>GM doesn't include players backstories in the adventure
In my opinion this is a big mistake.
As a GM I make sure to tie elements of it into the adventure, and characters that they mention. It makes the adventure more personal to the players and the world fells more alive.
Oh boy, I can't wait to sit there and watch the other players do theater with their GM, roleplaying their fantastic backstories, until we actually get back doing adventure stuff together.
not the OP, but it can be as simple as a mercenary walking up to the party Paladin (who used to be a blade for hire but reformed)
"Rovold?! What are you doing here you crazy son of a b***h?" and putting the party on the track to do 'one last job, for old time sake'
on my end, my party might be going through a place that one of the player character was exiled from, and I intend to add conflict around that, with a party led by the guy who banned him possibly running into him.
People like you are the reason I stopped even mentioning my characters having families.
Every single one of you thinks that they are LE EBI STORYWRITER but all it always ends up with is "HAHA THE BBEG HAS KIDNAPPED U MUM WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO NOW HERO"
None of the things I mentioned invoved kidnaping, tho one or two kidnapings are fine, doing that always that a player gets attached to a character is indeed shit.
For me, it's the GM letting some of my relatives that I never mentioned anywhere appear out of nowhere to start drama and make me feel bad about my family.
Yeah. I've witnessed that too.
So many DMs seem to think - and this thread proves it by the way - that your character having a living familmember is a free-for-all-buffet for his cheap melodrama.
If this is the best I get I prefer to keep my backstory short and simple a la FightyMcCowherdson.
>I wish no one wanted their backstories included, it'd all be so simple then
I am fine with this.
I would rather incorporate the things that happen during the adventure into the "backstory" of my character.
That is so much more interesting.
See, this is what you terminally online attention-prostitutes do not seem to understand:
I am okay with not being in the spotlight.
I don't need the campaign to focus around my characters personal story to have fun role-playing and interacting with the rest of the players/characters.
And I sure as frick don't need it to feel "more invested in the game".
If I felt the game was boring I wouldn't be playing with you in the first place.
Just like I don't need a 5 page backstory to have a complex and interesting character because I am a good enough roleplayer to achieve that with roleplaying alone.
I know a GM like that and he pretty much uses it as a selling point, specifically telling people to only have family if they want spice drama involving them.
My PC had a whole arc dealing with being accused of trying to traffic her own adopted sister while having no alibi because she was actually participating in a gang war at the time and couldn't out her bros. Fun shit if you come into the game knowing it'll happen and enjoy some schadenfreude.
targetting the family of the player character is weak sauce.
This attitude is why I keep away from touching the family of characters. I figure it's a cheap shot. But then they complain I don't use their backstories.
Their backstory:
>Grew up with mom and dad in a house and is friends with their sibling(s)
I wish no one wanted their backstories included, it'd all be so simple then. Just pure self-motivated and reactionary narratives. Me? I make a guy who just wants to go out into the world indefinitely, and I tell the GM to never, ever, let me find it unless the campaign is about to end.
Have an uncle become a helpful and memmorable NPC. It's simple lol
Uncle..? They never specify if they have uncles unless it's already preordained in their backstory.
sounds like you dont care about the roleplaying and care more about the game. i recommend you play board games like soulless vessel or games like baldurs gate
>four of my last six characters have been orphans (although one arguably through technicality)
>all of them have had backstories that were integral to the plot in some way
Maybe less so PC #5, but it does massively color how he interacts with people and where he's willing to snoop, which got us a huge fricking plot hook a couple sessions ago. He's also going to be an easy in with one of the less friendly factions if the game lasts long enough for us to contact them.
Okay, well don't be shocked when you get literally nothing interesting and are treated like the NPC you are while everyone else gets showered in connections with important NPCs, magic loot, and money while you get none of it. If you wanna play like an NPC sidekick with no relevance to the game, you're going to get treated like one. If you're not going to put in the effort to make a good character why should I waste my time with you?
now say it again without crying
Anon, with this I mean...
"Putting an antagonistic character from a player backstory as a villain at some point"
"the player character is a fugitive because he killed X person? Well, a powerful relative of X person is in town"
"the player character is part of an organization in his backstory? Oh right, now other members show up and want him to make the secret tasks to go to the next level of the organization"
I did all of the above with different players, and they loved it. You mix their stories with the common challenges that any game is already going to have. It's not hard.
This post is such homosexualry, I almost forgot where I was.
You absolute simpleton.
Yes, thats part of the adventure. Lord of the Rings was not a nonstop series of fights with level appropriate orcs for 900 pages with no breaks or conversation.
Anon, your shitty adventure isn't impressing anyone, let the players have some fun.
Sometimes you can fit them in, sometimes you can't. I try to pick the backstory and demonstrated personality for "relevant points," then theme adventures around 1-2 PCs' personal interests. If I get a good opportunity to use an obvious hook - like a missing brother - I might include it.
>like a missing brother
This is so easy to implement. Yet in every town we went to I looked for clues about my character's missing sibling and the GM never gave anything. How fricking lazy can you be?
>This is so easy to implement.
Implementing it in an interesting way is the trick. I can't speak for why your GM didn't try.
It's super easy to just throw the players a bone like this that I am surprised when it's not done.
my players aren't babies, they do it themselves
If your DMs never include your backstory into the plot, maybe its your backstory that sucks?
Yes. This is a position so general that no one can reasonably disagree with. Which is why some homosexual already did it with the first reply.
Time for some actual mechanical discussion.
The Star Wars ttrpg “Edge of the Empire” has a brilliant little mechanic called “Obligation”. Every single character has an obligation value that starts at a different amount depending on the number of players. But generally a party will start with around 50-60ish obligation all together.
An obligation is something from your characters backstory that still affects them day to day. It could be a bounty on their head, an oath to another, an addiction, anything that could come up and provide an additional challenge or encounter.
Before every session the DM rolls a d100 and whichever players obligation he rolls on provides an encounter for the next session. Then after the session that particular players obligation decreases provided they did something to reasonably decrease it.
In practice this is a very exciting and mechanically simple way to tie player backstory into the game. No longer is it DM fiat (though you should try to throw a bone to people who don’t roll their obligation often) but a mechanic everyone understands. It even turned into a end of session ritual to roll and announce who will have an obligation encounter next session.
>kill da stinky monstra!
let me guess ,you need more?
Yeah, things that are always objectively true aren’t hard to guess.
what?
>Changing the entire game world to fit a player's backstory
Its not needed.
If you have a bandit showing up in a backstory, and you need a mid-tier vilain to throw at them, a bandit is valid. Or you could have the bandit working for a rich banker that is the antagonist of the game.
Its up to the GMs to make the call and see where something would fit.
More often then not it sets players up for disappointment and/or rage that the GM is doing enough for them, or catering to them, or focusing them.
