We all know stories about that guy, awful sessions, drama etc. but was there ever a moment in any of your games that left you speechless? A player doing something transcending stupidity or maybe a GM ruling or story bit so bizarre it left the rest of party dumbfounded? Tell us about the most moronic stuff to ever happen at your table.
I'll start:
>Invite friends to playtest a system I was making on the side
>Late-medieval setting that suddenly saw an influx of technology plunging the land into an age of strife
>The session was happening in a small village that was preparing to resist a group of marauders that were nearby, a good place to make everyone familiar with the world and rules
>Everyone makes their characters tied to this village - one is an orphan raised by an old but respected swordmaster, one is the son of the village's wealthiest man
>The last guy comes up with an outcast magic practicioner who burned his own parents, is covered in horrible scars and talks to the voices in his head
>Spends the entire session avoiding all roleplay opportunities despite my npcs and other players going out of their way to interact with him
>The session concludes with the marauders attacking - the two guys are doing their best to save the village while testing the combat system while the last guy basically avoids combat and just tries to escape as he "owes these people nothing"
>The session concludes with a dramatic escape and the orphan's guardian dying while dropping some plot hooks
>I ask for feedback
>The two guys are actually quite satisfied and want to play more
>The last guy who played the scarred edgelord clearly isn't
>He starts complaining about how the darker tone of the finale ruined the session and how I always make everything edgy on purpose
>The rest of us were fricking confused considering his character
>He spent the next 5 minutes rambling about arcs and themes and seemed genuinely upset over all of this
>Okay fine, I can run a new, comfier introduction session since we had more people wanting to join anyway
>I ask everybody to make fitting characters or use their older ones
>The guy who complained rolls someone new
>I breathe a sigh of relief and ask him about his character
>"So he's a secret assassin raised by a violent cult, who was sent to this quiet village to murder..."
Who are you quoting?
>being this new
If you aren't quoting anyone, stop typing in a moronic manner.
>implying I'm moronic
>newbie demands others do things in a way he understands
Lurk for two years before posting.
Green text is for direct quotes only, moron.
It is not, moron.
It is, moron.
It is not and has never been. You must be either incredibly new, stupid, or both in order to both have such an erroneous belief and also attempt to defend it.
Either shut the frick up and lurk more or go back to wherever you came from
Originated on BBS newbie Black person. Don't reply to me ever again.
That sure as frick doesn’t sound like here.
moron.
learn the language instead of whining about it, moron
himself, obviously
>>>/jp/
Once had a player quit a campaign after complaining to me that there wasn't enough combat. The reason he quit? Because the party needed an audience with a noble and one of the avenues I gave them to get this audience was winning a gladiator-style combat tournament. When the other 3 players wanted to enter (and he didn't for some reason), he accused me of railroading.
I'm genuinely baffled to this day about what was going on in his head.
Typical story of player-pigs having no idea what they actually want. Nowadays I'm so sick of moronic player-pigs that I refuse to allow new players into my group unless they have DMing experience. Filters out 80% of the shit right there.
How much experience you ask for? Does DMing modules or one-shots still too low for your standards?
No. Someone who has even legitimately TRIED to run something will have an idea of how much time and effort goes into it, and hopefully not be an entitled twat like the typical player-pig.
>Nowadays I'm so sick of moronic player-pigs that I refuse to allow new players into my group unless they have DMing experience.
Based, I've pushed everyone in my digital session into having done some DMing and it managed to make everything so much better.
Running for DMs is great having an honest group of players who care about both sides of the table makes everything run so much smoother.
>accused me of railroading
a shovel to the face would help he realize how stupid he was
>accused me of railroading.
it would be good for all these people to stop breathing as the need to breathe is a railroading path of action according to their bullshit.
>railroading
everything that has any structure whatsoever is now considered as railroading by these goblins
You know this is all easily avoided by filling in details on your map and randomly generatimg things...
>he accused me of railroading
player locks himself in a room, for reasons unknown to all but himself, with key he obtained (throws it out the window to the moat below) and then casts arcane lock, accuses dm or railroading, because he cannot now exit the room as he has no knock spell
players choose to take ship to reach their island destination, weather chart rolled a storm and various sea monsters, players accuses dm of railroading because he cannot go swimming.
shovel to the face
>"I want more combat in this game!!!"
>*DM puts the players in a literal tournament arc*
>"NOOOO! NOT LIKE THAT!"
Just reading this makes ME genuinely curious what this player actually wanted. Then again
probably has it right. The player himself probably didn't even know what he wanted.
>the reward for combat is going to be more talking with nobles
That's not real combat.
Imagine being in a team game like D&D and thinking the entire game revolves around you. You know how much time combat in D&D takes vs talking? Assuming this tournament was more than one fight, they're probably looking at at least 2 whole sessions of just combat stuff for what's probably half a session of the other players getting to talk to the noble at best. D&D combat is absolute ass and takes FOREVER.
99% of the mechanical attention is given to combat because dnd is a spelunking wargame that was shoehorned into general roleplay
if you think general roleplay is better in dnd than combat, then you pretty much literally just don't want to play dnd and would do a lot better with a more freeform system
>combat stuff
The point of combat is not just going through the motions. Any combat in any system can be exciting or dull depending on the skill of the GM, so don't try to get distracted/sidetracked now.
If you're not invested in the outcome of a battle, it's worse than no battle at all. If a player has clearly lost interest in the politics of a game and just wants to escape, the worst thing you can do is show them a tunnel, but tell them it leads to only more of the same politics at the end.
It's weird that this isn't obvious to some people.
It's like giving them a sundae and telling them you're going to punch them in the jaw as soon as they've finished, and wondering why they're not enjoying their ice cream.
The very concept of entering a tournament just to get an audience with a noble is so gross. "Talking with an NPC so haughty that you need to pass a test just to speak to them" and treating that like a prize sounds miserable, even without it also robbing any chance at joy coming out of the next few battles.
Players are too entitled to take part in a fantasy world, then?
>hey guys do you know what would be fun
>forcing you to listen to me when I talk about nonsense from a position of power
>talking down to you is great, but I bet you'll appreciate it more if I made it your reward
Yeah, it's the players who are entitled.
Given that the players could just choose not to deal with nobles... Yeah.
>Given that the players could just choose not to deal with nobles... Yeah.
You've never played a game before, have you? Certainly not from the GM side of things, where its obvious just how easy it is to present meaningless choices and pretend you're giving players options while just steering them towards what you have planned. Or are you just that awful that you've never thought about it? I do know plenty of GMs who can't help but steer players subconsciously, and it's painful to watch them wonder why players feel trapped and helpless in their games.
I'll give you a pretty helpful hint. If given the choice to simply get what they wanted from winning the tournament without having to "need" an audience with a noble, they'd pick that option every time. Christ, imagine acting like the opportunity to be indebted to some frick is a prize.
This just sounds like you hate everything that's not a straightforward monstermasher where winning the fight solves every problem.
Yeah, games should be games. Idiot.
Play video games or wargames, anon. People playing Tabletop "Role-Playing" Games presumably pick them up to actually roleplay.
Sure, maybe the guy with no social skills doesn't wanna buddy up with the Nobles, but he can go around munching on exotic foods and flexing at the guards while the dishonored noble PC tries to buddy up with the possibly crazy Duchess and negotiate some freebies on top of what you came there for in the first place.
This also ignores the important bit that just because winning the tournament grants an audience doesn't mean it's the prize itself. Your party can still be rewarded separately on top of getting to gain a noble ally/progress the quest/get a new quest/maybe kill the noble if you were hired assassins all along.
No.
Ok.
Combat is roleplay
It's actually that I recognize that some things are not fun, not that only one thing is. Talking with haughty nobles is, effectively, talking to your GM where he is dangerously close to just living out a power fantasy, and more often than not a GM will fail and simply begin to indulge themselves. It's not easy to pull off, but GM's seeking power trips gravitate towards it anyway.
>They can do whatever they want.
Not even close.
>However, they can't do whatever they want on their own terms.
Why even bother saying "They can do whatever they want" if you're at least aware of that. But, the limitations far exceed just the simple "Your actions will have repercussions" or "Trials come before rewards."
>If they want the noble's time as a means to an end, they're free to pick another means, or another noble.
Except they can't. A hook is a hook, and even if one player feels strongly against it, most people will just push forward because the alternative is usually just getting a worse hook that the GM has under-prepared. And, it's often very clear if a GM is just going to snap things back on the rails if any deviation occurs, often passive-aggressively by just having every other option be geared towards failure.
