaign inspired by The Unsleeping City for some friends. Each player created an NPC who had inspired their character in life. Early in the campaign, the party had their meet-cute in a public library and discovered a hidden magical library. It’s there where they were united with their specific NPCs, learning about them being secret magical guardians and their deaths fighting a mysterious threat. Until new guardians were selected or that NPC decided it was time to move on, they were in a purgatory-like state within this library. After some story exposition, the players had short one-on-one interactions with their NPCs. All of the NPCs reacted differently to their current condition, with some accepting it and others in denial. The conflict began with a player I’ll call Goblin (who was playing a goblin). His character and NPC shared a rough background and close bond. During their interaction, Goblin chose to pour one out to honor his NPC. However, the NPC was in denial about being dead and directly said not to treat him as if he was. Goblin continued anyway, even after I clarified that the NPC did not want to be treated as dead. After that clarification, Goblin broke character, turned to me, and explained the meaning of his action. I acknowledged the meaning behind it and told him plainly that his NPC was clearly upset at his close personal friend acting as if he was gone. Goblin still disagreed, but we moved on. I noted this interaction and planned for the NPC’s emotional state to decline if left unresolved. Four sessions later, nearly a month had passed in-game before any players returned to the library. I left hints for someone to check on the NPCs, but the players had a larger mystery distracting them. By then, Goblin’s NPC had mentally deteriorated. Upon entering the library, the party saw this NPC transform into a revenant and actively draining the other NPCs. The encounter was a difficult fight, as the players tried to subdue him without killing him, while I repeatedly had him shout, “I’m not dead.” Goblin initially refused to engage emotionally, insisting he was correct in pouring one out, until the situation became dire when another player went down. And yes, judges, death was on the table. After this, he finally apologized in character and, succeeding on several persuasion checks, the NPC calmed down and returned to normal. After the session, Goblin argued that the NPC would not have reacted that way, claiming that pouring one out is a sign of respect in their shared background. I countered that the NPC had clearly expressed his feelings and that Goblin could not fully know how he would react, especially given the unusual circumstances of his death and his current purgatory state. The disagreement remained unresolved, but we continued for another five sessions before the campaign ended for unrelated reasons. So, most radical judges, I humbly ask: was I correct in the NPC’s reaction, or was Goblin’s assertion of how his NPC should behave correct?

For the attention of the People's Justices of the Crit and the decadent, bourgeois Bailiff, the case of Lex Benadryl and the wasted wild shapes. I DM an adapted Lost Mines of Phandelver campaign for a group of mostly new players. When the PCs arrived at the town, their tiefling druid Lex gathered information on a bandit gang by wild shaping into a cat and sauntering into their pub to overhear their plans. Later that day, acting on information she learned, the party headed to the bandits lair. On route Lex described in detail that she transformed into a bullfrog for the walk and hopped along with her companions. This was her only other wild shape for the day. We then ran a gruelling all-day dungeon crawl during which they didn't rest, and Lex was consigned to hitting bandits with a big stick. While she didn't complain, I'm worried I ruined the dungeon for her by counting her bullfrog interlude as a mechanical use of wild shape. Am I a counter-revolutionary dog who expropriated my players ability, or a judicious commissar of the rules as written? I await the perfect justice of the People's Crit.

hello my beloved crit justices. i bring to you today not a case but a request for court mediation. i am a long time player/gm, who has introduced many friends to ttrpgs. i usually gm for these new friends and enjoy doing so. but with one of my current games, this has become an issue. this group consists of me, one of my bffs, and another friend that i invited, who in turn invited several of their friends into the group. awesome! more people! except for myself and my bff, everyone in the group was new to ttrpgs, and i spent a lot of effort making homemade charts and cheat sheets. i have also taken on the brunt of scheduling, and have made efforts to keep it relatively consistent despite me being in school to become a crit lawyer myself. the issue now is that the friend that i had initially invited recently sent me a text message telling me that they thought that i was a good person, but that we didn't mesh as friends, and that they didn't want to hang out anymore. this was upsetting for obvious reasons (i have no idea what prompted this), but also-- this was AFTER i sent a message in the ttrpg group chat asking for people's schedules to organize the next session. i asked them to be the one who told the others that they were leaving, since i didn't really know what i would even say, but they kind of just ghosted me and never messaged the gc. justices, how do i even go about handling this? except for me and my bff, everyone else i only knew through this friend! we don't talk outside of sessions, which already only happens once every few months. is it okay if i just let the game fizzle? do i have to explain a friendship breakup that they probably don't know anything about and i also don't understand? should i fake my own death to avoid the awkward social situation??? i beg the court for advice, as the silence in the group chat is weighing on me every day.

To the personable justices and the pestiferous baliff, I bring the case of The Rogue vs The Railroad. I played in a campaign with a first-time DM and a lone wolf-type rogue. After our party was accused (wrongly) of kidnapping a local king's daughter, we were surrounded by MANY guards. The rogue had successfully hidden nearby beforehand, but as the King knew us and knew the rogue wouldn't be far, he called to them to come out or he would kill the rest of us. The rogue didn't, and the King demanded a volunteer party member to 'make an example of' if they didn't come out. My halfling druid had the most friendly relationship with the rogue, so I stepped forward and pleaded with them to come out. The King gave the rogue a final chance, which they didn't take. Thankfully, the DM changed the threat of death into amputation and my druid only lost an arm. The party (in character) yelled for the rogue (who still didn't appear) and the DM immediately ended the session so she could work out what happened next. When we asked (out of character) why the rogue had stayed hidden, she said 'its what my character would do' and said the DM was forcing her character into something rather than giving her a choice. The arrest was definitely intended to be a cutscene before a jailbreak/courtroom storyline, but was this the DMs fault for forcing it, or the player's for not putting her character aside for the story momentum? I await your judgement. P.S. the player was invited to make a new character (as the party now hated the rogue), but she decided to leave the campaign

To the justices whose beauty would put Aphrodite to shame, and the one guy who had a few cool lines in C1 as Hairy-one-foot, it was Mustard in the dining room or something. I (24yrs) have been DMing a game for my cousins (15, 16 and 18yrs) for the last year. None of us had ever played before and in my naivety, I made a mistake early on: I used Pinterest and gifted my level 4 players a few over-powered magical items, including a corgi, whom they named Cheddar. If they told Cheddar to speak he could cast speak with animals. If they told him paw, he could cast cure wounds. If they told him to shake once per long rest he could cast the level 8 earthquake spell. Thankfully, they did not test him enough to find out that if they said down, Cheddar could cast Gate. After many sessions in which I made harder encounters to help balance out Cheddar, I could justify him no longer. So, when the party went to the feywild I had Titania say she had lost Cheddar. They protested but I told them this had been Cheddar’s quest home. One asked to use animal handling or persuasion but I told her it would be an impossible DC because Cheddar was happy. She yielded, but looked downcast. Justices, should I have continued take medium sized L’s whenever Cheddar killed my bag guys or should I have let them keep him? I await your judgment and if you decide I am wrong I will graciously accept whatever just punishment I deserve as well as undoubtedly lose the respect of my teenage players. PS - thank you so much for the show, in a sometimes hard year you guys have never failed to make me happy. 3/10 would somewhat recommend.

To the (honorable) Sourdough Justices and the Bagel Balliff: We played CoS. The excitement for the campaign literally ended another one, but one week out the barbarian didn't have a character or a mini made. She eventually makes one, and the campaign begins with us meeting in a bar. We were told to look for others like ourselves, so naturally that is what myself and the rest of the party did, except the barbarian. She strikes up a convo with "npc in the bar #3", ignores us for a while, and then tries to sneak up. Justices, she rolled a 3. She then proceeds to describe how she wasn't sneaky because she actually did a really cool knife trick and threw it between the rest of us. We are only 3rd level, and I (watchers paladin) am the only healer. After several sessions of this player touching cursed items, running off on their own while everyone was asleep, and being saved by dm dice fudging when she followed a man pursued by death, we had what would likely be a deadly encounter with some child pie selling hags. As expected, not everyone wanted to fight them, but considering my motives as a paladin, and personal bent to never walk away from a fight, I did. I made it clear before and during that people could run, and all but one did on their first turn. The conversation unfortunately turned from characters criticizing characters, to players criticizing me for wanting to fight even though the odds were against us. The atmosphere became hostile, the barbarian tried to give me disadvantage on a save, and straight up said that they wanted my character to die permanently. Was I too focus on what my character would do, regardless of the consequences, or is this a double standard by the player most inclined to take risks? P.S. I expressed to the group that this wasn't how I wanted to play or be treated, and the group disbanded almost immediately. P.P.S excited for NY show!!

To the Most Hallowed and Pious Church, I bring an offering of humble Ritz Bits and the full box set of Fast & Furious movies—ready for flipping in chronological order. I come before this altar to confess a sin of the highest order—a crime not of malice, but of cowardice. I recently ran a session that was meant to be the "Fast & Furious" of high-fantasy, high-stakes storytelling. The party was in a nos-fueled heist starting with an airship drop onto a speeding train overrun by undead soldiers, led by a necromantic lich, hurtling toward a city center with a ticking necro-bomb. We had it all: crawling under the chassis, "No ticket" one-liners, rooftop brawls, and dodging "murder holes" while hanging off the side. The climax arrived. The bomb was disarmed, but the bridge was up. The only option? Punch it. I designed a mechanic where my five Level 6 players could channel their remaining spell slots into the arcane engine. They would roll a spell attack plus 1d6 per spell level that they channeled into the engine. To make the stakes real, I placed a sticky note on the table face down. On that note, the planned DC of 101. After the players rolled, I would flip the note to reveal the result. But as the dice began to tumble, I felt a chill in my soul. I feared the silence of a failed jump. I feared the "Game Over" screen. In a moment of pure, unadulterated DM weakness, I pulled a sleight of hand that would make a Rogue blush. I swapped the note. I lowered the DC to 70. The players proceeded to roll out this high-tension moment. Their scores included: 24, 21, 25, 14, and 17. The final result: Exactly 101. If I had stood my ground, it would have been a legendary, "to the digit" miracle. Instead, because I moved the goalposts to the 70-yard line, they "easily" cleared it. They weren't cheering; they were underwhelmed. I robbed my DND family of their Dominic Toretto moment because I was afraid. Justices, I am begging for forgiveness. I’ve realized that "Family" isn't just a word; it's a DC you have to be brave enough to set. How do I stop cowering in the face of my players' potential failure? And what penance must I endure to atone for the "101" that could have been? I humbly await your judgment.

To the glorious and effervescent justices, and the bailiff, I think it was jork, I present to you the Scandal of the party's Nat-20 Nepotism. During covid my friend and I started getting into how to play dnd (much help from NADDPOD), obviously we could only play over discord at that time but as restrictions lessened up we started looking for our first in person game. Fast forward we find one, make characters, and are super pumped to finally play in person, that was until we went to the first session. In the game was myself, my friend, two other random players, the dm, and his girlfriend; this is where the problems started. We started at lvl 3 which is typical, however the dm’s girlfriend had not one but two lvl 5 characters with magic items and feats from another home game. At first I was not too bothered but as we started playing it was obvious the story was meant to have her as the main character with everyone else as supporting cast. Once again as a first time in person player I was not too bothered just because I wanted to play so bad, however what finally got to me is when I realized she had completely stopped rolling to do anything and was proclaiming NAT 20s and damage that were supposedly rolled before it was her turn in combat because “she knew what she was going to do on her turn.” We didn’t want to be accusatory but we noticed this kept up encounter after encounter for a few weeks, ultimately taking away all of the stakes with the game. So we brought it up to the DM and he said he lets her get away with those things because she has a lot going on personally and he is only dming to bring her some joy so we could either like it or not. We chose not to like it and my friend and I completely ghosted them and finally convinced our friends to play with us starting up our group that still plays together today. But I ask Justices, should we have given them the benefit of the doubt or were we right to leave the game and ghost them? P.S. One of the girlfriend’s characters was a mute, that could only telepathically talk to her other character because they had a psychic link that was formed when they were younger allowing them to take actions on each other's turns basically giving each of her characters two actions and bonus action per round.

To the Honourable Crit Justices, and their loyal man-servant, Jeef, I present the case of a good deed gone horribly wrong. My party’s DM (and husband) brought us to a desert city ruled by Marids. Not long after arriving, we discovered that all the water in the city was controlled by the ruling class. In this harsh environment, the poor were forced to scrape together whatever coin they could in order to afford water. At level 6, we weren’t exactly equipped to defeat the scourge of capitalism, so my kind-hearted Divine Soul Sorcerer decided to do what little she could. She ventured into the poorest part of the city and began using Create or Destroy Water to hand out free water to anyone in need. Judges, I thought this would be a small, wholesome side moment while my two fellow party members had a heartfelt conversation back at the tavern. I was wrong. After I set up my humble “water booth” and helped a few grateful citizens, my DM described a gang of rough-looking men approaching. They demanded that I hand over all the water. Being a high charisma character, I attempted to intimidate them into backing off, I rolled a 5. The leader, thoroughly unimpressed, grabbed my poor sorcerer and initiated combat. Not wanting to kill anyone, I asked my DM if I could deal non-lethal damage with my cantrips, My DM smiled and informed me that these were just random dudes who likely had low hit-points, and that magic does not do non-lethal damage, so any spell I hit them with had the potential to kill them. Stuck, and with a pathetic strength score, my pacifist-leaning sorcerer not wanting to kill anyone had no choice but to pull out a knife (so I could do non-lethal damage) to fight these goons and try to get away. My DM then gleefully and vividly described how my sweet, gentle sorcerer stabbed a man in the stomach, leaving him bleeding in the dirt as she fled back to her party in shame. So, Judges: was I wrong for trying to do a simple good deed? Or was my DM justified in forcing my poor pacifist’s hand and blade?

To the benevolent justices, and to the lowly, lowly, lowly bailiff Jack (or whatever his name is): I come before the court as Quart, a humble halfling Bard of Creation, seeking judgment against my Dungeon Master for crimes against both logic and forestry. During a quest to save my flooded halfling village, our party was attacked by animated trees. To protect the engineers working on the dam, I cast Wall of Fire, a roaring inferno dealing 5d8 damage, doubled because, you know, trees are famously flammable. The plan was working perfectly. The trees were cut off, our team was safe, and I even summoned my own animated tree, Treever 2 (R.I.P. Treever 1), to help hold the line. Then, without warning, my DM declared that one of the enemy trees “laid down” across the Wall of Fire, forming a bridge for the others to cross. He claimed this smothered the flames, snuffing out a magical wall of elemental fire, and forced me to drop concentration. I argued, quite reasonably, that if a burning tree throws itself onto a fire, that does not extinguish the fire, it simply becomes more fire. Yet my DM insisted that the wooden martyr created a safe walkway, allowing the other trees to cross unscathed. So I ask the court: did my DM commit arson against the rules of physics and fairness? Or must I, a simple halfling bard, accept that the laws of combustion no longer apply in Faerûn? Respectfully submitted, Quart, Bard of Creation, Defender of Treever 2’s Legacy

To the Deacons of the Dice, I bring a confession and ask for forgiveness, for a sin I didn't quite commit, but almost did. I ALMOST changed my stats. I had used the point-buy system for stats, so my bard has great dex and charisma, and everything else is pretty bad. But I was recently making other characters, and experimented with rolled stats, and rolled INCREDIBLY well. So out of curiosity, i went to see what the rolled stats would have been for my bard, and I again rolled incredibly well. So I sat there and stared at my way bigger numbers, and thought to myself, "Wow... those numbers sure are way bigger." I applied them, and what do you know, my stats also got way bigger. For instance, a starting charisma of 19, 17 dex, mostly in the 12-15 range. I thought, "Well, I mean... i COULD change it, and nobody would know..." It's not even early in the campaign, we're like 10 sessions in and level 4. It's objectively WAY too late to be messing with stats. But they were really tempting stats. I never used those higher stats, but I did let them sit there until the day of our next session, when I opened up my character sheet, sighed, and changed them back to the lower originals. I may be weak, but I have my integrity intact. Please forgive my heart for wandering so! PS, super pumped to see y'all for the first time at Radio City this week!

To the justified justices and the joking jester Jason I come to you with the case of the banshie blowout. I was playing an a medium term campaign around Halloween time my DM sets the seen we are on a boat sailing through the ocean late at night till a fog come over head and we where attacked by banshees it should be noted that there where three of us players all level three combat was going better then expected till the banchie did its Wail I did my saving through and got a nat 1 instead of going down my dm told me i straight up died I told them as a previous dm that my hp should drop to 0 he told me because I was such a low level I could not handle the sound and died because of it it should be noted that another player died due to failed death saves because they got a 7 on there save after the session I asked if we could laugh this session off and seid it was a spooky one shot ment to scare us for Halloween and was told just roll better and this would not be a problem justices was a wrong to get upset with my dm for this or should I have accepted that a nat 1 is a critical failure and accepted my fate

To the Honorable Justices and also Jake with his little no-sho ankle socks. I bring to you the case of Ranger Danger: Crows and Calimari. I had just finished leading my players through a subaquatic underdark arc in which my ranger’s animal companion, an octopus, had been pivotal in helping the party escape a deadly Duegar lair overrun by mindflayers by squeezing through narrow pipes. The little guy had a lot of personality and was up to any task no matter how dangerous for his new friend, the ranger. My famously self-interested wizard had even commissioned an artisan to fashion a sort of water filled hamster ball for the animal companion to roll around in once the group got back to the surface. When they finally did, I narrated how a raven had come down to settle on my ranger’s shoulder, strongly hinting that this could be a new companion that might have a bit more utility than the aquatic yet charming octopus. Judges, upon meeting this new corvid companion, my ranger excited uncapped the hamster ball and in a single fluid motion ejected its contents into the sky, whereupon HE narrated how the raven eagerly swooped in and gobbled up the poor octopus! The table was speechless! Judges, was it my duty to save a beloved cephalopod, or should I have remained the stoic naturalist, and let ranger take its course? I anxiously awaited whatever judgement befits myself or my player. (Ps in the end we decided that if the group ever goes back into underwater terrain, the octopus will burst out of the raven’s chest and vice versa in a never ending chain of companions 🤷‍♂️)

May it please the most sangfroid Supreme Crit justices Murphy, Axford, and Tanner, and if he has to be there too then fine let the ungodly little bailiff Jon Odenhurtz listen in. I bring you the case of the Fire Giant Faux Pas. I ran a high level one shot with some folks online involving a battle with Fire Giants, which are classified as Huge creatures. Remember that as it plays an important part later. The final battle pops off with a Fire Giant Forgecaller and the Goliath monk player tells me he uses his Hill Tumble feature to knock it prone. Cool, I ask for a saving throw and he replies, “There isn’t one.” Hmm that doesn’t seem right. I ask if it works on a Huge creature and he says yes because he used his Goliath’s enlarge ability to become a large creature. I didn’t look up the ability and trusted the player and their overpowered ability. What proceeded to happen was my BBEG get autoprone-locked and got its ever-loving ass destroyed ten ways till Sunday. I become sullen and annoyed but let their sweeping victory ride. Upon closer look on his character sheet I find out he cannot in fact knock Huge creatures prone. Justices I beseech the worst punishment imaginable for this player. I must sleep peacefully in the knowledge that his shit gets wrecked like mine hath been wrecked.

To the Big Dog Justices and Tiny Lil Dog Bailiff, We were inside a magic dome under a volcanic lake, against a huge crab. The GM was clear that missed projectiles could break the dome, and as the crab was very tough for our party, we agreed to get what we came for - an ancient, barnacle-encrusted trident - and run. My barbarian raged, shrugging off the crab’s opportunity attack as he sprinted for the trident. The wizard entangled the crab so I could more easily run back next round with our prize. The rogue fired a crossbow, missed, and broke the dome. Perhaps in a panic, the GM told me that - through the trident - I heard the whispers of an Old One in my head. In return for a favor, it would use its power over water to save the party. My barbarian took the deal. The scalding waters boiled the crab as a shimmering eldritch field rocketed us to safety. The party was saved, but the rogue (and his player) were pissed. He said that, as a Chaotic Good character, he’d never agree to owe a favor to an evil being. Myself and the GM reasoned that only my barbarian technically made the pact. The Rogue decided that meant he should kill my barbarian, but the GM talked him down. That was the last session we played. Justices, was I wrong to accept a deal that could have affected the whole party? PS: This Chaotic Good rogue had, earlier that session, tortured a werewolf to death in front of her husband and kept her teeth as a trophy. He said that was fine because werewolves are inherently evil.

The Case of the Concealed Carry Ice Cream Man. My privateer party, The Scurvy Dogs, and I were on the sleepy island town of Merrin and decided to split up. Half of the party failed to stealth into the manor of the infamous Captain Blue. Guards descended on them, and a signal flare went up. The other half of the party, in the town square, saw the flare and ran toward it. An ice cream man saw them and exclaimed that they were up to no good, then drew his flintlock pistol. What followed was a deadly shootout and grenade barrage from the ice cream man, a haberdasher, and various other small business owners. At one point, the haberdasher revealed a suicide bomb vest and told us to quit the funny business. My lizardfolk fathomless warlock, Chevron, killed six guardsmen with a single lightning bolt during the fight. In retaliation, I was downed and then finished off with a melee attack while multiple other party members were still up in the vicinity. Justices, is it suspicious merely to run toward a flare? Is it meta for a simple guardsman to attack a downed character to avenge his fallen friends when several other party members are still up? Is it too wacky for small business owners to pack such deadly firepower? I’ve never seen a sleepy island town where the ice cream man was packing. I humbly await your ruling.

To these absolute knobs, May it challenge the court and upset the power they wield. I bring you the case of "WTF High Crit, you got a problem with me?" I have written in in the past for your assistance and all you do is punish me. My players fill up a bag with bombs - my fault. My player brings and OP, roided out, charisma laden God bird to the scrub match - my fault. My players name them selves all Tyler - not only my fault - but justice Murphy says he must make an example of me and creates the first NADDPOD precedent in my name. Furthermore, Justice/ Lowly lowly lowly bailiff Axeford openly stated on record she wished to torment me. I have clearly been targeted and I demand retribution from this kangaroo court. I ask YOU NADDPOLES if this tyranny should continue. Good day. P.S. I don't even like this show. P.S.S. I will settle for Emily's 1st ugly mug, that unfortunately sounds extremely delightful

Hot moist and hunky bailiff! Oh and the judges who have like a podcast i think? I present the case of the Ruined Roleplay! One of my players, Kyron Soul, is a monk, so I really wanted a master oogway moment with his sensei. During battle, his sensei died, and we truly made one of the most emotional roleplay moments we've ever done. I even pretended to be dying on the floor IRL, and he held my hand giving the most emotional speach about his life and monk way that was so impactful for his character. It was amazing and I've never seen him roleplay like that EVER. His sensei was going to pass down his legacy and monk way to kyron, and pass away in a sea of emotion. Then our cleric, a bunny man named Philip, cast raise dead on him, and he came back to life not even 5 minutes after his emotional death. I had to roll with it, and let his sensei come back alive. There was truly nothing more awkward then having to roleplay his sensei just coming back after that intense roleplay... and it definitely lessened the impact of the ENTIRE DEATH SCENE. Judges am I in the wrong for letting the raise dead happen, or should my cleric have read the room. I await your emotional sentencing.

Dear honorable and radiant justices Emily, Murph, and Caldwell. Today, I present a case of DM overreach in player absentia. Oh... also tell the current bailiff I said hi or whatever. I play characters in two campaigns that have the same DM. One is a high-level Cleric and other is a low-level bard. Both campaigns we have an agreement that if a player is missing, another can step play their PC for that session. We try our best to not make any character decisions for the PCs that we are covering for. In the high-level campaign, at one point we were going to negotiate with a cloud giant baroness to acquire a story related artifact. I unfortunately was not available for the session of the negotiations. The following session, immediately upon starting, I had to fight an avatar of death one on one and if any of my party members joined the fight a matching number of avatars of death would spawn in. Turns out that as part of the negotiations, the party had agreed to each draw a card from the deck of many things. This is something my highly risk adverse Cleric would have vehemently opposed. my PC drew the skull card. None of this was mentioned to me before the session in which I returned. Luckily, I was able to win the fight and could move on. In the low-level campaign, I missed one session due to a planned vacation. while on that vacation, I received a message that asked, "what kind of underwear does your PC wear?". Confused at why they would ask, I replied that I had not considered that and didn't know yet. Attending the next session, we picked up mid battle, and I discover that during the last round of combat a Drow cleric had cast Command on my PC with the prompt "masturbate". My PC failed the save, then rolled a natural 20 on a jack-off performance check upon fulfilling the command that served to briefly stun the Drow cleric. So, there I found myself, having to describe what a critical success whacking it performance would look like. Completely cold, right at the start of the session. Justices, is my DM taking too much liberty with what happens to PCs while their players are absent? Or are PC game for even the craziest DM led shenanigans regardless of whether the PC's player is present. PS. How is the AI Agent replacement for the Bailiff coming? I've heard really good things about TuckerBot! PPS. The cards the other party members drew were Sun, The Fates, Star, and Rogue.

To the saints of the church, and that guy Jake who I made chuckle in a live stream once, I being to you a confession. I previously DM'd our crews campaign for 2 years, meaning I have a working knowledge of most mechanics and spells. One of my players has recently started a campaign, and as we were fighting an ice drake in a cave, our wizard cast fire ball on the drake. I told them my paladin could take the hit, and the drake failed it's dex save but I passed. The dm then declared I roll out the way, taking no damage. I am the main frontline fighter and generally just attack without much shenanigans, so if I took the damage I was worried if I went down the rest of the party would follow. Priests of the church, I stayed quiet, knowing full well I should have taken half the damage. Have I betrayed the trust my dm put in me to be our walking handbook, or can I be forgiven for my lapse as it meant I could continue to take care of my party of well meaning hooligans? I await your just decision.

To the esteemed justices and lovely bailiff Jake, I bring you the case of the player who was just A Bear. I was running a somewhat dungeon-crawly campaign in Pathfinder 2nd edition, in which my players were exploring a mysterious inverted tower from the Abyss that they had to traverse top to bottom. To start off, one of my players was a druid who was introduced in his bear form. Since this was the first time I ran PF2E, I wasnt brushed up on all of the classes, and after a while I realized that he had been in bear form much longer than he was allowed to as a druid. For some reason, instead of ret-conning, we decided to just let him be a bear. The issue of this being that my players were Level 2, and the bear was a CR 3 creature (which in pathfinder means that a CR3 would be a decent fight for 4 level 3 players). I figured this was my own issue and I would maybe just pad the health and damage numbers of things he was fighting to compensate. The tower had 9 floors in total and on the 3rd floor, my players encountered a society of Snake people called the Zyss, who ended up making my players fight each other in a low-stakes battle Royale to entertain their leader. This went really well, until the player playing the bear decided that he wanted the joke Bag of Holding (called the Bag of Weasels) that the wizard had, because his character wanted to "eat the weasels" that you could pull from the bag. He proceeded to attack the wizard and CRIT, killing him in a single hit and causing the wizard to go to Dying 2 (the equivalent of losing 2 death saves, essentially). When I asked if he perhaps wanted to roll non-lethal damage against the wizard instead, the player simply said "no". I had set up a system of dog creatures that would carry health potions to anybody who was downed, since I didnt actually want anyone to die in this PvP. The dog creature couldnt quite make it to the wizard with its movement, and on his next turn, he rolled a natural one on his death save and died. I had already saved this wizard from death in SESSION 1 with a backstory pull, and doing it twice in just a few sessions felt ham-fisted, so the character ended up dying. The player was obviously (and understandably) very upset, left the call and messaged me that he was taking a break from the campaign, and didnt come back again until many sessions later. Was I wrong for letting my player just play a bear? Was i wrong for granting them a funny bag of weasels that just ended in one of my player's deaths? Should I have done something different to stop the death of our poor wizard? I lay myself before your divine judgement.

