>GM doesn't spend minutes and hours explaining his worldbuilding in details no one actually cares about
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Green flags
>GM doesn't spend minutes and hours explaining his worldbuilding in details no one actually cares about
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
>Game isn't D&D.
>This isn't a guarantee for a good time, but is a welcome signal.
>game doesn't use spell slots
You're right, OSR is always bad
How many other games than DnD and its direct clones you think are out there using spell slots
>le woman le bad
/LULZ/ is that way, jizzer
Good bait, made me reply. OSR is always good, unless it's a game that only says it's OSR without actually being OSR.
always bad*
There are no roasties present
>miniskirt worldbuilding
I know you're coining this derisively but I'm immediately taking it back since for me, green lights include there being female players present who would wear a miniskirt and that the actual worldbuilding is both captivating and only the minimum needed to cover the bases, to be fleshed out collaboratively.
>predator
It's okay to like girls, Anon.
I'm sure you do.
>miniskirt worldbuilding
attention spanlets get ye gone
Tell us all what's so fricking interesting about made-up geneaology of the previous ruling house 3 centuries ago, homosexual. What about the tectonic plates that make up the sunk continent, then?
Go on, explain your stance, rather than being a prancing fruitcake. Prove that useless worldbuilding isn't actualy useless and wasn't done for the sake of itself, because the GM wants to be 2nd Tolkien, not getting a memo Tolkien had severe graphomania and the worldbuilding was his way of dealing with it.
>history and geology are...le boring!
>t. raised by TV
>LE
>t.
Come back when you have something on your own to say, rather than regurgurating memes
This.
Morons can not fathom a rich and involved history as they have never read an actual book.
They absolutely ARE boring when playing a game.
But how could you know, if you never had one.
he's right, moron. you will never be a writer.
in the context of ttrpg and running an adventure, yeah, most of it will be useless. sure you have to set up some geopolitics and relations between factions but it's moronic to make a full on detailed timeline and autistic compendium of details that only (you) will care about
Without worldbuilding what are you basing your character background on?
On nothing, because the background is just as fricking useless. I'm playing a character made for the campaign prompt.
>B-but that's also world-building! HURR!
And I've pretty explicitly said that either it serves a purpose, or is useless. As far as I know, campaign prompts serve a purpose. A made-up trivia about useless shit doesn't.
Why it's always so fricking hard for people to grasp such simple concept? Is it that they really never fricking played anything at all and just can't add together two facts?
>>I'm playing a character made for the campaign prompt.
Background reading flag detected! Might as well have a nice day now, gayboy, because everyone knows that if the GM even tells you the name of the system you're using them it's storyshitting.
You know, let me elaborate on this.
Few years ago, I had a GM who had this extensive setting made. As far as I know, it was either unpublished homebrew or a novel, given he was working in a publishing house specialising in TTRPG. And he had this vast setting of his, which required from us to operate in it to go through extensive amount of notes. Notes that were impressive in their size, but not much else: it was your generic heart-breaker Not!WFRP, with names swapped around and few "weird" elements thrown in. The end result was game going into a screeching halt about twice per session, because we were attempting something that either was impossible in the setting (but we didn't know, since we weren't handled the notebook covering that trivia yet) OR we did something that was expicitly forbidden (and again, we didn't have access to that knowledge). In the end, his setting boiled down to railroading us into outcomes he wanted to get, and us stumbing in the dark, with no means to figure out what we can or should do.
What's the point? How did that even improved anything at all? I didn't regret that I made the most generic "half-elf ranger" for that campaign, because my friend, who decided to go with the setting, ended up constantly strangled and blocked by it. Turns out he should just make a human male fighter to avoid all the issues he had as a not!satyr alchemist and the "joys" of being thrown trivia about the setting on himself time and again.
In the end of the day, nobody had fun and both sides of the table were frustrated: players over non-stop wienerblocks and GM for us "not knowing" how to act or what to do. Fun, right?
But hey, his entire setting was covered in two binded sets of paper of double-column text. That woud have been what? 600 pages? 700? Obviously that text served some actual purpose, right? Like two-pages long list of Head Priestess running a tiny-ass theocratic island we never even went nearby.
I am actually sad that happened to you, anon
If it's of any help or consolidation, I never saw the point of extensive world-building, but that stint just re-assured me it's fricking useless flexing on the GM side rather than anything truly practical.
>I'm one of those homosexual DMs that loves to make endless worldbuildin
Then fricking seek help. Here, a nice start up.
Next time try to read the rest of the post before getting angry, since my point was the same you said.
It will do you good.
>Writes nonsensical wall of text
>Projects own anger on others
You will never be a good GM
you're just a moron if you couldn't comprehend what he was saying
watch the poster count go up before screeching samegay like the troglodyte you are
I am not that anon, you dense frick. Stay mad.
>can't even comprehend that post either
anon I think it might be terminal
I'm one of those homosexual DMs that loves to make endless worldbuilding. I accidentally found the best way to introduce players to dense lore when I fricked up the first session. I had too much and decided to have PCs start in a context that my lore wasn't important yet nor they could go to the capital, where most of it was, and instead they started far away and would slowly dripfeed it to them, explicitly telling them they won't go back until 1 ingame month (and had regular DnD shit to do, like killing goblin bandits, some young dragon being a pest, etc). In my case, I had 12 cool NPCs they worked for, but feared it would be too much to have them go around 12 characters right off the bat. So for the first month they didn't see or meet any of these NPCs in-game, while their assistant would tell short anecdotes or point out details related to them.
After some months, they were all curious for at least one NPC, either for something irrelevant or tied to their PCs. Now, 6 months later, we have an online PDF where a player keeps track of all and check from time to time to get a proper grasp of the situation.
I never expected them to be this invested.
TL;DR
Dripfeed the lore, integrate it within the context and stories of the PCs and give them time away from it at the start of the campaign so they can get used to and grow fond of it.
That sounds like an even worse way to handle it. Why spend all that time before the campaign building portions of the world your players aren't even in? Instead of having 12 interesting NPCs somewhere else you could have put that time into fleshing out the locals under attack by goblins and bandits.
Making everyone a cardboard cutout so the players will try to meet your snowflake NPCs simply out of hopes of actually having someone to talk to.
Please stop making this fake scenario in your head that justifies your argument, I never said anything like that.
The concept of the campaign is that they work for this kingdom and they're are being tested to see if they're fit to join the same rank as the other 12, so these are improtant NPCs because the entire campaign revolves around them and the kingdom. Campaign that I remind you presented to my players and all agreed to be part of.
What I realized is that no matter how good the lore and characters may've been, they were too much for a start, so I drastically cut it down and put them in a situation where they didn't need to worry about the lore yet, because it was not within the kingdom. A simple town.
Because the NPCs are so important and I wanted to have proper foreshadow, I needed them to be developed. However, that's not the case for the townsfolk. Hell, lore-wise, the entire point of the town is how unimportant it was, they were send here precisely because noone back at the kingdom trusted PCs nor believed they were fit to join the cool rank. That didn't stop them from having fun. They befriended the local blacksmith, had fun with a painter girl that chills in town, asked around what were cool places to check/problems to solve. All very rural and friendly, while I dropped info about mainland and the 12 NPCs here and there.
By the time they went back, they knew enough and were interested in meeting some of them.
In words you may understand, rather than have 5 pages of lore dumped at the start of the campaign, I had them slowly dripfeeded over several sessions until players themselves asked to go back. And it worked because it never got in the way of their actual adventures. That's what I was saying.
tl;dr
it's at the bottom of the post, brainlet.
>Why spend all that time before the campaign building portions of the world your players aren't even in?
Because nothing is actually stopping the players from going there, and it can become relevant at any time, with no advanced warning?
Anon, I don't think you actually partake in the hobby, just argue about it online.