The world is under the GM's control, and if the players act rationally, it's very easy to eliminate any meaningful choice just by presenting options in a way where it's clear what are the options you intend the group to take. Imagine what kind of convoluted circumstances would require that the only way to get something is to talk to a noble after winning a tournament. It's pretty obvious that the GM Is writing backwards, and it's impossible to feel like you have any real agency when a GM is doing that.
damn I can't even imagine how bad the people you play with must be
Whatever, you miserable homosexual. Blah blah blah, boo hoo hoo.
The more you write the more obvious it is that you're the problem player, anon.
You're right. I am often a problem player. It's what happens when you have enough GMing experience to be able to understand what's going through a GM's mind as he's running a game.
GM's have bad habits. Indulgences. Things they're supposed to grow out of, but many never do. And, the more you understand, the harder it is to turn a blind eye to it and just try and enjoy the game when a GM Is doing dumb shit and not even realizing how dumb it is.
With many GMs, I'm a great player. They tend to either be very new or very good. But, if you're the type of GM who just keeps stacking one cardinal sin on top of the next, I can't help but get irritated. If you keep presenting false choices as if they were real, I get the urge to just rip the train right off the rails. If you have some ulterior motive behind a decision that is as plain as day, I find it insulting that even the attempt at deceit was made.
Sure, I could just turn off my brain, or better yet use it to anticipate what the GM wants and just make the adventure as smooth as butter, but that's harder than it sounds. I can't help but pay attention and try to learn from other GMs, and that requires being honest about how their decisions make me feel.
It's why I can sympathize with some problem players. I understand how it feels when a GM is lying to himself that he's trying to see things your way but without ever actually understanding you.
This guy?
To this day is clueless, when it's obvious to anyone who's played with a GM too entranced by the sound of their own voice.
The more you talk, the more I want to hear about your games, this is incredible.
You sound like a nightmare and not because of any of the actions you're describing either but just cause the way you type makes it clear you'd be the most insufferable self absorbed loser on the planet in real life.
You're trying too hard. Here's a pity (you), now quit filling this thread with moronic troll shitposts already.
must have meant to reply to the post above his
I think the biggest issue here is the assumption that because you've seen other GMs do it once, therefore it means when that GM does it they're actually just rehashing the same shit even though that might be their first or second time doing it.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with placing someone in situation where you have to put in more legwork to get an advantage, because honestly, a game where every social conflict is on the same playing field is bad.
To you it might be novel because you're used to earnest GMs dialing it up and down as the story dictates, but to everyone else at the table it's a good change of pace, a good incentive to actually delve into these situations to try and get a good foot in the door or flex their roleplaying skills. Players don't stop having agency when they're taken out of a sandbox, some of the best roleplay experiences I've ever had was brought on by limitations and navigating through them.
If you flat out reject the idea that limits breed creativity because you think every single instance is tantamount to a rail road, then nah, I can't help you. Hopefully you'll grow out of it off your own volition.
>it means when that GM does it they're actually just rehashing the same shit even though that might be their first or second time doing it.
Novice GMs should be given more leeway, but they should also be trying to learn from their mistakes.
Doesn't even seem concerned with actually understanding the player, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's because he doesn't want to admit some fault might lie with how they chose to run the game.
>There is nothing intrinsically wrong with placing someone in situation where you have to put in more legwork to get an advantage
If it's enough to make a player quit, it's a good sign that we're talking about more than hypothetical intrinsic qualities. Sure, some people are just a bad fit for a group, but if someone's complaining about there not being enough combat, that often means something along the lines of "the way you're handling the talking bits is not enjoyable for me." It's pretty rare to find an absolute combat purist, and even then most are more than willing to engage in conversations if its struck and handled in a way they find appealing. If a player is tired of the plot, maybe because they've been excluded from it, either intentionally or otherwise, throwing down combat that only serves as a waste of time before they reach the next plot point sounds like agony. It's little different from the GM who asks for rolls to obtain some information, and even if everyone rolls low, they just give out the information anyway because it's needed to advance the plot. It becomes the illusion of a game, rather than a game. While some will align with that illusion and enjoy the dream as it glides along, to anyone who's not aligned with it, it's just a nightmare.
A lopsided social interaction rarely comes with any real choices. They often can't be avoided, and that's fine, but they're rarely enjoyable and that makes it far from a desirable prize to dangle, especially if it's a promise of "more of the same.'
>A hook is a hook, and even if one player feels strongly against it, most people will just push forward because the alternative is usually just getting a worse hook that the GM has under-prepared
That's a problem with shit players, not an only-human GM. If you can't ever back down from your own plans you aren't ever going to enjoy gaming.
Where did the noble touch you, Anon?
it unironically just sounds like you have some kind of weird ego issue or a series of really bad experiences
No, it sounds like I actually play games, and you don't.
definitely an ego issue
Yeah, my ego is greater because I'm better than you.
>series of really bad experiences
You mean any experience.
Have you ever played a game where the GM took on the role of a noble? Or anyone else in a considerable position of power? Just like it's not fun to be thrown into a battle that's entirely lopsided, it's also not fun to enter a discussion where you hold no cards against someone who holds all of them.
Once in a while, and with purpose, it's fine. You could even say it's unavoidable in many circumstances. But, it still doesn't magically make it fun, especially if the GM leans on the fact that its not just the NPC who is powerful, but that as the GM they are ultimately in charge of the entire world.
If the players have anything even close to something resembling an offer that can be treated reasonably, they wouldn't need to win a tournament just to speak to someone. Instead, they're put at such a disadvantage that just being heard is an ordeal. As much fun as it is for the GM to flaunt how much power his imaginary character in his imaginary world may have, it tends to be a lot less fun on the other side of things.
Even when the GM isn't just straight-up power tripping, it's not uncommon for them to hit up the many cliches of nobility, most of which make for an unpleasant person to speak to, that few would elect to meet with were it not for what potential benefits could be extracted from them.
Can it be done well? Perhaps. But it's a real fricking rarity.
I think you do have an actual ego issue.
>Have you ever played a game where the GM took on the role of a noble?
Yes and in the same game he played a number of peasants, a gnome, two prostitutes, about 30 goblins, a wizard and a bad tempered owlbear. Because that's his fricking job.
I like how you decided to ignore the point just to ramble off a pointless list.
Care to try again? Don't make the same mistake twice though.
Probably because you don't actually have a point. This whole paranoid ramble is just about projecting your own issues with your GMs on a particular type of RP/scene type/set-up. There's nothing actually to it except for you being unable to maintain suspension of disbelief in face of the GM RPing someone in position of authority and how that mirrors his actual position of authority as the whole campaign's orchestrator.
Basically, it just comes off as you being obnoxiously insecure.
>Basically, it just comes off as you being obnoxiously insecure.
Ironic, that you're the one telling me about projection.
Missing my point isn't the same as me not having one. The point, which you've now failed twice to see, is one so basic I'm kind of at a loss that it's even a matter of contention.
People don't like being forced to do things they don't enjoy. It's incredibly frustrating, especially if prolonged.
Sure, we often can't avoid that, but for a GM, who has limitless power at his disposal, it becomes harder and hard to justify making shitty decisions that seem to be more for your benefit than the players. Forcing the players to interact with someone, and then hoping to obfuscate that's what you're clearly trying to do? Poisoning the thing they enjoy, and pretending you're doing them a favor?
If you can skip past tedious exposition, you should. If you can figure out how to avoid slow bureaucracy, aim for that. If you can ensure that conversations are balanced, it helps players have agency. All of these are easy to keep in mind, and make the game more enjoyable.
If you're forcing your players to prostrate themselves before your NPCs, you're raising red flags.
>Like the noble/regal will be speaking to them and one of them will call him an butthole.
Because they don't enjoy having to deal with your smug nobles. They want to have some agency, to be able to decide things for themselves, and all you've presented them with is "revere this NPC". And, when they correctly guess they can't make any real impact on the story, they call your bluff and insult your king, and it gets ignored because they don't have any real agency.
Regular, comfortable people don't insult kings. Players who feel like caged animals insult kings, especially kings they have no reason to respect. You might have told them reasons why their character must, but that's even worse and just makes the player not want to play their character.
I agree with
You seem eloquent and strongly opinioned, and you've repeatedly said you feel this way because of your experience GMing and how you run things. I want to know how you run things, I want you and your players' stories. You do it fully open world? You just make it clear it's a linear adventure and have little moments of player agency along the way? I'm curious.