Dearest Beloved Enriched And Vibrant Members of the Court (and the vitamin deficient bailiff) I bring you the case that has niggled at me for almost a decade now. I was part of a campaign with my brother (George, summoner), his wife (Helen, dm), and an additional brother sister set (Drew, oracle and Darla, ranger). This was Helen's first time dming and it was a very combat heavy Pathfinder campaign. During one dungeon, my character a monk, found a trapped breeding pair of neutral evil sphinx. My character was indingent at their imprisonment as she believed in the rights of all creatures. After VERY carefully whittling down their health she was able to knock one out non lethally and do a medicine check on the other to stabilize it (while holding up the cage door one handed which was a very hard check). After I accomplished this, Darla one shot killed one of the creatures with her bow. Drew immediately killed off the other one stating that as they were evil, we shouldn't leave them alive. Darla or Drew did not express any disagreements with my characters actions prior to this and I was pretty shocked. My brother's character (incidently playing Darla's characters sister), shoved Darla's ranger back away from the creatures expressing disgust at her actions. This quickly devolved into a real world fight as I was very upset and George was on my side. We plastered over it and the end of the campaign that happened quickly after that was ultimately very anticlimactic and awkward. We did all continue to play together after this but I have always felt slightly at fault for the occasional awkwardness in friendship as it had been my hurt feelings that created the argument. Should I have let it go? Or was I justified in my outrage? I leave this judgement to your wise minds eye Beryl, the Crystal Monk

To the talented and devoted horse actors of the court, and the one who keeps shattering immersion by looking right into the camera, I present the Case of The NEWSIES Musical Anniversary. A while back, my main D&D gaming group got together to celebrate our 3 year anniversary of the current campaign we are playing through. It is set in a magical variant of earth, and is a sequel to a previous campaign, so our DM decided to set it in New York, where we would be infiltrating the headquarters of one of the BBEG's highest ranking lieutenants. The issue arose in the party's deliberations of how exactly to infiltrate this base. As we were in New York, one of the fellow party members presented the idea of dressing up as the cast of Disney's musical the NEWSIES, and put on a performance to be allowed inside. The party agreed to this, and the DM called for a group performance check, of which we ended up with a 30-average. We began to act it out, and ended up spending half an hour acting/singing up until page 12 of the 116 page script. During that time, our DM got quiet and ended the session right after that had concluded. After that session, we didn't talk for a week. But following it, she's been a good sport about it, if not a bit dissapointed. So, I ask this court: was the party in wrong? Should we have not taken the bit that far, and did we derail the DM's plans too much? I humbly await your verdict.

To the respected Justices of the Crit Court, and a title to the Bailiff that’s just respectful enough not to be insulting: I bring before you the case of Shiloh, a Sorcerer with a grating voice and an exhausting obsession with his own secret cult. To start our campaign, we rolled a d100 for random character flaws. My Ranger rolled "vain and selfish." Shiloh rolled "determined to make everyone join his cult." We laughed at first, but then Shiloh decided to don a strange, annoying character voice that the rest of the table has admitted is driving them crazy. Every single time we meet an NPC, Shiloh rushes in and cuts the rest of us off to pitch his cult, making the NPCs uneasy before the rest of the group can even interact. At first, our GM punished this by giving him disadvantage on subsequent checks, but now the GM just ignores it and locks the recruitment behind a massive DC. Worse, Shiloh refuses to tell the party anything about this cult because we aren't members, meaning we derail every encounter for a bit that we aren't even allowed to be in on. Recently, I’ve started casting Hunter’s Mark on him whenever he does this, strictly as a threat. My Ranger could absolutely melt his 9 AC in a single round (especially with hunters mark already on) My question for the court is this: At what point have I telegraphed my frustration enough that I am legally allowed to roll to attack?

To the putrid judges and the bailiff who reigns loftily above them, I have a case that could charitably be called "monkey business" on my part. I am but a toddler DM of 2 years in a campaign with three ex-coworkers. Our most recent session involved about 3 days of in-game travel, interrupted here and then by various plot things. On the final day of travel, I looked at the clock and deduced we had about enough time to run a combat. My 3 PCs are level 9, had two NPC allies present, and all very competant when it comes to combat. While I usually put a good bit of thought into encounters, I get womped often enough that I tend to assume sometimes that no matter what I put in front of them combat-wise that they'll be able to succeed. This was evident in my apparent lack of forsight displayed in having 4 Apau Perape Demons (big ol monkeys) lay an ambush for the party. Your honors and Murph, they of course crit on a stealth check to get a surprise round and downed a PC and an NPC with two fiery roar attacks before either of them could take a turn. The rest of the party frantically attempted to stave off the demons and bring up the downed PC while I tried to pivot into soft-balling the party as covertly as I could. The mood was dour, I belive partially in part to my tables paladin not having stocked revivify that session, which sparked some at the time light and funny argument which suddenly felt very apparent at the time of the combat. My question, judges, is this: was soft balling my party the right move? The other two apes had roar attacks that went unused and could have killed the down PC, but the party are all in agreement that potential PC death is fine. In retrospect, the group was already on the way to a city of clerics who could have potentially brought back the downed party member for a price. Did I deprive the party of some juicy drama, or did I rightfully read the room and adjust my gameplay accordingly? I humbly await your paltry ruling, and blow a gently kiss toward the bailiff. Thank you.

Dearest Dice Deacons and I guess that one choir boy who never leaves, forgive me for I have sinned (and still am 😬). I must confess to a sin I am guilty of repeating over the course of an ongoing 3 year campaign with my friends. I play in a Descent into Avernus campaign with three other friends as a 13th-level gunslinger fighter. In one of our earlier sessions, our DM very kindly gave us all magical items and mine was a beautiful pair of boots of haste. As many may know, haste allows the player to have another action to be used to attack, dash, disengage, hide, or use an object. Sounds great. But, when I had originally copied this spell into my sheet, I did not have the important detail of “only one weapon attack”. I think y’all can see where this is going… I, as a level 13 fighter, have been taking my regular 3 attacks per action and then taking ANOTHER 3 attacks for my haste action. This means that when I action surged, I was taking a total of 9 attacks. The true sin? Even though I have realized my mistake, I have not mentioned anything to our DM… Please, you have to understand, I looked so cool and it felt oh so good. Dice Deacons, please have mercy on my soul for I believe Dice Christ has already been cursing my dice ever since, but I still seek repentance for my sins. 😔

To the honorable Crit Justices & also jake. I present the case of roleplay over reach. This was early in my role playing career maybe 12 years ago. I was joining a one shot in a Star Wars ttrpg where I chose to play a force user from a jungle planet. Think Tarzan, in space & magic. We get hired to collect a data card, & I say "Oh you mean this data card" in character & ask if I can roll to mind trick the dude. The DM says sure & apparently I rolled really well. (It's a D6 system so I cannot say with confidence what happened since the die didn't even use numbers) But the DM said out loud "well there goes all my prep for this session" clearly deflated. Judges was I wrong for my wild choice, or should the DM have said there was no way for me to have the data card since there wasn't. I humbly await your judgement.

To the honorable judges and the handsome bailiff in the corner, I think Joel was his name? I present the case of the overpowered sword that wrecked our party and campaign. I play in a group of four. Our DM has a loose worldbuilding style and often pulls ideas from media they like. Usually that’s fine, but lately the items have become increasingly overpowered. Recently, they read Stormlight Archive by Brandon Sanderson. There’s apparently a sword in it that can instantly kill enemies, ignore armor, and cut through anything. I thought the whole concept was a bit dumb as he explained it. Our cleric found a weapon like that, and combat quickly became one-sided. I raised my concerns, but the DM shrugged and said, “It’s supposed to be that strong. There are only a few in the world, just wait and see.” After the second session with the sword, I did something I’m not proud of. While traveling along a mountain ridge with steep cliffs and rushing water below, I asked the cleric if I could try the sword in the next fight. Reluctantly, they agreed. As soon as I had it, my character threw it off the cliff and gave a half-hearted speech about how no one should have that much power. We argued briefly, then moved on. No one tried to recover it. The DM seemed annoyed. A few combats later, we faced a boss and to our surprise, the boss had one of those same overpowered swords. Apparently, we were meant to keep ours to stand a chance. The fight was swift and brutal. Two rounds, total party kill. Was I wrong to reject this dumb sword, or was my DM right to punish me for acting so hastily?

Dearest Beloved Enriched And Vibrant Members of the court (and the vitamin deficient bailiff) I bring to you the case of the undying barbarian i was playing in an online game and one week when the dm was out, one of my fellow players (let's call him Chad) offered to dm a homebrew one shot he'd been wanting to run. Chad told us all to make level 20 characters and "expect to die". I and two of my fellow characters prepared a warlock (carol), a ranger(tweedle), and a zealots barbarian(cupcake). we faced and ancient red dragon in its volcanic lair. While myself (the warlock) and the ranger did plenty of damage, we were quickly knocked out within 4 rounds leaving Cupcake to face the dragon alone. Chad either forgot or didn't know, that level 20 zealot barbarians cannot die while in a rage unless you do double their max damage in one round. Chad REALLY wanted that tpk and the ranger and I sat delightedly listening to him page through his book over the discord call to find some way to kill this barbarian. He failed to do so and after another 15 rounds Cupcake the barbarian killed the dragon. Cupcake stated that he wanted to scoop up our bodies and run them to safety/a healer, (smacking himself in the face every round to keep himself in a rage to stop from dying). however Chad decided that as the dragon died, the volcano exploded and Cupcake had no way to outrun the blast. Did we take it too far with the shenanigans? should we have allowed him to kill us all in an easier fashion? or was he in the wrong for killing us after we (and by we I mean cupcake) defeated his dragon? I await your always fair judgement! (for additional context, none of us know each other in real life. we had been playing for a year. and Chad was a player that argued with the regular dm about everything, and took around 30 minutes every time it was his turn so I can't say that any of us held him in particularly high esteem)

To the witty justices Axford, Murphy, and Tanner, and their courtroom jester Jingles. I bring you the case of the demigod helper. My roommate was DMing a complicated but very well thought out and interesting campaign that she and five other friends had been playing for over a year. She was running into an issue of helping her very stuck players find the clues to the next leg of their journey without essentially railroading them. She told me her players were getting frustrated after two 3 hour sessions of basically running in circles. Together, we came up with an idea of introducing a demigod cleric NPC that was being sent on a semi-secret mission to the party on behalf of their godly parent, as they to go to the hidden temple of this god. The DM asked me if I would join the next session as the demigod instead of it being an NPC, and I said yes. The next session I joined, requesting the player's aid in fighting a Kelubar (CR 13) that was in possession two magical items, one of which was mine and as a reward they could have the other, which was a puzzle to be turned magical map to the hidden temple. The issue occurred at the end of the session, the players were successful in helping defeat the monster and they were now in possession of the magical map. The demigod cleric I was playing looked human, and they all assumed I was a human cleric. I did not use all of my demigod abilities during the fight, I mainly used cleric abilities. When it was revealed at the end of the session that I was a demigod, one player was very angry. They accused the DM and I of colluding to railroad them. They were also very mad because I "bothered" them by asking for help when I could have killed the monster on my own and did not need their help. This player was also the most upset at the last two sessions that they were doing nothing. All the other players were were good with how things played out and they tried explaining to the player that it didn't matter who I was, I was there for one session and they got a new magic item that would help them. The player eventually relented, but my friend the DM is still very upset that she was accused of railroading, which she has tried been very careful not to do, because of how complicated the campaign is and point is for the party to unweave the complicated plot lines. I asked the justices, did my friend and I collude to railroad the party or did we just provide them with a helpful quest to end their confusion? We await your ruling.

May it pleasure the most Supreme of Courts and tickle the bailiff’s fancy until it wets itself… I present the case of the Bullseye Druid! I joined a campaign my partner was in with her friends, who I didn't really know. The DM was running the same module with another group and thought it would be fun for both parties to race to retrieve a special amulet for a town festival. Each group ran separate sessions through an underwater grotto, using potions to breathe. At the start of the joint session the DM made it very clear that no one would be allowed to die from PvP. Our group was not allowed to make stealth rolls even though we ended the previous session having Pass Without Trace up. Our rogue got the amulet off a giant shark and I cast Invisibility on him. The Wizard in the other group--who was also the DM's husband--said, "Focus fire the Druid (me) to break concentration" even though his character had no way to speak underwater. Their party of 6 players proceeded to ignore the shark and take me down in one round, though I held concentration and the rest of my party dashed away with the item. We ultimately "won" but I was salty as the sea. Your honors, should we have gotten to make stealth roles against the other players’ perception? Should the DM have stopped the table talk to uphold her "No PvP killing" rule? I await your ruling with potion-baited breath! Supplementary Evidence: Our group was two Rogues and a Barbarian, starting at level 3, so I had built my Druid to specialize in stealth. We had used Pass Without Trace to avoid most combat in the previous session and still had plenty of time left on it. The full group session was online with about 10 players, so I really tried to be understanding about how much cat-herding the DM was having to do. We entered the final area, a large sea cave, from opposite sides, where the amulet we were all after was being guarded by the giant shark. The amulet was hanging from a spear stuck into the giant shark. One of our Rogues had the ability Psychic Whispers, which allowed our party to communicate under water. We planned to just grab and dash rather than fight, to avoid unnecessary PvP or animal cruelty. The other group initially fought the shark until our party got the amulet, then ignored it to take me down even while it was still attacking them. I had pointed out that the DM’s husband had no way to speak to his party underwater when he told them to focus on me but they all still acted based on his table talk. Our Barbarian did manage to scoop my unconscious body but it still felt like I got punished for our group trying to honor the spirit of the “no killing” rule.

Dearest Honorable Crits and the balif who is lowly yet possibly higher than I, I present the case of personal hell. The party needed to steal a gem of planes-shifting from the villains. One player accidentally triggered one, and was warped to hell, where they began to rescue NPCs important to the party from personalized hells. The other PCs encountered a villain, who offered them a gem. Because one of the NPCs i mentioned was one of their husbands. The player was so intent on getting to that scene that she didn't ask any questions, and they were consequently trapped in their own personal hell and missed it entirely. As DM, did i utterly fail to reinforce this self-admitted villain may be lying, in seperating the party at all, or does the fault lay in another aspect?

Honorable paragons of dice christ, I stand before the confessional bench, trying to avoid making eye contact with Jake the Alter Boy. I confess to shameful, limitless bursting. In our pathfinder 2e I play an inventor with the healing explosion feat, and have been using it vigorously to keep my party up recently, as we do not have a dedicated healer. This, along with a passive buff from our keep, has made me into a bursting, healing machine, dealing out about 3d10 healing/ damage to undead! However, it was with great shame that I found out that I should have been rolling mishap rolls for each explosion, and this was after I basically trivialized a big fight that our DM had been preparing for the past couple of weeks. I confessed to our group chat the error of my ways as soon as I noticed my error, but I still feel the slick grime of many a burst unearned upon my soul. I postrate and await Dice Christ's Judgement

To the Venerated Dice Elders, I present my confession, which stems from a moment where we *had* to take a Dragon down to prevent it from aiding the bad guys in the final battle. We were well spaced out to avoid breath attacks and got it to the brink.  However, the Dragon knocked the Fighter prone as a Legendary action, and then used its full turn to dash-fly away, realizing it was about to lose, leaving it 200 feet away from us. We had no attacks that could hit in that range. The Fighter was sure she could finish the fight if it had stayed in her face, but there was no chance of that now.  Fortunately, I was playing a Trickster Cleric / Rogue Mastermind multiclass, and was exactly 60 feet away from the fighter! I bonus-action dashed to put a hand on her.  Then, with a Jens Lyndelle-worthy flourish, Dimension Door'd both of us onto the back of the escaping Dragon!  I immediately got yeeted off by the Dragon's Legendary Action to a significant but non-lethal amount of damage, but the Fighter stood strong, got their turn, and took the Dragon down with the last possible attack. I can still hear the roars of the table when it happened. ...But here's the confession: Forgive me, Dice Elders, but I was *65* feet away from the Fighter.  I had enough turns to sit there, plot out this epic plan, and realize I couldn't make it far enough.  Nevertheless, when it was my turn, I went with it anyway, sliding my mini across the board to the Fighter.  Normally our DM watches move distance with diligence, but I think the fact I only needed to move in a straight line concealed the slight of hand on my part.  No one else at the table was any the wiser. It was a huge moment at the table, but I acknowledge that memory comes with an asterisk, and that it looms in my brain enough that I think about it every time a Dice Christ comes up, so I figured it was time to atone.  I humbly await your whomping.  

To the Exalted Conference of the Icosahedrical Clergy. I am peanut butter fudging my enemies HP. I am running a magitech future fantasy campaign, for two second time players and two forever DMs. We are only a few sessions in and having a blast, but I am still navigating how to counter the domineering pedant that is one of my players (one of the forever DMs). As he is a dear friend of mine, I knew this going in. At LvL. 4, my party is already dealing massive amounts of damage, exacerbated still by said forever DM- let’s call him Jake Deacons, my folly is thus. I designed a pit fight encounter for them to progress through the city and get the information they need, and created a king of the ring style character for them to fight- a Dragonborn named Orion. He was cool. I took a stat block and toughened it up a bit before the session, and it still was not enough. Jake, a Ranger with high dex, consistently was going first and tearing Orion apart. By Orion’s first turn after the party he was already at less than a quarter HP. In my notebook I hastily scrawled over his HP and added 20 points to it, instantly filling with shame. My goal was not to take out any of the players or even make them stressed, but the fight had lasted 5 minutes so far with most of that being Jake narrating his turn. Hindsight has given me the clarity that my “cool pit fighter character” going down really fast would have made my players laugh really hard, and I could have just as easily narrated another fighter entering the ring and continued from there. Lords and Lasses of the Clergy, I feel I have betrayed my players by not designing a challenging enough duel, resorting to a cheap trick to belay the inevitable. I lay this confession at your feet in hopes I may rid myself of the 20sided shame that plagues me. P.S. I also spent the entire session rolling random dice behind my screen just to make my players think something was happening when it was not. I also feel I must repent for this

To the honorable judges and the bailiff who I feel a little bad for everytime someone is mean to him, I bring you the case of the Total Party Chill! My then fiancé, now wife, invited me to an online group of adventurers playing an old module that I was excited to play since I hadn't had much experience with DnD overall. Long story short, it wasn't great. Most players couldn't attend even half of the sessions we had and most sessions devolved into dealing with waves of squishy enemies like we were throwing goblins into a woodchipper while the DM would fill the awkward silence with occasional bong rips. At one point, the DM narrated a scene where an NPC gave a special gauntlet that whispered secrets to the only adventurer on our team who specifically took a vow of silence, leading us to become completely stumped on how to pull said secrets out of him. Besides all of that, I was still somewhat excited up until our second to last session. Our party was locked in combat with a bunch of enchanted items when one of them cast cone of cold on us, killing my character. I was prepared for something like this and planned a few characters to use in the adventure, but was told almost immediately by the DM that I didn't need to worry and that after the battle I was fully healed. The next session was the last as our DM got upset we "weren't taking this seriously" and disbanded. Judges, after the battle I did some math. We were level 3 at the time and cone of cold, if it had managed to hit everyone like the DM originally intended (he said after the campaign) we all would have died immediately. Was our DM trying to kill us this entire time? Were we being punished for being bad players? I humbly request your Wisdom in this matter.

If it pleases the Magnanimous Judges, may I present the cast of "Carried Versus Ridden". Our party found ourselves in the middle of an unnatural sand-storm, where the object was more to get a certain distance across the map than it was to defeat the enemies within the storm. We were a few turns in when the conflict arose. Our Wild Magic Sorcerer is zipping forward on a flying broom, and bunches up with the party. My Wildfire Druid uses his Spirit's teleportation ability to pop the party 15 feet forward, trying to cut down on the total distance. Our DM retorted that this action would result in the Flying Broom being *abandoned* at the point we teleported from. We argued that items 'worn and carried' are generally given a sense of Plot Armor. The DM countered that it wasn't being 'worn or carried', it was a *vehicle*, and that maybe if it had a stat block that could count it as a creature, like our Creation Bard's Animated Objects, it'd be different. He allowed our Sorcerer to teleport for the rest of the fight since we started that way, but ruled it would nerfed going forward. Judges, what do you declare the difference between an Item and a Vehicle, if any, when it comes to teleportation? Was the table justified, or do we owe our DM an apology and spare ourselves the next debate?

To the Wife Worm and Wife Guys of the Supreme Crit, and whatever Jill legally agreed to refer to the Bailiff as, I present the Neglectful Husband. We were a group of lv 7s fighting a lich and his minions. The DMPC cleric (and my DM's pathfinder character) had thrust her sword into the lich's chest to absorb his magic so we would take only half damage to lower the difficulty of the fight. Knowing the lich couldn't remove the sword, my bard cast heat metal on the sword to give disadvantage on attack rolls. After 2 rounds of my bullshit, my DM ruled that I'd heated the sword enough to melt it, even though that's not how the spell works. I was fine with it, and took it as a compliment for my spell usage. We won without any permanent deaths thanks to the cleric's revivify and her father, a Duke of Hell, dragging the boss to hell to completely skip the second phase. My actual grievance is that on the way home, the cleric's husband, an ancient silver dragon and my DM's other pathfinder character, arrived to guide us home. As we celebrated our victory, the dragon cornered my character demanding I buy his wife a replacement sword, as the sword I melted had been an anniversary present. As a lv 7 bard, I did not have the funds to buy a new legendary class sword. He said "don't worry, you can pay it off later. " Judges, I do not want to buy him a sword. I know its just a plot hook, but if he wants his wife to have a sword to defend her, I recommend he be more present in her life. What say you? I humbly await the wisdom of her worm-li-ness and the compassion of the court.

To the most magnanimous judges and the lowly lowly lowly barf Jorp. I bring to you the case of the fecal focused DM. I am cursed to be a BIG fan of D&D with not many irl friends that play ttrpg games or at least not enough to form a party. Therefore, I have found much fun in playing online, playing at game stores and other bar events around NYC. After a couple months of trying to rustle up some enthusiasm from my friends to join a one shot at a local bar to dip their toes into the game, they finally obliged. I was ecstatic! I thought this would finally show everyone what they had been missing. Judges, what followed was 6 HOURS at a bar with a DJ (?) loudly playing random music and a DM who planned a whole session around us having to trek through a bodily fluid infested sewer with poop and pee monsters (a lil barf too) to fight a BBEG monster toilet (all graphically described and voiced by the dm) ? I tried to maintain my enthusiasm to keep everyone entertained but I could see the light leave my friend’s eyes. Once we finally finished, my friends quickly left and when I sent a message out the next day saying I had fun with them and thanking them for joining, I only received 1 thumbs up reaction to the message. Everyone else ignored it. We moved on. Cut to a couple weeks ago, I received a text in the same group chat from one of my friends that read: ‘I speak for all of us when I say, we do not want to play dnd again and are really disgusted by that game you brought us to.’ I quickly explained how I can’t control who dms at those events but I understand and we left it at that. Judges, I can’t help but feel like they overreacted? Also the ‘I speak for the group’ of it all feels so odd! But perhaps I shouldn’t have pushed them in the first place! I fear however, that I may have turned possible players away from the game and for that I feel guilty. I humbly await your judgment.

To the premier pontificates of Dice Christ and their ruggedly handsome amanuensis; I no longer attend the church of Dice Christ because of, basically, colonialism. However since regaining touch with my ancestral culture, I have seen the wisdom in honouring the Dice Spirits. I personally also do recognize the divinity of Dice Christ, as I see us all as viewing the same light source through different stained-glass windows. Y'all seem fine, so here it is. I seek guidance, and if you feel it necessary, judgment. I am my group's notetaker and bookkeeper. I like doing it and I type very fast. When we find new loot, I add it to the loot list. Then when we reach a new town, I add up the value of raw treasure we've found plus half the value of things like weapons and armour, in accordance with the game rules. (We play Pathfinder 2e.) When I have the final total, I distribute the cash. However, recently at least one other player has begun taking their own notes. That's fine, except that they piped up in the group chat with some extra stuff they'd been holding onto that we can probably let go of - after I had announced the latest payout. Some of that stuff I had recategorized on the loot list as Party Held when that player took the items. But some of them I seem to have accidentally removed, or forgotten about. At least one of them I am sure was already accounted for, and at 1500gp in value, that's a significant chunk of change for us money-grubbing adventurers. Pontificates... my DM trusts me. I am generally an honest player when it comes to my own stuff . I don't table tattle. But we have been playing together for years, and there was so much stuff on the latest list, I strongly doubt my DM would be able to tell if the final amount of gold everyone received was a bit too high. I find myself... tempted. Everything in P2e is so expensive. It wouldn't be that much extra gold per player. And I play a spellcaster who spends gold to learn to spells. I want All the spells. Do you have any advice for this friendly dice pagan spellcaster bookkeeper?

To the esteemed skips and the lowly front-end (this is a curling joke), I present the case of D&D on ice! I recently participated in a Dungeons and Dragons themed curling tournament (curling like the sport with the stones and brooms). In this version of curling, each team member selected a class that gave them "spells" they could use during the game. For example, the Bard had Polymorph, where they could turn one stone into a rubber duck, the Rogue had Set Trap that let them put a cone on the ice that you weren't allowed to hit with a stone, and the Cleric had Kati's Adorable Sweater, which put a crocheted sweater on a stone that dampens your ability to hit it. The conflict I bring is this: in the rules, there was specifically no Counterspell (previous iterations of this tournament had that as a spell, but it was removed this year), or using your spell to stop another players spell. In one end (round), the other team played a spell called Bait and Switch (Fighter), which allows you to swap two in-play stones. We were about to win 3 points, and by doing this they got 2 instead (For the sake of keeping this concise I won't fully explain the scoring system of curling, just trust me!). We then played our own Bait and Switch spell, and switched the stone they had just put on the button (scoring stone) with a DIFFERENT stone than they had moved. So, they put stone 1 in the place of stone 2, and then we put stone 1 in the place of stone 3. The other team objected, saying that this was a form of Counterspell. I ask the experts, since we did not move the exact same stones to reset the ice to where it was originally, does this count as a counterspell? I eagerly await your judgement! Sincerely, On Thin Ice in Alabama P.S. Some extra context: The Game Master ultimately decided in our favor, though we later heard that the tournament leader wouldn't have allowed it if she had been on the ice. We still lost by like 7 points despite this, so no one was truly hurt.