> and your players would be well within their rights to ignore you when you try to force some contrived BS on them like that
What is contrived about a banker hiring a bandit to do dirty work?
Regardless, I don't know any player that would get pissed off at something like that. My players love when I include details like this.
It's not the situation itself that's innately contrived. Like I told you, it's that you're changing the entire game to fit someone's backstory.
How would that "change the entire game"? I'm the GM, I decide how the game goes. Every time I create something or make a decision I'm changing the game.
Your idea would only make sense if I played an adventure made by other person, or if I already had a planned adventure that I'm changing on the fly (and even then that can work, if I just swap the encounter that was coming anyway to be someone related to the players).
This thread has devolved in to the homosexualry it was always going to, drawing out the trolls who keep trying to force 'storyshit' as a meme (and failing harder than Milhouse) and the local autists who can not grasp nuance or working with others.
What is a "non-storyshitter" way to GM?
Don't act like you're a god, a guide, or an author. Just consider yourself as a humble referee and let the players choose how to actually play the game.
I agree that a GM should be humble, but outside of a hex exploration game, a GM should make a token effort to give their players some kind of guiding story or quest to follow. After that's establish though, I fully agree that they should sit back and mostly act like a humble referee and be open to the players doing whatever they want.
Give an example of an adventure that works like that, based on your personal experience.
What if the players want storyshit and actual give a shit about the GM being more involved?
Chances are they'd rather watch critical role or go read a book instead.
>also don't include any characters from my backstory, I'll update you when my pathetic autistic ass comes up with something else I don't like
Opinions are like buttholes.
People from a PC's backstory actually existing in the world outside of that backstory is the bare minimum of running a proper sandbox
Existing in the world =/= changing the entire world so the players are forced to encounter and interact with them.
Do you track every single bandit?
No, but I do track regions where they frequent and have random encounter tables for if they'll show up.
So you don’t track bandits and your player has established a specific bandit, so you simulate his movements or is he part of the random chance generation?
Random chance is fine, that's just playing the game.
So do you build out random encounter% chance tables for every single NPC, including ones met as the campaign continues?
yes
show us some notes anon I'm curious to see them
Some GMs do that, some don't, most use a mix.
Of course, bad ones will insist that no matter what the players do, they MUST meet a given NPC.
That's not playing anything, you're just rolling dice so you can draw up more tables to roll on
There is the kind of backstory that works and the one that doesn't.
So many times a backstory is about how their chatcater is the chosen one and needs to find this mcguffin to save la de da. Gee, that sounds an awful lot like a pitch for the main quest of a campaign...
>DND
>"My level 2 rogue is connected to the God of Death! Perhaps as a protege?"
>Cyberpunk
>"The king of Militech wants me dead, personally."
>CoC
>"I was touched by Nyarlathotep to do his evil bidding and he intends to grant me dark powers to accomplish this."
I just... I can't... Just be normal, please.
The best backstory is the one that gives the DM more tools to make interesting scenarios for the PCs.
Man, I remember shit like that when I was a teen.
Is nice to be older though.
Current campaign back stories
>Former mercenary who was going to retire but accidentally inspired a friend to start adventuring so he's keeping around to keep him alive
>Said friend who used to buy junked vehicles and mechas, refurbish them, and flip them for a profit, now pilots an explorer mecha because he wants to adventure
Should be said both of those guys started at a higher level than the other PCs due to taking shittier classes and lower starting stats.
>Psychic from a rich family who learned how to shoot and decided he wants to be an adventurer, so far has thrown up or panicked every time shit has hit the fan
>A former assassin who defected from her house to become a monster hunter, there are jokes about being trained wrong on purpose due to the amount of fumbles she has rolled
>Elf from another planet who is basically taking the elven equivalent of a gap year here after escaping from slavery on the last planet she tried to goof around on
homies, it's obvious that the guy advocating for "no storyshitting" is not even honest about it.
Like, dude is just trolling, he doesn't even hold those beliefs. You guys are falling to it rather easily.
Instead just ignore and write your own stuff. Whatever you say he will just deny, try to change topic or insult you back while ignoring the point you make. Because that is basic trolling.
Kek, yeah that is more common when the players are teenagers. I feel like people are better at writing backstories with experience.
This said I played with a guy that made a character that he described as "a mix of Joker, Itachi, Vegeta and Rorschach" expecting him to be awful and overly edgy and he ended up being one of the best players, being the second most moral character of the team, and so based that all sessions had him doing a retrospective of the last game In Character.
My pet peeve is a player who insists on doing that and then justifies it with "well he's back at level 1 because of a curse!"
I rolled with it and threw together a basic mechanic for his curse (only kept from dropping to level 0 by his divine blessing, so losing the God's favor will frick him), then had everyone give him a side-eye whenever he didn't perform up to par with the reputation his backstory entitled him to.
A few bad rolls in public and he's suspected of being an impostor while the more manipulative scheme to take advantage of this hero of legend being reduced to a pitiful state.
i have never seen two people use the same definition of "storyshit"
maybe the most meaningless modern Ganker buzzword of them all
I'm pretty sure it's just a couple morons trying to stir the pot.
I'm pretty sure most anons have a good idea on what storyshit or a storyshiter is
Its just like most terms morons use them in situations that don't apply.
Kinda like the word marry sue or woke
>Kinda like the word marry sue or woke
all of those have been abused by morons so much that they've lost all meaning. same with storyshitter
there's no point trying to revert to the "original definition" when the new, stupid, shitty one is much more widely known and used
I don't know man, under the right context using storyshiter is something anyone could understand.
And there is always going to be people who misuse words, it doesn't mean you have to abandon it
if you know what it means, can you please explain to me what the difference between storyshittting and railroading is? maybe i'm moronic but i just don't see any value in Ganker newspeak terms like these. i get calling people -gays has always been a thing but nowadays everything is some kind of slopshit cringereddit gaytroon and it's gotten extremely tiresome. on some days it's almost impossible to have a conversation anymore without someone throwing a bunch of smashwords at you and turning the thread into yet another identical shitflinging argument where no one has anything to say beyond "you like something i don't like, therefore you are a bad person".
i don't know, i'm rambling at this point but it's just fricking baffling to me that anyone enjoys this enough to keep doing it over and over again over the years. i just don't get it.
Yeah I get it, but story shit can be applied to a player and not just a gm with a rail roading
Maybe storygay is better?
Honestly I'm tempted to set up a filter for the first time ever. There has never been a "storyshitter" post of any value.
It is meaningless. Some tard tried to astroturf it into being a real thing, but even he couldn't actually explain it in a way that didn't include all games ever. Having names for your characters is storyshitting. Making the PCs actually talk to a merchant to sell loot is storyshitting. Describing that loot in non-mechanical terms is storyshitting.