I'm curious too but only because I think he sounds like a psychotic butthole that freaks out when fictional characters talk down to him (it reminds him of his mother)
I've literally run hundreds of games over the years for dozens of groups. Everything from short adventures at conventions with random people to campaigns with close friends that lasted several years. I'm not even sure how I could begin to explain all the different ways I've run (and played) games.
I will admit that I'm not perfect, and I've made just about every mistake there is to make when running (and playing) a game. Even to this day I still am far from flawless, and every session I run has things I could have improved or things that didn't hit right. But, I'm actually trying to learn from my mistakes, and moreover I learn quite a lot from other people's mistakes too.
Alright, tell us about your favorite. Your ideal. I appreciate you recognize you have room for growth, as well we all should, but I'm curious what your best concrete ideal of what a GM should do/something you liked doing was. Better to hear a positive than a negative.
>I've literally run hundreds of games over the years for dozens of groups.
If this absurd claim was true it would mean you've run tons of flopped games with groups that didn't want anything to do with you afterwards, people don't go through games or groups that fast if things go well.
>he's so unpopular he's only in one group at a time
Hundreds of games is not even that much. I ran multiple weekly games in my college years, did a bunch of conventions, and have run who knows how many one-shots for friends because they wanted to introduce so-and-so to RPGs. I've probably got well over a thousand games under my belt, considering the length of time I've been running games.
Most non-one-shot games did not last longer than 2 or 3 sessions, but I've also run campaigns that have lasted dozens of sessions, including one that technically has run for over a decade with the same players/character and continuing story, even though the systems have changed a few times.
>Most non-one-shot games did not last longer than 2 or 3 sessions
Is that supposed to be uncommon? Many of them were just testing out new systems, others fell apart because of scheduling conflicts, and plenty others were basically just extended one-shots that seemed promising but petered out. A good amount I can even blame on a few friends that always just want to play new characters and get mopey if we're not always playing a fresh system/campaign.
>I've probably got well over a thousand games under my belt
>Most non-one-shot games did not last longer than 2 or 3 sessions
Why would you admit that?
Have you never run/played games before? What are you finding so surprising?
Even just by raw statistical probability, the more games a person will play, the smaller the average length by sessions will be. That's not even remembering that if someone has several games to choose from, they will be less committed to keeping games they're less interested in going.
Really, what are you doing here? You've got one post left to explain yourself before you're written off.
Are you still posting? Shut the frick up already, you fricking loser.
>I was just trolling
What a shock, who could have guessed.
It's funny how you continuously think every person replying to you is the same person, because there's no way a consensus simply formed that you're an idiot.
Anyway the fact that, per your own admission, you've played thousands of games and the majority have ended extremely early is a huge red flag. Now maybe you're someone who likes playing shorter games like Paranoia, it's certainly possible. Or maybe your games just crash and burn and people don't want to keep playing after a few sessions. Who knows.
>Even just by raw statistical probability, the more games a person will play, the smaller the average length by sessions will be.
Laughing my ass off at this meaningless word soup.
Me personally, I'm a pro basketball player, I've played thousands of games. They all last seconds of course, that's just raw statistical probability. I'm also a big movie buff. Polished off Dune 2 in about a minute flat yesterday.
Really, what are you doing here? You've got one post left to explain yourself before you're written off.
uhhh check your replies there anon
The first one is the turbo autist, the second one is some other person replying to him. Sorry if that wasn't unclear.
Wow, for a moronic troll, you're entirely moronic.
Most games last one session. Not just for me, for everyone. To get to the 2nd session is rarer, the 3rd rarer than that, and so on. When you've played enough games, it's likely going to start to resemble the general statistical model of game length distribution.
You'd be aware of this if you weren't a braindead no games troll who's just asking to be publicly flogged, but is unaware of just how out of his element he really is.
The only reason you're even getting a reply is because I have to applaud how fricking dumb your post is. It's genuinely the dumbest thing anyone has posted yet, and I am amazed that you were shameless enough to tap into your genuine, unbridled stupidity to generate it. You wanted a reply, and you got it, but frick me I don't think you'll be able to top how stupid your last post was and it's going to have to top it to get another reply out of me.
>Most games last one session. Not just for me, for everyone.
I'm legitimately curious what experiences you've had to lead you to this conclusion. I've played quite a few one-shots, but the vast majority of sessions I have run and played in have been in long-running (more than a month at least) campaigns. I've never asked my players whether or not that's normal, but I never got the feeling that most players only do a single session or two in a system before switching out. That just seems so bizarre to me. Just play a board game or something.
Maybe it's a European thing? I've heard that there's a very different scene over there, and I've always been curious about the details.
that is absolutely not the norm. just based on the way this dude types hes probably just too annoying for anyone to deal with for long
itd be really funny if he used that as a trip but given the shit hes posted so far hed probably just pick SmarterThanYou or something
>I was just trolling
What a shock, who could have guessed.
>Not just for me, for everyone.
No.
Yes.
No. I've had three campaigns ever that ended within a single session. Con games have no relevance to any other type of game and shouldn't be counted.
Yes.
I've had individual players drop out in 1-3 sessions, but excluding intentionally short games every campaign goes for far longer. Even when we were letting everyone try out DMing, and they picked the system, we allotted 3-5 sessions per person.
Sounds like you're talking about a small group of dedicated players. My best group is similar.
>Most games last one session. Not just for me, for everyone.
I literally couldn't wish a fate on you worse than the hell you already inhabit.
>Most games last one session. Not just for me, for everyone.
Can't relate.
On the topic of short/bad games, there are certainly games that don't work out or groups that don't mesh, but games that won't last tend to die on the 3rd or 12th session in my experience.
>Most games last one session
I didn't follow the chain of replies and i just stumbled in your post by scrolling down but i want to stop for a moment and say that i'm sorry for you anon, maybe try to play with some grog in your area or at least someone that hasn't completely fried his dopamine receptors and concentrate for more than 2min on a single thing. It's really sad that you genuinely believe that is a constant.
>Most games last one session. Not just for me, for everyone.
You'd maybe have a point if you said most games last 0 sessions, because so many damn games just die without ever starting up.
But this says infinitely more about you than anyone else.
About everyone, rather.
Holy shit get a job you fat frick
All you have to do is let the players make choices. Why do you think that is so difficult?
You're just incredibly stupid with no sense of self-awareness. If you're so jealous of the fact that a DM can have god powers why don't you make your own trash game where you jerk yourself off while everyone at the table hates you? Probably because you lack the social skills to run a game
You seem very easily slighted and I think maybe you end up feeling that in-game events involving the pretend characters are actually targeted at you as a real life person.
I'd be curious to hear about your experiences in particular since you claim to have "any at all".
I find that it tends to be the opposite, with the players acting way too familiar with nobility. Like the noble/regal will be speaking to them and one of them will call him an butthole. Rather than throwing him in the dungeon or having his ass beaten, the king just chuckles and continues to talk to the common hobos because the plot demands it
The easiest way of preventing this is simply not allowing them to go straight up the chain. They can talk to the lord chamberlain's stable master or whatever but they're not high-fiving the king until they're level 15
the most mentally stable /tg/ poster
yeah this is near universally the case in my experience
>WAAAAAAAHHHH WAAAAAAAHHH I'M A BIG FRICKING BABY
I've lost track of what your bait is supposed to be.
Players have freedom. They can do whatever they want. However, they can't do whatever they want on their own terms. If what they want is "a noble's time" then they will either have to earn it, or choose again. If they want the noble's time as a means to an end, they're free to pick another means, or another noble.
Games where superpower bricks smash their way to gemstones face-first are dull and should be played with computers not people.
No.
Neither of you know what you're talking about and are better off remaining quiet.
He's right and you don't have an argument.
>Bite at my bait
What a basic b***h troll you are.
Nice argument, b***h.
The silliest thing I ever had a DM do was to decide mid-seasion, mid-combat that my martial character was not allowed to make plans without the Tactics skill. The most ridiculous thing I ever saw a fellow player do was insist on holding onto a nurgle daemon's weapon as the building around us burned down, preferring death to dropping this Chaos artifact.
Oh, and my first experience with FATE (a system that leans heavily on narrativism and active character role-playing to work) saw another player complain I was roleplaying too much. The game collapsed anyway shortly after that. Nonattendence.