Greetings Illustrious Justices, and special acknowledgement to Jake - hey! Today, I ask for your ruling on the case of the Bum-Bag of Holding. Several years ago I was participating as a player in a home-brewed campaign. I was a Dragonborn Wild Magic Barbarian by the name of Bumkrum Peters. One session, our party was attempting to infilitrate an enemy's lair by allowing ourselves to be captured and taken to the prison in his basement. So that we wouldn't be unnarmed after we were locked up, we needed a way to smuggle weapons in. Enter: The Bum-Bag of Holding. Bumkrum had possession of a bag of holding, and had the brilliant idea to tuck it into his sizeable, welcoming, Dragonborn-sized butthole, leaving just the opening sticking out. Since the bag is just a bag with a pocket dimension inside, we figured this would work fine. - we could put weapons in and take weapons out just by reaching in! Justices, would you believe that the DM rebelled against this idea? Jake? Despite us arguing our position and a discussion of logistics, physics, and anatomy, the DM held firm and we ended up going into the jail completely unarmed. We were able to progress through talking, but I can't help but feel we were robbed of the shittiest (in a good way) jailbreak of all time. I ask your judgement: is a Bum-Bag of Holding a brilliant idea or was the DM right to poo-poo it? Love, Bumkrum Peters

(Submitting for my friend Hudson) Dear justices, who your mother and i love equally recently some coworkers wanted to try dnd, so i offered to dm a session in a homebrew, humblewood-style setting i have been running for about 5 years. obviously the lore has gotten fairly fleshed out by this point, but this was a new game with new players, so i set it in a remote location with the intention to start fresh. it came time for the players to introduce their characters, one an armadillo cowboy from a desert town, one a travelling bard called peter ossum - the last player was the most excited however, saying that their backstory was next level they started off ‘hundreds of years ago’, going deep into a mind-bending just-so-story, where hedgehogs were once the size of humans, and humans were the size of hedgehogs - no other animals. their character was the king, who treated the humans like pets, until eventually the two races swapped sizes and roles - and now their pc is the last hedgehog alive i had hedgehog npcs planned, it was hard to see how to fit animals other than hedgehogs into this new creation story, and the long past presence of humans was meant to be a slow tease (and not one where they started out tiny), so i mostly glazed over what they had said, changing the species of a few characters they were on the way to meet. judges, am i right to have dismissed their accidental lore override? or should i have rolled with the story they worked so hard on and left my own old lore behind? i kneel before you weeping, arms wide in expectation of your judgement

To the all knowing and all powerful pillars of Dice Christ and the mini table in the middle of a boxed pizza, Jake. In my current game my party was infiltrated by a doppelgänger who imitated one of my fellow PC’s. I didn’t really feel like playing out the who’s who with interrogation so I decided to cast Evard’s Black Tentacles on both my buddy and the doppelgänger, my reasoning is the real one would have to roll death saves. It worked and we easily deduced who was fake and who wasn’t. My buddy and the DM were flabbergasted but I think it worked, though I do feel bad about turning an encounter into a double homicide. I pray to Dice Christ that I be absolved of this blood thirsty sin.

Sorry, I've been bad (or whatever Catholics say?). My sin: being gay and tired. A few years ago, while playing a oneshot DMed by a friend who was trying to DM for her first time, I fell asleep. Completely sitting up, at the table, mid-combat. The session was amazing. She has created character sheets of each of the players, playing as ourselves. I was a Pact of the Tome warlock (I'm a librarian as my actual job). She was DMing SO well and I was SO proud of her. The problem? I had just started seeing this girl. I got absolutely no sleep the previous 2-3 nights. The twizzlers and croissants at the game table were the most food I'd eaten in as long. I was a gay husk of a woman at that point. And I fell asleep. I don't actually know if anyone at the table saw or noticed me fall asleep- I kept jerking awake and trying my best to stay in the game. But I absolutely did nod off multiple times. So can I be forgiven for this transgression? Or is Dice Christ also homophobic?

To the esteemed judges Tanner, Axford, Brian, and the- hey come on guys leave him alone, he’s sensitive, look he’s gonna cry- bailiff. After asking a powerful npc ally for "tangible boons', our party received custom magic items, each designed to upgrade a specific class feature. My level 18 divine soul sorcerer received an item that allows him to upgrade his Twinned Spell meta magic option to Tripled Spell. Instead of targeting an extra creature for a number of sorcery points equal to a spells level, i can now target 3 creatures for the cost of double the spells level. Oh and I take 1D10 for each sorcery point spent. This means that were i to cast haste on my three other party members, i would take 6D10 - which is potentially half of total hp (112hp). When i mentioned that was a huge amount of damage, my party members replied with "you got heals though". Tripled spell is an amazing ability, but i feel like the cost is too high for it to ever be worth using. Judges, am i wrong, or did my DM balance this item fairly?

To the honorable justices of the supreme crit, and I guess that guy that hangs out with them sometimes, I present to you the case of the extra thick lightning bolt. I was playing a grave cleric in a curse of strahd campaign, and a few weeks ago we were fighting Morgantha's cover of hags. The party's paladin and I were standing side by side, in such a way that I assumed would not be vulnerable to us both being targeted by lightning bolt, as the spell states that the line is 5 feet thick and 100 feet long, and the hag would not have been able to get in position to shoot a straight line to hit both of us. However, the DM went ahead and cast the lightning bolt and called for both of us to make a saving throw to avoid damage. I argued, saying the area of the spell was 5 feet, and we were not standing in the same 5 foot line from the hag. He stated that the hag positioned the lightning bolt between the two of us, hitting both of us. I conceded as he is the DM and has the final say, but justices, I can't help but feel that this is not how the spell is meant to be used, and is supposed to be a five foot wide area ON THE GRID, not just willy nilly wherever. The encounter ended with both the paladin and I dying, and the rest of the party barely escaping. Do I have grounds to stand on for future encounters to say that 5 feet is 5 feet on the grid, or was my DM right to kill the only two healers of our party. I humbly await your judgement, and accept whatever decision you see fit. Btw, the DM is my long term boyfriend if that matters

To the magnanimous judges of the Crit and whatever appropriate adjectives we're using for Jake this episode, I bring a case about a ruling that was resolved in the moment but would like to hear your thoughts and how you would handle it. I play in a local group that's running Tomb of Annihilation. My party had found Gorek, the orcish smuggler, during a meeting with the yuan-ti cultists as they were discussing future plans. As our party warlock (the only one in the current party who had actually met Gorek; long story, not important) parlayed with him, I, the monk, did a perception check and found one of the nine cubes, the maguffins of the campaign, we were searching for on an altar behind him, 35 feet away from us. I came up with a plan and discussed it with my party out of character: as we were leaving the room to leave Gorek to his business, I would spend a focus point to use Step of the Wind for its Dash and Disengage, use 70 feet of my movement to get the altar, grab the cube, and run back out of the door, then cast Longstrider on our dwarf with 25ft of speed so we could run away; our warlock would then cast Hunger of Hadar to slow their pursuit. As we were executing the plan, it occurred to me to ask the DM if grabbing the cube would be a free action or my full action for the turn; the DM ruled that it would be a full action, so I wouldn't be able to cast Longstrider on the dwarf. I was fine with this, and our plan succeeded mostly without a hitch anyway, but justices, how would you have ruled this? Is a full action to grab a plot relevant artefact justified, or would you have allowed it to be grabbed with a free action? I humbly await your judgement.

Forgive me Dice Christ for I have sinned. Years ago, I was playing in a temporarily online campaign with friends. I was playing a chaotic neutral witch whose patron valued power, intelligence, and leaning into my witchliness. During one of our online sessions, my party came to a confrontation with my character’s evil hag mother and her coven. I was conflicted whether my character should fight the coven or try to de-escalate and save them. I expressed this uncertainty with my GM, who let me roll to ask my patron for guidance. I rolled poorly. However, I really wanted guidance on how to RP this moment, so I lied about my roll (and my GM gave me a helpful response from my character’s patron). In hindsight, I know I could have incorporated this uncertainty into the roleplay. However, roleplay has never been my strong suit, therefore I committed a deadly dice sin and I still feel guilty about it. I ask Dice Christ for her forgiveness in me for bearing false witness in her name.

To the svelte, tanned and toned judges, and my muse bailiff Jake, who I refuse to bully despite how much he truly deserves it, I bring you a case of cringe character communication. I've been part of an RP heavy campaign for the last 2 years and it's genuinely been one of the best I've ever played in.. until recently. A few months ago a new player joined our game, she was fairly shy and newish to D&D but fit in quickly, playing a little kobold artificer named Glip. Initially all was great, until a couple sessions in when she finally got comfortable and found her character's voice.... and Judges, it's one of the worst things I've ever heard in my life. Unfortunately, I suffer from misophonia, which makes me incredibly sensitive to certain auditory triggers, so I'm not exaggerating when I say that what came out of her mouth made me want to fold up into my own asshole like some kind of anal ouroboros. I thought maybe I could power through and deal with it, as initially she didn't talk much, but we're now 10+ sessions deep and it's only gotten worse. She's really opened up, and the rest of the party absolutely adores Glip, so she's been heavily involved in the RP and loving it. Now I don't know if I can bring it up, because ultimately it's my issue; she's awesome and not doing anything wrong, but it's gotten to the point where I'm considering killing off my character and bowing out of the campaign just to escape from this verbal torment. Judges, I humbly seek your boundless wisdom, would I be wrong to ask this player to change a core part of her beloved character for my own comfort, or should I kindly suffer in silence until my chest caves in from cringing so hard? Thank you and Dice Christ bless.

To the infallible Judges Tribunal, may whom Dice Christ always smile, and to baliff cake, to whom I assume Dice Christ is giving a polite, thin lipped smile. I present the case of my stolen dramatic tension. In a recent session of our long term (almost two years) game, my characters backstory came up in a way that, in a story telling scenario, should have been the moment for my usually goofy, aloof character to have some real development through a confrontation of past trauma. Try as I might to role play it in a way to make my table see that my character has slightly more layers than "I kill that guy lol", my table wouldn't stop making jokes and trying to take away the weight of the moment for me. After a couple attempts to make them see I was trying to roleplay it serious for a second, the party largely ignored my character and talked to the silly DMPC instead. Several sessions later, no one has asked if my character is all good. Justices, this kinda sucked. My friends and I usually play the game in a way to make each other laugh, but ive been looking forward to a scene like this to get into my character beyond just a surface level, jokey way. Am I right to feel robbed of my moment to add some weight to my character, or should I feel spurned by my friends refusal to ask if my character is ok after their resurfaced trauma? I prostrate myself at the well manicured feet of the court, and I await your magnanimous and, frankly, adorkable ruling

To the intelligent and capable justices and the interesting bailiff, I bring the case of the Debilitating Puzzle. This story is from roughly a year ago. I was DMing our final session as one player was about to move to another state for his dental residency and I was moving internationally. The campaign's BBEG was essentially misinformation. One of the PCs was a warforged turned librarybot who jailbroke himself from library admin when he realised the information he stored was false. The final mission was to sneak back into the library and take down the sentient computer system creating ans sharing the misinformation that damaged the lives of all the PCs. As it was a computer they were challenging, I felt they naturally needed some puzzles to break through into the BBEG's lair. For one of these puzzles, I downloaded an EASY sudoku puzzle meant for kids and replaced each number with a symbol from the Orcish alphabet (all ones were one symbol, all twos another, and so on). I presented print copies of the same puzzle to each of them so they had it in front of them and had writing utensils available. Justices, my players RIOTED. One refused to even try the puzzle. Two others quit after only a few minutes. One, a 50+ year old woman, broke down in tears. 3/4 of the players had Masters degrees. Two were librarians. One was a doctor. I did not think this was going to be such a big deal. To calm everyone down and try to get the session back on track I suggested they ask a nearby Orc NPC for help and with a good roll he solved it for them, but still it brought down the whole session and the woman who cried left early. Was I wrong to ask my players to do a puzzle meant for children? I accept whatever judgement you bestow.

Dearest Supreme Crit Justices and Jarl, I bring to you the case of Fog Cloud vs. Cloudkill. During a long running homebrew game, my players had recently descended into the underdark and had taken the bait to investigate a clearly destroyed and haunted temple of Lathander (aka Lythander in our game because my group's cleric could never remember his actual name). While retrieving a holy relic, they were set upon by a group of drow ambushers, one of whom cast cloudkill around the relic during a surprise round. The group's ranger then cast fog cloud, arguing that the fog would displace the poisoned air of the previous spell. Unsure of how anything regarding the flow of air works in real life, I said no, it doesn't. My Naddpod-loving players immediately threatened to bring me to court. Supreme Justices, I beg you. Please tell my players they are wrong and that any DM worth their salt cannot let a 1st level spell counter a 5th level spell, no matter how creative and thoughtful a player is being.

To the lavender-scented judges and the stinky bailiff Jonk. I bring forth the case of the illiterate pseudodragon. My pact of the chain warlock and party were in a trial that involved stealing an egg guarded by a dragon and her magical wards. For my turn, I had my lovely pseudodragon familiar (who can understand common and draconic) fly to the egg and read the draconic glyphs guarding it, then translate the details to me via our telepathic bond. My dm ruled that my familiar can’t read because “although it understands draconic, it cannot speak”. I lost the argument but have since stayed salty. Judges, am I wrong to be offended on behalf of my son who is a very smart and special boy?! I prostrate myself before your 80 foot tall bench.

To the honorable judges and the bailiff who's name is not Jake, I habe been dm'ing for several years, and for the most part I can work around player fuckery. But recently, in my current campaign I set an ambush of kobolds against my party. Two of said kobolds were Kobold alchemists from Kobold Press. I described them having bandoliers of goards and tonics that could be thrown for said combat, to differentiate them for the regular combatants. Unfortunately, one of my players character is really into poison. When combat had ended, this player wanted to know they what the alchemist had on them. With a low intelligence check, they were only solvents and mixing fluids, nothing too gamebreaking. Judges, the player took the loot anyways. With noone in the party with alchemist supplies, how mean should I be to let things blow up in their face if they try anything with said ingredients, even though they were part of an npc's mechanics.

(I was the DM whose table had two exes, who I set up and helped break up, that were constantly fighting and a third friend who was uninvolved in the drama, from the August 15th episode.) To the high priests and their shining choir boy, I bring you an update and a confession. I decided to take Caldwell's advice. I recently started medical school, and I told the party that I was too busy to DM. They were so understanding that the ex-girlfriend offered to DM instead. I thought maybe if one of them were the DM, the fighting would get better because they would be talking directly. I was wrong. Instead, the fights were super personal with constant allegations of unfair targeting, of being annoying, and of getting the rules wrong, and since I was a more experienced DM, they would demand I take a side, and get mad at me when I did. I really wanted to get out of it, and I was desperate enough to sin. During a battle, my cleric went down. On my second death saving throw, with one failure already, Dice Christ blessed me with a nat twenty, and I should have popped up. Instead, I lied and said I rolled a nat one. I described myself bleeding to death on the battlefield then made an excuse and left the Zoom call. Later, the third player texted me. I hadn't considered that I was the only healer. The ex-boyfriend went down the next round, and minions attacked his body and took all his death saves. The third and final player, who was uninvolved in all of this drama, slogged through six rounds alone (she tried to run) before succumbing to her wounds, resulting in a TPK. All three of them have been trying to get together with me to start a new game since, and I've kind of been weaseling out of it. Holy ones, I feel really bad. I am a liar, a coward, a blasphemer, and now also a double murderer. Is there absolution for me? Does the fact that I lied to avoid a difficult conversation mean I'm going to be a bad doctor? Can I blame Caldwell? What must I do to be normal with my friends? We've been friends for five years now, and I feel awful that I have basically enabled endless drama and ruined our bond.

To the Exalted Clergy of the Church of The Dice Christ, and Deacon Jake, I come to you not with a confession… but with a testament. I am a grown-ass man with a mortgage who plays DnD. My family teases me about it constantly, but whatever, it’s fun. Recently, my mom got curious about DnD because of The Big Bang Theory, so I made an offer: “I’ll run a one-shot.” Seven players. All family. None of them had ever played. Clergy… I spent two months preparing this thing (long time player no time DM). Carefully crafting encounters, balancing challenges, planning ways to curb inevitable murder-hobo tendencies, and most importantly, figuring out how to get my baby brother (also a grown-ass man who runs multiple companies) to emotionally invest. My solution? I gave him a simulacrum of our childhood dog, Betsy. Justices… when I tell you this one-shot was a grand slam , I mean it. Five straight hours of laughter. Strategy debates. Chaos. Commitment. And then… Betsy fell in battle. The room went dead silent. They thought it was a joke at first. My brother tried to argue why the golbin would attack him not the imaginary NPC dog that didn't exist hours before. Later in the end, my brother found a wand with a single Wish spell that I placed there just for this specific reason. He could've wished for anything. He had tears in his eyes when he said, “I wish for Betsy back.” Clergy… I almost broke behind the DM screen. The next day, my nephews took turns texting me not to say “what’s up, unc?” but to tell me how much fun they had and that they couldn’t stop thinking about it. A new campaign has now been born… From a group that once thought DnD was silly right up until they rolled their first dice and slayed their first goblin. Keep preaching the good word.

In the name of Advantage, Disadvantage, and the Honoured Cock, I pray. Forgive me Dice Christ for I have sinned. During the 2023 (intro free) live show in Perth, I stole a dice meant for my cousin (and DM). I had introduced my two cousins, who are also in my D&D group to start listening to NADDPOD and come with me front row to the live show. At the end of the night esteemed alter boy Jake locked eyes with my cousin and tossed him a dice with perfect accuracy. In a moment of pure instinct I reached out and caught the die. Jake, having seen this blatant theft and betrayal, threw my cousin another dice. I allowed this throw to go uninterrupted. I have only used my Jake given die sparingly, afraid of retaliatory low rolls. I seek your advice and absolution from this past wrong doing. Yours in rolling reverence. If it sways the exalted ones, my cousin is very happy with his pity thrown Witcher D6. The catch was also a top 5 moment of athleticism of my life.

Venerable Judges. …Jake. I present the case of the Ex-Girlfriend and the Last-Minute Love Story. A few years ago, I was running my first campaign. The BBEG was an icy air genasi that was the childhood friend of one of my players, who I’ll call Jessie. Important context: Jessie was my real-life ex, but we broke up about 5 years prior to starting the campaign. My current girlfriend (now fiancée) was also playing with us at the table. Near the end of the adventure, Jessie couldn’t bring herself to kill the BBEG, so the party decided to imprison him in an antimagic prison to see if they could get any other information out of him. Jessie then proceeded to lock herself in the room with him to try to convince him to turn good, but didn’t have great charisma, and repeatedly failed persuasion checks. Meanwhile, rest of the party kept trying to break into the room, and the irl players were clearly annoyed that Jessie was doing this. Eventually she let them in, but she wouldn’t let them kill the BBEG because she, in that moment, was trying to figure out if her character had been in love with him this whole time. This caught me off guard, and I said that he wasn’t in love with her, and that it probably wouldn’t make sense. Ultimately, the party deemed the BBEG was too far gone and executed him. Still, I often think back to that moment. I think romantic tension actually would make sense for the story, but it came up so suddenly that I was unprepared, and the rest of the table clearly wanted to move on from that moment. Was I correct to cut the interaction off and move on with the story, or should I have given Jessie’s character the spotlight she felt like she needed in that moment?

To the lusterous Justices and Jailiff Bake. I bring you the case of "The most unbothered players". In my last Curse of Strahd adventure, I presented SIX brave adventurers with call to adventure after call to adventure in the tavern, but they refused to engage with it at all. I say refused because I presented colorfully dressed Vistani asking them for help, an old man asking to rescue his daughter, and even a suspicious handwritten note that when handed to a player, her said "my kenku can't read." For TWO HOURS, they just roleplayed partying in the bar, hitting on hot NPCs, and asking an old man his ENTIRE life story. Afterwards, they gave me the feedback that I should try and get the adventure rolling sooner and we never continued with a next session. Justices, I humbly ask, was I at fault for not making the story happen or were my players just too distracted? I submit this case with great emotional damage and an unused module :,( . Additional context: Almost none of the players were interacting with one another and I had to run six different bar scenes at the same time

Forgive me oh holy Dice Deacons for I have sinned. I recently played my third session of my first ever dagger heart campaign. Rather than roll the holy D20, players in dagger heart roll 2 D12s, one represents fear, one represents hope. If you get the same number on both dice that is a dagger heart crit. This brings me to my confession, in our most recent battle, my sorcerer ribbit, crit with two 9s ultimately dealing 33 pints of damage. After I had excitedly reported the crit, rolled my damage, and set the monster on fire I looked down only to realize I had not crit, I had rolled a 6 and a 9 (nice). Dice Deacons I failed to call myself out on this mistake as combat had already moved on. As I stared into faces of the dice I misread I could feel Dice Christ’s judgement. I ask you please absolve me of my sins so as not to incur the wrath of Dice Christ on my favorite character to date, a cigarette smoking fire elemental frog born in the hull of The Bronx, a ribbit colony ship.

Dearest bodacious Justices and…Jorm? I present the case of the darkness dagger. I was DMing for the first time with a group of friends. One player (a warlock) would cast darkness on a dagger to get away from fights. As a baby DM I thought I would help them out and give them a dagger that can cast darkness as to not waste one of their spell slots. Boy did I feel like a Jake (lowly idiot). They noted that I did not put any parameters on the dagger and would cast it multiple times a day. When I pointed out that I need to change that, they responded with “but ya didn’t”. So I was setting up a BBEG and had the BBEG destroy the dagger. Your honors, the fury in my players eyes could not be contained. He became quiet and now continues to bring it up how I did not allow a roll or anything. Your honors I ask was I right in destroying the dagger without a roll or should I have allowed a roll. **PS I have introduced another dagger that does the same thing but only has three charges. The player continues to bring up the original dagger.

Thank you, Most Honorable Justices, and the bailiff who must have either tenure or blackmail material, I bring the case of the far-too-slow burn. I joined a campaign in progress at the request of a long time friend (the DM). He told me to make an 8th level character, which gave me the impression that leveling happened regularly. It turned out that it was actually that they had already been playing for FIVE YEARS. One battle often took an entire 8 hour game session. We once played for six months of real time before taking a long rest. While this was not my usual style, I will say that it taught me a different sort of strategy in approaching the game and it was not entirely bad. The breaking point for me was when the DM introduced legendary loot pieces (like armor or weapons) that had companion pieces out in the world somewhere. A couple of people at the table found one piece of a set, and the DM was very excited for us to want to quest for the other pieces. Justices, I could not get excited about this. I'm in my late 40's, the idea of questing for a cloak I won't see until I'm 50 sounds awful. The DM was genuinely hurt that I did not take any interest in this quest. I ended up finding a way to leave the game in order to preserve the friendship, because we were clearly not seeing eye to eye. So, was I in the wrong for not working up the enthusiasm for a slow slog to a new bit of loot, or was my DM offering me an Epic Quest that I just did not appreciate?

Dishonourable upholders of a corrupt justice system and the people’s bailiff Jake, I bring you a case of the bilingual bastard. Couple of years ago, I DM-ed a campaign for my younger siblings in our native language. An important side-note: while my siblings know some English, they are not fluent. They played a party of ambitious scoundrels, navigating political intrigue as they tried to take over the world. Sadly, the campaign eventually fizzled out. We ended the last session on a cliff-hanger: one of the NPC’s had betrayed the party and was trying to depose my sister’s PC from her throne. Years after, I revealed the traitor. It was not Aarven the High Councilor or Rikana the Blood-Spiller. No, the traitor was an advisor by the name of… Dante Truste. As in, “Don’t Trust”. Justices, I thought this was pretty clever. My sister thinks it’s unfair to use English words in a non-English campaign. I ask you: should I be tried for the crimes of being a bilingual bastard? Or does it simply sucks to suck? P.S. we have started our second campaign, based on the fallout of the first one. So far, my sister has derailed every session by constantly muttering NPC names under her breath and accusing me of trying to “get her”.

Most venerable justices, I bring you the case of the game-hopping ADHDM- Back in college, after a few unsuccessful tries, I was finally able to organize a game of 5e with a friend of 10+ years, our partners, and a few other mutual friends. My friend, we'll call him Jay because that's his real name and he doesn't listen to podcasts, volunteered to DM, and cooked up a fun southern gothic mystery campaign full of cults, cryptids, and country music references. obviously, I was having a lot of fun, but after only about a months worth of sessions, I could feel that Jay's enthusiasm was starting to wane. I knew something was up when our biggest bad of the moment, a reflavored lich king, started seeming a little too OP. I tried to cast turn undead, when Jay revealed to the table that this baddie was "immune to all magic", and also seemed to have an impossible AC. When the party decided to just cut our losses and flee, we were instead insta-killed on the spot. Before anyone could start to protest, our DM continued narrating: "GAME OVER, says a booming voice as you take off your VR headsets". because justices, Jay had decided that we were not only starting a entirely new campaign, but an entirely new system: cyberpunk red. I ended up enjoying our cyberpunk campaign a lot (before it too fizzled after about a month) but I still can't help but feel robbed of a satisfying ending to our first game. Am I wrong to think this undiscussed switcheroo was kind of insane? Or should I just accept my friend as a mastermind and an artist, albeit with a short-ass attention span?

To the virtuous nuns of the dice, forgive me pawpaw for I have sinned. Earlier this year I was invited to join a Curse of Strahd campaign that had been running for about a year or so. In fear of spoilers, I brokenheartedly took a hiatus from listening to Trinyvale, and before my first session I disclosed to the DM that I had been listening to the strahd play through. They asked me what had come up and I told them what I thought at the time was a thorough description, and the DM confrmed that they were further along in the story. A few weekly sessions later we reach the Abbey of Saint Markovia and it dawns on me that I forgot to mention having listened to that arc too. I never mentioned it to the DM or the table and instead took a step back from theorising and role playing, to the point that the DM took me aside to ask if I was still enjoying the game. I fear my patchy memory has caused both the DM and I to feel weird about the game, but also know that it's too late to admit my trespasses as we are 4 sessions into the arc. Please give me penance that I may don the hair shirt and enjoy the conclusion to the events in the Abbey.