>hey has anyone else noticed that every single guy we've fought against is one of our brothers, uncles, cousins, or childhood friends? isn't that a little weird? like i was really not expecting anyone to recognize the masked necromancer who was terrorizing the country, but it turned out to be my neighbor from when i was a kid. that doesn't even make sense, that guy was boring and lame and doesn't even have a dark and brooding past. i'm gonna have to tell his daughter who works as a maid that her dad was a servant of the dark lord who is your old roommate and we killed him.
Game of Thrones?
>He literally can't understand the concept of playing a game vs making players read his shitty story
Describe your game that is devoid of any and all input from the DM
>Well if my players don't want to read my bad novel, they clearly don't even want to play the game!!!
This says alot about you.
Why can’t you describe the game you’re playing without any DM input?
Listen man, why don’t you play a war game or skirmish game that has some campaign mechanics?
I’m pretty sure that would be more your speed
My group loves to play those, too. We all just have a shared appreciation for playing games, not so much reading some dumb homosexuals novel.
Then why play ttrpg? Those are more “storyshit” as you say it.
I think it would be better if you just stick to your niche because you’ll have more fun that way.
I think he plays ttrpg like skirmish games like warhammer, no narratives and just combat
Delta Green: backstory and family info done right.
How you're involved? Your inciting incident? Doesn't really matter. Your choice of profession tells us pretty much everything we need to know besides unimportant details. Maybe a sentence is fine.
Your family and friends? Forced to have so you can use them as ablative mental health armor, eroding your relationship with them forcing minor role-play scenes if you survive.
>I'll walk you through it
>Contradicts himself within two sentences
Thank you, actual moron, I needed a laugh today.
And you haven’t posted any examples, why so passive aggressive?
Sure, just go to the /osrg/ thread.
You would be lucky to find anyone over there who plays. They are too busy calling everything FOE to play anything and at this point even playing is probably FOE in those tards minds
You're just a FOEGYG.
Now, as I understand it, once I have vanquished you by calling you that, you are required to furnish me with a monster folio page signed by either Gygax or Arneson, six uninterrupted hours with your boomerwife, or a miniature of a goofy ass lizard of brain monster thing that is at least 50% lead by volume.
I'd prefer the miniature, tbqh fampai.
The only thing you are getting is me telling you to give yourself surprise buttsex
Huh?
I’m just playing a DnD module with some family friends, and it’s not like the dm is shoving the story down our throats. It’s more that he uses it to have defined enemy factions, loot, and some set pieces for battle.
And I don’t exactly know what you’re trying to own me with? I don’t have a problem with my group really.
I never have my characters write "Backstories" or choose "Backgrounds". In fact, players have submitted backstories to me and I immediately throw them away and don't even look at them.
The only "Past" your characters should care about is things that happened in previous sessions.
>Like making it so that no matter where they travel on the map, they're going to run into the same character or encounter, or making it so that no matter what they do, the town guard will falsely accuse them of some crime and arrest them, or that when they're losing in a fight to a dragon, you start fudging the rolls so they can't lose.
Those are all just examples of railroading. That's why the new word you're trying to astroturf is useless.
Jesus this thread is actually sad.
Just go and have fun with your friends however you see fit, either with more player narrative elements, no narrative at all, or anything in-between. All of them can be fun in their own ways. Stop being such nogames for forcing one or another.
>inb4 muh horseshoe theory
It may not be perfect but one of the reasons I like 2d20 is that the game kinda forces you to give your character a backstory and encourages the DM to use it whenever possible or if it fits the current game
They are, by your own definition.
>Railroading in particular often refers to the GM forcing the player characters to stay within strict parameters, usually in regards to what they're allowed to do or interact with.
Forcing the players to encounter a character or monster is railroading.
Forcing the players to be falsely accused by a town guard is railroading.
Forcing the players to win against the dragon is railroading.
The last example involves dice fudging on top of that, but it still railroading.
>Railroading doesn't necessarily involve violating the rules.
It doesn't, but it can. That's why all three examples are still railroading and your term is still useless.
Then what games do you guys play?
I can at least say DnD and go in depth about my campaign and some stories from it
I really think you guys are just ruining a perfectly good word with overuse.
But the games I play are what you describe as storyshit?
I guess I played Warhammer 40k with my friend
>It's not a binary, you know.
Yes, which is why they're all examples of railroading. You said yourself that there's potential overlap, but all of your examples of the latter are all just railroading.
>Yes, and that's one important distinction
It's not a distinction. Railroading may or may not involve rules being broken. But if you break the rules to railroad, it's still railroading. You haven't actually made any argument backing up why it wouldn't be railroading, because it's blatantly obvious that there's already words to cover the situations you're trying to force a term for.
Railroading the players into a story is still railroading.
Alright then I tried to give an example
Can you tell me about your game then?
You didn't give me an example.
>"Give me an example of your non storyshit game first then"
I told you that I play "Storyshit"
What I was asking about is what games YOU play.
Sure, but I have enough shit to juggle even without keeping your backstories in mind, especially since I don't usually plan several sessions ahead and often tend to improvise on the spot if I come up with an idea that sounds more fun than what I had in my notes.
If you want it to be relevant, then try bringing it up now and then to remind me. Try to send a message to your family, invoke your noble status when relevant, ask if you see anyone familiar upon entering the convent, try for a spiritual connection with your ancestors. Make me feel that you care about your backstory and I'll care with you.
Also I generally ask players to form ties before the game starts. You don't all have to be friends, but each PC should know of or have a past connection with at least one of the others. Makes it easier to get the whole group involved in the backstory bits.
>Yes
Thanks for agreeing. You've failed to demonstrate how your term is actually useful, because all you've done is give examples of railroading.
>Proof?
For something to be a distinction, there would have to be a difference. If one thing is defined as 'forcing outcomes by cheating', but railroading is defined as 'forcing outcomes, either by cheating or not cheating', then those terms aren't distinct from one another.
Now, how about you provide some proof that your term is actually useful for people to use over just using the far more common and easily understood term of railroading?
Okay so your a no games then?
And you can't say that I'm a no games I gave you two examples of games I play
Don't bother. He's just asking for you to give what he can't provide, shifting the heat on you.
Storyshitting barely predates covid. Barely. It's entirely artificial and fails at its own goal as a word because not even the tard who made it knows what it means.
Nah, then you're just getting railroaded by the designers who were the ones who wrote all of those random tables to limit what the players can and can't do, or decided that goblins were more common than dragons.
>IF it’s a good game it will come with a default setting
No good game has ever come with a default setting. Period.
>You're* a no games because you had no examples
>Then I'm...wrong,
That's what happens when your three examples of a 'distinct' thing are actually examples of the other thing you claimed it was distinct from.
>It's being demonstrated right now
All you've demonstrated is your inability to actually explain why anyone should bother to use your made up language.