Another game I was in - Dark Heresy - saw one player ragequit by throwing a krak grenade into our Chimera's troop compartment because the only female player bowed out. I must admit to not being an A+ player in that game, I was often late because it was honestly a little outside my availability and I really liked playing with that GM so I convinced myself I could swing being timely when I couldn't.
stop saying "saw". it isn't a synonym for any of the verbs that would make sense here.
Yamero ESL-kun
NTA, but he's using a very common form of saw.
No. Aesthetically awful garbage. "In my first experience with X, there was a player who..."
Learn to construct sentences properly.
It's an insanely common expression in English, just a bit out of fashion. Stop being pedantic.
Wrong. Do as you are told. Stop arguing.
No little homosexual
Huh? Do you think you're his father or something? The frick kind of response is that?
You were warned. Pinkertons are on their way.
While he's being kind of a homosexual about it, anon's correct. If more folks, especially in this hobby, took the time to improve their communication and comprehension skills - whether reading, writing, or speaking - it would improve the table experience significantly for everyone involved.
This thread saw a grammar nazi, one that wasn't even that good at grammar.
Native speakers can read and understand him fine. He just left off the subject of the sentence, but it's obviously an implied "I" in context. Don't feel too bad that you're wrong, champ. Just stop being so uppity about it when you're not even a native speaker.
>He just left off the subject of the sentence, but it's obviously an implied "I" in context.
No it isn't. The event in question is acting as the object of the sentence, with the event it figuratively 'saw' acting as the subject. Go sit in the corner next to ESL-chan.
The game doesn't see anything, moron. Things happen during the game.
It's figurative language you fricking doorknob
No, it's simply poor writing and needlessly awkward construction, idiot.
You think you're a qualified judge of good writing but you can't parse an extremely common turn of phrase because it fell out of favor within the last 10-20 years.
Incorrect.
OH! You're also the grammargay. Which means both of the weird socially maladjusted antagonizing posts in this thread was all from you in this thread. That makes sense.
It's a decent bit, if you're trolling.
out of arguments already, schizo?
honestly if noble-autist is a troll he's genuinely a pretty good one, but I don't think he is. Saw guy is just run of the mill dumb.
I'd say the opposite, tbh. I think the mark of a good troll is in the ratio of how much you inflame people vs. how minimally and effortlessly you did it. I think saw-anon did a better job, as his posts were very brief and concise. Mr. "You've Exhausted My Patience" is trying way harder. He's getting results, to be sure, but it's taking him way more effort.
Still think it's the same guy. Might be trying different approaches, seeing what works.
I hear where you're coming from but I disagree. Troll success, for me, is:
A) how mad does it make people
B) how believable is it to people that you're being genuine and not just trolling.
Effort doesn't play into it for me.
I think saw guy is more likely to be trolling and someone being wrong and not wanting to admit it is a dime a dozen on the internet, doesn't get much of a reaction. Noble-autist I have no idea if he's a troll or just the most insufferable c**t out there, and he's way more annoying.
>noble autist
>heroic rapper
New classes for 6e
Given that noble autist is now using the same "no you're wrong end of post" approach that saw guy was, I think you're right.
The approach is correct, because I was right and you were wrong. Seethe.
Wrong about what? Who do you think I am?
For me, it was
in retrospect that gave it away. The more Noble Autist kept posting, the more I felt the same vibe that post had.
It honestly is pretty bad, I think it's genuinely impossible to find any thread on /tg/ right now that aren't clogged up by vitriolic shitposts (actually shitty posts, not the fun kind). I mean /tg/ was always full of inflammatory slapfights, but I (vaguely) at least remember a time when it felt lilke the autists screeching at each other at least was on-topic and seemed like they were doing it because they genuinely passionately disagreed with each other about the games in question. Now it almost feels like bots just jumping in with auto-generated bait, that barely relates to the OP.
I think
is on the right track, that it's more literal morons than trolls that are doing this, and I'd venture a guess that it's also probably newbies who just use 4ch boards as a place to have tism fits that would get them banned anywhere else.
Saw
Definition: be the time or setting of (something).
Example: "the 1970s saw the beginning of a technological revolution"
Literally out of Oxford English Dictionary. Admitting you made a mistake and moving on makes you more intelligent, not less.
It's a very common figurative turn off phrase.
>The 20s saw a rise in organized crime.
>The administration saw it's share of scandals
>The car had seen better days
You are a fricking moron
Wrong, moron.
moron.
ESL-kun, I...
moron
>The most ridiculous thing I ever saw a fellow player do was insist on holding onto a nurgle daemon's weapon as the building around us burned down, preferring death to dropping this Chaos artifact.
That sounds like a based in character death. Only homosexuals would choose metagaming bullshit over a cool character death that is in character.
No one acting "in character" as anything but a chaos cultist would touch a Nurglite weapon, lol.
If he was playing in a Dark Crusade then it is very much in character since you are high end commanding officers of Chaos.
It wasn't Dark Crusade.
Wasn't it a Black Crusade game? PCs ARE Chaos Cultists (or worse) there.
It wasn't a Black Crusade game.
>The most ridiculous thing I ever saw a fellow player do was insist on holding onto a nurgle daemon's weapon as the building around us burned down, preferring death to dropping this Chaos artifact.
Makes sense tbh. Daemon weapons aren't easy to let go of.
My very first time running Phandelver I had a player IMMEDIATELY split the party because he wanted to bury or burn the bodies of some goblins and then go off on his own adventure in Phandalin running into every single plothook, decided he didn't want to do any of them, and then had his character go to sleep in the middle of a field (he was a Ranger so I just let that go).
My group had this one guy who read a lot of books and loved CRPGs and you would think that would make him a good roleplayer, but in reality every time he was roleplaying he would take these really long pauses to try and come up with a cool and flowery line that would read well in a book
At least 10 minutes of every session would be dedicated to him sitting in silence, mumbling to himself before finally having an eureka moment and coming up with a thing to say. It wasn't the end of the world and our sessions weren't the most serious anyway so we just let him be
Had a player call me an awful gm and quit after I said "no" to his request.
His request was to have his furry waifu inserted as a singer in a band he had saved prior to the campaign, and was now desperately in love with him. Further he wanted her to appear on a town besieged by gnolls.
He also insisted on sending me explicit artwork of it, and didn't understand that this was both not helping his case and not desired by me.
>His request was to have his furry waifu
Once you know someone is a furry, you ban them. They are incapable of holding their spaghetti. This one's on you.
>Playing in your typical fantasy feudal township on the edge of the wilderness
>Bandit problem, declared outlaws and have a bounty on their heads
>Track them to an old abandoned keep
>Manage to take most of them alive
>Discussing what to do with them
>Agree to lock them in the dungeon and turn them in for the bounty later (i.e. off-screen between sessions)
>Player who has not weighed in at all so far gets mad and accuses us all, GM included, of participating in slavery
>Leaves and says he's not coming back
>Much confusion all round. Oh well, on with session
>See the bandits hanging from the gibbets next time we're in town
I had a player who had an insane need to always be hiring and training hobos to be his private army. But I don't run games that take more than maybe a few months in game time so by the time they'd be trained up the campaign is over. Over the course of a few years this has lead to:
>Him spending more than half his gold in Pathfinder in training hobos, then the campaign ended, he had barely any gear. He didn't take leadership feat either
>Tried forming a gang of hobos in a 2020 game using Street Deal to offer them drugs for service. He had a three year plan how to train them. The game lasted two weeks in game time
>He kept persuading hobos to help him in a CoC game and the hobos kept dying or going insane. He kept doing it anyway, every time thinking Hobo #X would be the one to become his right hand man in his future cult
>Hired a mercenary group of pirates in Rogue Trader to......capture him his personal squadron of hobos he armed with cheap low tech weapons. They all died to a single eldar banshee. Like thousands of hobos being slaughtered by a single banshee. We had no intention of letting her stop spending her time turning them into giblets. He was our captain by the way
Only recently he has started asking why I hate letting him have fun, when he himself goes out of his way to do this even though I am very honest whether it can succeed. Incidentally the one game this could have been possible he dropped it because "it would have taken too long".
>He kept persuading hobos to help him in a CoC game and the hobos kept dying or going insane. He kept doing it anyway, every time thinking Hobo #X would be the one to become his right hand man in his future cult
My frickin sides
This is a hilarious gimmick actually and you should let him have a hobo or two occasionally
Yeah I don't get why this is a problem, just buy Summoning and you can have all the hobos you want
Let the man be a hobosexual its 2024 ffs
Oh you want him to have golden goblets and silk robes
What if he is happy
Hobo man is the best
You need to get him to play Exalted. There he can turn hobos into an elite fighting force of kung fu masters in about a month or two.