To the honorable Deacons of Dice Christ Axford Murphy and Tanner, I prostrate myself before you with a confession. A few years ago I was DMing a homebrew campaign with 5 friends, all of whom were very new to DND. The party had just fought a nerfed dragon wirmling and learned that someone was sneaking dragon eggs into the kingdom, and so were on their way to the largest village in the region to circulate the information and protect any other impacted villages. However, I had done some XP math wrong, and the party was just short of level 3 leaving the inital town, so I added a Red Riding hood inspired one shot where they found a gnomish village, met some fun NPCs, and tracked down a homebrew wolf monster that had swallowed the village children whole. During the fight with the beast, it crit against our bard, who was basically Ken from Barbie (yeah i know but it's the only thing I could get them excited about). Ken had 6hp remaining with a max HP of 13, meaning if the wolf did 19 damage Ken was outright dead. I announced this to the party and rolled my damage behind the screen. After some quick math, the wolf did 21 damage. This is where I may have sinned, despite president from the Almighty Crits past teachings. I paused, pretended to continue doing math in my head, and announced "18 damage, Ken is unconscious but alive." The party rejoiced, the druid brought Ken back up and the rogue and warlock finished off the monster, cut the children out of the wolfs stomach, and returned to town to a psychadelic mushroom fuels banquet in their honor. Everyone had a blast, and left our apartment saying it was one of their favorite sessions yet, and kept doing the voice of the gnomish mayor for weeks to come. However, that was the last session, we tried to continue into the next arc but after over 5 months of schedule conflicts and last minute cancellations we decided to pull the plug. Was this an honest example of scheduling being the real BBEG, or did Dice Christ demand Kens blood and destroyed our campaign after being denied? Oh and Baliff Jake, so sorry I totally forgot my bad man.

Dear judges and their +1, I come to you with a case that happened years ago. I was starting a new game for Pathfinder First edition and was excited to DM for my Fiance's first TTRPG. I also invited our friend, let's call him Nigel, to play and he asked if he could have his girlfriend, let's call her Lois, play with us. I was hesitant since I didn't like her, for reasons I don't completely remember, but agreed knowing it would make him happy. Cut to the first session starting right around the corner and my fiance tells me of an argument Nigel and Lois had about the game. She wanted to be a Catfolk who could fly but Nigel told her it was impossible because none of the playable races had both wings and cat features. Judges, I knew how to help with this issue. In Pathfinder First edition they have a whole book on how to make your own custom race and keep it balanced with the already existing races, so I could've helped her make a cat race with wings but I didn't. Was I a coward for not sticking up for one of my players, was I right to avoid having someone able to fly at level 1, was it ok to stay out of a lover's quarell? These are the questions I deem I should be judged on. PS That campaign only lasted 1 session because I believe the 2 of them broke up shortly after, I was able to restart the campaign with Nigel, my Fiance and 3 other friends and it was a blast for 6 months. Nigel and Lois would continue to be on again off again in their relationship for almost 2 years 

To the Prestigious and wise Justices and to the... good?...Bailiff Jake, I bring you the case of the Drunken Vampire My friend and I were invited to a game of Vampire The Masquerade online, to which we were both excited to play as we had been itching to play TTRPGs. During our session 0 the GM talked about the setting and how many players were playing (there were 6 of us) and we noticed someone was missing. We started making characters and everything was fine until our missing player joined the call, hammered. He said a few short sentences about his character and then left. My friend and I were puzzled, but decided to continue on. Then the first session happened. He showed up 30 minutes late, in his cups. The GM did the introduction, our characters all started in duos. My friend went first, her intro took about 15 minutes, I was next, then it was the Drunk Vampires intro. Within the first few minute he had called another player character a slur. Everyone got extremely uncomfortable and was dead silent as he and the GM laughed. When the player asked why he said that to him, he immediately turned hostile saying he can say what he wants cause its what his character would say. The session ended soon after, only 40 minutes in. Both my friend and I were thinking of leaving, but wanted a peaceful resolve to it too. We went to the GM and asked if they could talk to the player about their language and being drunk during the sessions because it was making us uncomfortable. The GM chastised us and got mad that we went to talk to her instead of the player, who we had only met two times when he was drunk and who had just gotten hostile twords someone who confronted him. She went on to say that if we are uncomfortable with him we were the problem and that we could apologize or leave. So we left. The VTM campaign fizzled out soon after. So judges, were my friend and I justified in going to the GM when we were uncomfortable with a player we had only recently met, or should we have just talked to the Drunk Vampire to see if we could resolve it with him instead. I thank you for your kind and fair judgment. P.s. We have found a much better group and we are using Justice Tanners Minion system for a one shot soon, so thank you for making it!!

To the most magnanimous Justice Murphy, the incorrigible Justice Tanner, the vivacious Justice Axford, and the man, the mensch, the legend Bailiff Jack, I bring to you the case of The Uncomfortable Flirtation. The incident in question occurred about 4 years ago and was the second campaign/character I'd ever played. I joined a pre-established group with my brother and some of his friends who had been playing together regularly for over a year at that point. I was playing a bard and fell victim to the memes of "bard seduces people," so I gave it a whirl. I was then instructed to flirt with the DM in character. I understand the RP of it all, but at this point, I barely knew the guy. Naturally, I was flumoxed and asked if I could just roll for it (as my CHA 20 tiefling bard would be way better at this than I am) and was told no. "Everybody else has had to do it at some point, so so do you." Justices, was I wrong for feeling deeply uncomfortable by this weird ruling? I didn't wind up playing with that group for much longer anyway, but this incident still kind of bugs me. Even my brother insists that it "wasn't a big deal" and I should have just laughed it off. Is he right, or was that a weird situation? I beseech the wisdom of the Crit.

Dear Honorable Justices Axford, Murphy, and Tanner as well as the questionable but endearing court baliff Jake. I bring to you the case of Unexpected Civilkian Casualties. This was several years ago during one of the first campaigns i'd played so i was still pretty new. I was playing as a Cleric and the party was in a church when a fight broke out, the crowd immediately started panicking and fleeing. During my turn i casted an AOE spell (i dont remember which one) on a group of bad guys, the DM asks "Are you sure?" This of course gave me pause, but i couldnt figure out WHY I wouldnt cast the spell. I spent 10 minutes going back and forth with both the DM and my own party trying to figure out why this was a bad idea, but they refused to tell me so i gave up and did it anyway. Lo and behold, there were still civillians in the church and I ended up killing 5 innocents and injuring another and this ended up affecting how the rest of the town treated us. The rest of the party gave me shit for this at the time and still maintain that they are in the right and continue to razz me to this day. but i had thought all the people had fled the church and while i dont necessarily blame the DM for not telling me, should my party have at least helped? I leave this up to the court and will abide by your rulling

The Case of Astral Escapism: Hello Honorable Judges and Little Buddy Babyliff, I played in a campaign where the premise was essentially villainous Hogwarts- complete with house ghosts, house parties, and teachers and students who sought eachothers' downfall in an effort to create the most dastardly beings possible. By order of the school's headmaster, myself and another PC were told to fight to the death as a cliffhanger before our next session. I told my DM between sessions that I was planning to escape to the Astral plane to avoid the combat altogether since as a player and a character I was uncomfortable with PvP. I was fine playing a new character, and I even prepped a backup baddie. I looted the school's magical items, said my goodbyes to my closest friends and other PCs, and used a portable hole with a bag of holding to launch myself into the Astral plane with the intention of becoming a planar pirate. My DM said after 6 hours had passed in the material plane, I appeared back in the same spot from where I had left. Since our game was streamed live, I didn't want to fight about character motivation in the moment as to why I would want to return in the first place. In the end, the duel took place and both PC's wound up dead as the victor of the fight was hit by a power word kill by the headmaster. Both bodies were tossed into lava destroying any chance of revivify. I ask you, was I wrong for trying to avoid the combat? Should I have accepted the PvP and put my feelings as a player/friend aside in an "evil" campaign? P.S. the DM's wife who played with us told me he had said the session before that the other PC involved and myself "are cockroaches who refuse to die"... I eagerly await your decision.

To the esteemed crit justices and… I wanna say Jude? I present to you the case of the silence spell that disbanded my group. We were playing the final session of a two year long campaign. A beloved npc had been kidnapped by a rogue god after she made a pact with that god to avenge her family, who had been killed by the gang that our party’s redemption paladin was formerly part of. The paladin also had a romance with this npc before they found out how their backstories were tied together, which, needless to say, created a complicated dynamic. After months in of in-game and irl planning, we were finally ready to rescue her. When we found her, she was bordering on crazed and has clearly been fighting to survive for months. The first thing the paladin decided to say was “hey, how’s it going?” in a casual tone, so i asked out of character “seriously?” to which he replied “what?”. Our DM clarified that the npc was in a fragile state and how we interact with her in this moment would determine her next move. The paladin began to speak and I could tell from his tone he still wasn’t taking roleplaying seriously, so my druid casted silence on him, which I acknowledge wasnt a nice thing to do. My character was able to calm the npc down and ended the interaction with a hug, which the paladin player followed up with by saying he could’ve just casted calm emotions on her if I hadn’t silenced him. I ignored that comment and we won the final combat, but at the end of the session the paladin player said he was bowing out of the next campaign, which I was DMing. I had planned to set it in the same world but a few hundred years into the future ala NADDPOD campaign 3 style, which made it difficult to find new players for because the premise was reliant on the events of the campaign we’d already played together. Justices, was I right to cast silence or should I have stayed silent myself? PS I found two new players to replace the paladin for my campaign, which has been a ton of fun so far, so alls well that ends well, but I do remain salty that the final session ended on a sour note and that I had to put in a lot of extra effort to get them up to speed.

To the honourable justices and the handsome bailiff, I present the case of the Busted Battle Royale. This weekend, my party ran a Battle Royale between some of our old PCs and NPCs. We decided to convert our sheets to 5.5e as we're moving from 5e to 5.5e for our next campaign. 15 PCs in total led to long battle, but lots of fun had by all. In the end, my friend's cleric/druid multiclass from our Curse of Strahd campaign won, after many uses of Wild Shape and Mass Cure Wounds. Backstory: this player is infamous in our group for their tendency to accidentally attempt to wildly break the rules, for example taking a second action on their turn to turn into a CR 5 Giant Crocodile (size: huge) in 10ftx10ft room as a low level druid. After the session, we were all giving our friend props for their battle well won and how OP Wild Shape had been. Another friend (who had not been part of the session) casually mentioned that they were surprised as they thought 5.5e Wild Shape was much weaker. At this point we consulted the rules and realised that our friend had been playing the 2014 version of Wild Shape (using all of the creatures HP rather than temp HP determined by druid level). This meant their HP had effectively been doubled and they should have died much earlier on and not healed the rest of their team. We have been laughing about this since, but my question, justices, is how should we honourably handle the result of the Battle Royale? Does the druid's victory stand as the rest of us should have noticed their mistake in the rules? Should they be disqualified and the victory given to second place? Are we duty-bound to replay this hours long Battle Royale to find the true victor? We await your judgement.

To the ever-moisturized judges and the ever-chapped baliff Jard, I bring you the case of the AI generated party. I virtually play a Crooked Moon Campaign with a group of lovely people I met online. They are are lovely bunch of people whom I resonate and roleplay amazing with, dm included. However, the issue presides with their exuberant use of AI generated images. Everyone in the group except me uses AI for their character tokens, and will continuously generate more as the campaign progresses. Even the dm has used a great amount of AI to produce NPCs, taking me out of the scene and making it hard to come back into it. Judges, I love this group of people as they have made my first campaign very memorable, but the issue presides with how often the AI images take me out of the story. Should I continue my journey with them and voice my concerns, or should I leave the table with some excuse to not hurt feelings? I await your fair and just judgement

Esteemed justices and… huh, I could’ve sworn there was someone else to greet but it’s just not coming to mind. Anyway, I present to you the case of the invisible bog witch— may it please the court. I am a player in a weekly d&d game over discord with my cousins and we have been playing for upwards of six years now. In a recent session, the party was confronting a bog witch and two wil-o-wisps. As we were nearing the end of the battle, the witch turned invisible and we heard an audible splash as she tried to flee through the bog. One of my party members wanted to attack the bog witch while she was invisible, and we had a general direction to aim towards based on the location of the splash. Our DM allowed an attack roll at a disadvantage due to her invisibility. Lo and behold, both rolls managed to beat the witch’s AC, but the DM ruled that the attack didn’t hit anyway and that it wouldn’t be possible to hit an invisible creature. Justices— doesn’t the fact that the attack was rolled with disadvantage address the issue of the target being invisible? I made this argument in the moment, but was told again that it wouldn’t be possible to hit an invisible opponent. I let it go so we could continue with the battle, but I respectfully put forth an appeal to this esteemed court that this was a bullshit ruling, and that our DM shouldn’t have allowed any roll at all if the results weren’t going to be honored. I, of course, will defer to the wisdom of the court in this matter, regardless of the outcome.

Right honourable justices and my second favourite Bailiff, This is the case of Wrongful Diplomacy. I had joined an online westmarches campaign, and brought forth a high charisma bard. Unfortunately I was told to build my character two levels lower than everyone else, which irked me a little, so I specialised him in diplomacy and de-escalation. Cut to an encounter with a band of bullywugs, and of course my instinct is to try and calm the situation. Justices, I rolled well, and the bullywugs seemed to me deliberating whether or not to let us pass. However, before they could decide, the party monk stepped forward and attempted to intimidate them. He rolled poorly, combat ensued. We managed to dispatch the enemies with me primarily buffing and making vain attempts to calm the situation, however after the fight the monk of the party pulled me aside and said "we don't do that here". When I asked what the problem was, he told me that we always engage in a fight, and diplomacy was looked down upon. As it turns out, he used to be the party face with the (previously) highest charisma. He seemed pretty angry that I took on a diplomatic role, even though it was what I was built for. Even more strange is one of the other party members was a pacifist cleric who didn't engage in the combat whatsoever. In the end I left this group as the DM started acting racist, however I still find this situation bothersome. Was I right to step into a diplomatic role, or was I overstepping my bounds?

To the illustrious court and the benevolent bailiff: I'm DMing Curse of Strahd for my party, using the online helper guide COS Reloaded as this is my first time DMing and it adds a narrative through line and other descriptions to make things easier. In reloaded, there's a small mountain hideout added to Tsolenka Pass and Mt Ghakis and the chief of that area warned the party about the giant goat Sangzor who lives by the entrance to the Amber Temple and only lets those who he judges to be worthy pass and continue on the path. Everyone says cool, they leave Soldav, and encounter the goat. Sangzor looks into their hearts, as in I asked everyone to message me if they plan to use the vestiges in the Amber temple. Everyone except for Fokkus, the dwarven bard, said no. Fokkus said yes, but only to bring down Strahd, but that yes was enough for Sangzor who bounded down the mountain, rammed into Fokkus and attempted to push him off the cliff. Fokkus saved his throw to be knocked prone and survived the hit, and combat commenced. The first round was everyone saying they don't want to hurt the goat so they either did unarmed attacks or tried to grapple this giant goat. The goat rams Fokkus again who then runs on his turn, and after an insight check from Fokkus lets him know that the goat is focused on him, the party's tune suddenly changes at the top of the second round and the wolf shifter wollops Sangzor three times with all his attacks, followed by the raven shifter kicking Sangzor off the edge of the cliff. Am I right to be upset that the party so eagerly killed a goat who was just trying to do his job, or did my players rightfully get my goat?

To the honorable justices and I think his name was Jeff maybe? Anyways, I bring you the case of The Flying Tiger Man. Back when I was just starting to learn D&D I joined a group with some high school friends. We were investigating a Colosseum when we came across some tigers in cages that were kept for gladiatorial combat (problematic for my animal loving ranger) after I picked the lock and opened the cage I used speak with animals to get the tigers vibe. After talking for a minute it turned out not to be a tiger at all but a rakshasa and combat began. After it was clear the rakshasa was going to loose the DM had it cast fly on itself and began fleeing out of the narrow hallway. For some context the DM had done this with almost every encounter we’ve had so far and to combat this out gunslinger fighter had taken the “winging shot” trick shot. As the rakshasa was flying away to safety he shot it and knocked it prone. Which he thought would give us another round to finally finish a monster as it could no longer escape with only half movement, if it were to get up. However, the DM simply had it fly with the dash action and escape the next turn, as if it had never been knocked prone. This sparked an argument amongst the group, whether or not the fly spell allows, you to move without getting up and using half of your movement. Justices, it has been six years and this debate still gets brought up at the table every now and then with no clear answer. Should the Tiger Man (TM) have only gotten half movement allowing us to attack it for the final round or does the flight spell allow you to fly even if you are in the prone condition where “a creature’s only movement option is to crawl, unless it stands up and thereby ends the condition.” I humbly await your decision

To the Almighty Justices and Jork the Case Harvester, I bring the case of the Sorcerer Who Doesn't Believe In Magic. Our table is a party of five, four veterans and one Newbie. The new player is a desert elf wild magic Sorcerer who does magic shit all the time but doesn't believe in magic. Shocking grasp? Static electricity. Create water? A freak weather event. This was a fine bit in early stages, but we've been called to action in a magic-filled secret underwater city. The sorcerer's wild magic killed a denizen of the city and, instead of getting our mission, the sorcerer has been put on trial for murder. The catch? If he admits it was his wild magic that he cannot control, he will be let free. If he doesn't, it's a premeditated crime that he could control. Judges, the sorcerer will not admit his magic killed the citizen and it looks like he will lose the trial and we won't receive our call to adventure. Is the sorcerer wrong for refusing to admit that magic is, indeed real, in our magic world or is the DM wrong for taking a character that doesn't believe in magic and putting him on trial for his magic? Your humble servant.

To the venerable justices of The Supreme Crit and-holy shit! Is that JORK HORSESHIT?? Sorry, got distracted. ANYWAYS! I come to you with a case that has been making waves in the lower courts for some time now; the case of The Joke That Flew Over The Griffon's Head The character that I’m currently playing with in my longest running DND group is Cub Funny. He is a racey, freshly canceled comedian and who is, mechanically specking, a Satyr College of Eloquence Bard. He is, to put it nicely, an asshole and a problem. ESPECIALLY for our DM. These problems boiled over during a battle against a giant and three griffons hoping to capture Cub and take him somewhere; presumably to be charged for his crimes of being just the worst. But when it finally to my turn in initiative, I get an idea. I decide I want to use Universal Speech (a subclass feature that allows me to be completely understood by a certain number of creatures per long rest) to attempt to trick the griffons into thinking that I am not Cub Funny and that they have the wrong Satyr. This, for some reason, made no sense to the DM. He claims that griffons don’t have the brains to comprehend a “These are not the droids you are looking for” gambit, regardless of whether or not they can understand me. This lead to a heated argument amongst the entire group that lasted for about an hour and ended with the DM slightly caving and making me roll an Animal Handling check to convince the griffons. That check would end up being a NAT 20, because Dice Christ has favorites and it's they're the ones who make him laugh. With that being said, we bring the case to you. And all I ask The Justices of The Supreme Crit is that you remember when making your final ruling that this a case of Player vs DM and not a case of Cub Funny vs The Woke Mob

Let's just get into it, judges. I have a short case that I feel is straightforward but my player disagrees. He claims if he casts Pass Without Trace and someone takes the hide action while in it, that stealth check remains the same even when the caster moves away from the hider. I claim: absolutely not. By the wording of Pass Without Trace, I'd rule a new hide check would be needed once the caster moves away because they no longer have the shadowy aura from the spell. Please settle this case so my druid stops arguing for this. Thank you.

Dear Lairds on High and their Champion Jacob of Jillington: I bring you the case of “No Long Rests” My GM in his infinite wisdom has decided that while traveling, which we do most of the campaign, no one is able to get a full and restful sleep due to the conditions not being fully safe and comfortable. This varies in results from taking levels of exhaustion (on a con save) to not regaining spells or HP for weeks at a time. This is sort of understandable, and even fun when we are on the side of a ice torn cliff, or trecking through a hag infested swamp. But if I tell you after a Nat 20 survival check in a bucolic fey touched valley that was described as the purest running water, beds of golden flowers, and clear lines of sight while still being protected from outsiders? No long rest! Even though of the party, one is a druid, the other a fey touched sorcerer, and I am a fey champion (Paladin). Yes, somehow the druid gets spells back in a comfy town bed but not in a place brim with nature’s power. Also, two of us are woodland elves! This has lead us to spell hoarding and my character has yet to even cast his only second level spell because once I do, it may be weeks in game and out game before I get to do it again. Peace be on to you this good night!

To the intellectual justices and the ineffectual bailiff Jape I bring the case of the Double Deep Dive. We were interrogating a suspect in a murder case. Our paladin was leading the actual questioning while my telepathic sorcerer was hanging back and using detect thoughts to read surface thoughts and pass telepathic silent messages to the interrogator. The suspect said something that didn't jive so I used a deep dive to press for more info. The DM made a "well there's no way he's passing a wisdom save" comment and let it go through. I got the info I wanted and went back to observing from the background. Fast forward a bit, and the dude said another thing that I wanted more info on so I did another deep dive at which point the DM called for an intelligence contest. I argued that since I had ended the deep dive after getting the info I needed and then spent the last few questions of the interrogation passively observing, this was a second deep dive and was thus another wisdom save. The DM made another comment about how his high INT/ low WIS NPC had no chance of passing a wis save but agreed with my logic. We moved on, but it has been haunting me since. Was the DM right in that since the target had been probed once already he was primed to resist? Or was I right that this was two separate breaches and thus two separate WIS saves.

Oh bountiful Judges and that no good scaly wag lil jakey I seek your advice on how to handle an issue at the table I GM. For background I’m a long time player and GM but have only played long-term stuff online until recently. In that time I’ve collected a lot of trinkets books and materials for the game in hopes of an IRL game. This year I’ve started to DM my homebrew world for my girlfriend and a couple of her friends from her job. We’d all hung out before and it was a fun dynamic. We ran session 0/1 and as they were all new players I pre made characters with no backstory for all the classes so they could just pick the race class combo they like and add their own lore to the character. Session 1 went great! But one friend who didn’t attend session 1 messaged in the group chat that they wanted to join but couldn’t do Mondays. Monday, your honors, is the only day that works for my gf, she’s my priority to play with. The player says they can come but they’ll be in online class stating they’ll be able to still play. Their class is 4 hours. She has pause talking and music so she can respond to things in class. I’ve recently learned it is apparently a study group with the professor for the last 2 hours. We’ve delayed starting multiple times for them. It’s really putting a damper on my DM spirit and I ask you all - should I gently ask my gfs coworker and buddy to bow out or am I at fault for having allowed this to happen in the first place.

Dear magnificent justices and that guy that reads the cases. I’m a first-time DM running a D&D club for 5th graders at the school I teach at. My entire qualification is listening to this show and thinking, “yeah, I could probably do that.” I assumed I would get a few interested students. I had 56 kids sign up. So now I’m running multiple groups through the same story, basically managing a multiverse of shenanigans and trying to keep anything even remotely consistent. To survive, I run a simplified version of D&D. Less rules, more “that sounds cool, go for it.” This works great. Except for one kid. He’s in one specific group… the group I see once every two weeks. And I’m not going to lie, I kind of brace myself for that session. He plays at home. He knows the rules. He understands mechanics better than I do. And he has chosen to use that knowledge for evil. This is not a “that’s not how that works” kid. This is a “that is how that works, and I will now use it to create problems you did not prepare for” kid. He looks for loopholes constantly. If there’s a gray area, he finds it. If there’s a technicality, he builds a plan around it. At one point, he walked me through how something worked step by step until I agreed. Then he just goes, “Okay, then I do that to the boss,” and one-shots the final encounter I had planned for the entire session using my own ruling against me. The rest of the group is trying to go on an adventure. He is trying to break the system from the inside. And the worst part is, I can’t even say he’s wrong. I’ve tried simplifying things. I’ve tried moving on quickly. But he keeps finding new angles, new interpretations, new ways to turn normal situations into a full discussion about mechanics. It feels like I’m not running a game. I’m in a live rules-based arms race with a ten-year-old I see every other week. He’s not rude. He’s engaged, he’s smart, and he’s having the time of his life. But his version of fun is seeing how far he can push the game before I lose control of it. So my question for the court: Is it okay for me to prioritize keeping the game fun over being technically correct, even if I know he’s right? Or have I simply been outplayed by a ten-year-old who has realized that rules are just tools for chaos, and I am now dealing with the consequences?

To the incredibly badass judges and the plain bad bailiff Jared, I give you the case of the patron-less daddy killer. There’s a lot to this case so I will keep it as brief as possible. I played a sea elf fathomless warlock of a noble background with a surfer/stoner vibe and a distrust of authority. She’s at a school to get away from her overprotective parents who sent her there with a necklace of sending. (I have explicitly said to my DM I am excited to play this class and that I did not want an evil patron.) During their adventures, my character was given a flute by an evil entity. Not wanting the responsibility, she destroyed it. As she did, her patron began to scream into her head something about freedom and “destroying all the sea elves”. Concerned, my character decides to use her necklace of sending to call her dad to ask if he knows anything about her patron. When she contacts her dad in a FaceTime-y way, her dad screams at her that she has doomed her whole city by destroying this flute. Turns out that destroying the flute resulted in her patron being released from the plane her city elders were keeping it. A tentacle then rose from the water and skewered her father. (Keep in mind my character saw all this in a “Facetime”.) My character ran to the headmaster of the school to get help and he opened a portal to her home city which was being destroyed by my character’s patron. Suddenly, my patron got sucked into the sky without any explanation. My DM then turns to me and says I’ve lost all my warlock levels and had to choose a new class! He stood there smiling at me waiting for my answer. He was surprised when I said my character killed herself and then I quit the campaign. He quit DMing this campaign after this because he “got bored”. So I ask this of you judges, was I wrong to be miffed and should have waited to see where the cool storyline he supposedly had planned went or did I have every right to be upset? I await your humble ruling. PS sorry if this confusing. I had to condense a lot.