Also, I hope my post doesn't come across like a troll post or insincere. I just wanted to give you a legitimate explanation.
The archives exist. Go ahead and dig up some posts of you trying to astroturf it from before 2016 if you want to prove otherwise.
Like the posts laughing at him and also provide a screenshot so we can count the (You)s
if he started using /tg/ in 2016 he would still have been here longer than the storyshit/TRVEOSR forced meme
Cope and seethe
Doesn’t it become somewhat dull to continually play the same character continuously? I get that they’re molded by events but in every osr game I’ve played the events are pretty much the same
>hear rumor of dungeon
>explore dungeon
>get loot
>spend gold on stuff to raid more dungeons
At the very highest levels you have domain play and all that. But what I’ve found with every osr PC was the player went in with an intention of what they were playing from the get go. Character development doesn’t happen because no emphasis is every put on the character. Your image would be more accurate if it went from
“Jim the Fighter”
To
“Jim the Fighter with a laundry list of magic items”
I do appreciate the genuine response however.
>Doesn’t it become somewhat dull to continually play the same character continuously?
It absolutely can! And for many of my players it has, (Over the decades that I've ran games, I have had this happen, and when it did I just talked to them about what the player wants to do.) But you have options as to how you can handle it. You can retire a character, for instance, you can play multiple characters, or play one of your character's underlings.
Yeah, the events of OSR games do sound really boring when you put them that way, but "Explore the Dungeon" should be a really wide and varied experience. My games aren't totally "OSR" mind you, because I do have other events unfold outside of just dungeon delving. I usually have factions, NPCs, and events unfolding all over the game world, but the important thing is that they aren't really pre-planned. I don't 100% know who is going to win any particular war, for instance.
I think an important thing to keep in mind about the picture I posted is the little mentions of the "battles" and events in his story. In a real campaign that features those battles or locations, there was probably a lot that unfolded that wasn't just collecting magic items or fighting monsters, you know?
The main joy of OSR is the dungeon crawling of course, but the characters may as well just be statblocks. I’ve never seen someone’s character matter, and I suppose that’s the appeal of it. It does seem very fun to DM for as a worldbuilding autist
>but the characters may as well just be statblocks
They certainly start off that way. I don't know if you've ever advanced a character past third or fourth level, but it immediately starts to become apparent once your character starts to have unique notes written on their sheet like "Accepted among the Goblin tribes" or "Mechanical hand does 1d6 damage" that you can't just choose to have, but is actually acquired through play.
Also, the devil's in the details. My players have one character with an 18 in strength in their party, and they treat him like he's a living weapon and threaten to unleash him on their enemies as an intimidation tactic. So I'd say, what OSR and "Lite" games lack in "builds", they offer in personality and flavor.
Ha good guess, I haven’t. Only OSR DM I had would get autistically upset once most of the players hit level 4-5 because then the game wasn’t just running away from everything. In the most recent game we cornered and slaughtered a dragon and it caused him to cancel the whole thing.
I guess it is just a slow burn thing where it takes at least a dozen sessions or so for the characters to start forming. All a backstory does is kick that process off right away.
>'Hey remember that time I rolled those dice and then killed that - what was it again?' *consults table*
They created roguelikes as a containment field for your kind.
Compare and contrast with words that people actually use that mean something
The 'No results found' popup only appears after you hit search and doesn't stay there.
If you want to prove me wrong, then it's as easy as going to the website and taking a screenshot like this?
>If you want to prove me wrong, then it's as easy as going to the website and taking a screenshot like this?
He can't.
That otherwise would prove his bait posts wrong and kill the thread, which should've happened a while ago.
Desuarchive has a single post from 2012 that uses 'storyshit.' The next instance of that string doesn't pop up again until 2017.
I had a player play a gunslinger who had a thing about trying to build a reputation while also keeping tabs of others reputations in a campaign that took place in "What if post apocalypse but wild west" setting.
So every time they met any kind of outlaw or bounty hunter (or in a few cases former outlaw) I would give them a wild west-y nickname that the character knew.
Most of the time it didn't change much, but the players appreciated it enough to ask me in future campaigns about what kinds of special knowledge are worth having for things like that.
I just checked 4plebs for "storyshitting" end date 2019-01-01, zero results, including deleted posts. Checking it with 2024-01-01 shows a few thousand results. It's a very poor astroturf.
Are you going to provide link the posts or just cream yourself in relief that I made a typo? (freeing you from the burden of proof)
Then prove me wrong anon. Do the same thing I did for railroading. Type in the search terms on the site and find posts from before 2016, then post a screenshot.
Until you do that, all of the evidence says you're wrong.
>one time in a decade on a post that's deliberately using Black folkpeak
Okay. I'm not even convinced that 2012 post just missed a space between words.
It does also say 'anonkun shit', so clearly anonkunshitting is also a very important historical /tg/ phrase that everyone on this site should be aware of.
And it doesn't appear again for five years. It's not the smoking gun you're looking for anon.
That's called railroading.
A GM deciding who the main villain of an adventure is, or planning an adventure and the villains in it is not railroading (as long as he adapts and shifts to align with his players).
A good GM must know when to mix his own ideas with the player agency.
>thinks an outlier that is not even using it in the same context somehow validates their argument
Are you brown, I mean moronic?
Literally once. One singular post out of hundreds of millions.
Not only that, but it isn't even 'storyshitting'. Just 'storyshit'. Not even used as a verb in either case, just as 'story shit' without the space.
Care to back up the claim here
that it was being used on old RPGnet posts? You're acting like this term was well known and widespread back then, so surely you have more than a single example that doesn't even match the usage being offered in this thread?
There's an honest conversation to be had here. When you're done being worthless you can join the rest of us.
Go on then, unless you've got jizz in your pants, you limp dick premature ejaculator. Prove there's a whole army of you laughing at the storyshitters.
the 2012 use was about a literal story - the harem knights setting - and not a game or system. he was calling the story shit.
>I mean hundreds, I mean thousands
Proof? You're the one trying to act like this was a well-known term prior to 2016, so yes, you are going to need more than one example.
>It was just once
Yeah, that. Literal one of times. Didn't even get the whole word, just the first part.
Now remove the space, lame brain
It's not a matter of the space. If you search two words like that, it doesn't give you the instances of 'story shit'. It gives you every post that includes the word 'story' as well as the word 'shit'.
Pic related for what his "evidence" here looks like. Because saying that MtG has shit cards and a bad story is exactly what he's talking about, right?
it's in the harem knights thread, einstein
https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/21973299/#22005274
>That would be you
No, that would be
who implied that somebody unaware of the term 'storyshitting' would not have used /tg/ prior to 2016.
Which given there's a single post that doesn't even contain the word 'storyshitting', actually means you've gone down to having 0 examples rather than 1.
