Have you ever included something in your game simply to spite people you dont like?
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Have you ever included something in your game simply to spite people you dont like?
Have you ever included something in your game simply to spite people you dont like?
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
|
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
I tell prospective players I'm running a human-only setting (even though I'm not) to filter out DnD snowflake pissbabies who can't cope with the idea of NOT playing a Tiefling or some kind of furshit or whatever.
Not gonna lie, I feel that small hit of spite-satisfaction every time a prospective player applicant b***hes about having to play a human. (Which I don't even force them to do if they pass as I end up accepting them as a player).
So you lie to the people who want a human only game in order to lie to those who don’t? I mean, it suits the thread but seems really self-sabotaging.
Incredibly based.
I do a similar thing with casters, where I mention before the game starts that I might not be allowing full casters in the campaign, and if anyone complains they're instantly out of the running to become a player. I don't actually care if someone wants to play a full caster, but I can't stand those homosexuals who only play full-casters.
I had the same thought. This is definitely playing games about playing a game. And I say this as a guy who generally prefers more human-only settings (unless it's A Song of Ice and Fire).
I make sure to make elves powerful and respected in any setting and game I work on, to spite the average fa/tg/uy.
One of my players is afraid of clowns. So I try to push as far as I can with the description of a certain recurring character without dropping the word clown.
Stuff like, a "jester" who wears "make up" and has a "rudolf the reindeer nose" and "comically oversized shoes" and routinely sprays the characters with a flower that shoots water, and delivers sensitive information using a jack in the box.
He's almost called me on it twice, but I somehow skirted the issue.
I don't play with people I don't like.
>characters (optional)
this is totally wrong, characters are essential, they will convey the above in Chad's list and help the DM flesh out the world. An interesting character has an informative perspective for the world and by preparing a small gamut of npc characters will get everything else easy and fun.
t. the "why yes, I have never played or run a tabletop game, yet know this: I am correct. No argument to be made against me exist" guy
You're thinking about running a game, but the pic is about worldbuilding. Two very different things.
I love making as many NPC's as possible gay, simply unwilling to frick males or simply unwilling to frick human males. The only ones my Players are able to attempt to romance are the Gay Orcs I include in the story to appeal to my own fetish.
Everybody hates me for it, but gawd damn do I know how to make a combat scenario involved. I recite powerful snippets of poetry I like (think Darkest Dungeons narrator) I play music in the background, and I typically theme my fights like a puzzle or a display of tactical skill and never a generic "1d8 wolves show up, wat do?"
>but gawd damn do I know how to make a combat scenario involved. I recite powerful snippets of poetry I like (think Darkest Dungeons narrator) I play music in the background, and I typically theme my fights like a puzzle or a display of tactical skill and never a generic "1d8 wolves show up, wat do?"
Congratulations anon, you do what 80% of the DMs already do and usually they're expected to.
In my experience over the years, the % ratio of GMs who do that properly along a proper share of rules and roleplaying compared to all the GMs is as small as the % of fans a system has and how many of them actually GM games.
The guy able to balance the autistic nature of TTRPGs and the nuance of social interactions and situational context is the exception, not the rule.
Most GMs operate based on "yes/no" mentality rather than the "yes/no - but/and" spectrum.
You are wrong. Ambiance and decent combat logic is exceedingly common because those are things ANYONE can do because it takes no nuance or skill, just effort
Then maybe we have different views of those concepts. "combat logic" to me sounds like the combat has some contextual variables beyond RAW mechanics that make use of the rules in a way that make sense so combat trully feels dynamic and not videogame tier.
But even then, I'd say it is rare, because of +10 GMs I had over the years, only 2 ever did run the game close to RAW or in a way I admired. Everyone else was clearly going by the motions or relying more on making up stuff than understanding all the things that come into play. Which doesn't mean the game were bad, just that they didn't felt like "complete" games or systems.
And you cannot convince me that this is common, because it's not, at least in PF, DnD or the PBTA systems I played, because the skill of "seeing the big picture, all the elements that partake in it and how they interact" is quite a rare skill, in and out of TTRPGs.
Making fights have elements like puzzles or gimmicks is not common unless you mean that said puzzle and gimmick is the whole fight, without player agency orthe possibility of different solutions.
Dude just go back to jerking it to your gay orc porn & stop posting. You picked a stupid hill to die on, & you are thoughtlessly basing your idea of superiority on your own experience & trying to discount at least two other anon's own refutations to your world view.
What the frick. You okay? You went on a tangent there for some reason.
Just said that doing that duality properly is rare. I don't deny that anon is able to pull it off, I said that while msot people do put up some image on TV, background music and some "puzzle" fight, the times that actually worked out and was properly prepared and executed were rare.
Maybe my standards are too high, maybe I had particularly bad GMs, dunno. But I was saying that mroe from a general perspective in life rather than jsut TTRPGs: Most people do not see the big picture, but it is also true that they could, they choose not to for one reason or another. Like many of those GMs were friends that I knew were capable of running complex games or use more rules, but they said they wanted to make a more Light game, "fun first" or other.