>Because nothing is actually stopping the players from going there
And once they head in that direction, you can have that part of the world made. Because hear this: there is also nothing driving them in that direction, unless you, yourself, make that direction viable and/or desirable.
Did you EVER run anything at all, you absolute moron?
>Anon, I don't think you actually partake in the hobby
The irony is golden, for you have no fricking clue about bare-bones basics of GMing, ones that would be accessible from either side of the table
>you can have that part of the world made
Yes, you are supposed to create an entire region of the map off the top of your head, while at the table.
This is the part where your lack of practical experience shows; you are assuming they will head off at the end of the game day, and you will have a week to crash prepare it, or that you can force the party to travel slowly as your excuse to sandbag them.
The only way to make your idea work is to be dishonest as a GM, rather than spend a day or too jotting down notes and ideas for different regions of the map.
Then you have midwits like you and 85175942 who are clearly just stirring the pot.
Thanks for making it ultra-clear you never run anything
>Yes, you are supposed to create an entire region of the map off the top of your head, while at the table.
Nobody said or even implied that. And if you had any contact with the hobby other than worldbuolding, you would know that such things are usually done for the next session.
>This is the part where your lack of practical experience shows; you are assuming they will head off at the end of the game day, and you will have a week to crash prepare it, or that you can force the party to travel slowly as your excuse to sandbag them.
Like I've said: golden irony
>The only way to make your idea work is to be dishonest as a GM, rather than spend a day or too jotting down notes and ideas for different regions of the map.
Or, you know, go to new place at the start of the next gaming session, next week, and using that time for prep. You know, basics of GMing.
Name me 5 systems you've played, with what you liked about them and what disliked about them.
Prove to me that you actually played or run anything, ever, given you are utterly clueless about basics of GMing and think about it, considering planning is beyond you.
So you are saying you, as a GM, can't plan ahead of your players, and that means you must prepare in advance entire chunks of the world (rather than scenarios to be played)? I mean mate, you have some really fricking weird perception of what this hobby is about, given your entire point is that worldbuilding is the most important bit, while you literally can't plan ahead a game and its duration. And then having the sheer gull to tell anyone they are no-games.
>pre-planning is moronic
Yep, I'm thinking you're a dogshit GM. If you can't even be assed to draw a basic map of your setting it is going to be ungodly shallow.
Except I told you explicitly to fricking pre-plan, you moron, instead of worldbuilding.
Stop embarassing yourself and just admit you are writing settings for the sake of it.
World-building IS pre-planning, anon.
You really are just a shit stirrer.
Last (you), I'm going to go plot out the next arc of my SW game.
>World-building IS pre-planning, anon.
... is this what worldbuilders think, especially given their proverbial lack of planning skills as GMs?
I'm not the same guy, schizo.
>no correlation between pre-planning and worldbuilding
Wrap this around your walnut brain: if you already have a place in your setting fleshed out, it is pre-planned. This might be a very novel concept for you, but you can plan more than one session in advance.
>I have no idea how to run a scenario
>But I have a setting, that means everything is dandy
Rookie Mistakes: 101s
t. also different anon
>if someone worldbuilds it MUST mean they don't do any other session prep
We get it, you're moronic and have no argument.
Each and every day has exactly 24 hours. It means the time spend on X is time not spend on Y. I thought this is obvious even to the most dense Ameritards who can't even use the watch
>in no way conflicts my statement
>schizo rambling
>randomly brings up America for no reason
Please, continue to embarrass yourself.
>Sliding this badly from the subject that each day has limited amount of time for use
I mean was it really so hard to say "b-but I multitask", rather than changing the subject entirely, you dense frick?
never drawn a single map, I've run more games than you, and my worst game is better than your best game.
Highly doubt it bud
doubt this wiener in your mouth, b***h
A response as devoid in creativity as your GMing.
stay mad 🙂
> 🙂
Yep, I think he's seething
stay mad 🙂
I like world building.
I'm trying to get into more games myself, but I appreciate a background to the setting and like to immerse myself. It lets me become more invested in the world and my character, it lets me value the party more and the consequences of things.
Don't listen to these shitty anons.
Honestly, this approach here is just fine. Objectively correct even. The problem is that most worldbuilding gays literally cannot contain themselves.
If people had the discipline to obey this rule they could stay worldbuilding gays without crossing the line to storyshitter, which is where it starts boring the players - and that point is even harder to realize because everybody is so goddamn patronizing to everyone else these days people will convincingly pretend to be interested in shit they are not - or be legitimately interested but only because they value the DM as a human being(?)
I catch myself boring players with details of the world of Greyhawk sometimes despite its details being purposely loose and me not really caring that much about it.
yeah, I also noticed that I was boring my players with some lore even during our Sunless Citadel campaign, which I though was very short and straightforward. But the reality is that lore isn't boring, but how you present it is. As much as we would like to surprise your players, msot of the time you're explaining shit, and you need both good skills at presenting something and players with interest/imagination to follow on it. Pics and music can help, but it's an exercise that needs effort on both sides.
Try to find the sweetspot of information that's enough to get them thinking but not too much to voerwhelm them. and boy, players get overwhelmed reeeeeeally fast.
On the other hand, the effect is quite snowbally, and if you have some foreshadow here and there, it's easy to get a great campaign flowing steadily once stuff starts getting revealed.
>players get overwhelmed reeeeeeally fast.
This. You have the right balance figured out unlike 90% of /tg/ even though your probably more of a loregay yourself than I am. The reality is that you can never satisfy everyone completely. Players ask for details and you will almost always give them either too many or too few. Always leave them wanting more.
>perpetually wrong namegay is still wrong
Incredible.
That's pretty much the only way you can handle world-building if using your own setting. Players won't want to read a 300-page lorebook for a setting you might only experience for 3 sessions, or listen to a 4-hour exposition of all the various nations.
I don't know if this is what you mean but a long time ago I was GMing a game and the players made the city their home base to go back to when they were done murdering goblins and shit. I made a bit of lore that all the guards are half orcs and were apart of a religious sect (kinda inspired by sikhis) I didn't jsut blurt out "Hey all of the guards are half orcs and are apart of a religious order." But anytime there was a situation with a guard I would describe them as being a half orc wearing a certain type of garb. Eventually one of my players got curious and asked me if all of the guards were half orcs. I shrugged my shoulders and "I don't know are they/" So he asked and found out that a long time ago they were religious mercenaries that helped defended the city and were given the opportunity to become the official city guards.
it's more or less the same idea, yeah. Basically leaving the choice of info dump to the players. My personal trick is the "similar anecdote" one, where the players will talk to some random NPC about something and the NPC make a quick comment on how similar it is to this thing an improtant NPC did.
The other day, for example, they defeated a young black dragon, and went back to the kingdom's outpost they work for to rightfully flaunt about it. One player said "Bet you have never seen a dragon head up close!", and one of the NPCs replied with "I actually did, [Important NPC] killed one back in the war, but it was red. This one's much scarier." And because this wasn't the first time I mentioned the NPC, this time they followed on it with more questions.
It works because, as said, leaves the choice of more lore to the player. Had they jsut keep on roleplaying without further questions it would've been all the same. But now, they have another breadcrumb.
Nah, thankfully we're past that point. I'm currently on the opposite end, with my players wanting to know way more than I can produce, and asking from more than one weekly session. Right now I'm working on the intro for the next short arc, an abandoned city that has been overtaken by different small groups of cultists.
Jesus, how horrifying. Imagine doing all of this work on what will inevitably end up a Points of Light campaign.
you're a rollplayer murderhobo and no GM has ever enjoyed you at their table.
>rollplayer
Is this a bad thing?