A space generally denotes there being two separate words
Same usage, who cares?
Here's an example of a post which qualifies (under your parameters)
>24 Feb 2010
>No.8254200View
>One thing: make sure that some of The Cleric's confiscated wealth was used to resurrect the paladin's dead wife.
>Also, this story is something that is going to become an in-game legend. As in, bards will tell tales of it, peasants will talk of it, initiate clerics of Asmodeus will have it used as an object lesson in why you don't do stupid shit like this (with The Cleric's tortured soul being used as a visual aid).
>And if your PCs ever again have reason to deal with the Lower Planes, they should stumble across The Cleric while they're down there.
>That's both a massive reach and just not relevant to the conversation.
I agree, all of the examples you've given so far are a massive reach and not relevant to the conversation, as they're not even using the term in the same way as you've defined it.
Just tried it again and got the same results. Maybe you should post some actual screenshots of the posts that you searched, rather than just the total number of results, so that we can see the evidence of how people were using the phrase?
I guess I did. That's why I'm asking you to share your proof, since right now you've given 0 actual examples.
Nope, just added the quotation marks and it makes no difference.
>>
>What annoys me now is the fact that there are SUPPOSEDLY adult witches training these girls, and yet they let the girls do whatever the frick they want. Doesn't seem like normal teacher behaviour (and again, from a story/game angle it makes sense to have to avoid the teachers when you're doing shit you shouldn't). The witches displayed are prime "reeducational" material. Sap their powers, give the powers back once they've grown up a bit. Hey, it's magic, I ain't gotta explain shit.
>Or you know, suspend the little shits, banish them to another dimension, whatever. (Also, given the possibility of an actual hell and the fact that you're not the only one with powers - why hasn't the prisoner's dilemma or anything else kicked in? Is this some sick Battle Royale reasoning where they let the most adaptable students survive? It STILL favours groups over psychotic lone wolves).
>Alright, I have a headache from all the stupid.
That search includes all posts that have the word story and the word shit in them. This post would be hit by that search.
Guys he's trolling
He doesn't even play games just leave it be
He won't ever produce any examples
It literally is.
There has been a single screenshot of two posts. Only one was prior to 2016.
You're trying to claim there were thousands more, simply with a space separating them. I posted an example of how that search term would include results where story and shit were in completely different sentences.
Asking you to prove that the way you searched for would exclude my example and only included the specific string of 'story shit' together is the only way for the screenshot of finding thousands of results to have any meaning at all to this conversation.
And the fact that you won't do it, even when it's as simple as just scrolling down and taking a screenshot of the first handful of posts, speaks volumes.
Do it correctly and post a screenshot then, you double Black person
And most of them have been proving you wrong.
The only ones that back up your point that I can see are
and
And it's the latter which is currently being disputed, because we've seen evidence that those 7041 words can include posts that have story and shit separated by entire paragraphs.
You claim that everyone else is simply entering the search terms wrong, so prove that your search gave you more specific results.
huh?
I'm confused on what your trying to say?
Actually, to save us all some time, I just entered the same date as him. And look at that, the exact same total of 7041 posts. Now let's see what's here? The words story and post not being lumped together.
His search has not filtered out any results to only include specifically 'story shit'.
This one didn't
Nor did
Nor
None of that is storyshitting as used by the people who use it as one word. Those could just as easily be "story crap" or "story garbage" because they're literally describing stories in comparison to other things. Not the intrusion of story into gameplay.
>they're literally describing stories in comparison to other things. Not the intrusion of story into gameplay.
No they aren't lmfao, you need to cope because you got proven wrong. The term was used before 2016, deal with it.
The term is all one word. There is exactly one use of it before 2016 and it's part of a slured sentence and doesn't even use it as the noun, verb or adjective that you want it to be.
Even if it was all just one word. Don't you think some anon's wont use "story shit"?
There are examples of that in this thread so its very telling that there wasn't much use of "Storyshiting"
So you have no evidence?
The lack of evidence is the evidence
Yes so think about it if you search up railroading you would find railroading and rail reading from anons who don't know better
So you should be able to find examples of "Shit Story" if "shitstory" was being used
That's like saying anons who say railroad in relation to an actual thing trains drive on mean the act of railroading an RPG.
The argument is that storyshitting as they use it is an ancient term that has been around since before the 2000s, but they can't even find good examples of it from before covid.
The search function is identical across all these archives anon and only this
2012 post shows up as actually using "storyshitting."
But anyway I checked and using quotation marks instead of apostrophes gets us what we want. 180 instances of "story shit" on /tg/ being posted before 2016, with the earliest example in the archive being 2010. Except most of the instances aren't actually using it with the same meaning as the modern "storyshit" and the archive has no way differentiate this few examples:
"Did you play his arcade and story? Shit's fricking tragic."
">Freya's wolf story
Shit, people want that finished?"
If it worked for you, then how did I get exactly 7041 results without apostrophes? How could the filtered and unfiltered results be the same?
Oh, I see, it's because you changed the filter, and hit the fact that now it's only 40 results. So we can quite safely say that you don't have 'thousands' of examples.
Except even this isn't full proof, because the posts here aren't at all using it in the context of storyshitting. And some of them are still separated by linebreaks or are the end of one sentence and the start of another.
>Shows COMPLETELY different results
>Doesn't think anyone will notice this
Such pathetically obvious deception
I already said they were completely different results anon, because I had to enter a completely different search term because I wasn't finding 7041 posts otherwise.
If you think it's a deception, then post a screenshot of your own findings that proves me wrong.
Backstory helps making things personal, and that can be interesting.
The problem with backstory is players that try to fit resources in there they wouldn't have considering their character sheet.
Then the DM has to find reasons why this resource isn't available in-game.
Think Tiberius trying to summon his Stormwind brothers to aid.
>No it isn't.
You're welcome to prove otherwise, but it's irrelevant because quotation marks fulfill the required function anyway.
>Weasel words detected.
It's 180 posts across 6 years of /tg/ history with several provided examples of what the search will pick up that does not in any way collaborate your claims. With Ctrl+F anyone here can go through all that in 5 minutes to count how many times posts have actually used "story shit" in an equivalent fashion to "storyshit".
But it doesn't actually matter, even if all those 180 posts were using "storyshit" it'd be too miniscule a part of /tg/'s history to matter. It's the equivalent of watching a guy spam the term for a few threads and then deciding it's popular boardwide lingo.
>You're welcome to prove otherwise
So you can sit and argue that proof doesn't count unless you have fifty screenshots of the same proof? Nah dude, we all know they're not the exact same.
>It's 180 posts
Several thousand*
You could also see several examples in the screenshots provided of story shit being used properly. You're already pre-empting this concession though by claiming that it doesn't matter because it doesn't meet some arbitrary threshold for the term to actually count as existing in your 'tismal mind.