To the humble justices and the bailiff who should really tone it down I bring the case of the UnFortunate Treasure. I am the DM of the group and have been running a sea based campaign over the course of 4 years for my brother, my sister, and my sister in law. Throughout the campaign they sail on a Living Ship called The Fortuna. They love it, naming their group the Fortunate ones after her. They are always looking for upgrades for her (living wood to auto repair the hulls, dragon scale sails, etc…) I decided to give the a chance for an upgrade, a teleporting wheel, to take it over for them. The adventure took them to an island that blinks in and out of existence after a certain period of time. I aimed to have it be dreamlike in quality with unclear information that could only be got by talking to the villagers who would forget the players when the island disappeared. Through role play and puzzle solving they could build a report with them that would stick over the disappearances to help them find the buried treasure. Justices, my players are too smart! They found the treasure on the second round without having uncovered the lore or built the report. When they found the wheel, they found other treasures but didn’t know you could only take one item. I tried to warn them by having the chief say they shouldn’t be greedy but, because they hadn’t asked questions and were effectively strangers I couldn’t justify giving them more info. They left half the treasures behind but still kept some. When they sailed beyond the island I told them that only one treasure would remain and the other would blink out of existence. I rolled in front of the table and the teleporting wheel disappeared. They were disappointed and I felt bad. Their consolation prize, a legendary potion that refills every day, has been useful but I can’t help but feel like I cheated them with my vague warning. Justices, should I have given them more information, or perhaps the item itself? Or should my players have investigated more to discover the consequences of their actions? I humbly await your ruling. Ps: the campaign has continued well and I am currently helping my Artificer brother to homebrew an item to give The Fortuna a limited flight ability if they can find the core of dead star

To the undefinable Supreme Crit Justices and Jeb; the guy you clearly only keep around so we can make cheap jokes about a cheap man. I bring to you the case of Bart Simpson, the world's most hated NPC. I was DMing a campaign and the PCs were traveling to the Abyss to meet with a succubus warlord. During the meeting, I briefly introduced the warlord's bodyguards, which included a wispling (half gnome/half demon). I described him as “pacing back and forth behind the warlord, with his hands resting on hand axes” and “he has short and spiky hair. Kind of like Bart Simpson.” I was lightly razzed for this description, but we quickly moved on. The meeting with the warlord went well and the PCs were offered to stay the night as guests. That evening, the bodyguard was sent to deliver a message to the PCs. As soon as their door was opened, the party fighter attacked the wispling, followed immediately by the party sorcerer plane-shifting the wispling to a chaotic-good plane (where the demon would be hunted for sport). Despite having never spoken a word, my PCs had unanimously decided to kill the bodyguard. After the session I asked how they came to their decision. One player said, “I knew he was going to die when you described him pacing with his hands on his axes.” Two others said it was when I compared him to Bart Simpson. Regardless, they all claim that their actions were justified. The bodyguard was supposed to back stab the party during a climactic fight, so it worked out that they killed him before hand, but I ask you: Were my players wrong to kill my NPC before he technically did anything wrong, or are they just masters at sniffing out a traitorous Bart Simp-- I mean demon?

Dearly Beloved Justices and the Dearly Departed Bailiff Josiah, today I bring you the tale of the rare elf heritage. I’m in a campaign run by one of my best friends. One of the things she added to her world is a race of Gold Elves that live in hiding due to frequent hunting/persecution (basically their body parts contain innate magic that some evil wizards use to supercharge their spells). We have a player, Jake (not kidding), who chose to play a half elf who was secretly half Gold Elf despite the DM warning him that if NPCs in predominantly-mage cities find out he’s half Gold Elf, they’ll most likely try to kidnap him for harvest. Last session, Jake got kidnapped in the wizard city while wearing an enchanted disguise, which he was definitely salty about. The DM had told him in advance that a mundane disguise like sunglasses or a wig is the best way to hide yourself in a city full of truesight havers; Jake ultimately didn’t actually pick up those items. Here’s where I’m conflicted on who to side with: when asked about whether Jake could get contacts to hide his Gold Elf eyes, the DM said “they don’t do that in this world” and didn’t mention an alternative/didn’t reiterate the whole “physical disguises are better” thing when Jake decided to get an enchanted disguise. The DM’s argument is that she’d mentioned the physical disguise thing once or twice prior and that glasses were an obvious alternative Jake should’ve thought about. Normally I’d think this is a little draconian, but the thing about Jake is that he keeps trying to have dramatic D20 or NaddPod-esque emotional moments every single session, and a LOT of those involve confessing to the worst NPCs you’ve ever met that he’s secretly half Gold Elf (and being surprised every. Single. Time. When the NPC is like “don’t tell me that dude. I might sell you”). I would like those moments to stop because it’s really hard to keep engaging with them all the time (small party, can’t avoid it), and if this kidnapping stops the every-session dramatic reveal about his heritage, that would be a good thing imo. Should the DM have left Jake alone and/or helped him find a physical disguise or is constantly seeking live play-level deep connection with NPCs in a homegame deserving of having your eyeballs snatched?

Honorable justices and (I really can’t be rude to anyone) also Jake, I bring you the case of DM vs. Adam Sandler I DM monthly heist one-shots (Keys from the Golden Vault) for a rotating cast of friends, almost all of whom are new players. One of the other players is a forever DM. His character changes names every heist but always looks and sounds exactly like Adam Sandler. Surprisingly, this is not the problem. Adam Sandler is a 2024 Warlock Great Old One patron, with the invocations: gaze of two minds, Pact of the Chain and investment of the chain master, etc. (he also has a telekinetic feat) Adam Sandler is often the only PC on task (which is great when sessions are running late but he solved my heist in 15 minutes last session while other players were in a debate about how many rodents can fit in a butthole 🤦🏻‍♀️🤷‍♀️ he asked me a series of questions that led him to realize he could misty step into the room where the item they meant to steal was actually hiding (not where they were told it was). I was able to retcon it a bit so he was knocked unconscious by a trap and we could still have an (albeit shorter) session but I’m still working on my improv skills as a newer DM. He was a bit bummed he couldn’t play his character (he took over another PC when that person left) but was overall a good sport. I feel like I need to figure out how to up my DM game to either 1) destroy Adam Sandler or 2) have a second layer to the heists so that his tom fuckery doesn’t lead to a 2 hour session again. Help. Ps if it matters, this man is my husband.

May it please the illustrious court, as well as the do nothing justices and the overworked, yet still over-appreciated baliff ajjke I bring to you the case of rock and roll vs channel divinity I was playing in a short rock and roll campaign opa pick of destiny style with some friends. My PC was a war domain cleric (bassist) whose deity was none other than the rock and roll devil (forgive me Dice Christ). After defeating the Grunge band in the battle of the bands the most obvious twist was revealed to our party, that our manager was the devil the whole time and gave us otherworldly powers only to demand our souls at the end of the campaign. We decided to challenge him to a rock off and combat ensued. During combat I claimed I was going to use my channel divinity to use war god's blessing, but my DM claimed I couldn't channel my divinity against my own deity. The campaign ended well, and it was a good time. But I still wonder if this is some bullshit. I argued that the Devil would want us to challenge him, as is his nature. Was my DM in the wrong, or am I the fool for not picking Dio to be my deity. Xoxo hags

To the illustrious judges and to the meretricious bailiff, I come to you today with the case of the railroading party. I DM for a group of people at my LGS that have never played dnd before. We’re about 10 sessions in and everyone seems to be catching on. Everyone is having a great time and I have big dreams for the future of the campaign. Here come the inevitable butt: BUTT at the end of our last session one of my players said something that I think every DM would hate to hear: “If you want us to do something, just tell us so we don’t struggle trying to figure these things out”. This came at the end of a session where my players caught me off guard. They had just defeated a tooth stealing serial killer related to the cult of the tooth fairy at the end of the previous session. They were chasing this person down for their bounty, and the bounty required them to be captured alive for a confession. When they defeated her, they found out that the body was stiff and had been dead the whole time (a zombie controlled by another necromancer). A large part of my preparation was dependent on them searching the zombie and finding clues about who had been in control of it, but to my surprise, the party chose to immediately call the cops and report the dead body! They didn’t investigate the pattern between victims, they didn’t investigate the building they found the killer in, and they didn’t investigate how or why a zombie was running around town. They handed the body off to the local police and started asking me what else there was to do in town. Behind the DM screen, I was panicking, trying to think of which of the next quest this party would be prepared for. Long story short, we spent most of the session roleplaying day to day activities in the city and checking in on NPC’s, but one of my players must have sensed my frustration when the asked me to please railroad them. Am I crazy for not wanting to be heavy handed in my role as a DM? Should I have had something fall out of the killers pockets? Or are my players just getting used to the game and this is normal?

Dnd court case To the honorable justices and stinking adorable bailiff Jake, I bring to you the case of Problem Player turned DM. This case occurred long ago, when I was but a humble newbie dm and player. I had a fun custom homebrew game that involved the players having a mini adventure as teens. Our problem player was playing a wizard. The party had been ambushed on their outing. Instead of fighting, the wizard ran from combat immediately, taking a few rounds to “get an adult”, abandoning the other two to a combat I had balanced with a present wizard in mind. Unfortunately he ran to the npc I had planned on being a turncoat and this move nearly tpk’d them leading to a bit of dm sweat on my end. After this, and another similar event of him running from combat, using his action to hide and refusing to cast spells, I decided to take some time off dming. Jason jumped for the chance to dm a mini campaign and I thought maybe he was a better dm than player. I created a fun character named Clementine from an order of knights built to go out and find friends to protect and care for. I told him about this and he seemed to be chill with it as it gave me a great reason to be with the party. Clementine the friendship knight talked about how this order had free therapy and everyone was really chill. I also implied there was mainly women at this order as I generally only mentioned lady knights and women were the people I referenced as being in charge (this is relevant). After we finished the intro dungeon, we were looking to have a place to sleep so I asked if a chapter of my order was in the nearby city and maybe we could rest there. He confirmed there was one and we went there. When we arrived, he narrated knights out playing beer pong and hacky sack, all were men and there wasn’t a single woman present. I tried to roll with this by broing it up a bit with my fellow knights even if they had a huge frat bro vibe I wasn’t into. When we entered the hall he described the floors as being sticky with ale and the scent of musk and unwashed bodies hitting us in a wave. I found someone in charge to get a room and they put the four of us up in… the boiler room. Everyone could tell I was near to tears when I stated at the table, “I’m sorry, I’m not having fun.” Session quickly ended and I had a good cry with my friend who was in the game. I tried talking with him after this on discord a few days later, explaining my issue with the change. He said, “I’m over it.” Then he explained to me “It is the nature of the game to for me to spring unplanned surprises on you”. The game fizzled out after this and I got the feedback from others later on that I should have just let it go. Was it wrong for me to bring up at the table that I wasn’t having fun? PS. This was a few years ago and I now run an even better campaign that has been going really well!

To Judge Axford, Jury Tanner, and Executioner Murphy (oh and the big Joke Hurwitz too I guess). I bring to you the case of the Boarhide Belt- In a campaign run by two of my friends, I purchased a homebrew item called the Boarhide Belt for 200gp. This belt gave me the Squat Nimbleness feat and considered me a small creature for squeezing through spaces. For 14 sessions across 293 days I used the belt to do things like squeeze through caves or escape an exploding factory. When we next went shopping, one of the DMs said, "Oh I forgot something". He asked if I had attuned to the belt. I didn’t think I had to since it wasn't in the item description. He then said, "Let's just retcon that you haven't actually attuned to it yet." I then attuned, put on the belt, and promptly transformed into a greased pig. I was asked to make an intelligence save, which I failed because my intelligence was now 2. I was told I was frightened, couldn't move, and thought that "everyone wants my bacon”. After the session, I expressed some frustration that I essentially lost an item that I enjoyed using. I asked if at some point in the campaign I could have it fixed to work as it did before, to which both DMs said, "Yeah that sounds like a cool story beat". Justices, we have been on indefinite hiatus and may never resume this campaign. I ask the court, what is the statute of limitations for instituting a retcon? If there was intent to remedy my slight, is that enough? What if that never happens? Thank you, and Dice Christ’s blessings- Magnar Kragstone

Forgive me DC for I have sinned. In a game my brother GMs for me, my husband, and some friends - my original character died because I couldn’t roll anything over a 1. Now, I have a halfling divination wizard with “Lucky” and portent rolls. My sin? I had been watching D20 and assumed I got 3 potent rolls because we’re all level 11. I thought I’d read through everything, but while playing last week, I learned I only have 2–whoopsy-poopsy (with your best cutesy voice please, Jake). We had played a couple of sessions and I did use all three middling portent rolls. The third one was to participate in a dance at a party. The only thing at stake? My halfling pride. I promise to play by the rules going forward! Can I ever be forgiven? Should my brother tell mom?

To the high supreme crit and the highly touted or lowly lowly lowly bailiff (i'm not a psychic, I can't predict the bit) Jacob. I bring to the court the case of the Pay to Play Ultimatum. I am moving to Chicago this summer and on a recent trip up there, I met a group of folks who play an in-person DnD campaign. We hit it off and they invited me to join their game. For the moment, I join via video call while everyone else is just at the table for real with the understanding that after my move, I will start joining them in person. This has had it's own challenges but overall, it's been really fun and I've enjoyed the experience. However, last week, the DM, who is the host for the games, messaged me and told me that his ISP was raising the price of his service and that he would be dropping down to a lower tier speed for his internet - which he was concerned would not be fast enough for my video calls - but said if I would be willing to cover the difference of $25 every month I could keep playing. Elsewise, I'd have to leave the game for the time being and he *could not guarantee* my spot would be available when I moved. Judges, I ask you - am I being scammed? Is this fair? It would only be for 3 months, but I'm saving for a move and pinching every penny. I'm not tech savvy enough to know what speeds are necessary for video calls but this seems off and I'm concerned I've been given an ultimatum to give the DM money or leave a group I really enjoy and I'm not sure what to do.

Dear blessed judges and the choir boy bailiff. I ask for your forgiveness my fellow player had a gf and I hated her she just took advantage of my friend mooching off her money I prayed and prayed to dice christ for them to break up and they did and now her ex has left the campaign and now I roll bad I dont really feel bad but id like my good rolls back please baptise me again I would be ever grateful ps Caldwell please flip a disk thx

Dear Jazzy Justices and may it please the Crit and NOT please the bleached blond bad body bailiff bitch boy baby Bake. I present to you the case of Lost Stakes v. Monkey Wake During college, I was running a homebrew campaign for my friend group. In the first arc of the campaign, the barbarian's friend was in town and asked to sit in on our session, so I gave him an inconsequential NPC to play in combat: a Biddy (reskinned gnoll witherlings), freaky little dudes that snarled, skittered around, and followed basic instructions from the smarter bad guys. We'll call him Biddy Bad. In the combat, the monkey artificer, who was the newest to DND and a little less engaged than the others, went down. At that moment, our guest announced that Biddy Bad had created a philosophy called "Anarcho Biddyism" in which "All Flesh and Blood Belongs to Biddy." He then brutally tore open the chest of the knocked-out artificer to cause two failed death saves. The artificer went next, and failed his final save. I was shocked. A PC death at the hands of a bit character and guest player. The artificer loved his character, and I was worried that if I let him die in a random anticlimactic combat, he would lose all interest in the game. So I switched our battle music to an eerie ethereal playlist and narrated his soul leaving his body and being suddenly pulled to the dwelling of a powerful spirit (the big bad of the arc) bartered with him to restore his life if he would do its bidding and free it from its chains. This ended up being a cool moment, but the catch is, I had already done it once before. Another player almost died in an earlier combat and was saved by the spirit in exchange for killing a key friendly NPC. I had intended that to be the sole use of this plot hook. After the monkey artificer was revived, the fighter said "Damn, I guess we really can't die in this campaign." Am I at fault for deflating the stakes of our game? Should I have let the artificer go to monkey heaven? Or would it have been a worse fate to let a new player die at the hands of a rando guest Biddy doing a bit? Am I just bad at balancing combats or was Biddy Bad out of line? I prostrate myself before the mercy and fury of the Supreme Crit.

To the honorable justices and I guess also Murph’s DMPC “Jaek.” I present to you the case of the Difficult Druid and the Bleeding Bard. I have been in a campaign for nearly five years with four level 9 PCs: a wizard, a monk, a druid, and me, a bard. We are all great friends and there is no bad blood here. Anyway, our dragonborn druid refuses to wild shape, and instead hangs back to use her acid breath or the spell Wind Wall. ONLY Wind Wall, every time. As the only PC up in the mix, I get absolutely rocked. The wizard takes hits so I don’t have to, and the monk has stopped using evasion. To add insult to injury, we all watched the DND movie together and when the druid in the movie wild shaped, our druid said, “that’s so cool, I wish we had someone who can do that,” to which I responded, “you can turn into a fucking bear.” I prostrate myself before the court and ask if we should get over our tank not tanking or if we should trap our tank in a wild shape a la Tobias from Animorphs. P.S. don’t play, hate the show

To the most supreme of justices and that one guy with real "little brother" energy... I bring to you the case of the jelly Monk. A friend invited me to join their already large, reverse Strahd campaign. I saw they lacked some utility and I made an aarakocran (sorry Justice Murph) Way of Mercy Monk. Many of my teammates multiclassed and lost the plot of their class, but with my inclusion, we made short work of many encounters because I had no problem running around helping. The DM didn't like my immediately warm reception to the group (as admitted by my friend) and when I confronted them about it, I was assured it was a misunderstanding. The next session, the DM trapped me in a small room with 300HP ice walls and had 4 Ice Wraiths (scaled for a party of 8) beat me until I was outright dead. The party tried to take my remains for resurrection, but the DM planned a tribute only mechanic to escape alive. The party had no choice but to offer me up, to which the DM made a show of the beast consuming me like a jelly donut for all eternity. Dear sweet, impartial, beautiful Justices...aside from getting new friends, should I make his life hell in my upcoming Borderlands campaign or borrow a glove from Jens and have this duel like proper gentlemen?

Whatsup Jakie Poo? To the honourable Judge Funnyman, Judge Wifeworm, and her angry mop; I present Gobbo's case. Years ago I was in a group where one player had asked if he could raise a stat he needed for gameplay, in exchange for dropping his Intelligence. Our DM allowed it, and he lost 4 points in INT, and got them in WIS. This left him with a 4 Int. For reference, this is so low that certain spells won't work on him, because he's too dumb. This player absolutely did not play the character like he was dumb. He wanted to RP interactions where he was coming up with intricate plans, had opinions on the political state, wanted to haggle for better prices, you name it. The pinnacle of it all was after a puzzle/dungeon where we butted heads about Gobbo solving riddles (IN CHARACTER), that the DM pulled out a physical puzzle he had made for us to solve. This seemed great for me, as it felt like an opportunity for Him to do something "smart", as it's all out of character. He was like "Have fun guys, Gobbo is too dumb for this" and he pulled out his phone and refused to interact. I tried explaining that my 20 INT artificer is way smarter than me, and he isn't the one interacting with the puzzle, it's us that are! I couldn't break through to him, and we solved it without his help. We are still friends, but don't play with Gobbo anymore due to life mostly. The crux of it for me was that he got a tangible gameplay benefit, and skimmed around the downside. So judges, should I go to Gobbo's player and throw him in a volcano? Or should I be saying 50 "Hail Pelors" every night for being stubborn about it?

Case of Too Many Bits? To the honorable supreme crit justices (and the guy who helps out), I was a new player in a preestablished campaign and we were in a low-stakes/roleplay session, mostly investigating a plot point and traveling. Vibes at the table were high and we had had an ongoing set of bits as we rolled for stealth/travel, which, to be fair, did take up time, and the DM had had to get us to refocus a couple times before "the incident". As we were all rolling/waiting for our DM to look up a travel encounter, we had started another series of bits after someone made what was clearly a joke about a thing their character did - think, [character] is grabbing a snack as we wait/how many snacks are you carrying?/someone had clearly packed too much/where were all these wrappers going?/oh yeah, [character] doesn't care about littering, they've just been leaving a trail of wrappers behind us. I guess the DM had finished rolling and was waiting for us, but none of us had realized, because they snapped and said that was canon now. Roll with disadvantage on your stealth. The player protested that it was clearly a joke and they hadn't actually meant their character did that, but the DM proceeded to roll for them, get a nat 1, and announce a combat that ended with everyone becoming hostages. The hostage part wasn't out of bounds - we were rolling stealth for a reason, and it would've happened sooner or later with multiple sets of heavy armor in the party - but taking away player agency like that left a really bad taste in my mouth and that + scheduling conflicts meant that I left the campaign soon after. Should I let it go? Was this a natural consequence of too many bits or did the DM go too far?

To the honorable supreme Crit Justices and the lowly baliff Jorts (okay that should give you a few seconds of laugh break, listen closely, I've attached a key to the back of this letter. It unlocks the cuffs holding you to your high chair, but don't do anything yet. You're going to need some case details to keep them distracted) I bring before you the case of the Rotisserie Abyssal Chicken. It all started when our parties rogue, Bud Hole, died and our Cleric refused to revive them, instead choosing to go find their soul in the 9 Hells (Okay that's a solid set up so you're going to need to vamp now but pay attention, in the crumb catcher of your bib you'll notice several loose DVDs of mostly early 2000s garbage. When I say GO, toss those at the feet of justice Tanner. The ensuing disc flipping will work to distract justice Tanner and Justice Murphy who will need to make meta commentary on the effectiveness of visual gags on an audio platform. You're going to need a bit more detail to keep them distracted) Low and behold Bud Hole rolled a Nat 20 on an athletics check to punch his feet through the bottom of the cart, Oppa Flinstones style, and steal the demons entire hutch of Abyssal Chickens. (Now that the Flinstones has been brought up, Justice Axford should be in the process of boarding a flight to Ibiza to utilize the remainder of her vacation time. This is going to be your window. One more juicy case detail and question and then it's time baby boy. I have a car waiting outside with a duffel of German Franks and eight passports all for one Jork Himwitz. Don't be scared, I know what they done to you. But no more after today. Get ready,) So I ask you justices, should I have allowed my players to use chronomancy magic to rapidly factory farm Abyssal chickens, thus cornering the 9 Hells entire market on Hellish themed rotisserie dinner products or was I right to pluck their hopes and dreams by besetting them with hot NPCs and a blasting granny? I humbly await your sentencing. (GO WHILE THE BLASTING GRANNY IS HOT!! RUN MY CHILD!) P.S. Tucker is in the trunk of the car P.P.S. Hate the show

Dear Bailiff Jake, I need some advice from someone who understands sensitive romantic situations, especially if someone is going to end up getting sued in Dungeon Court, and I feel like we’re on the same wavelength. I was DMing a long-form self-written 5e campaign with a mid-story climax involving a tense meeting in a backwater Inn with the head of a Raven-Queen-worshipping underworld gang. She shows up in their room in a cloud of crows, and they have a high-stakes negotiation about the next steps of the quest. Bailiff Jake, after THREE persuasion-related Nat 20s from the two textbook horny Bards, and one upcast Animate Objects, the Gangleader, two bards, a ranger, his weasel companion, and the bedroom furniture all had the weirdest orgy ever. THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE. Maybe a year later, I was asked to join in a short form campaign with some overlapping friends, and for ease, updated an old character sheet and hopped in the melee. One cloud-of-crows-colored Misty Step later, when I locked eyes with my friend’s weasel companion, I realized, we were both recycling old characters. And, Jake… our characters fucked. A lot. With animated bedroom furniture. Legal issue: - am I overreaching to keep mentioning my weasel-faced son who doesn’t know his father? - what are the court’s opinions on recycling characters? Was I being lazy? - can I sue a companion for child support? I’m sure with your advice I’ll consider whether to pursue further legal action. Yours, PowerWord: Stunning

To the esteemed judges and the guy filling in for Jake until they can get him on as a guest, I run a modern fantasy game for my friends and they recently captured a scientist and her laptop that has important information for an investigation. Here's the catch, the scientist literally can not tell them due to a cursed amulet that prevents her from knowingly giving the password or helping anyone get into the computer. That's when our Arch Fey Warlock, Michael Douglas, requested the scientist write down the password in a made up language that no one could read. He said it could be totally random. Once the scientist wrote down random letters, he then cast comprehend languages to read the word, everyone cheered. It was honestly really clever! The problem is when I read the spell, it specifically says that it can't read secret messages. I said it didn't work and I feel like it really deflated the moment. Everyone said they'd "take my ass to court". So here's my question: Is a password written in a fake language that the writer is cursed to keep secret not a secret message? Am I a wet blanket for not letting this work? When will Jake be invited on Dungeon Court? I humbly await your judgement. Thank you,

To the all-powerful judges and the mostly-powerful Big J! This is the case of the Druid's Worst Day. Last year, we were in the penultimate session of our campaign. My players were battling a cult leader next to a magical shard set to explode, putting the battle on a timer. Throughout the fight, our poor druid was disarmed, feebleminded, and stuck in wildshape, only able to attack in melee and basically unable to roleplay. When the party finally won and had to escape the exploding shard, everybody hopped on the druid's back and she was able to fly them to safety. However, no one remembered to pick up her iconic warhammer and spellcasting focus from when she was disarmed 3 hours prior. I tried to explain that obviously, her friends would have been able to scoop up her gear once the battle was over, but that just made her player more upset, claiming it felt worse to be saved by DM handwave. She went in to the final session, stuck with a backup weapon she wasn't even proficient in. I felt awful. Should I be feebleminded?

To the honorable and most supreme judges of this court room… and the other guy named Jake who is still here. I bring upon you this case of mine that still haunts me a year later. I, myself was running a DnD session that was the very start of this hopeful campaign. The group of mine were sent to the Dwarven Mountain, The Bronzen Summit, looking to find new jobs that would bring them honor, fame, glory, and most importantly, money. The group, had met for the first time at a tavern where the elven bard, Portia (Porsche-uh), was thrown out for a bad performance roll, nat 1, and unwanted flirting. The group brushed the bard off from their covered dust, found a poster that promised gold and platinum, and set off to the king’s throne to find the missing prince. When they arrived and had found out that the prince had disappeared towards an unknown plane of existence, the Feywild, Portia had decided to try and seduce the King and convince himself and several guards to join them on their adventure and rolled 3 Natural 20’s back to back and obtained 2 Royal Guards and the king’s interest later if she were to return back to the throne room with his son… (she of course wanted more guards) What had set them off though was that on their first encounter a few hours later, I had set up a situation where they came across an abandoned town in the Feywild, the new plane that the prince has been lost to, and they were looking for anyone to point them in the right direction as to where to go. As they were exploring, one by one over time, each guard had mysteriously vanished. When the first guard had disappeared, he had no concept of understanding that there was a second guard to begin with and thought the group was messing with him, and then they had vanished a bit later and left the group confused as to whether they had guards in the first place. Basically setting up an encounter with a modified false hydra to show that their new world would not be as easy as they had imagined. Portia though argued that rolling 3 Nat 20’s and having the guards killed off before any major battle was a huge issue and bad storytelling. I figured that it was a way to give more clues as to what had happened to this town. Was I in the wrong?

Friends, peers, supreme crit justices, and that one dude reading this I guess. I present the case of the deceitful warlock, and the cop wizard. I (the DM) was starting a new campaign with my partner and a few of my friends. The campaign was about the Gods of the world being unable to return to the material plane, and were finding ways to mount their return. With this my players decided to make characters based heavily in the lore (I was so happy). it’s important context that we agreed if we were doing something secret in character, we’d still do everything in front of everyone so we can all progress the story forward, and we were all adult enough to not metagame that our characters would know what’s going on. We had played a few sessions and we were reaching the end of the first arc, where they needed to find the source of a blighted forest. When they found the cursed tree, I had the warlocks patron tell them to pretend to destroy the source of the curse, but secretly keep it. When I had them roll a sleight of hand, they rolled very well, above everyone’s passive perception, and I told them they had done this successfully and they had their familiar take it to a secure place for them to retrieve later. The wizard chimed in and said he would like to roll perception to see if he see’s this. When I said the roll was above his passive perception so he wouldn’t notice this, he said “my entire build is based around perception and investigation. I’m a member of the guard, so I would always be actively looking for suspicious activity.” After some back and forth, I decided it wasn’t worth it to argue and to keep the vibes of the table moving, so I allowed him to roll and he succeeded. When he spotted the the familiar flying away with the source of the curse he shot it down, which led to both the players arguing IRL and the whole table having a pretty bad time. I ended up just telling them that the source of the curse went missing after it was shot out of the sky so neither of them of could look further into it and we ended the session early. Judges, I ask, should I have pushed back harder and been firm with my wizard about his passive perception and about his metagaming, or was my wizard right to question me when he built his entire character around the specific skill. I accept whatever judgement you see fit.