Anyhow, character backgrounds are completely useless. Your character is a nobody anyways, so why bother writing anything out?
being a rollplayer means you hate roleplaying, which makes you a huge homosexual in the eyes of anyone invested in both roleplaying and dice-rolling aspects of TTRPGs. Sorry that you had to learn it from me but your friends don't actually like playing with you.
Rolls dictate roles. If your role is dictated by your "vision for the character" that makes you a weak link in a game that is at all challenging.
sounds like your game has no place for roleplaying if combat is all that dictates it
Hate to break this to you but uh.....you can roleplay during combat. Also Rolls dictate roles as in "What you roll the most dictate your role" pretty simple concept.
Really the anon is saying that if you do mainly roleplaying while ignoring the mechanical aspect of the game then you are going to fail. For example going for a int based bard for 5e having 14 cha and 18 int. Sure fun for you but you are a weak link in the game.
You gotta remember this is a GAME, if you die in the game via TPK or your character die because of you wanting to be a """""unique""""" character then you lose and you can no longer roleplay as that character.
Minimizing the roleplay aspect in fact doesn't frick up the game at all. Because if we are going to be objective then there are rules for social aspect of the game. DCs for your rolling and doing your acting is just secondary. The "Roleplay" in "Roleplaying game" isn't the same roleplay as seen in forums or LARP it is being in a role in a party. This is why most video games that use "Roleplay" is just combat grinders if anything. Sure the best roleplaying games (Deus Ex, Mass Effect, Dragon age ok some dragon age games) aren't really about you making your own character but being a certain person and the meat and potatoes being the role of the party members really which connects them to TTRPGs.
I RP all the time, discord, f-list, RPnation and in my TTRPGs. But if you look at any TTRPG that isn't a narrative-driven one or rules lite then they would have rules for diplomacy/intimidation/Lying in it.
Extremely autstic take.
Except it's entirely true, and you see a lot of people on this board who can not reconcile the (Game) part of RPG with the (Role-Play) part.
NTAYRT, but the fact you call a decent breakdown of how the game interacts with the roleplay 'autistic' shows you are the problem, the type of person who really needs to take the post to heart.
>you see a lot of people on this board who can not reconcile the (Game) part of RPG with the (Role-Play) part.
The anon I responded to is one of them. He views TTRPGs as video games, which is a extremely autistic view of them. I view them as table top role-playing game, I don't prioritize the role-play part over the game part, and vice versa, both are important and lacking in either is detrimental to the overall experience.
The rules are what dictate role playing and everything else
In not trying to minimize the role playing aspect, I'm telling you that role playing a character that is extrapolated from its role in the party is more rewarding than playing some character who's your imaginary self-insert.
Without challenge - and sometimes challenges come in the form of story - there's no way of knowing if your party is functional and without stakes - where the party has the opportunity to be rid of the character that's dragging it down - it doesn't matter.
You can play a "game" where victory is assured and the only surprises are just how much everybody manages to jack each other off but I don't think that's what most people want.
>The rules are what dictate role playing and everything else
>Smaug has autism, episode 17655
I'm pretty sure that thinking the rules don't apply to you is one of the classic signs of autism.
No, that's sociopathy
It isn't autism. It's stupidity.
He hasn't had a single defensible opinion while namegayging. It feels like a troll, honestly.
>not trying to minimize the role playing aspect
>actual role playing isn't rewarding.
I will try to say this one more time. You can play characters that aren't your 100% original donut steel self inserts. In fact, you will gain far more benefit as a person by playing characters who are somewhat outside your comfort zone.
I reckon there is a dedicated shitlord squatting on the thread.
Better just to leave than deal with nonstop idiocy.
>There is a conspiracy against me
>Said conspiracy is also just a single guy
Oh, I see, you're new to /tg/, not just this hobby.
You're not going anywhere.
This is extreme autism. 100% original donut steel self inserts and characters outside your comfort zone aren't mutually exclusive, and aren't inherently more beneficial the the other.
Outside of the game, it is objectively more beneficial to play "challenging" roles that require you to look at things from a different perspective than you are accustomed to looking at things.
Inside the game, what is most beneficial is favorable stats implemented in the most effective way. Again, rolls dictate roles.
If you're ineffectively playing your character because of some arbitrary storyshit, a good game will quickly make you pay for it so as you should hopefully be able to see, learning your actual role in the party and playing that role is what's best in every way.
That's how the game is meant to be played.
Jesus you are autistic and devoid of any sense of creativity.
I really don't know why people like you don't just write short stories. D&D is a game. There is ample room for collaborative creativity within that game but main character syndrome is an actual serious obstacle to playing it.
>Trying to reason with a worldbuilder
For what purpose? Everyone knows he doesn't play nor run anything anyway
As for why they don't write short stories: because they can't tell a story for shit. Which is the same reason why they don't play or run anything, but just worldbuild: it requires zero skill other than showing off how "smart" you are with your "creations", all being just trivia.
In other words: too dumb to write a story, too eager to write to withhold creating tourist guide over non-existing world.
>D&D is a game
A role-playing game
>main character syndrome is an actual serious obstacle to playing it.
As are roll players.
A schizo autist, neat.
No, he's obviously right that you're a nogames because even giant self-involved drama queens like you that actually play know that the "roll-players" keep the game moving forward and give them something to be dramatic around. There's no possible way that someone like you would actually enjoy being in the company of five other people like you.
>autistic schizo rant
I'd honestly love to have 5 other players who don't have this weird sperg induced separation of mechanics and roleplay personally. That's why I play TTRPGs and not CRPG video games.
>weird sperg induced separation of mechanics and roleplay
My point is literally that role playing is dictated by and dependent on the mechanics. Jesus Christ.
My point is that mechanics are just as as dictated on the roleplay as the roleplay are on the mechanics.
>My point is that mechanics are dictated by roleplay
Well then your point is objectively incorrect
>A role-playing game
Not him, but that doen't mean you need to fricking act an entire character and insert yourself in his mindset. D&D is an RPG in the sense that you choose a class when you make a character, roleplaying is actually more about choice than acting.
No, it's about both, in equal measure.
>role-playing games aren't about playing a role
This is your brain on D&D
Nice strawman. Got some more of it? I need to feed the cow something.
>What I literally said is a strawman
I didn't say that, I said that the RPG element of D&D is more about picking a role in your team and making choices in the narrative, rather than just plain acting, acting is in fact unnecessary. Although I agree in that it can enhance the experience, if a D&D game was just acting, it would be more akin to a play, rather than a game.
>if a D&D game was just acting, it would be more akin to a play, rather than a game
It sounds be improv theater, the worst kind of theater.
Shut the frick up, namegay.
Make me, homosexual.
Why bother playing a roleplaying game if youre just trying to maximize the game aspect and minimize the roleplay aspect?
Broad strokes Black person. Character backgrounds should just be connecting threads for the GM to integrate your character into the story,
>Family
>Friends
>Mentors
>How you met the party
That’s it, the GM doesn’t need to know the past six generations of your family and see that your character is 184th in line for the throne of the Principality of Tinyland.
Where are you from, where is your family, what culture raised you? I prefer campaigns where characters are more than stat blocks.
And that's what that guy was saying. Your familiy, friend and mentors are usually 3/4 extremes that shape a character, along possible enemies. They also define the culture you were, since you're all part of it in some way.
If you can't explain to me who your character is in 5 lines or less, then you're doing too much. There can be much more than that, but you need to know how to summarize it in those few lines.
Also, over time I found out that the more backstory a character has, the less they tend to grow and evolve. There's so much that already defines the character that players have a hard time making them step outside those boundaries, except for the boundaries they already decided should be stepped out at some point.