>Yeah, probably just lying.
I posted the full screenshots of the search terms I entered as well as the results I got.
One set of results was exactly the same number of results you initially claimed to have found, but included any post that had any mention of shit or of story, regardless of locations.
The second set of results is only 40 and used quotation marks to filter.
If you think I'm lying, then just post your screenshot in the same way I did, with the search terms and the posts underneath it to show that you have 7041 examples of exactly "story shit".
I've provided far more evidence of exactly how I got my results, while you continue to weasel out and evade showing anything.
I don't get the anon obssessed and autistic that made up "storyshit".
By his definition, storyshit is good? Why is he using something good as if it was bad? Games that have that element are superior to the games that he prefers.
He doesn't play games, He has yet to give an example and last time he was asked to he just posted this
He's just a troll. I'm not sure if he's better or worse than bumpanon, but this is the first time I've seen people dive into the archives to check if there's any veracity to his claims of it being popular lingo, so I'm just sticking around to see where this goes.
I've seen people dunk on him for it before, though this is the first time he tried to misconstrue it by pretending there were thousands of results of usage, when in reality it's less than 40 over the course of several years.
At this point he's just trying to alter history to act like his astroturfing was actually a long-standing phrase right there alongside railroading.
Prove it. You can even add every use of storyshitting and storyshitter if you'd like.
>no screenshot
I'm glad that you believe me anon.
>still no screenshot
I accept your concession. Given how trivially easy it would be to post the actual screenshot if I were lying, every post where you don't is simply more proof of the veracity of my claims.
Okay let me get it
Anon said that a made up term was real, while other anon said it was bulshit.
Then anon tried to use archive to prove that was real - but the archive shows that only once it was used before 2016.
So anon separates the words, making ALL posts that include the word "story" and "shit" to appear - regardless if they are related to the term or not
When this is pointed out, the anon that claims that the term is old has nothing to counter.
Its that it? REEEALLY gay.
Anyway, his idea that eery game should be just rolling random tables is homosexual-tier. The worst kind of games, and the worst kind of people to play with.
Its a good word too.. It doesn't have to be historical just accurate. and earlier in the thread
he said that enemy factions and loot is story shit
Pretty much. It's some ultra-autist who really wants to push his made-up terminology.
Terminology which either just means the same thing as railroading, or just shits on all story-related aspects of tabletop games as a whole.
It's even gayer, he's wisely chosen to not contest the meaning of the word, because when he was pressed on it before, he ended up giving a different answer in every post and ultimately ended up saying that anything which isn't strictly mechanical is storyshitting. Like speaking in-character or describing scenery that doesn't directly pertain to the matter of rolling dice to make statblocks hit each other.
Nevermind, I spoke too soon. As you can see, there isn't a real definition that makes sense.
>still no screenshot
Post proof or link to it. It's literally that easy~
But the idea that "every game should just be rolling randomly" isn't popular today, and NEVER was ppular on /tg/ to begin with.
The anon who claimed it was several guys from the OSR thread is seeming more credible, if only because those guys constantly undergo purity spirals in regards to what they see as impure aspects of the game.
Really the whole problem is people consistently falling for the bait instead of filtering or ignoring. This thread went to shit not because of the storyshitter guy, but because of everyone else humoring him and going on this autistic crusade to prove him wrong when he clearly doesn't care to be.
>still no screenshots
I suppose that's it then? Thanks for confirming I was being truthful anon. Here I was worried that you might actually try and dispute anything, but instead you conceded in record time.
Behold 5e the non storyshit game!
Has random tables for encounters
Players can create a random charter on apps
Dm just throws a dart at a map of the forgotten realms
Dm just rolls for random encounters and dungeons
>Dm just throws a dart at a map of the forgotten realms
Please don't name the region, I want to roll that off a table too
>Dm throws dart at his book collection to randomize the starting location
>Except it doesn't.
There's no other distinct definition, unless you mean to agree that storyshitting literally is just naming your character anything other than 'Gamepiece A' because 'Bob the Fighter' has too much narrative weight.
>no screenshots
Yep. By not posting any screenshots or proof to the contrary, you've proven that I was telling the truth all along! Glad you could finally join the winning team.
That being?
The other thing this anon said
>or just shits on all story-related aspects of tabletop games as a whole.
Storyshitting is when your tabletop game is more narratively detailed than chess.
The pieces in chess have a defined rank and I feel this can create an emergent narrative, making it narrative shit
But they insist that it's different from railroading, and people have been using the word railroading to describe GMs making the players go through their already written novels for decades, so it can't be that.
Yes that’s my interpretation too.
Railroading is when rocks fall on a split path to force you into the intended path
Story shifting is when the a player or gm gives a hour long speech or when they use backstory to trump mechanics
In theory. But in practice, railroading is such a widely used term that if one wanted to complain about your DM railroading you into a crappy narrative circumstance, you would say something like
>"Any advice for dealing with story-railroading?"
Because that would be more likely to have people read it and actually understand what was meant. But really in most cases when people complain about railroading, they also clarify the examples of it, like if they were railroaded into accepting a quest or if they keep bumping into an NPC despite trying to avoid him.
The term doesn't actually do anything useful or communicate any more information about those situations, other than making it seem like the person would be hostile towards any NPC trying to talk to them.
Except storyshitting is also things like having a name and face for an NPC or speaking to other players in character. It is explicitly something the PCs themselves can participate in. It isn't railroading. Also even if it was just railroading with a certain motive, so fricking what? The end result is the same.
The first part is just misuse of the word, like how people call it railroading if there is a plot hook, or call a character a mary stew if they are competent.
Words will be missused
And I find it better if you just make a new term instead of adding on to something already
Railroading is already punchy but story railroading isn’t so I prefer story shit
If I said the lore was railroady then you’ll think it’s heavily restrictive
But if I said the lore is story shit you would think it didn’t matter
Quantum ogres are a pretty specific thing and they've got an easy to understand definition.
>give the players a couple choices
>no matter that they pick there's probably gunna be the same encounter, you just don't tell them that because it would break immersion
>quantum entanglement joke lmao
There's really very little room for mucking it up.
I have. It's also been explained that way by an ardent promoter of the word.
It's not quite that bad, but the very first use of storyshit in this thread is in reference to putting a relative of someone the PC killed in the area the PCs are in. Not even forcing the confrontation, just existing nearby. Putting a character the PC was already enemies with into their path as a current enemy was directly called storyshitting. "A guy you know still exists" is storyshitting all by itself according to at least one person in this very thread.
The point I forgot to make is that Quantum Ogres aren't really a railroading thing. They're specifically intended a method for GMs to cut down on having to design filler encounters but just getting something decent put together and having the PCs run into it.
You can kinda make the case they fall under railroading but that isn't the context the term became popular in; it was always a tool for GMs to cut out some of the overhead of prepping stuff like travel sessions.