May it please the court and Bob (who my students guessed was your name when shown a picture). I’m a middle school teacher and run a D&D club before school once a week. My campaign this year is a group of 7th grade boys. For all four of these kids, this is their first time ever playing. They’re wacky and I sometimes play fast and loose with the rules so that they can do some shenanigans. We are currently running Lost Mine of Phandelver but I often deviate from the main plot to have mini games for them (they had a carnival where they can win magical items) and have fun (the goblin gang makes their money in being pokemon card scalpers and I bought packs for the boys to open real time). From the beginning, one of the boys started “collecting” slain goblins and a bag and carrying them around, convinced that he can ferment them and turn them into alcohol (7th grade logic at its finest). From the jump, I explained that this is not how fermentation works he seemed to understand but continued to collect the goblins because it was a funny goof. We get to a town where there is a tavern where my student thought he would try his hand at making alcohol out of goblins. I set the DC at 20, which was possible for him. He got a 15. He was disappointed that it didn’t work, but accepted that his collection of goblins was for naught. Justices, I feel bad: should I have lowered the DC for my student to let his gag pay off? Or should I have lowered the DC and let him play it out in an already lax game? I anxiously await your judgement.

To the Judges who judge grudges and Rake (sorry his name slips my mind): I was asked to play in a the Dragon Heist campaign. My friends and I decided to play as a family of Rogues. Sons of a local merchant. One was a solid Rogue and the others had multi-classed. However, when we got into the campaign the DM, who is an experienced DM, played the module so much to the letter of the book. He seemed to be angered that we were all Rogues. And in the few times where he gave us a scenario that our rogue skills could excel, he got very snippy. The rest of the campaigned seemed to be be filled with tons of magic casters and big men and he never let us sneak or get surprise rounds. Eventually we all railroaded ourselves to the end and basically never speak of it. I know that Dragon Heist isn't necessarily a module for Rogues but shouldn't the DM either have overruled the idea of all Rogues or rolled with it once we were at the table?

May it please the wise keepers of the holy crit and that guy who stands at the confessional and announces our sins, I come to you with a confession. 3yrs ago, I started playing in a Rime of the Frostmaiden campaign where I met my fellow players for the FIRST TIME during session 1. that being said, I made a bold mistake very early on that has weighed in my conscience ever since. During our 3rd session, we were locked in a player debate on whether we should assist a town in need or to turn the people against the mayor, helping the mafia. Only 1 player wanted to help the town. This player (lawful good) was threatening to rat us out if we went through with it. So... I cast Sleep on them. We then proceeded to tie them up, bag their head, lie to the towns people that he was delusional and a danger to others, and left him on the side of the road penniless and alone, kicking the character out of the party and causing the player to create a new one. It was hilarious! This was the point that I realized my mistake. I was playing a bard, and I didn't realize bards can't prepare spells each day. So, Sleep was not on my original spell list. I added it after a rest for this plan to work... Luckily, the campaign continued and has been an experience we will remember forever! Our DM even told us that moment entirely change the campaign plans! But that does not free me from the guilt I feel. I kneel before you hoping for absolution, but accept any meal you decide Jake has to cook for me as punishment.

To the Archonic judges and the Brushwaggian Bailiff, I present the case of the ChatGP&D. I am away at college, and my father has recently been having a hard time with his job. In his time off, he has recently taken to roleplaying games to blow off steam, but does so with only his partner in crime of ChatGPT. I get around 5-6 emails a day from him with new characters he has generated in DnD from different editions (we have played all 5 editions of the game together), new spells he has prompted, scenarios he has planned with ChatGPT. On top of that, he has also been using GPT to summarize entire games for him and even to design his own roleplaying engines and create worlds, all with extensive PDFs for me to read (and read them all I do). I appreciate that he is applying himself, but it is hard to connect with him when he has such a large volume of stuff he is sending my way (especially when I don't know which ideas are fully his). I feel like I would appreciate spending time in this way with him more if it was a smaller volume of ideas which were fully his. Should I ask him to get off the AI? Should I tell him to focus on quality over quantity? Or is it just time to get that man a playgroup?

To the auspicious Justices and the guy who kinda reminds me of my brother - I present the case of the Sudden Surprised Condition. A player in the core group recently started a D&D campaign using 2024 rules to give the forever DM (who runs 2014 rules) a break. One week the new DM had to cancel and the forever DM offered to run a one shot that night. He didn't specify which rule set to use, only saying “Bring a level 13 character and prepare for a wild evening". That rainy night while everyone is getting set up in the basement, the DM says “Oh, I hope you don't mind, I invited another player to help round out the numbers." Just then the doorbell rings upstairs. Since it's your house, you head up and peek outside the front window. Standing at the door is a man in an impeccable Grinch costume. Or, hell, it might even be the Grinch himself. In one hand he has a Player's Handbook and in the other is a cloth sack - roughly the size of a basketball - filled with something lumpy. Both seem to be partially covered in a dark liquid. You begin to head back to ask the forever DM about who he invited when the Grinch starts knocking rather forcefully on the glass. Your phone has zero bars - what do you do?

May it please the Court, the pulchritudinous justices, and the stinky little bailiff, I present the case of the spousal serial killer. My husband is the DM for me and two of our friends in a game of Tomb of Annihilation, a module known for being extremely deadly and centers on a death curse that nullifies resurrection. My first character was one-shot eaten by a teleporting dinosaur. My next character was unceremoniously beheaded by a monster that, on a crit, automatically decapitates and kills players. This campaign has been going on for more than two years, and I am the only player to have even one PC death—neither of which allowed me to make death saves. Justices, make no mistake—my husband was technically right to kill both characters. That is not the case I bring before you today; instead, I ask the court to consider custody of razzing rights. In the past week since my most recent death, I’ve been razzing my husband with things like, “Oh, you want me to pass you the salt? Guess you should’ve thought of that before you killed me twice.” To add insult to injury, he also took me out in a game of Commander later that week. Justices, am I in the right to continue to razz him at the very least until I can introduce my new character? Or should I file for divorce and tell the judge about the irreconcilable difference of my husband killing me in D&D? (P.S. – We always listen to Dungeon Court together, so please be extra brutal in whichever way you dispense justice.)

To the court and whomever else it may concern My girlfriend and I briefly played in a campaign with a couple of neighbors. The DM was one of the neighbors, a cool goth guy. We played a couple of times over the summer, during which it slowly became less fun. For one, the DM was very focused and didn’t like having to explain himself more than once and one of the other players, another neighbor, had never played before and was having some difficulties. The DM did not like spending time explaining to her how the game worked and when we tried to help, he’d continue on without giving her time to understand what was going on. For another, I was playing a cleric and my girlfriend a paladin, and when we asked about what pantheon the world used, he said “I haven’t decided yet.”. I played several sessions without knowing who my god was (I never actually found out). In the end, school got busy and my girlfriend and I weren’t really feeling the campaign. The DM never answered when I wrote him to quit. Now, whenever I see him, he ignores me, which is getting increasingly awkward, as we are neighbors!! Justices, have I done wrong here, could I have done something different? I throw myself at your mercy.

To the licentious justices and the big baby butthead Paul. I submit the case of The Embarrassed Wife which includes some of the justices as part of the case. We recently had an incredible time witnessing Dimension 20 at the MGM Grand in Vegas. My wife and I stayed at the Grand ourselves and got lucky running into half the cast (including Murph and Emily) at the elevators going up. We were both ecstatic to see you and gave some words of excitement about the show. I said something to the effect of "We're so excited to see your show", to which my wife added "Yeah, we hate Vegas". And we continued on talking until the elevator came (too full for all of us). Justices, her words have haunted her since, as she feels she put a lot of pressure on you. I have assured her that more than likely you guys don't remember the encounter and if you do, you're more likely to remember our outfits in a positive way than anything we said (my wife was dressed as an Elizabethan woman and I as a wizard, our D&D characters for Halloween). While her intention was to indicate that we came for D20 despite our distaste for the capitalist sore that is Vegas, she fears she came on too strong. So justices, I ask you, was my wife the embarrassing wife worm she thinks she was, or can she relieve herself of her embarrassment since you probably have forgotten the encounter entirely? Some context, my wife and I had just come from the show a tournament of kings which ended in an unexpected pyrotechnics show that had her in a full panic attack, so I ask for your leniency in your judgement as she was still recovering.

To the ever honorable justice and bailiff Fernando I bring to you the case of Another unsuccessful attempt of starting a game A few weeks ago me and all my closest friends went on a camping trip to celebrate 4 birthdays bringing with us not enough board games when one of my friends said "we should play dungeons and dragons too bad we don't know how" to which I said "hey I know a guy" because I have been trying for 4 years to get a game going. I was dismissed again and an argument ensued where I was catching strays left and right. At the end of the trip one of my friends even cropped me out of every photo and didn't tag me in anything. Justices I ask if this is something that could ever be possible and how so with my friends or if I should simply get new ones, was I being too pushy over the years or are they all being really judgey for being theatre kids. I accept whatever punishment may await me for setting off this chain reaction that ruins friendships and stops games from ever happening P.S I've been listening to the show since my dad introduced me when I was 12. I'm 20 now and don't know why he thought I would understand half of what was going on in campaign 1

Dear inimitable justices and bailiff id change train cars to avoid standing next to, I am but a humble player in need of a guiding hand. I'm in a group nearing the final session of our 3rd campaign. Our Dm is really passionate about world building and has made a super cool story with a fun cast of characters for us, and i am incredibly appreciative of all the work he puts in. Last session before making our way into the final dungeon our dm narrated 15 npcs we've met throughout the campaign arriving to help in our hour of need and it truely was great to see some beloved familiar faces. HOWEVER, The problem is that now we have 20+ people in every encounter including enemies and while some of these npcs are great and its fun to have them around, to be honest this campaign has been 3 years long and i do not remember some of them for the life of me. In our last session we had 29 creatures on the battlefield with initiatives and its causing combat to be an absolute slog with legitimately an hour between rounds. Justices, Am i wrong to feel a bit annoyed by this? Should i say something or it my responsibility as a player and friend to summon up some more enthusiasm while he takes his 10 turns in combat since we're so close to the end of the campaign? It's not that really that big a deal and I don't want to cramp his style/ creativity, but i feel like it's showing that i'm a little less than enthused and i feel bad. I anxiously await your ruling.

Venerable deacons of Dice Christ, I have a confession that is not my own. I come to you on my players behalf. I run a game for my brother, his wife, and her sister. They are all first time players. Anytime they need to make an important roll, they will first roll two dice and see which rolls higher, then they will use that dice for the important roll. They always announce it before they do this but I can’t help think that they are in some way cheating themselves out of an authentic roll. What if that first ‘test’ roll was actually Dice Christ’s’ intended outcome, but they lose out on this destiny by trying to exert their own control? Pray tell, do my players need to seek forgiveness? Or is their method sanctioned under Dice Christ?

In the name of the 20, the 1, and the Holy Spir-Crit; I submit to thee a Dice Christ confession. I am playing an Undead Patron Warlock, with Pact of the Chain. My warlock is grim-reaper themed, and his familiar is a shape-shifting lantern with a purple flame inside. As a dice-goblin, I have a set of dice for both: Black/White marble texture like a gravestone for the Warlock, and silver metal with purple filling for the familiar. With Pact of the Chain in 2024, you and your familiar roll separately for initiative, and during a pivotal battle, I rolled a 1 on my character's grave die, and a 20 on my familiar's lantern die. I confess to thee, I had my warlock take the 20, and my familiar take the 1, even though it was not on their respective dies. Please forgive me for my transgressions, Amen. PS: What's your favorite Three-ster candy? Threeps? Threeses eggs? Jelly Threens? PPS: Shout out to Howe Caverns. Emily knows what's up.

Hello you beautiful justices, and the baeliff Rake. I bring you the case of the shambling mound and the disappointing lightning. I had been DMing for my group of friends for a while. One session they encountered a shambling mound on the road. The fight wasn't too tough, but it was a decent challenge. They had just leveled up and the party druid had just unlocked call lightning and was excited to try her new spell. We described a gathering storm above her tortle head and the great power of lighting bending to her claws, and zapping the shit out of that pile of grass. As she rolled damage, I happened to take a second look at the shambling mound stat sheet and noticed something. They have whats called "lightning absorption", meaning she healed it for all the damage she did. Judges, she was pissed! They ended up winning the fight, but she was always hesitant about using that spell afterwards. But doesn't hesitate to razz me about targeting her and nerfing her cool new spell, even after I showed her that its just a straight up feature of the monster. Judges, should I have ignored that feature to give her a dope Storm moment, or was I right to play it RAW? Also, does she have good reason to keep the razzing up after all these years?? PS. The druid was my fiancee, now wife.

To the sexy bunny judges and the Egg Grinch Jack. I wish to present the case of the prepared bonus action. A few years back I played a roll20 campaign with some friends of mine. It was a neat campaign, and the DM gave us many home-brew buffs and items. One of the villains of the campaign was a pc from an old campaign named Borgard, a dwarf cleric-necromancer turned evil. Played by his original player. After a long adventure, we were ready to face him! One of players used a home-brew ability, which unleashes a massive cone of damage but knocks him out of the fight to take out the villein! And to our surprise, he teleported out of there, claiming that he prepared his bonus action (after taking an action that round) to cast misty step. When we argued, he said that he messaged the DM, and since we got a bunch of home-brew buffs since the last time we saw him, it was fair that he would get one as well. We ended up letting it go, and escaped with most of the party surviving. Judges, shouldn’t he have been buffed ahead of time? Wasn’t it a bit unfair to us that he decided on the most suitable buff on the spot?

To the wonderful, evangelical judges and the guy who always makes his way into the court room, I present to you the case of the UNLISTENING GIRLFRIEND. I know, this might not be too dnd focus, but my lovely lady will be joining me at your rock city music hall show!! She has been watching me rant about this show for years now and is excited to go but…. She . Hasn’t. Listened. To anything. What can I do to warn her of your beautiful performances? She doesn’t want to listen to anything and this will be her first impression of you guys (besides d 20) Should I bring up dragon pussy now, or later?

Not sure if this is a case or a confession, but I posit it to the court regardless: I’m a high school teacher who advises a D&D club at my school. Generally, it’s pretty good. The kids goof around, tell a somewhat nonsensical story, and usually have a pretty good time… usually. The problem comes with one particular kid who shows up every few sessions. He is a walking cliche of a “problem player”— talking over others, insisting that thy do his plan, and (most egregiously in my opinion) rolling for things before the DM asks him to. The DM is a very nice kid but, as the youngest of the group, tends to give in with this player challenges him, even if the rest of the party is obviously not happy with the decision. As the adult in the room, I really want to say something, because I can tell the energy in the room kinda deflates when this kid shows up… but I’m not entirely sure it’s my place to do so. So, I throw myself before the mercy of the court. Sentence me to whatever judgment (or absolution) you see fit.

D&D Court Submission The Case of the Fumbled Flashback Justices Axford, Murphy, Tanner, and... yeah I think that's it. I beseech you to hear my case, that of the Fumbled Flashback. Our group was playing a 3-session heist campaign, giving us a chance to try out new characters and possibly introduce them to our main campagin. Our DM gave each of us an Ocean's 8 style flashback to use to have someone on the inside, have brought the perfect item, or just generally instantly overcoming an obstacle. This was designed to keep the sessions fun and help maintain momentum. Flash FORWARD to the third session: our party is fighting 2 basilisks outside the entrance to the castle vault and one of our party, a Dwarven monk who had struggled with motivation during our sessions and would either play chess on his phone or have out-of-character conversations when his character wasn't doing something, was turned to stone by the basilisk. There was still a good chunk of the session left, so after the battle was won my Aasimar rogue (I guess you could say he was the Debbie Ocean of the group) used his flashback to have brought a potion to cure this petrification, thus keeping our friend in the game. All sounds good, right? Wrong. The DM said that the potion would have a 50% chance of working and so we rolled odds/evens. The potion didn't work, and the monk remained petrified while the rest of the party had to continue on and finish the session, with a significantly deflated atmosphere. When speaking to the DM after, they said that the reason they wanted the monk to be petrified was because the player would be returning home for a few months and thus was unavailable, so there would be a canonical reason for their absence in future games. Justices (and anyone else who is hanging out in the studio I guess), was I unfairly punished for trying to keep everyone happy? I ask for one egg for my legal fees (I'm representing myself but I'm kinda hungry).

To the various court members (cant really tell you guys apart) I present the case of the Eternal Surpise round A DM of mine presented a new house rule: all enemies get a free round of actions before ours because "they ready their actions beforehand". When I tried to do the same I was denied. When I pointed out that obviously both sides would try to be ready for combat and the point of initiative is to determine who is actually quicker he would change the subject. Whenever I pointed out that that's just a surprise round he became despondent and quickly moved ahead with the session. In these surprise rounds my PC was coincidentally targeted and downed invariably. Court guys, this was wack right? He eventually dropped the rule without saying anything but I just need to know I wasn't crazy. Please.

Dearest members of the clergy and alter boy Jake. I seek forgiveness for the crime of a wrongful pc death. Two sessions ago during an intense combat one of the parties monks (they had 2) decided to run 90 feet from the rest of the group to take on a combatant trying to flee. He however got targeted by barbed devil acting as a body guard. At this point the monk had 4 hit points left. A barbed devil has three attacks. I rolled a crit and two hits on the monk. We rolled all the damage together and did exactly enough damage to insta kill the monk no death saves necessary. It was not till I was recounting the events of the session to my friend on the way home that I realised this is not how the monk should have died as I run rules as damage on one hit can outright kill a pc not in one turn. Your holinesses here is where I ask for forgiveness I did not tell my players this. I kept it to myself as the monk would have gone down on the first hit and then two subsequent hits when he was unconscious would have killed him. The party buried the monk under their tavern and he now haunts the place. The player made a new character for the last few sessions on the campaign. But the guilt is eating me alive. I seek the dice Christ’s forgiveness and to once again be embraced in his love. Thank you

To the smartest and bestest judges around and the other guy whose name I think starts with a G, I bring you the case of the Hag's Gift gone wrong. Me and my party were playing in a Curse of Strahd campaign. We were enlisted by a hag to help save her sister from a witch in the nearby swamp. Before departing the Hag gave us a breakable glyph that she said, "Use this to summon me, and ONLY use this once you've retrieved my sister." Cut to sometime later we managed to defeat the witch and rescue the hag's sister who was captured inside the witch's walking hut. While we were inside the hut, we decided to simply break the glyph in our hand, presuming it would let the hag know the mission was complete and summon her here. However what happened instead was that her entire hag house sprouts from the ground underneath our feet, in the process exploding the witches hut we were in, scattering debris and our bodies everywhere dealing massive damage. It dealt enough damage to down multiple party members, but luckily we had the resources to recover before death saves took us in. We had a good laugh, but our party jokingly raged that we should've gotten better instructions. Judges, should the DM have been more specific as how to use the hag summoning glyph or should the party been more careful with magic items gifted by a hag? Thank you.

To the beloved justices and the less so but still beloved bailiff jake. I bring to you the case of Nature Fucker. Nature Fucker was the name of our party's druid, though, thankfully, he did not live up to his name. Instead he was a chaotic and crazed man who did whatever he wanted. This caused conflict within the party though it came to a head when we were on a compact train car with many passengers. A train attendant asked Nature to put out his cigar and he refused. When the attendant threatened him, he proceeded to cast thunder wave, killing about a dozen commoners and damaging the party. Our rogue proceeded to attack him, accidentally crit, and instantly killed Nature Fucker. Thankfully, we were all friends above the table and we laughed it off, but the druid still blames the rogue for his death. So who was in the wrong? Nature Fucker or our rogue?

To my beautiful judges, (mwah), and Jake (pthoo), I bring you the case of the Too-In-Tune Player. I am a DM and have just wrapped up a Redwall-themed campaign. All of my players are great, but one has a habit of figuring out where I am leading the story and dropping everything to help me. If he senses I want them to go in a cave, he’ll get everyone to go in a cave even if it makes no sense for his character. His character is in love with a sexy squirrel, and instead of pursuing her one time, he ignored the sight of a swishing tail because he thought I wanted them to move on from an area. I’ve said above the table “do whatever you want!” But the message isn’t sinking in. Justices, is this my fault? Does this guy just love a railroad? Should I be punishing his character for this behaviour? I await your flawless judgement.

Oh my god! No!! Who put this water slide in the middle of court? A TANK??? Help! Here's my pitch for the Exhausted Caster, torts: How many times in media have we seen wizards who fully exaust themselves, to the point of collapsing, to conjure a complex and more powerfull spell? Wizards that put their integritity at risk for a very potent magic? Hence comes my wizard homebrewed subclass: THE EXHAUSTED CASTER ( https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/wgcImhepmQWR ). This wizard is able to augment their spells with "Exhaustive Boost" options, but, after doing so, they must make a CON Save or get a level of Exhaustion, or even get the Unconsious condition if they fail this save on two subsequent turns. With time, this wizard gets more boost options and gains ways to deal with their exhaustion (this subclass uses the 2024 rules for Exhaustion). For a total of 0 eggs, but Shellmily playing this subclass in a oneshot, I'll sell 97,2% of this idea. But yes, if you insist, I will accept a symbolic number of eggs as incentive.

D&D Court Submission The Case of the Ghosted Player If it so pleases the Honorable and most Magnificent judges and bailiff Jake, who is okay, I guess. I have been a player in a long-running campaign with a group who all gets along pretty well except for one player. He only engages in RP during combat, while the rest of the time he is playing games, looking at pornographic images, or watching videos on his phone. In addition, he spent an obscene amount of time picking his toenails and burping very close to other player’s faces. Nearing the final boss battle, I had my baby, so we paused the campaign for a few months while I recovered. When I was ready to play again, the group decided we were going to start a whole new campaign and simply not include the problem player. We essentially ghosted him, and our DM told the player we simply do not get together anymore when he asked when we would play again. I ask the court, was this ghosting justified? Or will my baby and I be haunted by Dice Christ for the rest of time?

To the Supremely Scrumptious Judges bringing Critical Justice, and the amuse-bouche bailiff, Jako Himwitz, I bring to you a case of the DM with coolness-remorse. In our first campaign together, we helped a dead wizard’s living illusion (maybe Simulacrum) finish the wizard prime’s Illusion-Made-Real machine. Our wizard and artificer rolled really well to fix it. We tested it on strong illusion of a pile of platinum bars. They became real, so we then did the wizard and again, it worked. Success and immense wealth in one go. Well. I guess our DM was worried about us being disgustingly wealthy, despite being in the Icewind Dale where it would only go so far. We are heading back to town and a random, stereotypical demon dude (red, twirling mustache, French accent) popped out of our wizards watch… for some reason. Didn’t really do anything. Then our DM said oh by the way, the platinum is disappearing (not the wizard!). Guess there’s a half life on coolness. So we rush to launder it with local bank. We come to a deal with the Teller, only for earlier demon guy to dive int bank portal with teller and money, sealing it all away. For years. In game and real life. Years. Many campaigns later. It is a constant source of humor and laughs, but he still adamantly defends himself. Please, put an end to it. He was super duper wrong, and uncool, right? Thanks.

To the beautiful voluptuous judges and the bailiff that will be banished to one of 4 different dimensions for the rest of the episode (roll 1d4) 1. The Grinch Dimension 2. McDonalds Land 3. The Crick 4. Jens’ Apartment I formally present to the court the case of the annual asshole. Me and my group of friends have been playing D&D together for over 10 years now and ever since in almost every campaign one person has been known to play a single archetype of character, the smart mouthed asshole. Rude, untrustworthy, passive agressive and constantly putting other characters down. So much so that they have betrayed the party a few different times, one of these times killing multiple party members including one that they bullied and threatened to kill on multiple occasions, leaving the player detached for the rest of the session. This even got to the point where one party member left the group completely to form another. I have thought of talking to them about this but they are very much the type of person to get super emotional when presented with any sort of criticism. Am I taking this too personally? Or is this player at fault for constantly using their D&D character as an excuse to be a dick?

Glorious supreme crit, and even more glorious Bailiff Jacob P.C. Hurwitz, I grovel at your feet. Years ago, part of my group held a virtual one-shot session instead of allowing the absent players to miss out on the campaign. It was mostly improvised on the spot and not at all meant to be taken seriously. I was playing a dubious warlock with evil tendencies to take a break from my noble/well-to-do character, and my friend played a tap-dancing bard named Bean Kelly. I forget many details but what I do remember is the quest for the one shot was a very basic quest to find a missing turtle, who belonged to the quest giver. We fought the monster who I believe told us the turtle held a great power within, and after defeating the turtlenapper, I decided that my warlock would want that power and chose to eat the turtle. The session had little prep involved but Bean Kelly didn’t like that I was trying to act against the group and tried to fight my character. I succeeded in my goal and was turned into a turtle monster and began to attack the village. Above the table I was called an asshole and things felt a little tense. We reconciled after I was defeated as the turtle monster (reduced with spells and escaped to a bottom of a lake to live my life as a turtle) and Bean Kelly lived on, but I still can’t shake being called an asshole. Was I wrong for using the one shot to act shellfish for once?

Dear Innocent Justices and the on Bail Bailiff, I come to your with case of the Undying Paladin. In my game, the party Paladin, Septimus (7th born of his family) went down, had two failed death saves and combat was just wrapped up. Due to the turn order he had to survive one more death save before healing could come. He failed. At this time he used his inspiration...another failure. The Wizard Chrono-shifted...failure. He dies. This Wizard was also equipped with an item that allowed him to cast Artificer spells with a successful Arcana check so he attempted to cast Revivify. Another failure. The Wizard uses inspiration. Failure. Then his last Chronal Shift, failure yet again. Then finally on his next turn, since Revivify works on creature that have died in the last minute, the Wizard attempted once more to cast Revivify and finally a roll above 10 took place. However after 7 Rolls my table was in chaos, we were on our feet, moving around, dice had been cast aside and shunned for their sins. Due to the grueling nature of the Revivification and the SEVEN rolls needed to bring him back (including rerolls) I determind that the Gods really struggled to bring him back, and since it took 7 rolls to bring him back, any revivification that takes place in the future will require a DC17 death save from him. The player accepted this curse happily, but part of me wonders if it's fair to bestow the curse when technically his Revivification was all above board? Should he be punished for rolling so abysmally bad?