>where is your family
Wherever I said they were in the short reference
>what culture raised you
The culture of my family
>Joe is a Boston Cop
>Jan is his dad a captain in the Boston police
>Jessica is his mother a housewife
>Jane is his younger sister a student
>Jim is his older brother a sergeant in the military
>John is his former partner and mentor with 10 years seniority over Joe
>Julia is his girlfriend/sweetheart who teaches elementary school
And there you go that’s everything the GM needs to know, he’s born and raised in Boston and has connections to these people. Everything else can be developed or explored later, ignored, or inferred based on given information. You want him personally motivated? Have the Irish mobster kidnap Julia. Want drama? Have his father turn out to be in the pocket of the Irish mafia. Want personal investment? Have Joe gunned down by a hitman for threatening to out several corrupt officers.
These things can easily be extrapolated even from a stat block. In fact, I particularly like how 5e backgrounds come with teeny little perks that can tweak a build but imply backstory. Combine that background with the actual build, let the DM place it into their world wherever it's rational and boom that's all the backstory anybody needs. If they live long enough they will feel like a real person after a few adventures.
Not really. Maybe a character sheet, but even that doesn’t include named characters and relations beyond a notes section or something in most RPGs which just means you put your backstory on your character sheet. In Pendragon or something where family specifically matters I don’t think you really need a backstory as long as the GM knows your relations beyond saying something like “big brother bullied me” or “stood up for younger sister.”
So you're saying if it matters the DM already knows it. If it doesn't matter, why bother with it beyond "I had a large family who shared my background" or "I was raised by a single parent who rejected my background" or the old standby "I was an orphan", all of which can be answered off the cuff if the DM asks.
That works too but specific relations work more easily without the GM needing to specifically ask about characters and possibly spoiling a surprise. Put simply a character sheet should cover entirely and exclusively information you want absolute control over. Do you care about your character specifically having a father who worked in the same field? Mention it. Do you care that your mentor was a hobo wizard in the woods? Mention it. Do you care that your character has a dozen brothers with specific jobs, mention it.
Anything not mentioned should be implicitly taken as permission for the GM to improv it as required to keep the game moving at an appropriate pace and remain interesting. Your father whose a retired paladin’s sword isn’t mentioned? Cool it’s a +2 magical longsword that does an extra 1d8 damage when used with divine smite, it was stolen by a group of thieves working for the BBEG, if you wanted it to be something different you would have mentioned it.
cringe
Make up your own, reasonable worldbuilding for your character and run it by your DM. There, that was easy.
Whatever the frick you want. It's a game of imagination. Want your character to be a former henchman to a city's Thieves Guild Master? Cool, done.
You don't need to have the entire city built for that to be a cool backstory.
What the frick is wrong with you people?
Here is a secret: worldbuilders don't play nor run anything, they just worldbuild.
The sooner you embrace that, the less confusion over the idiotic behaviour
I learned this a long time ago. I run two games and play in another two and I do virtually no worldbuilding for the two I run. I just take extensive notes about what the group finds.
Just wanted to say that "virtually none" is exactly the amount of worldbuilding I would recommend.
>backgrounds
It can be interesting but its purpose isnt necessarily to be interesting to the player, its to be useful to the DM. Extensive worldbuilding is there so if out of the blue some player asks who the heir if the 3rd generation of the characters geneology is so that you can answer the question without violating your own canon or saying something off the cuff that messes things up
Or, you know, you could just wing it and note it down in your own, GM notes to keep it consistent, rather than wasting time and energy on things that POTENTIALLY can pop-out, playing no real role in anything in reality.
You know, GMing 101: having the gist of your setting ready and everything else being filled in WHEN and IF needed, rather than beforehand.
This
diagram is a spot-on. Ony ever actually work on stuff that's applicable. Everything else is waste of time at best, ego stroking on average. And time invested on your setting is time not invested on making an actual game in it.
Sometimes I think people take the whole "TTRPG is for autismos" at the face value, rather than a joke and thus wrongly assume being autistic and anal over useless details is a virtue of sorts.
>interesting stories, history, details and tales are le lame
souless moron
None of the things he asked for match with your projection, moron
>play a game about story-telling
>shit on the DM for writing a prologue/foreword.
I don't understand what motivates this much seething.
It's about collective story telling.
It shouldn't be about the story he DM wants to tell, it's about the story the players make. Frick you.
that's why I said prologue, you queer.
The actual story is the game, but the prologue can set the stage, give a baseline to graft new characters and plots onto, and generally give the story more depth than just Four heroes meet in a tavern and a hobo walks in and asks them to retrieve a sword.
Without context (aka a created world) everything is rootless and meaningless.
>Anon asks why giving useless trivia
>B-but story-telling
You have NO story to tell. It's even worse what the other anon suggested: rather than being GM telling the story to players, it's GM reading them encyclopedia.
it's not about story telling.
>it's not about story telling.
seethe
shit
Think of it like how Dwarf Fortress automatically generates a whole history of a world. You don't have to read all of it to make your game work, but it makes the world richer and prevents each randomly generated world from being exactly the same.
Even if you only figure out what was different a generation ago, it gives the world a history for you to build from and decide what's interesting in the present and adds some sense to "why things are as they are." Instead of "well I needed X to happen so we have a plot."
>Think about it in terms of competely ignorable trivia that doesn't affect you in the slightest and is disconnected from what you are doing in the game
You are not helping your own argument at fricking all. On top of that, you are yet another moron that considers "rich worldbuilding" being some sort of achievement, failing to realise you are not writing a novel where you can cram a page of exposition (what for is a question for another discussion), but running a game played by bunch of people at once around a table. And their GM spending the weekend to figure out ancient history of the setting to "enrich the game" clearly missed the memo he only needs the bits of that ancient history actually needed for the game he's running - everything else being chaff.
It's like you homosexuals seriously don't run anything at fricking all. How do you even plan to cram this exposition? Sit your players for 5 minuts and monologue about the ancient history? Handle them 10 pages of read that is disconnected from their scenario? Come on, prove that you run a game at least once using your worldbuilding effort
You are completely correct, you only need what is necessary for running your game. But some people do actually enjoy that. It's fun to make a fleshed out world, and it means you don't have to improv as much. The latter especially true since players are unpredictable and will chase after something you weren't expecting them to care about, or ask all sorts of questions that you might not know the answer to yourself - and would detract from running the session by trying to make up answers.
It's enjoyable and some people enjoy having a large body of "history" to work with. Tolkien wrote an entire creation myth and fleshed out a loose history of his world, but his most famous bookseries are a pair of year-long stories over two generations. You don't have to use everything you make, but if it helps you run your game more confidently and you enjoy it, who's to say that it's a waste of time?
>But some people do actually enjoy that.
>some people
>some
Those same "some people" make for terribly incompetent GMs, chasing over their own likes and desires, then dragging the group of other people, who came to play a game together and used their time on that, only to not get what they came for. It's no different than GM running his magical realm, the only difference being there is (probably) no exotic fetish involved.
Also, improv is for the plot, not the world. The world is a window dressing for the game, stop obsessing over it. I'm currently playing a campaign that's running since November. I don't even know what's the shape of the country we are in, all I know the ruler is Mark the Red and that he's a duke. And I know that, because it was plot-revelant to tell us that there is an emissary of the duke Mark the Red relaying a message to the wizard in the party.
>The latter especially true since players are unpredictable and will chase after something you weren't expecting them to care about
That's PLOT. Not setting. If players go after "unexpected" (which means you are terrible at GMing, too), you need to be able to keep the game going, not bombard them with trivia about the world. Do you seriously think your players actually care about the setting when asking those questions, or are they fishing for hooks to follow?
Your entire logic can be summed up with "I love worldbuilding and I have no idea how to GM, but I love worldbuilding very much, and love is power, so I will use that to run my games". At least fricking admit it, rather than hiding behind "some people".
So you're sitting there, proud of the fact that your players don't care about anything other than what you've spoon-fed to them as part of a plot that you barely even understand yourself?