>I'm looking at it a bit like how there's vehicles, and then specific vehicles like cars. It's a bit like that, isn't it?
In theory, but there's too much overlap.
To contrast it with Quantum Ogre, that describes a very specific form of railroading with the example of a particular situation. It's very clearly a subcategory.
Storyshitting though supposedly covers every possible form of narrative railroading though. Fudging dice counts. Having the guards falsely accuse the party counts. The party running into a quantum ogre counts.
And all of those are examples from
And all of them share the issue where they're not actually separate from railroading.
To bring this back to the analogy. If railroading is vehicles, and quantum ogres are cars, then storyshitting is red vehicles.
You wouldn't need to make up a brand new word like 'colorcrafting' to describe vehicles that are a color you dislike.
This guy's from 2020 and basically accusing Ravenloft of being storyshitting.
https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/74540615/#74542273
>I feel like at this point that the entire premise of OSR has become an elaborate trolling that has gotten out of control, where nobody actually wants what it has become but assumes that they are the only one in on the joke and that they are taking the piss out of the rest of these idiot sheeple, who themselves think they are the brilliant mastermind taking the piss out of the rest of these idiot sheeple.
Every presentation of the strengths of OSR gameplay is like a fricking parody of itself. Its surreal. "The only problem with choking to death on shit was that I couldn't fit even more shit into my mouth as I died."
Kek, 4 years later and this has only got more true
No, this is.
https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/74540615/#q74541563
>Storyshitter anon, can you please stop trying to push your meaningless forced meme. You're like that frick that tried to force applesponge but somehow more moronic and persistent
>No.74543712
>Even an elf slave wat do thread would be more valuable than the continuing efforts of Forced Meme Man to rename railroading.
And we have this hopeless optimist.
https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/74540615/#q74544363
>I don’t know why you guys are triggered by something so fricking stupid. The dude is an obvious troll who calculated how many people he could make fun of and rile up in one post. Yes, we’re storyshitters, he made a mean sounding term that was sure to encompass every single person in a niche hobby. The fact people are getting mad at this after being on this board looking at the amount of threads ONE dude has made in the past few hours. I’m fairly sure “would x survive in 40k” and the local lord memes were made by this one guy as well and now you’re eating it up. Next week or month he’ll move on to war games and come up with something equally moronic like mechanicshitters or modelshitters for people who use rule mechanics or models.
>inb4 “someone disagrees with me! He must be a troll!!!!”
>next month he'll try something new
>4 years later, here we are
Also
, who says it is storyshitting to have a guy you already don't like show up again as an enemy.
And that's why storyshitting is useless.
An NPC with reason to dislike the party being in a town they're visiting is completely normal.
That same NPC hearing the PCs are in town (assuming the PCs didn't actually take steps to disguise themselves or avoid tipping him off) deciding to confront them isn't forcing anything any more than the players wandering into a dragon's cave is 'forcing' them to confront a dragon.
There is a threshold where there isn't really a point though. There still hasn't been a definition provided that's at all useful.
Alright how about this?
Story shiting is when story is placed before the enjoyment of a game. This can take form as long speeches about the history, a charter who’s backstory allows them to circumvent extreme challenges (ex.my charter is part devil so is immune to fire damage and can command lesser devils), a scene being described for way too long (someone describing how their charter wakes up, washes their face, takes of nightclothes to change into morning fit, walking out of their bedroom, describing their yawn as they walk down the hall, etc) when all other are ready to move.
>Story shiting is when story is placed before the enjoyment of a game.
So it's a subset of badwrongfun?
Well there is story telling then story shitting.
I guess I would need to experience it more before I can articulate better
But I feel it would fall into “this is what my charter would do” thing
Well, badwrongfun would broadly be describing anything that other players do, regardless of whether that you're at the table, that you consider to be playing wrong or having fun in an incorrect way.
The definition you just gave would fall under that, where any table of people who actually roleplay or care about character backstories/motivations would be having 'badwrongfun', or more specifically 'storyshitting', because they're enjoying the game in a way that has more narrative focus than you would like.
I suppose it can be used that way.
Maybe if I put it
Placing *their* story before the enjoyment of the *group*
So it's a subset of That Guy?
Yeah!
That’s it!
A storyshitter is a that guy who places their story ahead of the enjoyment of the group!
Damn now I’ll be easier to explain this, frick!
I guess you've actually invented a definition for this 'term', time to see if you can make it stick
Just saying That Guy seems more succinct
Yeah it does.. I guess we can just use “storyshiter” to be more specific
That would just be railroading. That's what railroading means.
If using the word requires you to give the definition to everyone you use it in conversation with, that's what makes the word invalid.
Trying to astroturf the use of a made-up word that isn't actually useful outside of just describing 'railroading but story' is just moronic.
But these examples don't include the resolution. Just the mere existence of these characters. You might avoid them entirely or maybe not even know they were there if you happen to move around them just right. But these examples are the mere existence of NPCs that already know the PCs.
Nobody in this thread asked for a definition of quantum ogre.
Plenty of people in this thread have asked for a definition of storyshitting.
That alone speaks for itself. But add on the fact that we're already past the bump limit and the definition of storyshitting still hasn't been made clear, and it's even more obvious how useless it is as a term for discussion, because it immediately derails discussions with questions.
I’m pretty sure these are called “industry terms”
7 years ago I would agreed with you, buy after seven years of 14 page backstories that are an incoherent soup of whatever anime/video game that player has engaged with over the past few months, I don't blame GMs for skipping them. I've also been in a few games where such a backstory played a major role in the overall plot and everytime said player who's backstory it was couldn't be more disinterested in it
But its definition is clear and concise and unchanging.
In this very thread "having an NPC you already know show up" is storyshitting. Not even forcing you to do anything with that NPC, just them showing up. That's not railroading, it's functionally no different than having any other NPC show up. That could have been any bandit. If it was any other bandit, it wouldn't be storyshitting or railroading. But it's a bandit you wrote about in your backstory, so it is storyshitting. It's still not railroading since you don't need to do anything in particular with that bandit.
And yet nobody asked, because it's a term that actually gets used that people here understand.
> The word forcing gets brought up everytime, so the posts are either just intentionally inconsistent for the sake of trolling, or written by a spastic.
My best guess is that, because he wants to paint storyshitting as a negative thing, he tries to frame it as something that's being forced upon the players. That the GM is thrusting a story upon them without any input.
But then when people point out that such a definition is extremely similar to railroading, he tries to change it up and act like it doesn't need to involve anything being forced at all, even though that removes a lot of the negative context from the word.
Like he'll describe a character being part-devil and immune to fire as part of their backstory as an example of 'storyshitting' in a way that wouldn't be forced, but that's just something that some games let you have as a mechanical option at character creation. Calling that storyshitting is like calling playing tabletop rpgs 'Gameshitting' and using it to just describe anyone who enjoys playing games.