To the benevolent judges and "AHHH!!!".....Oh Jake! I didn't see you there. I bring you the PC Custody Battle. I was approached by my DM and he asked if I could run the next campaign so he could play. I was nervous cause I've never DM'd before, but with his encouragement I gathered the group and we set off. The game was going well for months until my DM approached me. My DM asked if he could make a new character claiming, "I feel I have taken his story to their end." I was worried cause I still had so much planned for him and even offered to workshop, but he was firm. So I narrated his PC leaving and introduced his new character Everyone loved the new character, so I thought we were all good. Untill one session later, my DM approached me again saying, " Im going to leave the game. I'm bored and uninvested." Once again I offered to workshop, but he was firm so we bid him farewell and we continued forward. But I had a problem. I was left with his character that the party loved. So in the next encounter, I decided to introduce my BBEG and as a way to show off the bad guys power, I would have his character sacrifice himself so the players could escape. When I told my DM this, he was upset. Saying that it was his character and he should get to decide what his ending was. I argued that since he left the game, they were now a NPC and as DM their fate was in my hands. Well suffice to say this soured the group and the campaigned fizzled out. So I ask, who owns a character once a player leaves the table? Should I have let his 2nd PC sail into the sunset? Or was I allowed to give him a heroic death? I throw myself at the mercy of the court.

To the benevolent judges and "AHHH!!!".....Oh Jake! I didn't see you there. I bring you the PC Custody Battle. I was approached by my DM and he asked if I could run the next campaign so he could play. I was nervous cause I've never DM'd before, but with his encouragement I gathered the group and we set off. The game was going well for months until my DM approached me. My DM asked if he could make a new character claiming, "I feel I have taken his story to their end." I was worried cause I still had so much planned for him and even offered to workshop, but he was firm. So I narrated his PC leaving and introduced his new character Everyone loved the new character, so I thought we were all good. Untill one session later, my DM approached me again saying, " Im going to leave the game. I'm bored and uninvested." Once again I offered to workshop, but he was firm so we bid him farewell and we continued forward. But I had a problem. I was left with his character that the party loved. So in the next encounter, I decided to introduce my BBEG and as a way to show off the bad guys power, I would have his character sacrifice himself so the players could escape. When I told my DM this, he was upset. Saying that it was his character and he should get to decide what his ending was. I argued that since he left the game, they were now a NPC and as DM their fate was in my hands. Well suffice to say this soured the group and the campaigned fizzled out. So I ask, who owns a character once a player leaves the table? Should I have let his 2nd PC sail into the sunset? Or was I allowed to give him a heroic death? I throw myself at the mercy of the court.

To the honorable judges Tanner and the Axfords and to jake who is here I bring you the case of the insane robot I ran a Star wars campaign a few years back using SW5e and it was a lot of fun, during character creation one of my friends (who is known for making insane characters) asked to play a droid specifically a magna guard barbarian, I hesitantly said yes. Com session 1 he had 6 reactions, resistance to all damage and 36 AC. was in fact concerned, this was a level 10 campaign but that's crazy. He explained that it is perfectly legal the rule book is just easy to abuse I said you have 22 AC and vulnerability to shock, he said that's fair and we had a blast, judges since the have razed him on it and he has exclaimed still that it's legal, so ask shall keep razing or is it just the systems fault? p.s. he said he's down to send an explanation of his build

To the radiant and wise judges, and Jill’s baby daddy, I bring you the case of the immortal dire weasel. I was in college and my boyfriend was the DM, and about 5 of us in the party. I, a Druid, had an animal companion, a dire weasel named Codi. He was the best. Our wizard in the party however did not like codi. To the point where instead of fighting enemies he would try and kill my weasel. It got so bad, my DM (my boyfriend) had to make an announcement to the group that “Codi the weasel will not die until 2021, warm in his bed surrounded by his grandchildren”. This made the wizard upset and attacked him more since “he can’t die now anyway so whatever”. Judges, should my DM have made such a meta-plot armor ruling, or should the weasel have been burned if that was what dice Christ wanted? PS-in 2021 I received letters from a couple of the party members from college in character wishing my character condolences about the passing of Codi. I cried.

Glorious servants of the church of Dice Christ, I humbly supplicate myself before you. I have been DMing a Wild Beyond the Witchlight campaign for my friends and this weekend my players were fighting a theater of shadows. One of my players had come to our game after a road trip and was incredibly sleepy. Her character, Gilly, a hilariously blunt sword bard halfling, was brought to 0 HP and 0 strength, killing her outright. Servants of Dice Christ, this is where I made my mistake. Because my friend was so tired, she was not fully engaged and I chose in the moment not to kill her. Witchlight has alternative death rules which, in my panic, I forgot about. Did I rob my characters of an impactful moment because my friend was sleepy? I humble myself before your infinite wisdom.

To the Honorable Justices Murphy, Axford, and Tanner and the Venereal Bailiff Jork, I bring to you the case of Artificial Backstories. I am a baby DM who is running my very first campaign starting soon - but this campaign is not the problem. I am a part of a DND server where AI usage is rampant among a few of the people with most of us being pretty outspoken against it. I want to DM for this server. There is of course, a high demand for DMs in this server and many people want to play. The problem is my DM occasionally uses AI for art (but has mostly stopped now that a large amount of people have started trashing AI) and another player uses AI for art *and* backstories. It’s extremely obvious which backstories he creates are AI generated because they’re so goddamn basic compared to the ones he writes himself. My case here is that I want to ban AI usage for character creation if I run a game for them because I don’t want a game I run to contribute to art theft and consumption of water by AI. Is it fair of me to ban AI at my ‘table’ when it’s obviously not banned in the server at large without it seeming like I’m targeting the two or three people who use it? I rest my case in your AI hating hands

All knowing judges, please help save my sanity. I recently started a new campaign with four others: my husband, his best friend who lives in our spare room, my husband's cousin who is am tight with, and a friend we met through the cousin. For clarity sake, husband will be David and housemate will be Tony. So David is playing a dragonborn paladin that is a member of the Silver Flame (from Ebberon) and Tony is playing an air genasi Warlock of the Djinn. The campaign opened with an explosion during a remembrance parade which killed and wounded many. The two girls followed a masked figure while the boys stayed to help the wounded/put out flames. Ones everything was good om the scene, Tony followed the girls. He caught up to them and they went down an alleyway filled with... questionable folk, shall I say (black market sorta stuff). They picked a fight with a Goliath and killed him. That, naturally, was when David's overly righteous paladin (the product of a white dragon mom and kobald dad) caught up to them. Tony took off instantly without speaking. David saw this as suspicious and gave the girls a rope to "tie themselves up and stay put" while he chased down who he thought (and not wrongly) was a murderer. Once David caught Tony, Tony cast Eldritch Blast at David and kept running. The session (session one, may I add) ended with David pinning Tony to a door, Tony rolling a natural 1 on another Eldritch Blast, and the door opening behind them to show a slick stairway down into the waterworks under Stormreach. Well, Tony decided that David was stupid for attacking his character and thats not what he would have done. David said that Tony was the one who ran, which showed guilt. They then proceeded to yell at each other for 5 minutes about it until Tony went to his room and didn't come out again that night. (Keep in mind, all four players are in their 30s... im the child in my 20s...) The next day o got a text from Tony giving me a new player he will be playing since he "couldn't see how his character could get past this." And gave me free reign to lose his other character. All of this also comes after I printed and hand painted his own mini and created a whole arc for his character. I'm mad and dont want to DM. Tony is mad because he doesn't think David's character would have done that. David is sad because he feels bad. Judges, i lay my plea at your feet, how can this be remedied??

Not a case or a confession but just wanted to say thank y'all - found NADDPOD right after my first kid was born; listened all the way through campaign three in walks and naps and now y'all are back in Behumia and our second kid is due is a few months! Super excited for the mayhem of this campaign (and the mayhem of two little ones) - can already say from experience that listening to the show while extremely sleep deprived just makes it better.

To the stinky little Justices and the immaculate Bailiff Jake, I bring you the case of the stolen first character. My wife started playing DnD with her coworkers a few years ago and I joined in after a few months. My love language is annoying my wife so I made my first ever character a fallen aasimar paladin who was a double agent working for the BBEG *hold for applause*. I was planning on having a redemption arch and being a good guy by the end. Flash forward a few sessions where we were fighting a demon bounty hunter where I was stunned the entire fight. While stunned, the DM made me roll saving throws against voices in my head from the BBEG trying to corrupt me, I succeeded, and then he passed me a note saying the BBEG would help me. I told the dm to let it happen, trying to start the redemption arch happen by showing my characters true nature. Not what happened. Multiple Drider came out of the ground and took my character. The session ended and the DM told me to make a new character and that my aasimar was gone forever. I protested and the DM told me that I knew very well what would happen. I did not. Also my paladin was turned into a giant monster that was later killed by the party. I understand playing a double agent PC is kind of a mess around and find out situation but was I wronged by having my first character taken away from me or did I deserve it for being an edge lord double agent? I humbly await for Jake’s ruling PS. This campaign is still going on two years later and I’m on my fourth character. My second was killed by a random dice roll by the bbeg choosing a sacrifice. My third was killed because my DM made my wife cut a party members life thread because her backstory has to do with the three fates.

To the honorable supreme crit justices and that other guy: I submit to the court a cold case. Many years ago, when I was a brand new DM, I ran a campaign for several of my friends (also new to playing). I learned a lot of valuable lessons about what not to do as a DM from this game, but there is one event that still haunts me. The Fireball Incident. Our sweet and earnest monk asked our unnecessarily cagey warlock to share one of his health potions. The warlock denied having any. After going back and forth for a minute, the monk, out of character, said "I can see them on your character sheet!" Eventually they moved on, deciding it was the warlock's decision if he didn't want to share. Later, during combat in the same session, the monk was restrained in the claw of a monster. The party had picked up a wand of wonder, which, when used previously, had only ever created darkness or a cloud of butterflies. The warlock decided to try to help the monk by casting the wand at the monster holding them, and rolled on the table. The result was Fireball. The monk survived by the skin of their teeth. Immediately after the combat, the warlock quietly offered the monk one of his healing potions. The monk's player and I were roommates for years, and this is still the angriest I have ever seen them in real life. Justices, what could I as DM have done to facilitate better? Or am I ultimately powerless to help other adults believe that sharing is caring?

The the honourable judges and the bailiff Hardwon. I bring to you the case of the psychotic vampire player. I was apart of a group of new players, because I have a crazy work schedule I could join every session but didn't want to stop the group. We all agreed they'd continue casual day to day stuff on discord. Well after two weeks I come back to one person is a vampire now and my gf is a prince of a long lost city and is extremely wealthy. We do a short mission I miss a week or so. Next session I attend I find out the vampire has been attacking and killing NPCs, when I get upset saying we need to do something possibly kill them I get turned on like I'm the BBEG, but they killed someone who gave us a quest and more than one shop keeper! Judges am I wrong for suggesting we take action? Is it on me for working to much? Ps. I took old Murph action and found new friends

Deacons of Dice Christ: I have made offence with what I thought was a compliment. I DM a campaign for some friends, and at a recent session I witnessed something I have never seen nor heard of. I watched the dice as they not only turned on a player for an encounter or a session, but against the entire table all at once. For the first half of the night, my players were rolling well, to include two random encounters I was hoping they would get. They absolutely WOMPED two combats, even. They couldn't roll low on anything. But then I uttered what I fear caused the offense; I said, "Dice really do love to tell a story." And the next encounter it all changed. While trying to cross a broken and crumbling bridge with a group of NPC commoners, they just had to beat a DC 8 check not to fall to certain death. In situations like this, I like to have the players roll for NPCs, and they had so much at their disposal: Heroic Inspiration, DM Inspiration, a table reroll rule, Help Actions, Guidance, and 3 of 5 players have some type of teleportation. They all of a sudden could barely roll above a 5. Players with simple modifiers and Guidance were mostly fine, but two had to use their teleportation. However, their rolls for the NPCs are a different story. Despite everything they had going for them, 4 out of 7 NPCs fell to their death: peaking with a player rolling two Nat 1s with Advantage and a 3 on the table reroll. All different dice. One player said, "This isn't fun..." Oh wise Council of Dice Christ Cardinals, please help me atone

Benevolent dice Christ I come before you for forgiveness of the ultimate sin, faking a nat 1 for a DMPC kill. It was the final battle or the final session of a 2 year campaign. The beloved DMPC and father figure to the group was meant to only be support for the rest of the team, but they wanted him to have his moment of glory. The dice did what they do and he found himself in a head to head with a bigish bad with the team unable to help him. I didn't want to slow the evening down by fighting against myself in a drawn out fight and I knew that if he were to go down... It would be awful.... But the story would be legendary. And so, my shame hidden behind the dm screen, he was struck down, with a nat 1 death save and a final dramatic blow ending his life. I ask yee fair... Priests? I think? Forgive this blatant lie, for the outcome was the most kick ass, heart wrenching fight the party has had to date. And in the end, isn't that all we want?

Glorious Supreme judges, and bailiff Blake? I wanna say Blake? It's not important. If I may approach the bench and bring forth the case of The Wicked Web v. The joyous Cleric I'm playing in Mad Mage campaign that I absolutely love! However once I was restrained in web after being ambushed by some giant spiders! I play a cleric, and didn't have the restrained rules right in front of me, so I offhandedly and half jokingly asked "Restrained doesn't prevent somatic components for spells right?" Mostly due to looking at my prepared cleric spells and realizing almost all of them had somatic components. I was already looking it up, when my DM said "I'm not sure" I found the rule and it doesn't say anything about preventing Somatic components, however my DM ruled that I couldn't do somatic components, but I could take an attack, while restrained which left me unable to act for my turn, as my build is not focused on attacking with my mace. Resulting in being poisoned, paralyzed and prepped for devouring by the spiders. My party was able to defeat them and help me out, but I felt a bit irked by being told I could attack and not cast a spell. I mean restrained doesn't say you can't do either, and it feels like a bigger stretch to swing a mace while webbed, than to wiggle my fingers and such. So I ask the court- if I can swing a mace to attempt to get out of the web, can I cast a spell to attempt to escape?

The Case of Vigilante Justice Glorious Justices and The Pinch I seek judgment. In college I began a campaign on my dorm floor with a DM named John. John demanded the campaign be “just like Fantasy High”, but dropped NPC voices sentences after introduction and took away magic items as punishment for jokes. He skipped PCs turns intentionally and killed the only first time player, who was my girlfriend at the time, in the first session. Worst of all John fudged rolls, changed stats and increased DCs after rolls to fit his “vision”. Letting go was hard. I was the main character, a paladin whose oath was to spread free love. I was slangin ropes all over Faerun and it was cash. However the final straw occurred one evening when I was brushing my teeth, John walked into the dorm bathroom stall barefoot. For several minutes John loudly farted, grunted and shitted, he then left without washing his hands. Horrified, I convinced the group to end the campaign and start a new one without John and me as DM. To not make it awkward I spread vicious rumors to faculty that forced them to remove John from the dorms. Watching John friendlessly loading up a U-Haul was very satisfying. I humbly ask you justices and the crab claw bailiff: was I right to take justice into my own hands? P.S. My players have been happily playing ever since the joi we share is the real magic if you ask me.

May it please the court, its divine judges, and the bedeviled balif. I come before the crit for a ruling on whether PVP is allowed if it saves another PC’s life. One of my players invited me to join in a game he was starting and I,as a forever dm, jumped at the chance. We ran the game more mission based rather than a single large overarching story, which allowed us to run basically a bunch of short stories in different locations. The big bad for this mission was an evil wizard who sent a group of guards to hold us off while she went to find an artifact. While she was leaving the evil wizard cast a spell on our Assassin rogue which put a flaming crown of razor wire over his head. I (a divination wizard who ran an illegal casino) knew this was probably crown of madness, but didn’t want to metagame and let the others know without checking first. Through pure luck I was first in the initiative, and asked the dm if I could roll arcana. He allowed it, I rolled high, and was told that this was not only a crown of maddness but one that would cause any attack made while under its effects to add an extra 4D6 to the attack, but instead of being on one person continuously it bounced around to anyone in the fight, including enemies. Our Assassin was now a ticking time bomb and he was standing right next to our cleric. As I was only level 4 I didn’t have dispel magic, and so I decided to cast hold person on the assassin. I used one of my portent rolls to force him to fail, and watched his face fall. While not a brand new player he had only started playing with this group and we were only about 8-10 sessions in at the time. He enjoyed doing big damage so I could tell he wanted to use the empowered strikes. But I didn’t want to take the risk of him potentially killing the cleric. On his turn he dejectedly said “I guess I do nothing” and I released the hold person on my next turn when the crown had disappeared. After that fight I had the idea of stocking crown of madness to try and get in the way of the enemies spell next time it happened, but it never came up again and I fear I may have dampened the mood for the rogue, and possibly the dm as I may have scared him off of using the spell again. I appoligized above the table and the rogue said he was ok with it, but I still feel bad. Was I in the right for taking away this players turn in the attempt to save another’s life?

to the esteemed croissant slinging judges and the stale scone John, I present to you the case of ‘min-maxing to death’. The scene: a college dorm room. The time: my first time playing DnD. The crime: being weird. My best friend & I had decided we wanted to start playing DnD after she had discovered Naddpod when it launched and got hooked (and got me hooked). I was excited to try DMing. We brought in our friends, all of which had played DnD before. We were about 15 sessions in when my friend texted me saying they weren’t happy with the way they built their character, and wanted me to kill them off so they could introduce a ‘better built’ character. Confused and unsure, I granted their request and in session killed their character off. But it was weird. Every other player separately told me that they felt it felt forced & out of no where. The friend never sent me a new character. And we never played that campaign again. We all did play together, this time with that friend as the DM. Should I have stood strong against min-maxing? Or should they have accepting character development?

To the mighty and fair justices, whose wisdom knows no bounds, and I guess Drake, I present to you the case of the Was-wolf. My group just started a new chapter of an ongoing campaign, in which my werewolf path of the beast barbarian has become the ruler of a nation and was tasked with housing peace talks to end World War I (yes, actual WWI, which our fighter had an accidental hand in starting). This culminated in a solo battle (the DM had forced a party split to isolate my character) where my character had to fight the villains of this campaign, including her usurper mother. It was going alright, until an NPC cast Command and I had to make a wisdom save (every barbarian's worst nightmare). I was relieved when I got an 18 - only to be told that that wasn't enough to save, which felt kind of ridiculous, but I relented. After this, the DM immediately used a magical book to rip my character's werewolf abilities from her, with no save. I was shocked. When I asked my DM what I would do, since my bestial abilities make up my subclass and weapons, he told me I could do regular barbarian stuff without subclass abilities - effectively nerfing my level 10 character without giving me a chance to save. When I asked him why he didn't plan this out with me, he said he wanted it to be a surprise and was giddy leading up to it. My character was rescued from the encounter, but she is now a shell of what she once was. Judges, am I right to be peeved about getting nerfed without a save in a glorified cut scene? Or is my DM fastening buttons I didn't even consider? I await your judgment with a pitiful "awoo" (PS next session, he actually admitted that I had passed the save, and said he had accidentally miscalculated the save DC to be higher than it was)

Hark, missionaries of Dice Christ! I have a tale of woe and envy for thee about the powerful sorcerer Barakus Obama. I was a Freshman in college, my eternal soul free of sin. Alas, in the corners of my heart, a growing temptation to goof festered within me, leading me towards the abyss and the dice devil himself. When my fellow scholar invited me to join his campaign, I thought it a sound opportunity to try my hand at the game. I was unaware of the heretical den of barbarity and savagery I was about to be step into. I wish I could tell thee I rebuked the debauchery that my fellows partook in, but I fell victim to temptation and indulged in the sacrilege. I rolled for my dick size, 1d10 -1 inches, and rolled the dreaded 1, making my manhood nonexistent. I should have took this as a sign from Dice Christ themself, but I had already drunk too deeply to turn back now. I made Barakus a wild magic sorcerer with the hermit background, an exile from his village after his hideous form was revealed. In his solitude, he grew envious of what others had that he did not, and studied ancient and forbidden tomes of lost spells and arcana. My DM granted Barakus a spell capable of castrating an enemy within range, a complete fabrication and desecration of the sacred texts of Dice Christ. In the two sessions I played him, I cast the spell once, rolling a one, to which the DM reported that Barakus had died since the spell recoiled off of the enemy duergar I used it against back towards me. Is the death of this dreaded character enough punishment to redeem me, or do I have a worse fate in store for me when I get to the pearly gates of Dice Christ's domain?

Intros quick cuz it's 2026 To the voices of the court, Saints of Dice Christ, and her Bitch Boy (positive) Jake (negative), I present to you: The Icarian Dilemma I'm not sure if this is for the court or the church but- Im worried that my character may be too mid max'd but I also don't want to change her. I'm currently tri-classing in Arcane Trickster Rogue, Hexblade Warlock, and Oath of Redemption Paladin (War-Rogue-adin, if you will). This was ok'd and actually suggested by my dm, but I'm feeling kind of bad. You see, I have an artifact that makes it so I crit on 19 & 20. So, when I cast Hexblade Curse I can then crit on 18, 19,& 20. Add that with divine smite and sneak attack, I can do an insane amount of damage in a fight- I did 93 damage in one turn the last time we played This would all be fine and dandy and, while no one in the party has said anything to allude to this, I fear they may get annoyed. Should I ask the group if it's still okay?? Should I wait until someone brings it up??? Please issue your guidance for my hubris, as I fear that I may be poor Icarus with his wax wings and my pc's power is the sun that I'm so drawn to. Dutifully yours, Annie

To the most honorable justices, and my burpless brethren the baby bailiff. . . Blake? May it please the court and give you all the most supreme crit. ;) I'd like to submit the case of the quiet Kenku. My table was running a home brew campaign and we were getting close to finding and fighting our BBEG. Our party included a kenku, Crowbar, who played by the mimic rules that he could only repeat words and sounds he had heard before. The BBEG was hidden away on another plane and to get to him, we had to enter a cave full of grueling puzzles and traps to reach a portal. We barely made it through alive. At the end of the cave, our DM announced that we would be silent and communicate only in written form or telepathically, (though no one one in our crew had the message cantrip). We were presented with a written riddle (think "speak friend and enter" style puzzle). Part of the riddle was solving for the answer, the other part was determining who could say the answer. If we answered wrong, or the wrong person spoke we were told the reaction would be TPK bad, and we were very weak already from the cave. We sat around the table passing notes, and determined the answer to the riddle was "Onomotopoeia" and the person to give the answer was a choice between either the youngest member of our party, or the physically smallest member of our party. The problem? Crowbar was both. Crowbar vehemently insisted there was no way he would have heard the word onomotopoeia before and therefore could not speak it. Our DM knew going into this that Crowbar was both the smallest and youngest and seemed to be gleeful about our predicament. After several pleas to both the DM and Crowbar to try to find a loophole we conceded we could not solve the puzzle currently. I suggested we take a long rest, exit the cave, teach Crowbar onomotopoeia, rest again, and come back, as it seemed the only solution. In the process, we ran out of potions on the way out, and on the way back our cleric, the party's only healer, went down, and she failed her death saves. My hexblade warlock attempted to call upon my patron for help without success. In the end only 3 party members of our 6 member crew, including myself and Crowbar made it to the end concious. Crowbar triumphantly said Onomotopoeia and the gate opened. Our session ended feeling empty and hollow. In real life there was a fight after the session. The players expressed we were upset at Crowbar for being so stubborn and at the DM for intentionally putting us in this situation. Crowbar argued that's how his character has always been and we shouldn't expect him to change because of a bad in game situation. The DM argued that we could have been teaching Crowbar words throughout the campaign before this so we wouldn't be here. I said it was an intentionally obscure word and we had no reason to teach it. Our DM laughed at me for being so upset, so I got up and left with the cleric, saying we were going to start a new campaign. Later, Crowbar texted me and said I had overreacted to a simple difficult scenario, and that if that's how I reacted when things didn't go my way, then no one would ever want me in their dnd party. I feel justified in being mad, but wonder if I didn't react too strongly. So I come to the mercy of the court asking, was I wrong to take the Murph response of "find new friends" or was my DM being unreasonable? I humbly await your judgement and accept whatever punishment I may receive.

To the Golden Gods of the highest council, thy kingdom come, thy crits be done, and Murph. I bring THE CASE OF THE PRIMATE V SPIDER At age 13, I asked to be in my brother in law's Mutants and Masterminds game with two other (adult) players. My character, Snap, was a monkey who gained his magic abilities and sentience after being captured and experimented on. Me and the other players got along and it was shaping up to be a fun campaign. At the end of one of our sessions, the DM (Brother in law) announced excitedly that there would be a guest who would play a villain next session which excited the rest of the table as well. However, me being 13 and a little shit, I was grounded that week and couldn't go to the session. The next session I was filled in by the DM what happened. Apparently, the guest played an evil spider queen who womped the party and demanded they bring her 100 peasants to turn into her spider army. Judges, they agreed to do so. My character, who was present while I the player was not, was made to agree with them. You can see how this would be of big conflict to who my character was and, being new to roleplay, I simply played him dispondant and angry for the rest of the session, going against what the party was trying to do that session. The campaign shortly fizzled out due to other factors outside of anyone's control. Should I have been more malleable with my monkey's morals or was I right to lash out at my party for their decision? (PS. The guest who played the spider queen was my 23 year old sibling. The one who was married to my brother in-law)

Dearest Clergy of Dice Christ. I write to you with a confession, i am playing in a long running game with my best friends and my husband. My husband is playing a warlock named Hal lelujah praise-alot (Hal for short) and I a Paladin named Blair. We were playing one night and our party was about to be TPK'd. Now, before this, we were in a hallway and I casted a fire bolt at him because he was being a dick. We where fighting a smoke dragon ans two of the players were already down and my husband was at 10 hp. Me being very beefy was doing okay but we all needed to escape through a black hole. All of a sudden my husband goes down getting hit with the EXACT amount of hp I hit him for previously. He would have stayed up if i didnt hit him before. Now for some context, our characters playfully hate each other, like full on despise each other. At this point I'm panicking, not knowing what to do. Im 30 feet away from him and can't get to him in time without taking an opportunity attack. In a fit of joy, I realized I have the spell aid, which can be casted from 30 feet away. I proceed to cast the spell he proceeds to get up and make it through the black hole. Here's where it gets bad, and I will take any punishment or penalty you thrust upon me... i didn't realize I didn't have an open spell slot I was completely out of spells. When I realized it, it was about five minutes later and I said nothing. From this point our characters only hate each other more and mending that has been difficult, i prostrate myself in the name of the church. Thank you for your wisdom

To the honorable justices and to the bailiff that just lost the game, if it pleases the court I present the case of the Wild Magic Sorcerer vs. the DM. I was playing a Wild Magic Sorcerer another player was playing a Druid. The Druid cast Geas on a corrupted hag we were fighting, their DC was 16, the DM said that the hag rolled a 16. I said that I would use Bend Luck so it would fail, the DM then asked me to roll, I said that it didn't matter what I rolled because even a 1 would put it under the DC. The DM then said that it rolled a 16 on the die, it had additional modifiers on top of that. Confused I asked what the total roll was, the DM remained silent even after I asked again and explained how Bend Luck works. I went ahead and rolled but it wasn't enough and the spell failed. The creature then paralyzed me and 2 of my party members for several rounds. I posit that I should get to know the total roll beforehand, as if it was high enough I wouldn't have used Bend Luck to begin with. We won anyway but l am still a little miffed. So honored justices was I wronged or did my DM rightfully get one over on me?