I mean if your party is there to just follow an adventure, that's fine, but you can't assume every party is like that. Plenty of players are curious and you aren't a bad GM if they want to explore something, that's an awful mindset to be in. "No you can't be creative because if you are I haven't distracted you enough."
I never said or even implied that - you jumped to that concusion all by yourself, based on God knows what.
But it ties to the overall problem you seem to be facing: inability to differentiate between "let's do worldbuilding in advance to be able to answer player questions when they ask them" and "let's be aboe to answer player question when they ask them". Same as with your inability to grasp the concept "players can be curious and ask questions" is unreated with "I must worldbuild to have those anwsers in advance".
I can assume every party is like that. I'm in this hobby since tail end of the 90s. And over the years I've also been running in the local libraries and youth center during their gaming days, aside my regular groups. When people want to know something, they ask. And I deliver, because it is predictible what they will ask for, too. Here are some obvious tips:
- they aren't going to ask for things that aren't mentioned or implied, because they don't exist from player perspective; therefore, I don't have to prepare in advance elements I don't need/want/both, because players just not gonna ask for them
- expositions longer than 30 seconds kill pace of the game and by pleasing the person asking questions, you make rest of the group roll their eyes; if you can't cover something in 3 sentences, you should work on your ability to summarise, not invent more elements
- stop acting like there is only a binary choice between "we just go on murderhobo hack'n'slash" and "I have elaborate and sophisticated setting that covers mutiple politica entities and centuries of history"; it just exposes you as someone competely out of practical experience, talking bullshit to feel better about own worldbuilding
Consider those free
So because you don't prepare more than the most predictable things, players never ask unpredictable questions, and doing worldbuilding exercises means that you need, need, NEED to exposit to the players about everything that's going on instead of metaphorically letting it run in the background until it interreacts with the players somehow. And because half your players are kids and people new to tabletop games, the fact that they won't think of curious questions from their own fantasy and gaming experience means that you are a champion GM. Got it.
>Here is me doubling down on strawman, please take me serious with this effort.
It's too dry to make this banter enjoyable. Are you interested in anything else than passive-aggressive insults?
I don't know, since you didn't ask about non-passive aggressive insults until now I didn't have any prepared.
>Those same "some people" make for terribly incompetent GMs, chasing over their own likes and desires, then dragging the group of other people, who came to play a game together and used their time on that, only to not get what they came for.
How do you know that's not what the party came for? I mean...you do play with your friends, who are interested in your ideas, right? You do workshop your ideas with them and let them share in the creative process, so that way you know the elements you're writing are things they'd be interested in. Surely. Surely you have people who care about having fun with you, the person, instead of customers treating you like a business.
>How do you know that's not what the party came for?
Because if they were interested in worldbuillding - and this is what you are interested in - they woudn't came to play a game. They would write their own.
In my current regular group I run game for people that are interested in having a pulp game somewhere between Relic Hunter and a series of 70s adventure books that are still popular in my country. They want to have an action-packed adventure in exotic backdrops and chasing after treasures, cheesy-style. The only parts of world-building those people are interested in is the legend surrounding the loot they are after, if there even is any. That and punching nazis.
You do realise it is possible to have game other than "my own homebrew, 200% original fantasy world"... right?
So we've been wasting each other's time when it basically comes down to "we both do things in different ways for different groups of people and games, and shouldn't act as if either extreme is objectively the best and only?"
Frick are you doing on Ganker man, you're supposed to act like everything else is shit, not admit that there are other agreeable options.
I told you that in the opening, you missed the memo and now act confused. Reading comprehension isn't your strongest suit, is it?
I'm killing time during a graveyard shift. You know, entertaining myself.
>I told you that in the opening, you missed the memo and now act confused.
No, I didn't. I never said or even implied that - you jumped to that concusion all by yourself, based on God knows what. You strawman that I do. Know the frickiung difference. When people want to know something, they ask.
Besides, you were asked a simple question: why do you insist that you are running games, when it is clear you don't and also can't? At least fricking admit it, rather than hiding behind "some people".
Besides, you were asked a simple question: how do you plan to cram those informations into the game. You do face this problem, right? You do run games and thus have to find way to deliver... right?
Do you have to cram the information into the game? Does everything have to be used that is created? Could it be used in a future game, or with another party? What if it's a West Marches game and you'll have multiple people going in multiple directions on different days and need to make sure they each have something interesting?
Even if you legitimately only use two sentences of a twenty page document full of family trees and history and weather patterns, if you enjoyed writing those twenty pages, it wasn't wasted effort. Congratulations, you had fun.
>The point is to satisfy my graphomania
Ok, thanks for at least making that one clear.
Listen to yourself. You've turned anything that isn't for an obvious objective into delirious waste. It's called fun, motherfricker. You can spend a few hours playing games, reading books, writing, having fun.
>You've turned
No, I didn't. You strawman that I do. Know the frickiung difference.
And tell me - if your form of fun is worldbuilding, why do you insist that you are running games, when it is clear you don't and also can't? Up to the point you genuinely believe that people would be entertained by the fact they sit around the table, listening to all the awesome creations you've made, rather than, you know, playing a game.
You do realise it is about playing games, rather than listening monologues... right? You aren't by chance Polish and don't adhere to their mutation of Wick's "wisdoms", where players literally sit for 15 minutes straight, listening to a GM's monologue, right?
You're just saying things and acting as if I've said them. I've never said monologues, I've never handed out lore books to players (though some GMs do that with more exotic settings), I've never stopped a game for fifteen minutes to talk about the forging process of aelfin battle weave armor hide.
>aren't by chance Polish and don't adhere to their mutation of Wick's "wisdoms"
Ignoring that's a double negative, if Polish people enjoy that then it's proof that people can have fun with that sort of game, and you're a dumbass for admitting you knew that the whole time.
>You're just saying things and acting as if I've said them
Irony is already silver, heading toward gold
But at least it stays consistent with the fact you strugge with reading comprehension
Well you've obviously got nothing left to say now.
I've already told you everything there was to tell, what else did you expect? That we go back to the start and try once more? What next? You bellieve in Socratic method, even if it never worked over past 2400 years and the only thing it ever achieved was sending the old man to a death sentence?
Well I kind of wanted the last word at least. After all, I made the last intelligent and logical point. I'm the winner really.
Fun is a buzzword.
No one enjoys that.
In this setting all land floats on the ocean. Because worldbuilding is not interesting and this anon is correct that I shouldn't share, then I won't explain how it works.
good, no one cares how it works moron
>then I won't explain how it works.
... why should you? I mean what's the fricking point explaining it?
Jesus frick, are you people really this moronic? I'm gonna bet a fiver that in different thread you are furiousy jerking off to the concept of "unique mystique of the setting", yet here you are trying to fricking threaten people with NOT explaining the fantastic elements of the setting
NTA, but what if there are like under-continent mermen kingdoms or something? Or what's keeping the land from sinking, because we intuitively know it should be heavier than water?
Ok, let me ask you this: why your character should care? The floating land is a fricking NORM for that character, they come from the world that has them. It's no different from me not being moved in the slightest with rock burst and related aftershakes, because I live in area where those are a norm.
And if there is the under-continent mermen kingdom: if there is, then it is, period. Is the party going there? Are the mermen even present? Any sort of interaction happens? No? Then why should it be even mentioned?
If you have autism and require everything explained, and then over-explained so you can properly compartmentise the information, that's lliterally your problem, not anyone's else. And what's the fricking point of explaining those things IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME, or, to be frank, at all? What's the gain here? When you watch a movie, do you instantly start asking online what this or that element represented or how does it even work, or just fricking roll with it?
So you're arguing because people don't need questions answered immediately all the time, there doesn't need to be answers at all?