You will now reply all angry and insulting me that I'm some moron, gay Black person or something instead of offering your take or view. Won't you?
We're all anon here so pardon me if I'm wrong but
said he beats off to gay orcs & confessed he was a degenerate but at least he has music & non generic combat.
My first post is here
where I say that those two things are frick all easy & common to find (because that's what every stupid YouTube video says to do to "be a good dm" for zoomies to Google before playing D&D.) You then got mad, posted a long winded anecdote, & I told you to just stop, & go back to your gay orcs.
Now you've posted again, a long winded response with nothing new to add, you decided to goad me because you are butthurt & worst of all, now I have made a long-winded post, covering this exchange.
TLDR you are wrong
To be clear then, I am not
, and when I wrote my posts
I was focusing pretty much only on the
> I recite powerful snippets of poetry I like (think Darkest Dungeons narrator) I play music in the background, and I typically theme my fights like a puzzle or a display of tactical skill and never a generic "1d8 wolves show up, wat do?"
Part, specially the last point. I've run more times into GMs who did not want to use a TV or use music because it was too much prep work or didn't care for it, but specially, that they did not have fights beyond numbers or gimmicks.
I agree with you and that was my first reaction when reading 3.5 back in college. That hey, if the game has rules for lifting, carrying, throwing stuff and tables for improvised damage, then surely the game expects me to play with those rules, right? beyond what character can do in a fight RAW, I mean. That systems are made to build stories on top by offering (in theory) a really solid base.
But my experience was not that, in fact me and the other 2 GMs are the only ones who ever cared or used those rules for basic enviroment interaction in a way that was unique to every PC. Everyone else either only follows the rules because that's what's defined and can be followed or ignores them at will because they're "too hard" to improvise with, which ironically results in games breaking apart due lack of structure and logic.
And I don't mean this as some super hard intelectual skill, but a simple approach with the rules and "living world" in mind. Like how despite most GM focused books telling you to use monster stats, background/biology and traits to think how complex their combat tactics would be. It makes a lot of sense but I barely see GMs do it.
My God dude, use less words
How do you make music not get in the way of playing the game? Maybe I'm just autistic but when I run games I prefer the room to be relatively quiet, so my players can focus and I don't need to raise my voice to speak.
You just, uh... put it at 3% volume and make sure it's ambiental music? contrary to what that anon believes, it ain't really that deep.
That just sounds annoying. I wouldn't like that, so I won't do that.
Do you also get annoyed when you walk down the street and there's background noise or the sounds around your working enviroment?
Because it's the same idea, just high enough to set up the place and tone but not enough to get in the way of thinking.
Do consider autism since hypersensivity to nosie is one of their main traits, altho I though that was only as kids.
I haven't included specific things into my games to spite people but I have torpedoed a 2 year campaign out of spite for my IRL friends.
Yeah, I only play in English.
>gaymanspam
>wojak
OP is pure cancer, and everyone should just let this shit thread die.
No. I build for games I do or intend to run. So the things I build are the things I'm interested in running.
My setting follows all of that except political powerfantasy. So much of it is already ripped from morrowind adding house Telvanni would make it too obvious
Answering OP's pic
>Harem, casual nudity, light bondage
>Meritocratic Monoarchs & Emperors
>Psuedo Gnostic Christian setting with Goetic Demon Summoning, also "the King is the Land"
>decadent Atlantean Sorcerer Kings, & Enkiduean champions of the primal lands
I did not allow PCs to be openly gay or transgender when we started the campaign, despite both concepts existing in the unvierse and even having a degree of play in the main story.
The reason is that I do believe both are prominent enough in society for cultures to develop an opinion on it, usually negative due them goings against the "nature" of things, but also that some more civilized societies ask themselves "and is that nature really necessary?" and started to accept it.
Thing is, public displays of love are frowned upon in the nation that allows homosexuality, from any kind of sexuality, because they have a mindset that Work and Home don't overlap and intimacy is to be done with friends and family and not when working together with people that may have different values and opinions. It is also seen in poor manners to ask someone about their sexuality or imply someone is homosexual, as it's seen as an attempt to publicly shame someone and isntead the accuser is shamed.
Transexuality exists but not pronouns, because in a world where magic does let you cross the street with 100% accuracy, the neutral "road" doesn't have time to appear. Trans people live under their new personas without talking about their past outside close friends and those who actively switch are seen as degenerates since the process is really expensive and it's obvious they do it to abuse each side and not for true feelings about themselves.
But it's really satisfying to bring a gay NPC and call out the players as degenerate because they keep asking about their boyfriend or sending them to the general (Campaign is about being special agents for said kingdom) due public harasment and shameful behavior.
I'm not a woman, so no. If I don't like someone, I just don't play with 'em, simple as.
>Transformation, secondary kinks of bondage and mind control and a smidgeon of exhibitionism
>Radical monarchic 1776 revival
>Internal alchemy via yoga
>Older, pragmatic master and his* wienery, idealistic student travelling the world practicing their shapeshifting martial arts
Pointy-eared dwarves and modelling elf hate after the Armenian genocide so I could make ottoman azerbaijani orcs.