To the enigmatic judges and the, oh its you, I really would've preferred emily as bailiff but sure yeah hi. I bring you the case of the would-be dragon's apprentice. I was playing a wizard in a dragon heist campaign being run by a friend of a friend. Nearing the end of a grueling heistless campaign of constantly being broke and getting our low level asses kicked in a city filled to the brim with powerful and legendary npcs, we did end up getting to the treasure hidden in the city (by losing every fight and begging an Npc to get the mcguffin for us). My wizard asked to apprentice the golden dragon looking after the treasure and he agreed. I was pretty hyped between sessions. After so much losing, i felt like my wizard finally won one. The DM told me the apprenticeship would lead to special spells, and i made a list of magic items i wanted to gift the party with my cut of the prize money. Sitting down for the next session, i was told the dragon would spend the current stretch of downtime basically testing me and making me study. While this made sense, having to sit in the room not participating for 6 (six) real life hours while the rest of the party made decisions about running a bar my character wasnt around to be apart of, didnt feel quite as fitting. My character was also too busy studying to spend any of the prize money everyone received. To top it all off, at the end of the session, the planet was attacked and the bar i spent 6 hours watching my friends upgrade blew up before we were pulled into our next adventure off planet. That was the final straw and i politely left the campaign. We're all still friends and the campaign is ongoing but tell me judges, was i justified in leaving after being sidelined for so long or should i have played the long game for a possible epic space dragon wizard?

DnD Court To the generous, glorious, galant, justices and that guy John, I present the case of the chaotic neutral god and the wannabe warlock. I am starting a new homebrew summer camp based campaign. The basic premise is that players are first year camp counselors at a camp located on a separate plane (i.e. the party plane but camp). In this camp plane, there is a uniquely involved trio of deities which players can devote themselves to as clerics (arts and crafts counselors) or paladins (the teen leadership/CIT counselors). They can also become warlocks (nocturnal camp counselors) by making pacts with these gods where they exchange years of service to camp for magical boons. Here is the issue, I had assigned each god an existing pact sub class allowing warlock players to pick Fiend for the chaotic neutral god (literally a giant fiery meteor in the sky), Fey for the chaotic good god (essentially tree-beard on shrooms), and Celestial for the lawful good god (a giant ball of vines magically knitting camp together). My wannabe warlock, who is brand new to DnD, took issue with the chaotic neutral god having “evil” energy. They really wanted a pact with the meteor but really wanted to go pact of the great old one. I tried to compromise saying I would allow a switch for the vine god to become pact of the great old one but that I found the fiery spells associated with fiend to be aesthetically fitting for a giant ball of fire. This conversation got somewhat heated as they kept asking over and over trying to convince me using the structure of the fiend pact made the meteor automatically evil. Ultimately I did not budge and eventually the disappointed player agreed to a fiend based pact. So, judges, was I wrong for not allowing my player to influence my homebrew? Should I have just switched the meteor’s pact to fit my players character idea? Was I wrong for letting the aesthetics of my world dictate subclass availability? I humbly await your just ruling as does my boyfriend aka the wannabe warlock, we will be waiting for your answer at the radio critty show or on DnD court, whichever is more convenient.

To my favorite justices, bailiff, and also Caldwell, whose spirit infected my friends and inspired the following fuckery: During my campaign, one of my PCs, Carl, decided that he NEEDED a snow globe with the four seasons inside. He bought a regular snow globe, broke it open, used trash from a dumpster to create the decorations, and cast the mending spell to tie it all together. I told him to roll sleight of hand with disadvantage as Carl had no crafting experience, nor tools! He insisted that he should actually get ADVANTAGE because was using mending and took an art class in bard college. I told him that mending would have been fine if he was just trying to fix a snow globe. But he had instead filled a broken snow globe with trash, so this check was about how well could execute on his “Seelie Snowball.” Justices, should have given him advantage?? Was I too harsh on my best friend’s bespoke snow globe making dreams?

Dear benevolent justices and… Drake? I bring to you the case of the Bag of Tricks - Carnival Edition! I DM for a group of 5 and there is one player who has been begging for a Bag of Tricks since before we even started the campaign. Since we started at level 1 I told him he would have to be patient, but every session (and often times almost anytime we hung out aside from DnD) he would ask when he was getting his Bag of Tricks. So, justices, I decided to throw him a bone while the party was visiting a Feywild Carnival. Through a multitude of games, the player in question finally won the Bag of Tricks. He was elated, arms up in the air in victory for a split second. Then I said, “Carnival Edition”. This player, and two others said “What the fuck”. I explained the bag can pull out carnival themed animals such as rabbits, doves, and even mini jesters. To which, I was given “You’re an asshole”. (In an only sorta joking way). Justices! I ask, am I really an asshole for getting my players hopes up only to dash them a second later? Or should some players relax and be patient for powerful magic items? Note: they were at level 5 at the time. I will accept whatever judgement you deem necessary, oh mighty ones.

Dearest Judges whom I love dearly, *polite nod of acknowledgement with undertones of resentment* Jack Our group has a problem player and need help dealing with him. Almost 2 years ago my partner and I started a new dnd game, its a pirate campaign and we are currently level 8. We invited some friends we'd played dnd before and one who we haven't played with but knew was into ttrpgs, Trevor (Character name), who my partner knew from university and had SAID he boasted an extensive ttrpg knowledge. We later found out that this is the first ever game he's been in, which wouldn't have been a problem if he hadn't been playing an edgy undead human warlock with dead parents and former crew, who just will not interact with the party. He gets upset when he's not involved and inserts himself into every scene but refuses to engage with ANY plot hook set up for him. My partner, the DM, made a whole dungeon based around his warlock patron and he missed half the sessions due to a prior commitment he planned months ago and didn't let us know until the day of. He then later complained that there wasn't anything to do with his character in the campaign. During the last session his character Left the party to find a new patron with another crew. After the session he said "I've decided to retire my character as I realised my improv style doesn't work with you all". Am I allowed to kill him? This is not his first offence with TOMES of other crazy bullshit he's done. Should we kick him out the group, me and my partner spent an hour after the last session bitching about him.

Dear Mighty Morphin Justices and the left hallux of the Zord, Balif Jake. This is a case about the legal precedent of spell descriptions. My party got into a fight on a moving train. The person they were fighting stole a magical book off of one of the party members and was attempting to flee with the book. The thief cast fly on themselves, moved 10 feet to the train door then jumped out the door and flew 50 feet away. At the top of the round, the train moved 20 feet in the opposite direction, making the thief 70 feet away from the party. On the next turn, one of my players cast Command, and chose the Approach option to try and stop the thief from getting away. The description of this spell is as follows: Approach: The target moves toward you by the shortest and most direct route, ending its turn if it moves within 5 feet of you. Reading through all of the options for command, I noticed that most of them (Drop, grovel and halt) all specify that the target either uses an action, or ends their turn after the command, except for Approach, which only ends their turn if they get within 5 feet of the caster. The thief used their 60 feet of flying to approach and ended 10 feet away from the caster, then used their action to toss the stolen book to another thief who had been hidden on the roof of the train the whole time (high stealth checks, all above board) My party protested, saying that he shouldn’t be able to use his action to throw the book My party argued that the fact that the other options all consume the creatures actions shows that the same should happen with Approach. I argued the opposite, since other options explicitly say they use an action and Approach does not. Am I wrong for sticking to the RAW spell description? Should I have rule of cool’d this idea or should my players have just picked a different command?

To the Hallux Jake and the Judges, I was DMing LMoP and the party was almost to the BBEG. The cleric asked for a Talisman of Pure Good, that would basically insta-kill any evil aligned character if it failed a save. I said I was fine with them having it as long as it wasn’t used on the BBEG. They agreed. The party busts into the BBEG’s room and the cleric uses the amulet and insta-kills the BBEG. I could tell the rest of the party was upset, so behind the screen I changed the character that died to a doppleganger that was supposed to be part of the fight. Once the party says the BBEG again, the cleric was pissed and the party was ecstatic. Should I have allowed the cleric to have their kill or did I save the fight?

To the high honourable judges and itsy bitsy teenie weenie bailiff, I bring before you the case of the Sneaky Evil Wizard vs the Hand Crossbow Lunatic. Years ago I was DMing a one-shot for some friends. Myself and two players were very new to D&D while one player was rather experienced. The players reached the evil wizard's tower and confronted him. As my evil wizard is giving his little speech, I called for a perception or insight check from everyone. Everyone failed. The check was to see that the evil wizard was preparing to cast a spell (nothing too punishing, no surprise fireballs) and take the party by surprise mid-monologue. As I announce this and begin to roll, the experienced player begins to argue with me that I can't simply just attack them out of initiative like this while they're speaking to a bad guy. I argued that because we weren't in initiative, the wizard is free to cast spells as he wishes and that I gave them all an opportunity to mitigate this advantage but the dice had spoken. Judges, I ask you, was it buttoned up to have my evil wizard take the party by surprise mid-monologue? Ultimately, I conceded and walked back the surprise attack for the sake of the table but I still think I was in the right to this day. PS, I have since learned the value of initiative first, monologue second. Thank you Murph.

I kneel before the Almighty Justices and uh... (I look at some smudged writing on my hand) ... Joey. I present the case of a Noncommital DM. May it please the court. I was very lucky in finding my first ever DND Group online. We share many of the same interests, sense of humor, and ways we want to play the game. However, our DM seems to have some commitment issues with regards to the campaign he wants to run. He has started or attempted to start 10 campaigns: 2 fantasy, 1 eldritch horror, 1 sci-fi, 1 monster of the week game, 1 Jojo's Bizarre Adventure game (using a fan-made system), and 1 Persona game (also a fan made system). The more recent campaigns he's tried to start seem to circle around a more solid setting (in which he's attempted to start 3 campaigns in 3 different systems, but he's very focused on perfecting everything), using a lot of elements from previous campaigns. While he checks in with us before starting new campaigns, I don't want to discourage him so I agree. But I miss my characters. I miss these stories. I miss Scrabster, West Dakota. Do we stage some kind of intervention? Are we wrong to agree whenever the DM suggests starting a new game? Do we wait and see how these more recent campaigns play out? Are these just the growing pains of a new-ish DM (who we've been with for about 8 years)? I await your ruling.

To the honorable Justices and Bailiff Jack, I present the case of the rope trick robbery. I was playing in a one-shot (the one with the rat gods) that ended with a PVP competition to win entrance to Heaven+, a premium afterlife. We had to find an unbreakable barrel on an island full of barrels and grab the Heaven+ gift card out of it in order to win. After the barrel was found, I grabbed it and climbed up a rope trick and pulled the rope up. It took 2 actions to open the barrel and then grab the gift card, so on the first turn I opened up the barrel and waited for the next round. One of the other players directed a kraken, which had followed us onto the island and had been attacking all of us, toward the area of the invisible portal in the sky in a last ditch effort to stop me. My brother, who was DMing, had the kraken use all of its movement to get directly under the portal, then said that it made a grapple attack with its tentacle through the portal, rolling to see whether it attacked me, another player that I had charmed, the open barrel, or just the air. I argued that it shouldn’t be able attack inside the portal because it wasn’t inside the portal and attacks can’t pass through rope tricks portal. He ruled that it could attack because he thought you would be able to punch someone through the portal even if you couldn’t shoot them. He rolled a 1 on a d100, which resulted in the barrel being grabbed and yanked out of the portal. I attempted to save my plan by saying that the gift card might fly out of the barrel when it was yanked. My brother agreed, but gave it better odds to come out outside of the portal than inside. The card ended up falling out outside of the portal, letting the next player in initiative walk up and easily grab the card to win. Did my brother make the correct ruling by allowing the kraken’s attack, or was I robbed of my well-planned victory?

May it please the court and the croissanting bailiff Jake I present “The case of the campaign ending roll” I was a forever DM until a friend offered to run a campaign so I could finally play. I made a bard, Beauty Montgomery, a cryptid-hunting YouTuber who was secretly two kids in a trench coat as my first pc ever. The campaign was frustrating because the DM often tried to TPK us and never made the goal clear. In our last session, we were in a labyrinth that changed mechanically without warning. Even though my bard had high passive Perception and we said we were mapping the maze and using the message cantrip, the DM said we were suddenly lost. I asked why my character wouldn’t have noticed the maze shifting without a roll. The DM got angry, rage-quit the call, and later said they had handled things as well as they could because they wanted to surprise us. The campaign was canceled, and I haven’t been able to play that character since. Was I wrong for asking for a roll that ended the campaign?

To the Justices of the Crit, I would say may it please the court but I hope it pisses you off actually because I’m Murph levels of aggro right now. Been running a table for 5 years with IRL friends, one of whom has given me a break every year by running a mini campaign that is rife with DM shenanigans but ultimately still fun. We had our first session of the newest iteration this week, and oh boy. My aberrant mind sorcerer rolled what I was told was a successful insight check on an NPC that seemed suspicious. I additionally used detect thoughts to probe deeper and after the NPC failed the save I was told that he wasn’t suspicious and there was nothing important on his mind to worry about. Additionally, I was traveling with an NPC holding an important magic item in a briefcase handcuffed to his wrist. I asked both in character and above the table if the NPC and item would be safe in my absence (attending a garden party) or if I should take more precautions and was again explicitly told not to worry about it. Lo and behold, at the party the “not suspicious” person betrayed his queen (our werewolf barbarian) using the important magical item to suck her subclass out with no save. Afterwards all of the players felt like we had spent a few hours in a cutscene, railroaded “for the plot.” Are we right to feel betrayed and lied to? I know we are but need you to validate me and punish our scripting DM. There is enough time before our next session for a judgement to be carried out. PS The barbarian has submitted her own case as well, we both hate the show.

To the most exalted justices and the most eviscerated bailiff, I appear in court today to advocate pro bono on behalf of another in need of justice. My friend's boyfriend's sister's boyfriend was recruited to play in a DnD group by a guy who was teaching him how to lift at the gym (charging $1200 for three sessions, should the court find this relevant). The guy DMed for the group, and the Boyfriend had never played before. In their first session, the DM looked visibly upset after Boyfriend introduced his paladin character and ended up killing him mid session, saying afterward that they hated the character and instructing him to make his next character a fighter. Boyfriend kept playing with them, but recently the DM asked if they could play on Wednesday instead of Saturday. Boyfriend said that would work for him better anyway, and after being questioned by the DM said it was because he had a conflict that Saturday. The DM decided that it was unacceptable that he would have wanted to prioritize real life, cursed his cat, kicked him out of the group, and blocked him. Boyfriend has not played DnD since. May the court also note that prioritizing DnD has not previously been an issue in this group, as during a previous session they didn't play until hours after the start time because some of them were playing Magic the Gathering instead. Your Honors, I implore you to deliver justice for this innocent new player, lest he lose his spark for the game just as quickly as he discovered it.

To Emily Axford, and everyone else I guess. I bring you the case of the art critic. I am an artist, and for a one shot with friends (mostly new players) my dm requested I drew everyone’s characters to get them excited beforehand. I happily obliged and soon sent the character art to our group chat, which was very positively received. but almost immediately after i got a long message from my DM, about how my art was not accurate to how the characters would ‘actually look’ (things along the lines of elf ear length and tiefling colours) and had asked me to redraw them, i was confused, and ultimately refused because their criticisms seemed absurd. they seemed to accept the refusal but i later found out they asked our other friend to redraw them because mine were ‘not good enough’ judges, should i have just redrawn them?

To the honorable Justices and Snailiff Jake, I present the case of the barrel rider. I was playing in a one-shot (the one with the rat gods) that ended with a PVP competition to win entrance to Heaven+, a premium afterlife. We had to find an unbreakable barrel on an island full of barrels and grab the Heaven+ gift card out of it in order to win. After the barrel was found, I grabbed it and began climbing a rope trick with it under one arm. When I was one turn away from reaching the portal at the top, one of the other players attempted to misty step up to me. More specifically, he wanted to misty step onto the barrel, hoping that the extra weight would cause me to drop it. My brother, who was DMing, initially ruled that I would need to make a strength save to hold onto the barrel, and then the other player would make an acrobatics check to stay on the barrel if I held on successfully. After some further deliberation, he decided to reverse the order of the rolls, citing that the misty stepping player might just immediately fall off and make it easier for me to hold the barrel. He failed his check and fell off, which resulted in me having to hit a lower DC on my save due to only having to withstand the initial impact rather than having to hold a whole person’s weight continuously. I succeeded my save and was able to make it into the portal and pull up the rope on my next turn. The other player initially argued that he shouldn’t have needed to make a check to stay on the barrel because he teleported directly onto the barrel and that I was unable to move out of turn. My brother cited that he might fall due to the rope moving drastically at the fulcrum point of my grip, causing me and the barrel to tip because of the extra weight. The player then argued that my save shouldn’t have been easier even though he fell off, but was overruled due to the original justification for the lower DC. For the record, I rolled higher than the higher DC anyway, so the lower DC didn’t even matter. I’m glad things worked out for me, but did my brother make the correct rulings, or was the other player robbed of his cool moment?

Dear for the most part honorable judges, and the somewhat honorable baliff, I present would like to present you with the “The Case of the Unused Subclass” I was running my second campaign ever, the “Dragon Heist” module, with my first campaign being the “Out of the Abyss” module that deals with Demons, and the Underdark. My player came up to me, and said that he wanted to play a Drow Druid that was somewhat corrupted by demonic powers during the events of the first campaign. I thought that sounded great, and was even game when he asked if I could make a homebrew subclass that would help him be a melee combat as opposed to ranged spell casting. I was excited, and got to work, I will include the subclass at the bottom of this message. We worked together, and both were happy with what we came up with. Judges, I kid you not, through the entire 30 sessions we played, this player did not use a single subclass feature. Not one. Not even the extra attack feature I gifted him at level 6. The game itself was actually fine, and it ended very successfully, but sometimes I think about the fact that I spent significant time making a subclass to fit my players wishes, and he ended up doing nothing with it. I will admit, I never followed up with my player to make sure things were ok, but he also never came to me to ask for changes. So Judges, did I give a bad subclass, or did I just have an ingrate for a player? ———————— Circle of Viciousness- Tathnar Druid Subclass 2nd level feature; Vicious Curse - When you choose this subclass at 2nd level you gain proficiency with martial weapons In addition, your strikes have the power to further weaken your opponents. When you hit with a melee weapon attack, you can expend a use of your wildshape to cause one of the following effects: 1)The target makes a Charisma saving throw. On a failure, The target has disadvantage on all saving throws. At the end of each of its turns, the creature rolls a Charisma saving throw. On a success this effect ends 2)The target makes a Constitution saving throw. On a failure, the target gains vulnerablility to a damage type of your choice. If the creature is resistant to the chosen damage type, it loses that resistance. This trait does not function if the target is immune to the chosen damage type. This effect ends when the target takes any amount of the chosen damage type. 3)The target makes a Constitution Saving throw.On a failure, at the start of each of its turns, the target takes 1d6 necrotic damage, as your curse ravages its body. This lasts for 1 minute, or untill the creature recives magical healing. While this curse is active, you gain an amount of hit points equal to necrotic damage dealt by this curse. 6th level feature; Extra attack. You can attack twice instead of once when you take the attack action. 10th level feature; Bulwark against Brutality. You gain resistance to Fire, Cold, and Lightning damages. 14th level feature; Living Weapon. As an action, you can expend both of your Wildshapes to become a Living Weapon for 1 minute. While in this state, you gain a +5 to attack and damage rolls using a melee weapon, and you can cast cantrips as a bonus action. Additionally, you score a critical hit with a melee weapon on a roll of 18-20. Additionally, when you score a critical hit with a melee weapon, you regain one use of your Wildshape.

Noble Justices and Jeek, I humbly present you with the case of the bard who was too in character. A few years ago in college I made a new friend who wanted to start DMing a campaign for her friends and she invited me to join. Several of the players were new to DND but the DM and I were not. There was one new player in particular, let’s call him Kyle, that everyone else at the table knew, but I had never met. Kyle was a music major and wanted to play a bard. He wanted to be charismatic, powerful, and have a dark past. Unfortunately, when we started playing, he only seemed to be interested in participating when he could romance female npcs, and frequently forgot major details of his backstory. He was somewhat attentive during role play but completely checked out during combat. I sat next to him to offer help with spells and navigating DND beyond when he needed it, so I could see that he spent most of the sessions designing his buff bard (with 10 strength) on hero forge. During one combat session, Kyle actually left the table and sat on the couch playing the guitar when it wasn’t his turn. As you can imagine this was disruptive, and I felt bad for our DM who did a lot of prep for each session. When we asked him to come back to the table, he brought the guitar with him and continued playing. Again, this was distracting. He did after a few months learn better table etiquette, and we had a lot of fun sessions, but to this day he proclaims that I “used to hate him” because he was new to DND. Judges, I ask you, was it wrong of me to be frustrated with Kyle’s behavior, or should I give more grace to a new player?

To the most honorable members of dice Christ’s clergy and that little guy ringing the bell in the tower… I come before you to confess an unknown sin. I was DMing a curse of Strahd session. Before the session began I was rolling dice with my players, and lo and behold I rolled 3 natural ones in a row, between two different dice. Immediately after, as I was packing one offending set away (one of my favorite crystal sets), the d20 fell off of the table and shattered on the kitchen tile. I am unsure of what crimes I’ve committed against Dice Christ…. But nonetheless must accept a clear message he gives me. I come seeking forgiveness for whatever I’ve done, revoke the dice devil, and hope to atone and get back in his good graces. Amen P.S. it was also my birthday (hate the show)

To the wise, honorable, and all around pretty rad Justices, and the bailiff whose name I shan’t say lest he be summoned like Beetlejuice, I bring to you the case of Barovian Betrayal. I was invited to play a modified Curse of Strahd campaign with two of my friends, and two people they knew but I did not, DMed by one of the people I didn’t know, with the other stranger playing a Rogue named CC. At dinner with Strahd, it was revealed that Strahd was directly responsible for my sorcerer’s family’s wild magic curse, as well as the death of our Druid’s tribe (and cause of their lycanthropy) and kidnapping the bard’s husband, as well as many other awful things involving Ireena and the townsfolk not normally in the module. Later in the campaign, when we were around level 5, Strahd invites us to join him and claims that he’s not all that bad, he has his reasons. Me, the bard and Druid all say hell no, except CC agrees and says that she feels betrayed by us when we still refuse. Strahd gears up to attack. Not wanting to fight the bbeg and our friend, the three of us run, leaving CC behind, and the session ends for the night. I was a bit miffed by this but thought it could be an interesting direction for a campaign to have a party Betrayal, and figured CC’s player would maybe roll a new character or there’d be a redemption arc or something. No. In the discord after session, CC’s player again says (out of character) that she feels betrayed and and the DM agrees with her, seeming upset and saying we don’t have a good reason to go against Strahd and CC! I try to say he’s a bad person that did awful things and instead of responding, the DM deletes the discord. I haven’t spoken to either of them since. Justices, did I wrongfully betray a party member or ruin my DM’s plans for no reason? This wasn’t advertised as a villains campaign to me and the guy cursed my family and tortures townsfolk! That feels like it should be reason enough! I accept whatever fate you deem fair and just.

Oh beloved Cardinals of the Crit, I lay before you, perhaps not a sin most foul, but a sin nonetheless Allow me to paint you a picture. My players were in an underground dungeon filled with demons, and fairly low on resources. While in this state, they came upon 2 demons eating the body of a third. The group decided to sneak past the demons to avoid a fight. I had them all roll stealth checks one by one, and lo and behold, they all succeeded. However, as the characters were celebrating their victory, the Dark Elf rogue then said, “I turn back and go to fight the demons” All of the other characters were incensed, and tried to stop him. It soon became clear though, that for some inexplicable reason, this Dark Elf Rogue would not be deterred. It was then that the Tabaxi Wizard cast “Sleep” on the Dark Elf. My Cardinals of the Crit, it is importantly to know here, that Elves are immune to magical sleep. Here lies my sin. I forgot this fact The Wizard rolled high enough to put the Rogue to sleep. Instead of carrying his unconscious body, the group decided to leave the body there, and sneak away. Because Sleep lasts for 1 minute, and because the demons were so close to the body, I had the demons roll perception checks every round to see if they noticed the rogues body. Which they did. The demons then jumped at the body, and proceeded to kill this rogue. I did not realize my mistake until 1 session later, and still feel bad about it. So, Cardinals? Am I still worthy of Dice Christs love? Ps. This rogue was 3rd character of this player, and eventually ended the campaign with a total of 6 characters, all of which died, the 6th one being introduced 2 sessions before the final battle of the campaign

I bring The case of size discrimination To the dear sweet crit judges, and the guy who probably still hasn't read the second animorphs book. I'm playing in a campaign with a brand new DM. He is very nervous and is running Avernus by the book and so far doing a pretty good job. My problem comes with his obsession with making sure that our 3 short players (2 halflings and a dwarf) are constantly nerfed, if they are in knee deep water they have to be carried. The halfling couldn't attack across a desk because they're too short, said the dwarf barbarian couldnt restrain someone because he would be too small to hold him back, later the same barbarian couldn't carry someone because he was too small. He told the halfling monk that she couldn't give the help action to a 6 foot 9 character because she was too small to help. I keep wanting to say something about modifiers mattering more than height, but a couple of the other players that I dm for in anther campaign keep giving me that "i know just leave it alone" look. Justices is this height discrimination unfair or justified? P.s. it might be interesting to know that the dm is about 6'8 and I am 5'5. Probably not relevant

May it please the court and leave the bailiff feeling satisfied but not too satisfied, I present to you the case of permanent disadvantage. One time I was playing an Ancestral Guardian Barbarian, mainly for the purpose of using the Ancestral Protectors subclass feature. In our first session, my friend who was playing a Cavalier Fighter discovered that their Unwavering Mark feature applies the same effect (disadvantage against everyone other than the PC that applies the mark). He then suggested that we use both of these features against a single enemy, ensuring that they have disadvantage on EVERYONE (ourselves included). Though the Ancestral Protectors feature doesn't use the language of "applying a mark", I tried to argue that though RAW that could work, it definitely shouldn't be allowed RAI. Ultimately, our first-time DM decided to allow it and we cheesed the final fight of the session so bad that we never played in that campaign again. O just and impartial court, how do you read and interpret these rules and mechanics? Should we have been allowed to carry out this campaign-killing whomp?