If we don't need an answer to "why do continents float on the ocean?" why even have them float? Then we never have the hypothetical mermen kingdom because it retroactively never existed, because no one cared to pursue the details around it, so no one attempted to create something that would fit in those details. Why even adventure? We aren't curious about the journey or the destination or the outcome. We don't care about the world we're in, we don't need to know anything that happens in it. We can just sit here and nod our heads to everything the GM says and never think for ourselves or attempt to move beyond a designated "plot progress" line that is drawn out in front of us.
>why even have them float
Did you just ask why there are fantastic elements in a fantastic themed game?
Because the rest of the post is moronic strawman, but this question really stands out: you are incapable of grasping the sheer concept of having fantasy elements in a fantasy game and apparently never heard about window dressing. How's that even possible?
Nta, but I'd suggest this mental exercise. Next time you make a character, make them something else than self-insert of yourself, body and mind, in the setting of the game, asking non-stop questions like a litte child. I know, this might be impossible chalenge for someone so literal minded, but at least try.
That's something you should discover in character, if at all. Do you know nothing about story telling?
Worldbuilding should be presented only when it's necessary and relevant. Is it something the players are currently interacting with? No? Then it's irrelevant at the moment and you shouldn't waste time talking about it.
If you don't care for your gms worldbuilding he's either just bad at it or you are a homosexual that just wants to be entertained by making dumb jokes and eating fast food at the table without really immersing yourself
So... just about any GM that does worldbuilding for the sake of itself.
It either serves a purpose for the game, or is fricking useless trivia of a made-up world. It's really that simple. I will one day die out of old age and I will still be puzzled by the idea that making up worlds for the process itself is in any way useful or improves the game. It doesn't. Never did. And never will. You are running game, not writing an encyclopedia of a made-up world.
And you woud knew that, if you ever, at least fricking once, played anything.
This is what I meant by my post here
. I wasn't trying to advocate for the absence of worldbuilding. Worldbuilding is an important and vital part of the roleplaying experience. What I was trying to say is that the GM should not explain things about the world that are not relevant in the present moment, at least not during the game itself.
coping failed writer
Honestly I'm going to do the cardinal sin of Ganker and say that honestly the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
During actual gameplay bringing up irrelevant details about the world is just pointless and distracting. We're here to play a game let's move it along.
However if you legitimately don't care about the world you're playing in why are you still playing the game at all. You would probably be happier just playing a wargame or board game.
And presuming that you're playing with your actual friends and not internet randos it's nice to express interest in what they've presumably spent some time thinking about and working on for your enjoyment.
The actual ideal is that the GM does the work and has the details ready, but doesn't sit there and explain them to the players--he provides only what is relevant and necessary until they encounter it organically or ask the questions.
This is the true most kino way, but the issue is /tg/ contrarians go way further and say “all worldbuilding is bad and pointless and self masturbatory”
Finally someone who gets it
If it's not relevant or something the PC (or player) should/would know about the setting then you shouldn't go into detail unless it comes up in game. As interesting you find the fungi-based diet of your dwarves to be, your players simply do not care. I speak from experience.
No. Get better at DMing.
>world is homogeneous
>ingame societies aren't mixed melting pots
>the main form of society is patriarchy
>there are only men or women
Feels good
Are all those people and ideas at least paying rent, or you let them live for free in your head, gayman?
Speaking of which - you forgot to add a gayman edit to your post
>Troons seething
>absolutely rent free
Do the dickgirls talk to you at night, anon? Do they tell you to do bad things?
Ouch, the edge!
How is that edgy?
That's the point: it isn't, but anon still decided to show off how "edgy" he is.
no he didn't.
I'd play it
At least that's a pure fantasy (as in, not realistic in the least). Can't fault you for that.
>actual history of the world is fantasy
lol, lmao even
He is baiting, but it's not entirely false. History has always been about inter-ethnic and inter-cultural interactions, even if it's with your next-door neighbors. Plenty of cultural enclaves and colonies have existed, with cities always being somewhat diverse.
Men generally held direct political power, but women often had cultural and legal rights (sometimes more than men) and could often be more powerful than many men (such as Zenobia, Eleanor of Aquitaine, etc. - though they're exceptions more than anything).
I'll admit that inter-cultural is true, but different tribes of Gallic people doesn't make it not homogenous, for example.
learn the meaning of the word homogenous, gay.
Every single country of significance in history has had to deal with consistent internal civil strife due to cultural differences even in places of relative cultural adjacency.
>The Kingdom of Italy has always had to deal with rotten maggot cheese eating Corsicans
>The Byzantines dealt with constant issues with their albanians, serbians, bulgarians, turks, and latins
>The French kingdoms dealt with the Bretons and the Occitanians
>The Polish Lithuanian union had tons of slavic peoples that they ruled over and had to deal with
There was no homogeneity in any nation states of note in history.
you don't understand what homogeneity is because you're a mutt, many such cases
homogeneity (noun)
>the quality or state of being all the same or all of the same kind.
No, you.
>different tribes of Gallic people doesn't make it not homogenous
Actually, Gaul is a good example of this. Gaul was not homogenous, though there was a dominant "Gallic" culture in the central parts of it. However, you had plenty the Belgae and many Germans in the north, and the south had Greek colonists and traded often with the Romans.
They were still part of the same broad cultural sphere, but they were diverse peoples.
The actual history of the world is full of multicultural homosexualry. As a matter of fact, it's more often multicultural homosexualry than not.
>hes baiting
I'm not. Learn some history before you bolding proclaim to know it.
it depends on what the scope of the campaign is? I Mean I get it, it's cool to be a conservative to you weird zoomer fricks and say that homogeneity is good and all that shit but sometimes you want to talk to the elves or whatever the frick.
On the contrary, generally it's the woketards who abuse the "it's just fantasy mate, of course we can have 97263876 valid genders here" argument when directing a campaign setting.
Troons are seething, no more no less, the sign of a based man (in fact I got a warning for posting this and the post got deleted, lol, even the jannies are seething, off topic my ass)
>t. rent-free
On the contary, they re the obsessed ones that can't make settings/characters that aren't some kind of social commentary.
After all, that's what they use fantasy for, it's the main reason critical role is so full of gays, this hobby is pure escapism for them.
>After all, that's what they use fantasy for
Anon, communism have fallen before you were born. There is no longer any point writing a thinly veiled political allegory with green people and pointy-eared people. And I wish fantasy writers from my country also get the memo already.
>a setting where it's perfectly justifiable to murderhobo your way through the inevitably monoculture white Nordic human villages
I can see why I'D have fun there anon, but is it the same reason you would?
>taking the bait
I love you people. Can't help yourselves.
>he wouldn’t play a game set in ancient egypt
with a Greek ruling class and blacks serving as dick washers and slaves?
sounds awfully problematic
What's wrong with this one? Sounds reasonable. Why so much seething?
People are seething because the post is an extreme example of avoiding all the "troon, nuttrpg, danger hair" pandering that seems prevelant in most TTRPG culture nowadays, go so far in the other direction as to upset the people that are Champions of Current Culture.
it's not going that far at all
>Lion & Dragon
The greenest of flags
>he hasn't played a game thats setting isn't based on the meditteranean.
>Southern France
>Sicily
>Byzantine Empire
>Levant
>Fatamid Caliphate
>Spain
Damn now I want that.
If the societies aren't mixed, the world is heterogenous, not homogenous.
The DM never mentions Critical Role once
Critical Role doesn't exist outside two places: /tg/ and reddit.
You would know, if you played anything at fricking all.
My former foreverDM mentioned them, in a positive light.
He wants to take over as soon as my campaign ends.
Literally every D&D player under 30 is ASSUMED to be familiar with Critical Role. It was shocking how many references to it were made in League play.
>t. people obsessing over how bad CR is, also being the only people who care about it
I gonna bet you also complain non-stop about trannies, despite never even seeing one.