He could also turn them into geniuses too, if he wanted.
so why don't you accommodate him more?
If I understand the tone of the game right, he sounds like he would love unknown armies.
The mind of a true powergamer.
>Playing 3.5e because it is the 00s.
>Couple of good buddies and a friend-of-a-friend, who is the problem child herein.
>He makes some absolutely insane power build martial. Has nothing to offer in anything but combat, but his defences and damage output are sky high for his level.
>Most fights are just waiting for his character to dispatch foes round after round.
>Anything that can touch this guy can explode other PCs on contact.
But then
>Powergamer refuses to interact with the gameworld at all. He won't talk in character, won't really talk about in game things, just uses OOC language and waits for fights.
>Literally tells another player "that's your department" when asked what the group should do upon arriving at a new city
>Seems generally bored most of the time
>I take him to one side and ask him what's going on.
>"I win the fights."
>I explain to him he's ruined combat because nobody else gets to participate
>"They don't have to. I win the fights for them."
>I explain that he's not making friends of the other players.
>"They have to like me."
>Why?
>"I win the fights. They'd have to fight if I didn't."
>I explain they WANT to fight their own battles.
>"Then I guess there's no point me being here."
>Despite my best efforts, he chooses to leave the group.
>He gets into EVE Online instead.
Felt like talking to the Prophets from DS9. Truly alien mindset.
Sorry, my dude but that player was impossibly based. Players who prefer RP tend to like it when the combat monster shuts down a hostile encounter.
>Playing SWRPG, had a concept of a gun-nut Jawa who lovingly hand-crafts his own gear.
>Had to accept a "next best thing", but juiced everything I could.
>Other PCs include a handsome venture-capitalist Wookie and a Lando knockoff, they're minmaxed to social.
>Get into a fight. Lucky roll causes full-auto bowcaster to obliterate entire encounter before anyone else acted.
>GM is like "I need to nerf that... Nobody else even got a turn."
>Other players "Nah, I suck at combat. My turn is for talking and crime."
>*Concurring Wookie noises*
Theres a big difference between someone showing up exclusively to trivialize combat and declaring other players -have- to like him for it and one character being the dedicated combat monster for an otherwise more social group
I encourage my players to make rounded characters so they're not just sitting there twiddling their fricking thumbs during each encounter, ESPECIALLY in the goddamn SWRPG. Investing into skills is goddamn dirt cheap and the skill cap is terribly low.
Hot Potato Spotlight games like that are cancer, especially when there's two players with the same specialization. Then they both feel like shit, one for making a useless character and the other for making the other one feel useless.
Making hyper-optimized cheese bullshit characters literally ruins the game for everyone involved. There's no reason you shouldn't specialize a character or craft them to be good at one thing, but when you've devoted each and every resource from your character into doing a single thing, you've given yourself a free ticket to check out of every conversation or encounter that doesn't somehow relate to that, and you're just waiting for the "HEY, ANON? ARE YOU GONNA ROLL BLUFF?" so you can feel validated and like you're somehow contributing despite not playing the game except in the most rudimentary way.
Frick this, frick you. I hope you get an itchy rash on the part of your ass that you can't reach.
I entirely agree with you except for the spotlight thing, which I've always honestly thought is a lot more of a player maturity thing. If players can't accept that sometimes other people will be the most important person in the story, there's no changes you can make to the game to satisfy them, they need to get over that shit in their own head.
You'll understand whenever you go 2-3 sessions without being able to do anything.
90% of those cases it's at least half on the player for doing absolutely nothing to make themselves relevant to the situation. Like if you're just a combat monster in a social situation then find an excuse to impress someone with your skills, back up your buddies, make drinking buddies through stories of your badassery etc.
It's much easier for a GM to accommodate you if you take the initiative to involve yourself without outright stealing the spotlight.
It's one thing when the spotlight moves, and there are times in a campaign where a player can (and should) take the spotlight, but if it's constantly revolving around the table in a single session it's kind of defeating the point, you know? I guess I could have framed it better.
If it moves that much that sounds like overcorrection for the thing I'm talking about, honestly. Which yeah, would also be bad, for sure.
Theres games that are spcifically designed around this idea. Most prominently TDE and Shadowrun.
They both suck as a result
>but shad-
Is a cool setting and game idea with a fairly poor execution
Source: it was revealed to me in a dream
Jumping in on this, it's annoying when the GM thinks they're including everyone but their approach is to go down the line and say "What does PC 1 do? What does PC 2 do? What does PC 3 do?" and have each little scene or reaction or whatever in a vacuum. Whenever this happens to me I try to incorporate another PC into what mine is up to.
Why don't you play a game where there is no optimal build, and both specialized and diversified builds have their own advantages?
Do enlighten me, what mythical system is this that simply cannot be optimized?
>replying to a no games troll
prowlers and paragons.
Cannot be optimized? Dont know any. But theres games where „combat monsters“ and“skillmonkeys“ dont work or are at least very hard to pull of. 4e comes to mind
Already posted one, dumbass
Wait, do you really have a part of your ass you can’t reach? I can’t even wrap my brain around how fat you’d have to be.
Why do bad players think you stop roleplaying when a fight starts?
Sociopath behavior. Unironically, too. Legitimately actually Patrick Bateman levels of no deeper social understanding.
he literally WON d&d
joke aside, why the DM didn't do anything to balance the game?
NTA but "balancing the game" in this case is removing the problem player.
why didn't wotc make a good game?
While a sufficiently skilled rules expert can manage it, it's hard to counter one player while allowing the others to contribute and maintain your game's consistency.
Even for veteran DMs it can be hard to balance encounters around one guy who's vastly better than everyone else. You have to make special accommodations just for that guy and that bogs down all of your encounter design
Hi Neckbeardia, one of the 3 games I actually managed to play with the Black folk on /tg/ had a GM who was clearly making shit up on the fly and obviously chuckling to himself while he did. From pokemon to memes he was throwing everything in like israeliteS IN THE OVEN so to speak. One character was a girl (male) you know the usual 41% troony shit. He wasn't even attempting to be funny in a cringe kind of way, maybe he was high or an actual autistic homosexual. I left early.
do you think they don't read the posts before making the videos? what do you hope to accomplish
Your obsession with him is so tiresome. We've always had threads like this, quit your b***hing already.
You know the natural conclusion of subverting him is to stop playing tabletop.
As if that anon plays tabletop
Player:
>Dnd
>DM teleports us around the map without ever asking us what we do or where we're going, assuming we immediately go to the quest destination, sometimes months of travel time
>Sees no issue with this even when we ask him to stop teleporting us around so we can explore the world
>He says he is "Cutting out the boring travel bits."
GM:
>Traveller
>Player meets a mild inconvenience like a locked door, an enemy behind cover, or in the most egregious example an unarmed man guarding a chainlink fence
>Gets frustrated and calls it railroading and impossible
>The man thinks saying "the chainlink fence gate has a padlock on it" is railroading into an unbeatable encounter
He was just blowing off steam about frustration on nothing ever being easy, we talked about it and when I said I felt hurt he'd insult my game because he was frustrated he eased off, I try to sometimes toss him a softball if he feels overwhelmed. Our sessions are better now 🙂
>>DM teleports us around the map without ever asking us what we do or where we're going, assuming we immediately go to the quest destination, sometimes months of travel time
This is gonna sound autistic but there is no shitDM behavior that pisses me off more than this
If that makes you autistic then I'm autistic too. We don't need to roleplay out every step through every meadow but at least let us decide when we're leaving and whether we take donkeys with us. It all becomes so ethereal and dreamlike. I can't go to the shops because I accidentally left the country, and am now stranded on a mountain, which is a shame because I wanted to buy climbing gear and a warm coat.
Pretty much. At the very least, the fact you're taking a long ass trip from the whole country surely mean something happened in the grand scheme of things. I refuse to believe the characters didn't exchange a single word during the trip, or that they didn't do anything to not bore their brains out.
Talking, experiencing things, seeing interesting places, interacting with the people there, surviving the hardships. You know, "the boring bits".