No! It’s a perfectly fine term! It just needs better users that’s all!
As long as anyone avoids saying anything moronic like
>accommodating a player's backstory is dangerously close to storyshit
With the definition where it's a subset of That Guy? Not at all.
In theory, the player might be That Guy, if he wrote a lengthy backstory unprompted and expected to bring it up when everyone else was hoping for a basic hack and slash.
But as soon as the GM accepts the backstory and implements elements of it into the game, he's no longer really That Guy. And that's doubly true if multiple players wrote backstories and the GM is implementing all of them into the game.
At that point, the single player who didn't write a backstory and complains whenever people's backstories show up in the game becomes That Guy, because he's the odd man out. Being That Guy fundamentally requires that you're making things unenjoyable for everyone else.
If everyone is on board with it, then there's no That Guy, and therefore no storyshitting. Which in the example given, there isn't. The players willingly wrote backstories, and the GM willingly used them.
Shout out to this homie
>No.74552741
>Quoted By:
>This thread needs to be archived so years later when you get bored or your handler turns off the internet we can laugh at your stupidity
So your the “that guy” using
logic..
Yeah that works out
>Nobody else
We're talking about a hypothetical situation here, first and foremost, so I'm not sure why you're talking about the backstory like it's mine.
Secondly, your own sentence has proved you wrong. If the GM implemented aspects of the backstory, clearly he is enjoying it. If he didn't enjoy it, he'd simply ignore it along with any attempts for it to get brought up.
For example
would be considered That Guy if there were multiple other players roleplaying their backstories with the approval of the GM, and he keeps interrupting and complaining to try and get back to the adventure.
Because again, being That Guy is partly defined by being the odd man out.
Are you having trouble understanding your own term?
>“That Guy will try to fight against the party and consider himself clever”
Yeah it does work
Especially with is attitude during the entire thread
Wrong!
Using the new definition the majority is having fun in this hypothetical while the minority (you) is not and trying to hinder the enjoyment of the majority
You are “that guy”
And they aren’t story shiters because they aren’t in the minority
>”That Guy will try to fight against the party and consider himself clever”
>No
Sure he is. It'd be easy for him to not include any elements of your backstory if you were the only one who wrote one.
And in the other post I linked to, you weren't the only one. Instead there are multiple players at the table roleplaying alongside you, aside from one guy at the table who keeps complaining that you're not getting back to the adventure.
If this were a real situation, we'd need more information about your group to judge who was being That Guy, so it's incorrect to automatically assume that the person with a backstory is That Guy without any other info.
If the enjoyment of the majority of the group was brought down because of this then it’s story shit
But for this situation, this guy was just trolling the entire time so he definitely is a that guy and since he can’t list any examples of ttrpg besides “I totally got a group that’s cooler then yours” then he is probably a no games as well
>If the enjoyment of the majority of the group was brought down because of this then it’s story shit
Right, so like I said
would be That Guy, and this wouldn't be an example of storyshitting without more evidence to the contrary.
>But for this situation, this guy was just trolling
We were already talking about a hypothetical situation, so whether he's trolling or not has 0 bearing on our judgement. The story could be fake, and we can still accurately judge that it isn't storyshit, because according to this story everyone was enjoying themselves.
See how fruitful discussion can be when a term has a proper definition? It prevents the word from getting misused and labeling the wrong thing.
Apologies
Just wanted to do a dig on him one last time
But yes, now that story shit and story shiter is properly defined there will be a healthier discourse on future threads that would have been wasted on arguing what the terms meant again
If everyone is having fun and you are autisticaly screaming that it is storyshiting, then you are acting like a That Guy.
>It's nothing to do with not fitting with a group.
It absolutely does.
In some groups, they'll hoot and holler whenever somebody rolls a nat 20, because it's some critrole inspired beer and pretzals game. Somebody who yells at them to stop would be That Guy.
In another group, a person being the one guy to hoot and holler over a nat 20 would be That Guy, and the other players yelling at him to stop wouldn't be.
>No, he just feels obligated to "accommodate" you because morons on tg gave him shit advice
lmao
OP here. I know you are trolling but I want to see how you are going to weasel out of this.
I do it on my games. My players fricking love it, and say that I', the best GM they played because doing that makes my worlds feel alive. I do it not because I feel obligated, but because I love doing it, and made every game I did it better for everyone involved.
How do you answer to that?
Lmao, no he isn't going out of his way to accommodate you or the other players
>when he forced his poorly written story upon them.
Its very silly to say that its my stroy, when it directly uses elements that the players came up with kkkkkk
But sure, to you, lord autism, its impossible that a player might like elements of his backstory added to the game.
See you are doing it.
You lack any actual answer to what I say, being forced to say tha t"nobody would ever like to have their backstory being included in game"
So you are trying to deviate from the conversation.
I won. And your answer to this will just be the same thing again, in the hopes that the discussion shifs.
This new definition works quite well, as it reveals how the initial uses of storyshitter in this thread were being misused and applied incorrectly.
But if he is using stuff from the player's backstory how is it *his* story?
It is the groups story now, the majority’s story
Well, I guess that if we can agree on anything
is that this was quite a story of a thread 🙂
I dunno, I think the best description of this thread is 'shit'
Guys, I don't think the archives are going to be able to link these ones. I know we moved it so there can be a space between the two things, but whole posts is a bit much (for now).
> It’s when the GM tries to force any input into the game. He should be a neutral and uninvolved referee on every level
>Everyone else but the guy who wants to GM has to decide who's going to GM because the GM has to be uninvolved and have no input
>GM grabs his Screen and sits down and says absolutely nothing for 1 hour, because explaining anything about the setting or universe would be storyshitting.
>Player asks the GM to explain where they're doing, nothing but stoic silence.
>GM finally says something after an hour, when one of the players decides to roll some dice for some vague level of entertainment, because the GM gets to decide when dice rolls are made.
>Everyone leaves after 3 hours of nothing, except for the GM, who remains since he had to netural and uninvolved in the discussion to leave the session.
Anon's ideal TTRPG session.
I came in late and read this from start to finish. This is a trainwreck of a thread. Most of the advice or argument is absolute trash. Ignore and move on.
>jannies came in and went so hogwild that the thread actually came back from being 50 posts over the bump limit
Holy shit.
Wait, the shitposter is out
Can we discuss now?
No, because threads don't actually come back from being auto-saged even if the post count gets blamm'd.
What's /tg/ 's take on GURPS Amnesia (both partial and total)
would you give your GM (not the one in your head, the one you play with on a regular basis) that much control over your character?
>401 replies earlier
>209 currently
Jannies once again take a half measure instead of deleting threadshit