Again if you actually played you would probably see trannies and definitely people who are clearly experimenting with the idea.
Here is a clue, homosexual:
Last time I've played was past weekend.
Last time I've played DnD, was in 2006
And I'm not a Yank
Need this explained in even more simple terms?
>3rd worlder
literally did not ask favelamonkey
Whether it is Rainbow McFluffy or Baron Von Edgelord, putting so much emphasis on character that you think the rules of the game shouldn't apply to you is a problem.
>Anything not mentioned should be implicitly taken as permission for the GM to improv it
I couldnt agree more which is why I advocate leaving backstory as open as possible.
I dont know. I have 3 friends (37, 38 and 41) who talked about CR like maniacs. "Did you see the last episode?" "So cool, Mercer is a genious" "I do this, like in Critical Role haha". God damn, it was torture. They started to play just 3 years ago, but they are the kind of people who gets obssesed and talk as if they had played for 15 years. Pricks. Good thing they dont talk about CR anymore.
>Things that never happened: The post
Yanks are already asleep, no point larping as one
Hey, its not my fault you dont have friends who share hobbies with you and play together (strangers on internet dont count)
Not that anon, but I don't think there is any pride with having 40 yo manchildren friends.
>Winning debates
Friendly reminder you must be 18 to use this site
But I won! I typed the most words! I asked the most questions! I won! You just won't admit it because you're a troll, a trollerino troll troll troll! Why do you do this to me?! I was right? I deserve to get my dick sucked waaaaaaah whyyyyyyy my opinions and experiences were CORRECT
Eeh, what can i say, they are fun, respetful and ready to play most of the time. Just a bit... snooty?
>He said, while his made-up friends are adult men obsessing over tween entertainment and acting all moronic
Weird cope, but I can see the reason behind it
Not that anon but come on, stop acting like the mature edgy intellectual person. We are in Ganker haha. Its sad.
Players (almost) always turn up on time and don't cancel without giving at least 24 hours notice
This flag cannot be seen until the game has ended. A rare and beautiful victory flag that I haven't seen in years.
For me (a german) this is a red flag
And you are absolutly right.
The only reason why nobody should care about the worldbuilding is in a pure dungeon-run campaign.
Also I too, am German
>Game isn't D&D
>Setting isn't the same-old-same-old kitchen sink d&dish high fantasy
>Everyone at the table know the rules
>Game doesn't have moron bullshit like "character arcs"
>Setting notes are concise and straight to the point all in one page
>Character bg are no longer than five sentences with at least a narrative hook in it
>GM doesn't speak to himself like a schizophrenic moron when interpreting various npc speaking to eachother and instead simply paraphrase the whole dialogue in order to get the pc to interject if they want to
>Players and GM are functional adults
>Players are eager to try new systems or willing to step in to GM a game
>GM is eager to work within its settings a character concept that doesn't properly fits just to make a player happy
>Player is eager to make compromises in order to fit a character concept to the setting at hand
>GM doesn't speak to himself like a schizophrenic moron when interpreting various npc speaking to eachother and instead simply paraphrase the whole dialogue in order to get the pc to interject if they want to
The greenest flag of them all. It's fine to have NPCs say a sentence or two to each other, but never a full conversation. Adding into this I do like it when NPCs communicate their spur of the moment plans to each other in combat instead of being able to telepathically infer they should focus down the druid, cover their ally whilst he moves up or hold an angle on the guy with a shotgun.
Some of those are overlapping. like the group being functional aduts and the final two. Or the game not being DnD and players being eager to try something else at any time.
Just saying.
The DM/Players don't have a massive bug up their asses over manga-style character art. I do not understand why so many Grognards cling onto this old predjudice from the 90's. Anime art is a great way to scare off the people who need too be scared off. I'll take big-eyed anime girls over problem glasses and undercuts everywhere.
>Thinks anime keeps him safe from toxic morons
Red flag: the post
The toxic morons melt down over anime girls with big breasts, so yes I think it does if not keep me totally safe is one additional layer of protection against terminally online morons who melt down at even DEPICTING "problematic" content. Because depicting fictional slavery or racism, even to say "this is bad" is "contributing to it" ...somehow.
Anime is a red flag as much as grogs are. One are unable to deal with change and time moving forward, the other is obsessed with it and has a hard time doing anything that isn't following a trend.
There's a time and a place for both, and both can be filtered with the proper tools. Relying more on one than the other will make you biased and not see some shit you should be filtering.
you're somehow the biggest gay in this thread
Frick, now I don't know who I triggered, the fat guy or the anime gay.
someone in the middle who doesn't view either of those things as red flags
Bro do you think Anime is just Studio Ghibli or something? Dont ever go to an anime discussion board, you're too pure for the anime community.
Based
Cringe and out-of-touch pilled
Anime is just terrible taste.
Simple as.
Yeah, globohomosexual dyke dwarven women are way better.
Your dopamine starved brain wouldn't be able to even register that you were looking at a real woman, coomer.
You too have poor taste. Post an image of "good" female art.
anime is staid but when you're right you're right
i'll take that goofy shit over grimdyke diversitywank every day of the week
is that 'woman' supposed to be attractive?
this art is also terrible, however.
Doesn't do her justice
Same energy.
I too find colors extremely homosexual.
So is this whole character covered in fur or what, it's not super clear?
>a parody character from a comedy video game is the same as someone's personal character
Wut.
Yeah, I'm not seeing the parallels, one is mostly consistent, albeit gaudy, the other is over-saturated with too many conflicting details.
how do you figure?
Nope, fix your taste or die.
The biggest problem with world-building DMs is that world-building requires you to strike a balance between the world you envision and the system you use to represent it.
If you use WFRP to represent your world, it should have a much different structure than a world that uses 5e D&D. And the setting itself will also adapt to the game: your world will have much more magic and magic-users in 5e than if you used WFRP to represent it.
The thing is: the DM has complete control over the setting, but the whole table has a say on the system. It doesn't matter if your gritty, low-fantasy setting is superbly written when everyone else wants to play Starfinder or Star Wars.
The key to world-building as a DM is to ensure that your game system and game setting are perfectly in line with each other. Otherwise, their clash will only make the setting feel fake and make the players less interested in it.
honestly you fricked this entire thread by just describing a red flag with "doesn't" in it, it's basically a conceptual double negative
you should've said something like "worldbuilding is concise and focus remains on the gameplay"
0/10
>table has a girl at it already
>not like a legbeard hambeast creeper who magical realms her piss fetish if the DM lets her, like an actual normal girl
>no one at the table is being a creeper at her
epic wholesome moment
>girl
>normal
Is someone gonna tell him?
>setting isn't generic 'medieval fantasy'
"""""medieval""""" fantasy, you mean
where it's Renaissance in every way save its name and the moronic insistence that firearms can't exist in the world where wizards throw fireballs around willy-nilly because 'it would unbalance the combat'
In what way are "generic fantasy settings" typically more renaissance? It seems to me they're often basically modern with a medieval coat of paint, i.e; Kingdoms are governed like how a modern state is, attitudes are the same (at least the attitudes of the good guys), religion is never very important outside of the most obvious exoteric elements...
plate mail literally was developed in response to firearms, anon.
Also half the weapons in the PHB didn't exist before the 15th century.
Settings like Faerun and the nations therein are far closer to merchant empires like those of the Dutch or Venetians than they are to the church-ordained feudal fiefdoms of medieval Christendom.
I would disagree and say it was developed in response to crossbows before firearms started to make an impact.
Other two are fair though.
>I would disagree
it isn't up for debate, anon.
>In Europe, plate armour reached its peak in the late 15th and early 16th centuries. The full suit of armour, also referred to as a panoply, is thus a feature of the very end of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance period. Its popular association with the "medieval knight” is due to the specialised jousting armour which developed in the 16th century.