NTA but shit, our current game had us leave the country twice recently. Our current trip is a side thing but still a big deal and we're expecting to spend at least one more session here. It's not a long trip, we're here to look for exactly one thing and go right back, but we've already had some neat shit happening during the "boring travel bits"
>get chased by a group of half-orcs with a pack of magic sniffing elusa hounds(unironically my fault these exist in our game world), our monster hunter distracts/bribes them by throwing some wine we have at them(their leader was half clurichaun and VERY much liked it)
>stop at a local town and gather some neat info and try to local cuisines and that stuff
>on the way out spot a legendary horse we heard was in the area, it bolts off and leaps over a chasm
>then some orcs trying to capture a catperson, our monster hunter rolls so well he responds by basically decapitating all three in a single swing
>my PC steals two of their arms for his own uses
>find the old fort we were looking for and battle a small group of centauorcs(centaur-orcs basically, only happened because one PC misheard the DM saying a bunch of orcs riding out on horseback, thought he meant centaur orcs, and the DM liked it enough he ran with it)
>playing cerebos
>last set of actions before the game ends
The last player has the choice of like 6 options, only one of which would instany end the game
>not only does he choose the only option that ends the game, he confidently declares it "danger 5" and spends all his fate point equivalents to make it so
>simplifying the rules significantly, this means he has not only ended the game abruptly, but ended it in a way that makes it IMPOSSIBLE for our characters to not fail their goal of self-actualization or whatever
We walked it back and twisted it into being a cool dramatic moment the week after but like... you had ONE THING you weren't allowed to do, man
Right off the bat? Elf hate. I can't fathom why they were surprised I compared that guy's eagerness to Ottoman Turkey and its genocide against the more civilized natives.
frick elves
Why?
It's not really baffling that people who are intelligent and attractive are hated by people who aren't those things.
For clarification I'm responding to my own post.
Recently there was a similar incident but with an unmeditated attack on what was essentially historically accurate fantasy Christianity. This time it was the female version of 'that guy'.
Once I had a DM who forbid my character from gaining HP when leveling up because;
>"you already have too many".
After a game I ran to teach some acquaintance and his gf how to play, he asked me out right if I wanted to frick his GF while he watched.
was she fat?
If she wasn't fat then you're a gay for saying no.
I don't want another dude jerking off in the same room I'm in anon.
Also they tried to play me with hard liquor when I got there, which I declined because hard A and teaching a game don't work together. The whole situation was set up to get me in their bed. So, even if I was inclined to let him watch, I doubt he would have just stopped at watching and would try to participate in some fashion.
>I don't want another dude jerking off in the same room I'm in anon.
Too late!
>You're a gay for saying no to fricking some rando chick you don't know
And that's how you get the GonnoherpasyphilAIDS...
That's Hilarious. At least tell us what system you were trying to teach.
5e
knife ears SEETHING
>GMing Pathfinder for friends
>characters looking for components to cure disease caused by cult
>camp in woods near mausoleum
>spot another camp in distance
>party swashbuckler takes off breastplate and decides to sneak over and scout out camp
>everyone is complaining because he always does stupid antics but it's fine so far
>goes to camp, sees camp of orcs, with their leader talking to cultists
>swashbuckler decides to set off fireworks on other side of camp as distraction
>wtf.jpg
>he passed stealth check and manages to do so
This is where it went full moron.
>he then sneaks INTO the camp and up to the cultists
>throws alchemical flashbang at them
>rolls a 1
>blinds himself
>flees for his life
>20 orcs chase him
>his armor class is so high due to 3rd party garbage I shouldn't have allowed that this chase goes for an hour
>rest of party tells him he better not lead the orcs back to camp
>he eventually finds the mausoleum
>decides to hide inside
>runs in and ducks into side room, climbs into sarcophagus to hide
>I had put wraiths in these sarcophagi who would attack one at a time if they were opened
>he begins to be attacked by wraith
>he flees the dungeon
>it's still night so the wraith follows, and unlike the orcs it is faster than him
>he has no magic weapon so it kills him
>also all the orcs went in after him and started opening sarcophagi to look for him and released more wraiths
>so instead of fighting 1 maybe 2 wraiths, all 6 were released plus a bunch of lesser wraiths from all the orcs that were killed and turned into wraith spawn
>entire party yells at him for dying and making that entrance impassable for them
Apparently he thought orcs were good aligned and they would help him arrest the cultists. He's never even seen Lord of the Rings or anything similar but I still can't believe he thought that that was a good idea. Yes I could have handled it better but I only had the orcs do what I figured orcs would do.
>due to 3rd party garbage
problem spotted
don't
all of the worst shit is in core.
I've read this story before anon
Is this a copypasta?
It's not a particularly funny one
>letting lolrandumb player go off on his own and giving him his own, personal session
>dragging out the chase despite the character being faster
>going full video game mode and just springing an overleveled enemy on him
>preparing a combat where at least one character (and likely more) would have been useless
>bullshit player-punishing logic with the Orcs releasing all wraiths
This is shit DMing. For starters you gave the guy the spotlight, and then complain what he did with it. It really is as simple as saying "no bro, I'm not running a personal game for you alone. Stick with the group". Then when he ran away you could have looked at the speed of the characters and just cut it there, maybe do some tracking rolls for the Orcs or stuff like that. You could have just decided that one sarcophagus was empty, or there's actually a second chamber beyond the first that's the real wraith chamber, or anything. The wraith could be bound to the tomb, or you could have had the Orcs show up as he ran out with the wraith up his ass. Literally anything beyond just smacking him with an enemy he has no way of defeating. And of course the Orcs know exactly where he went, somehow, but didn't know enough that he ran back out again, and presumably open all sarcophagi at the same time. Or what, did Grumz just continue looking for the random swashbuckler while his blood brother Glorg is having his face ripped off by a powerful undead spirit right next to him?
Yeah, the player's actions sound annoying. But you chose to draw it out in the most petty way possible instead of putting a stop to it and actually running a game for your entire table.
>you could have changed the dungeon and world and had rocks fall lmao
Nah honestly I'm happy with how it went. I'm not going to make a character just die instantly because that makes the group lose all respect for the DM as a human world simulator and storyteller at the same time. He also had such high AC that the orcs couldn't have easily killed him.
Your suggestions, outside of suggesting that he stay with the group, are lame. The world is what it is, and if the players can just do anything without consequence then it becomes meaningless. What is petty is making the lone specific sarcophagus he hid in empty when all of them are filled. TTRPGs are collaborative storytelling games, and the player (through his moronic suicidal actions) made a fun story. Sounds like a win to me. It would be petty, IMO for the GM to remake everything to avoid any consequence to the player in question. I have always GMed based on the idea that the world is moving and consistent; and my players can do anything they want provided they understand that there can be consequences.
I think you don't understand what the word "petty" means.
>Hyborian Age game
>My 3 players want to be heroic "freaks" (deformed, sick, misshapen, etc)
>joined by really weird autistic neet girl we befriend a few weeks ago at our LGS
>REAL autist, doesnt shower, legit femcel, never played any wargame or RPG but paints minis and just talks about painting, art school and anime
>looks like a cosplay/irl Tomoko Kuroki
>watched various fantasy animes and manwa lately so she wants to play an RPG for the first time
>explain her that what we'll play it's more gritty, more like Berserk less like Dungeon Meshi
>Berserk?! *she yelps* I LOVE GRIMM ANIME *flails her hands* Hey if we are all gonna be misshapen can I play something like Johnny Joestar? Like cripple on a horse?
>Yup, any ideas for your backst...
>Yeah like, you said that we could play like humm... Its like historical game, right? Like knights and huh like huh, yes?
>Y-yes...?
>YES! Humm remember those evil guys in Mulan? *Giggles*
>Oh sure, there's horse nomads, you wanna be like...?
>No, no, I mean yes but like what if she was taken from her village when, when, huhh, yeah a raid!
>Okay, sure we can work that out and maybe she got cri...
>No, no, no like I mean like yes, but imagine like she is forced to be, like, like one of those huh... hentais where the girl gets gan...
>Okay yes we get it, we get it, it's cool
>No but they really use her like all the time like, humm, yes, like they even bring the horses and the do...
>ELENA. We get it... Really, don't worry
>Oh okay, yes, nice, hummm and one day huh after years of that...
>Years?
>She tries to escape during an enemy raid and she tries to escape but she huh she is, she she cripples herself by accident and now she.just humm lives in the woods doing art, art and with her horse and and falcon or eagle or, or, yes *giggles*
>s-su... Sure...
>me and the guys are just looking at each other
>picrel
>I really love Mulan! What's tour favorite Disney film? Mine it's Tangled
>legit femcel
Give me her number, NOW
why do you say "it's" when you mean "is"?
I've seen people unironically try to run campaigns revolving around American politics in an incredibly obvious ploy to turn it into jacking off to Americans suffering.
Third worlders are bizarre
Your politics is like your football, kind of kooky and interesting
Yeah and its fricking bizarre to know our culture has taken over so thoroughly that even our moronic political wackos run rent free in someone thousands of miles away, while its not even a thing here except for maybe the British, but that was always a show anyway.
Our politics are boring. It's just two sets of ailing grandpa's who have mentally clocked out 30 years ago and still think bread is 25 cents a loaf, fighting tooth and nail over who gets to deny people stuff more.
And yet you zoomers don't seem to remember basic things like buggery giving you AIDS.
>Be me, ESL
>Have a bunch of online ESL friends
>They're all nerdy types so one day I decide to host a D&D game for them
>All of them have next-to-no experience with TTRPGs
>One friend rolls up a paladin
>At some point I can hear her typing something and making a surprised noise
>I ask her if I need to clear something up
>Nah anon, it's fine
>Game starts
>Party is spying on some baddies from a vantage point
>They seem to have some powerful construct
>Most of the party wants to retreat and discuss the discoveries
>Suddenly the paladin yells
>I WANT TO FIRE THE JAVELIN AT THE CONSTRUCT
>It's way too far you can't throw it-
>In real life it has a range of several kilometres, no?
>Wait what
>Turns out she didn't recognize the world javelin in her starting inventory, googled it and the results showed her an anti-tank missile
>Instead of clarifying it with me she just assumed it was a Final Fantasy-esque magitech world where carrying such weapons was normal
why wouldn't it be normal though? it's only abnormal if you're really deep into the whole codified non-fantastic fantasy genre derived from tolkien, but even there there's plenty of exceptions, take pathfinder for example
This motherfricker thinks Timon's best friend is an A-10 thunderbolt
Jesus Christ anon, that killed me more than any of these stories
name me one person whose best friend *isn't* the A-10 thunderbolt
Saddam Hussein.
fair enough
>muj'
>feyd'
>hadj'
Ask not for whom the GAU brrts
It brrts for thee
what does that mean?
once in a while people on this shithole website are actually pretty funny
Okay. That's actually awesome though. I'd have given it to them, had a laugh, explained the issue, then returned to normalcy.
Captcha:VTARDA
>make a questing swordsman that's too chivalrous for this shit
>first session is a tournament
>PCs are paired off to duel
>chivalrybro's bout is against a female player's female character
>chivalrybro forfeits, claiming he will not strike a woman
>femplayer OOC: "that's sexist"
>me: "yes"
>femplayer: "so you won't duel me because I'm a girl?"
>me: "no, my character won't duel yours because your character is a woman"
>show her my character sheet
>refusal to fight women is listed under flaws
>figured it would give the DM a weakness to exploit or at least a setup for jokes
>she seethes for the rest of the session
>ghosts us after
>campaign dies
Her character didn't even try to taunt or persuade mine into fighting.
She could have done this better
>dear Sir, I do understand your hesitancy.
>I assure you full well I am of sound mind
I know what I'm doing and am aware of the risks.
>if you wish to be sporting use your off hand, this spar is happening regardless.
So she doesn't know how to respect people's boundaries. X carded.
I think you misunderstand. She thought my character's values reflected my own and so thought less of me because hitting women is wrong unless it's good.
>Look lady, I feel where you're coming from and I see your concern. But I want to assure you that this is strictly a trait of my character. As a person, I personally firmly believe in hitting women whenever possible.
>player plays a temp character who is a blind cleric and decides the character hates the party
>party agrees to at least get him to the city he wants go to for reasons but he first has to stop at another city earlier
>other players already annoyed by the character for ages and want to get rid of him, suggest we go just to the main goal and then part ways so he can go to the other city on his own
>cleric refuses because he doesn't want to go the way alone because blind (this part is important)
>party sets up camp for the night near a river, gm describes other side is a forest that is practically all thorns
>party plans to build a raft and go down the river because it seems the fastest way (both cities are at that river)
>cleric decides to walk away and NOW travel to the closer city alone
>by crossing the river first because he knew the city is on the other side of the river (but still very far away from here)
>almost drowns because blind
>is then stuck in the the thorn forest while blind
>guy makes a demon the fallen pbp server
>a few people start to join and everything is excited for it
>suddenly he stresses out and deletes the server
>says he wasn't sure how to MONETIZE the server and that's why he deleted it
>but thirty minutes later is ready to make a new server after calming down
>he also asked if anyone wanted AI art commissions by him
>pretty much everyone sees through the ruse and tells him resoundingly to frick off
literally three caricatures of mental illness stuffed into one person.
>playing Pathfinder
>female player who gm knows from another game joins, suspect he had a crush on her
>she creates cleric who is escaped temple slave who refuses to wear clothes because her culture or something
>constantly attempts to get discounts from merchants and such using sex appeal
>character is monotheist worshipping god of storms in setting with multiple established gods
>aggressively tries to convert other PCs and all NPCs they meet to worshipping god of storms no matter what else is going on or trouble it causes for the group
>attempts to commit genocide using weather magic
>causes orcs to go on religious crusade in her name
>gm allows all this up to a point
>she’s finally arrested, tried, and executed with a whole session devoted to her trial
>player is irate that her character was killed
>leaves game after being encouraged to roll a new character, but asked to tone her shenanigans down a little
I don’t know what she thought would happen. It was like she was trying to play her own mini campaign without collaborating with the group and the gm was very tolerant of her for a long time.
to commit genocide using weather magic
orcs to go on religious crusade in her name
Oh nooo a player taking initiative and doing things that might change the status quo of the setting instead of meekly following the rails that have been laid out for her, how terrible.
She was hijacking the campaign and constantly trying to make it revolve around her character. And she got angry enough to leave when her character’s actions had consequences.
(You) should have a nice day
The game is about me and all people exist for my benefit, jackass. Learn to recognize when you're in the presence of your betters.
When I was a first time DM running Phandelver, I had a girl playing an aasimar druid, who didn't know she was an aasimar, she was basically The Hulk who'd go in a celestial rampage if she lost control of her emotions.
She was also constantly ignoring every plot hook or character development bait I laid out for her, even when it was stuff she specifically asked for.
>"I want my char to meet a wise old druid, so she can ask him to teach her stuff."
Ok, so next session I introduce an old druid sage who helped the party with a dungeon and peaced out, without her so much as trying to talk with him once.
The dumbest part was she clearly had no idea where to go with the hulking out story, and she was constantly changing her mind about how it worked, but she knew she wanted her char to feel conflicted and tormented by it. So, one session, while the party was camped out next to a lake at night, a based dude in the party playing a half-orc barbarian initiated a roleplay moment with her, trying to bond over her Hulk mode, because he felt similarly scared about his Rage bc it had caused him to accidentally kill a loved one, basically saying "I get it."
It was a beautiful improvised moment that would have given her something to engage with and someone to act as the sage to help teach her things. Except, after his long monologue about how he has to control his emotions over the Rage, she brought that interaction to a screeching halt by just blurting out "uhh no you don't get it, that's literally not the same thing at all" and just walking away.
I have no clue what the frick she wanted, in the end. I never played with her again, after the Phandelver campaign was over.
>I have no clue what the frick she wanted
She wanted someone to follow her and continue to talk to her about her (character's) feelings
She did not, no. When I said she brought the interaction to a screeching halt, I meant it. She instantly said she goes to sleep, and OOC made it clear she wants to keep going on the trip they were on.
If she wanted the rest of us to argue against her and INSIST on her to roleplay that moment more, so for her own benefit, then that was on her for being too female to realize that's not a good way to approach that.
>If she wanted the rest of us to argue against her and INSIST on her to roleplay that moment more, so for her own benefit,
She wanted drama IRL. This is the non-sexual equivalent of a woman walking off after an argument and wanting you to chase them.
> then that was on her for being too female to realize that's not a good way to approach that.
You've just described the cause of 99% of women's problems
>Except, after his long monologue about how he has to control his emotions over the Rage, she brought that interaction to a screeching halt by just blurting out "uhh no you don't get it, that's literally not the same thing at all" and just walking away.
Woman moment.
Why do you guys have players talking directly to nobility / royalty so often? This has never come up in any of my games.
Because it can be interesting to have campaigns where the PCs are movers and shakers and not just hitting goblins until gold and xp fall out of them.
what a bizarre non sequitur. why do you hallucinate implications that don't exist?