>Quoting Wikipedia
Oh, you’re moronic. Plate armor existed before the 15th century.
Please show notated examples of such.
That's better attributed to advancements in European metallurgy than the rise of gunpowder weaponry. Plate armor became widespread because it was easy to mass-produce, but could also be specialized and honed well.
That's the same reason weapons like Zweihändern became more widely used in that time period. Gunpowder weapons also became more common for a similar reason, since metallurgical techniques were essential to producing cannons and other firearms.
>Plate armor existed before the 15th century.
Not really. Coats of plates and other transitional armors existed before the 15th century, but plate armor only really took off in the 15th century, and that was primarily in Germany and Italy.
isn't not*
>the GM brings out pic
I'm going to be honest. Never joined a game I didn't like anyways.
>itt: worldbuilders insisting that everyone is no-games, for they can't appriciate their genius creation
Each time.
Every time.
It's like you people geniunely can't wrap your heads around why everyone else gives you shit over your obsessive wordbuilding that serves no actual purpose to anything at all other than just existing.
>Make detailed OC world full of lore and oddities
>Never explain anything unless someone has Bardic Knowledge
What a Chad
>GM always plays a bard when not running.
>When he GMs he always includes one of his bards, no matter the setting.
>Bard always gives speeches about the lore because your rogue never asks.
To keep it with the theme of this thread
>GM doesn't handle pages of lore for each session
>His maps are just ad-hoc doodles
>Only ever handes any sort of trivia when it is applicabe
Rape. Lots of rape.
Ah, look, the sperg killed the thread.
Are you proud of yourself?
>the sperg
Which sperg was it?
see
This one, the needlessly antagonistic one who has been arguing literally with every poster.
>the needlessly antagonistic one who has been arguing literally with every poster.
Do you have any idea how little that narrows it down?
Look at the thread, anon.
There has been a string of inordinately hostile responses to multiple different posters, and it's likely all the same person.
We'll find out soon.
>it's likely all the same person.
I admire your optimism
>Ganker is just one person
Neither of the anons you've linked, but I'd suggest lurking some more
>Shit thread with zero premise
>People bunch up on worldbuilder
>He cries about killing "his" thread
Grow some skin, since it's too late for balls
Everyone is fit.
Beauty may be skin deep, but ugly goes down to the bone.
Never let a fat join. They literally eat until they can't move properly or think clearly. They stink up your bathroom with rancid diarrhea. They get grumpy without food, like literal toddlers. They don't help with setup or cleanup. Avoid them 100%.
Green flag?
They do not have a twitter account, and they do not go on ANY chan sites.
Both breed argumentative, obstinate outlooks.
>The whole party makes their characters together, with GM present and everyone is discussing their characters in regard of the incoming campaign
>Being a GM is a hot-seat deal, so everyone in the group contributes, rather than single person doing it non-stop
>have deep and expensive worldbuilding
>constantly monitor the shifts of various groups/cultures/factions as the players move
>only ever explain what is in the immediate vicinity of the players or what they ask about
This has lead to the players often having no clue what is going on or having massive misconceptions as to how other cultures work.
The most prominent moment of this was when they came into conflict with a order of priest-bureaucrats who were in the process of fulfilling a cyclic prophesy that require they play out the day of the emperor's death.
My favorite thing is when they fail Lore checks and I get to tell them they have no idea what's going on or the context of the actions being taken.
... and all of this is a green flag... how?
Because it soulds like you are jerk off to how awesome you are, according to you, instead.
The way he's describing it, it may be that but it also adds background depth to his campaign. Not inherently more than my random encounter tables and improvised on-demand lore connections but as long as, either way, the method doesn't hurt the party's immersion his way is fine too if that's what he likes to do for prep.
It sounds like his players are genuinely confused what the frick he's doing, and that's like 9 out of 10 cases of people fellating themselves over their super-clever settings and lore
The majority of players who want open ended gameplay enjoy that. Really only the party leader and/or record keeper needs to have even the slightest idea about the "adventure path"
Players not understanding foreign cultures and refusing to let go of the first notion they jumped to is a good thing as it accurately simulates how people actual deal with foreign cultures.
Which part of "how al of this is a green flag" you need expllained? Because it seems you don't understand either the question or the purpose of this thread - and probably both.
>unironically posts a 'master baiter' meme image with a master baiter post
I guess I'll allow it?
>isn't scared of using old editions
>no cringy and edy roleplaying
>no women at the table
>"Hey guys, I'm planning on hosting some sessions in a little while, what kind of things would you like to see? I'll see we get them integrated into the setting in a cool way
>Basic-b***h stuff treated as a greenflag
>Gayman image
Yeah, you don't play
>Only adults at the table
>Everyone has a sense of humor
>No one is easily offended
>Everyone is willing to broach darker topics for the sake of the game's narrative
>Everyone shows up roughly on time
>Everyone shows up prepared
>Everyone gets along
>GM/DM discusses what game everyone would like to play before making plans
>Everyone interacts in good faith
>If couples are present their relationship is healthy enough to not let the game cause drama
>No one gets more than light teasing for their ideas and characters
>Decent soundtrack
>Battlemat, tv recessed into table or full on diorama battle map to play out encounters.
>Group plays more than one kind/brand of game, rotating through them to keep things fresh
>GM doesn't
always a good sign
dm and all players frequent /misc/
>We don't need to roleplay shopping for normal stuff. You can buy items from the rulebook, just let me know.
>roleplaying shopping
Wait, do people still do that? I can't think of a single game published in past decade that wouldn't explicitly say in the rules to NOT do this and instead just pass the list to GM with all the stuff you need. Granted, I didn't touch DnD, so maybe 4 or 5 ed does that, but can't think about any other game that didn't provide solution already in the rules for the "and now two hours at the market stall" scenario
5th encourages you to do the offscreen shopping. I've just known people to be stupid.
Then it makes the whole thing even weirder, if even DnD managed to print a solution. I never understood this shit, especially when people actually insist that they want to roleplay through shopping, doing bunch of pointless small talk and haggling, even if the deciding factor is still the roll of dice. Bonus points for hagglling as such being heavily frowned upon in my country on cultural level, making such behaviour amoung players even weirder.
The problem is that a lot of people spam red flags or green flags till their list is the size of the Alabama Constitution. Instead of being able to pick out the correct few examples and letting everything else fall into place cause they had a baseline level of intelligence
>Has kicked out a player
For literally any reason other than the most insanely stupid. They aren't inherently good because they kicked someone out in the past. But its good that they have the ABILITY to do it and won't let one jackass ruin the fun for everyone else.
>Moving world
Long story short don't have all of your stuff placed in a way that it never has to move. If its session 0 and you tell me a war is going on and we get to session 10 and nothing has ostensibly changed then clearly the world exists as a type of multiplayer map in a videogame where if we aren't physically in that spot then nothing changes. Of course this has exceptions right, its unreasonable to expect kingdoms to rise and fall and people all die and be born and reincarnated or whatever the frick in 2 sessions. But its a VERY good sign in terms of how committed they are to the role of the DM/GM (this is predominantly placed under the concept of homebrew campaigns)
>Vet the players
Best way to stop a player thats a problem? Dont let them in. The reason why I say this is because that the ability to vet a player speaks fricking VOLUMES to how capable they are of being a person. The ability to sniff or filter out wierdos, idiots (not character wise like actuall dumb people), or just generally unlikable people shows that you're able to be a decent enough person to discern who is and isn't a good fit. (This is particularly for online campaigns but can be used outside obviously)
These standards at least as far as im concerned can sniff out a decent amount of solid GMs of course no one bats 1000 but it works for me.
>their list is the size of the Alabama Constitution.
... meaning?
Black person use context clues, considering the sentence the Alabama Constitution is probably pretty wrong.