Because some of my players like to make noble/rich/socialite PCs or build connections with people in power? It's a weird question because there's a billion reasons why PCs could interact with someone in a specific social caste.
I find it bizarre that so many of you homosexuals rush to defend the random weirdos in these stories by finding contrived justifications for them, as if the poster wouldn't be aware of them already if they were true. Are you really that desperate to fight pointless internet arguments?
It's introjection, or reverse projection
>know you're a terrible player or person in general
>other people insult terrible players
>your intense insecurity causes you to identify with the terrible players being attacked
>rush to defend them, ousting yourself as terrible in the process
It's called empathy and sympathy, what a lot of people lack and then wonder why things went wrong.
>as if the poster wouldn't be aware of them already
Oh whoops, you're right, there's never been a situation where something was obvious to someone else because of differences in experience, the ability to distance themselves and be objective, or even just a willingness to see uncomfortable truths.
No it's not, because I'm talking about things like the player who stayed in a burning building clutching a chaos sword, and someone invented a scenario where it was in character because they were playing Dark Crusade. That's not empathy, it's just making shit up to white knight for some complete unknown. As if the poster somehow didn't know what fricking game he was playing.
Yeah, but the thread isn't even about players being terrible, but nonsensical.
>but the thread isn't even about players being terrible, but nonsensical.
There's a lot of overlap here
The bizarre part of this is you seem to believe you immediately understand the situation more intimately and empathetically, from a few condensed, probably half-remembered sentences, than the person who was actually there. It's like "the problem player is in the right, and anyone complaining must be in the wrong" is just your default position, and you've been taking a lot of leaps and assumptions, and filling in gaps on your own, to get there.
That's what makes your posts come off as weirdly petty, and radiating a ton of insecurity.
Also, I literally just finished reading through this string of arguments, I haven't participated in the slapfight until now, but genuinely - your posts come off like you're quicky to emotionally invest yourself in 3rd party accounts of people you think you might empathize with, based on virtually no details that you'd reasonably need to paint the picture you're painting.
I don't know what DM hurt you in talking down to you as a noble in your past sessions, but you gotta ease off man. Not every DM-as-a-noble is that person.
>The bizarre part of this is you seem to believe you immediately understand the situation more intimately and empathetically, from a few condensed sentences
I mean, let's talk about hypocrisy for a second here. You're leaping to a number of conclusions about everything, committing to them wholeheartedly, and then crying about what you imagine is other people having the same strong emotions that you seem to have.
Let me help you out. No one here actually cares as much as you seem to. From your post, I could call you a regular bleeding heart, and when you rush to deny it and say it's just not true, I'll just go ahead and say "Ah, maybe now you understand."
>No one here actually cares as much as you seem to
Then why are they clowning on you?
he's gonna say it's all one person
I agree with the other anon and I'm making this post purely to let you know that other people see the same thing he does
>it's about empathy and sympathy
>no one here actually cares
Uh okay Satan.
Name literally one "conclusion about everything" that I "leaped to" in my post lol
The only assertions or conclusions I made was about how your posts read off as, because they do.
My brother, you can't even read a description of the tone your posts have, without feeling personally attacked. That doesn't help your case of coming off as deeply insecure and defensive. Still not an assertion or conclusion, btw, still just the impression you're giving off.
Maybe stop being a homosexual or someth idk
>The only assertions or conclusions I made was about how your posts read off as, because they do.
My poor, dear little moron. You've gone too far here and exhausted my patience.
You're aware you're making assertions, and even after being told you're wrong by the people who are innately familiar with something like "the actual emotions they might have", you're still trying to build your entire argument around them, despite that argument falling apart because you're demanding no one else is allowed to make assertions or draw conclusions.
It's just pure and simply hypocrisy of the very worst kind. You can either admit that there's more to a story than what a person may be saying, or you can give up on your erroneous "U mad" attempt. It's actually amazing, that you're in the wrong on both sides.
>You've gone too far here and exhausted my patience
lmao you can't possibly write something this gay and expect anyone to read any further, god damn dude
>lol lol Ganker lol i am moron lol
I hate it when people from Reddit come here and take shitposting vacations.
I think redditgays are the ones who can't hide being theater kids in their posts
This shit is a fricking insult to theater kids, man, don't lump us in with this arrogant psycho. We're a much more garden variety version of arrogant psycho!
Sorry, anon. Fair enough.
You went too far with how dumb your post was. It's no longer possible to be patient with you and to treat you like anything other than a dumb troll.
You can't even backpedal. You have to actually be stupid to make the post you did, so you can't even say "lol i was just trolling." You're not just a troll, you're genuinely stupid.
This is the second time you've threatened that you're out of patience for real this time guysss!! lol
You're a weird little troll. I actually expect most of the random moronic shitposts in this thread might be you, and I really don't understand how you imagine you look.
Like, what in the world are these posts?
And what kind of idiot would reply to them? This thread almost seems like a miniature nexus for a special kind of painfully obvious moron.
I thought you were boasting about much how you don't care, earlier.
Doesn't take much care to recognize obvious patterns. The trolling you're doing is fricking bizarre because it's so bad. More than half your posts are not getting any responses, not even pity responses, and yet you're still making the same kind of shitposts.
What's strange about trolls being dumb and obvious?
Oh man I love seeing narcissistic homosexuals seethe in impotent rage, this shit is like crack to me. Keep it coming!
Dudes really will use greentext threads to project their insecurities about being talked down to. You love to see it!
>/tg/ - Traditional Games
>You've gone too far here and exhausted my patience.
Nani??! Junior, you are courting death!!!
Frick off man, you're not entertaining any more.
>ITT: the most baffling shit you've encountered
I did not expect that this would turn out to be true when I opened this thread
all problem players are good and based and all DMs are bad and cringe
frick playoids, last post 🙂
Nope, I'm correct.
Nope, I'm just better than you at writing, schizo.
To me, it's still that time a guy betrayed the group with profound potential ramifications (being burned by all the fixers in Night City), and when I tried to stop it the entire group turned on me and maintained loyalty to the betrayer even when he left them to die in the desert without means of transportation.
That sounds pretty cyberpunk if you ask me, not to justify it.
Night City wouldn't be the way it is if the gonks weren't gonks, choom.
No, it'd been cyberpunk if there were any real motivations involved whatsoever. As it was, the whole thing was just moronic and just kept goong from bad to worse until I finally gave up and left.
I fricking wish it would've been gonked.
ngl anon, this is a case when you were in the wrong. If the entire party unanimously was up for playing in that direction, let them.
You act as if there was some discussion or as if it made sense for the characters involved (save the gonk that betrayed the group, he was loterally the only one acting in accordance with his character in a reasonable manner). I cannot adequately convey just how fricking stupid the entire thing was, and for how stupid it was, it just kept getting more moronic as weeks went by.
>let them
I did. I left the game, anon, under the old adage that no game is better than bad game.
The problem with trolls like "noble autist" is they imagine that everyone is seething in impotent rage at their trolling but honestly? This thread is way more entertaining than most on /tg.
Man, the trolling illness /tg/ has is pretty intense.
The main issue? Our trolls are not funny or clever, they're really just mean-spirited shitheads who are desperate for attention, so they resort to just being as dumb as possible because that's all that's left to them.
All trolls are desperate for attention, but the way our trolls are so goddamn thirsty is insane. As in, actually insane, ie. these trolls need professional help and shouldn't be on the internet for their own mental health.
Even when ignored, they keep trying, and trying, and trying to get a (you), and they'll try to do everything in order to get it. You're going to probably see them try some shit right after this post, so take your time to observe them in action and see how low they're willing to sink in order to get those precious reactions. Remember, they're not above any kind of deceit, they're not above any kind of insult, they're not above saying whatever they believe will get someone to pay attention to them.
Hopefully, they'll read this post and actually look at their life for a minute. Consider whether they should post at all.
But, I don't think there's any hope for them.
You don't get this bad if there's any way back for you.
Where's the trolling?
I don't think there are as many trolls as you may think.
I think that we've actually got an overabundance of nasty (often literally autistic) posters on this board who will reply to everything they see.
It's why everyone assumes the worst of others, and why there is the constant accusations of "samegayging" when disagreed with by more than one person, and so on.
ok samegay
Case & point
Will reply to literally anything.
you know that's not the phrase right
This thread is just fascinating. Before it gets archived I just want to say thank you /tg/ this is beautiful.
True, I haven't seen so much effort between the usual insults to understand others' point in ages. Almost want to praise the trolls/autists.