What is the most infuriatingly stupid bullshit a player has attempted to pull at your table?
>Players need information from defeated enemy
>"We could tell him that if he gives up the information we need, we'll let him go freely. Then we kill him so he can't warn his friends or anything. Okay, I'll give the enemy that offer."
>Roll a bluff then
>"No, I'm not bluffing, I'm telling him that if he gives us the information, we'll let him go free"
>But you just said you're going to kill him anyway
>"My character doesn't know that yet"
>But you literally just said that was your plan
>"Yeah, my plan, but my character doesn't know until then so it's not a bluff. I'm roleplaying."
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Social interactions in dnd are bad enough, let the players do what they want and let them plan ooc.
Planning out of character is fine, but planning to lie and then claim your character isn't lying because your intentions are somehow separate is silly
The player is trying to game the fine line between player intention and character intention. If he were actually roleplaying, then he wouldn't have flatly stated that his plan was to kill the prisoner in the end. Instead he would've made the offer, roleplayed it out, and then decided on whether or not to kill the prisoner afterward. There's sort of an implicit order of operations to roleplaying that the player is trying to circumvent while claiming that he's roleplaying.
Thus what you should do is press the player on what their character actually intends to do. If the character intends on following through, then the player can proceed (possibly with a persuasion roll instead of deception) but then he doesn't get to declare take-backsies and kill the prisoner afterward unless he can make a convincing argument for why the character suddenly changed his mind. If the character hasn't decided what to ultimately do with the prisoner yet, then he still has to roll for a bluff, since he's not making the deal in good faith.
I hope you told your player that he is moronic.
pretty much this. But I would also not dive into this argument at all. There's no such thing as character intentions. The character is a vehicle the player acts through. Your car doesn't have intentions either.
If he had intentions and motivations himself, then he would simply be an NPC.
>cut xp in half for friendly fire
Your GM isn't much better than your player. It would've been better if the other members beat him up after recovering
>I'll cut you a deal, Halved XP or you pick up the hospital bill.
>insurance paperwork and phone calls too.
Nah, unless you're playing a straight self-insert, there's almost inevitably going to be moments where you have to compromise between what you, as someone playing a game, would want to do versus what your character, as someone actually in that world with their own beliefs and motives, would want to do. Like, say, you're playing a paladin and you catch another party member stealing some shit. As a player, you probably don't really care, but you know your character would be upset so you have to compromise and at least tell them to knock it off IC and maybe OOC tell them not to do it in front of your character.
>But I would also not dive into this argument at all. There's no such thing as character intentions. The character is a vehicle the player acts through. Your car doesn't have intentions either.
>If he had intentions and motivations himself, then he would simply be an NPC.
what's the point of making a character if it's just going to be you in cosplay. I get that there's the whole drama about theater kids but this is so far in the other direction that you might as well just play a wargame or video game.
Legitimately correct.
As if dnd is at fault for such social interactions. They do not depend on the system.
You are literally a moronic person
Well, how did it end?
Don't tell me you agreed to that "reasoning".
I was momentarily rendered moronic by the most blatant attempt to be a silly little munchkin. Then I laughed, questioned how he could even think that would work, and told him no.
I'll repay with my story
>a PC got a rocket launcher, they can't really aim with the thing normally, but there's a solid chance of success if all of luck points are used
>with time their usage of the launcher got more and more reckless
>eventually they just shoot right into the middle of the combat with both friendlies and enemies alike
>"don't worry guys, you'll evade the blast like usual!"
>rolls a critical success
>enemies are crippled, but that almost causes death of two other party members
>was surprised when the GM cut their exp in half for friendly fire
>"Ok, the npc believes you but at the last moment he stabs you with a poisoned dagger taking you by surprise"
>"Obviously you can't roll sense motives because he didn't decide that yet, i, the GM, have ooc. I'm just roleplaying"
this.
player wants to do stupid shit, punish them for being stupid
While that seems like a good way of dealing with this, I fear this would just start an arms race with your players
Okay, roll a straight Charisma check without adding your Deception modifier.
Had another player whine at me for killing bad guys who abducted the princess in a hack-n-slash game, and when I point out he was stabbing shit too, his argument is that his attacks weren't the ones that reduced their hp to zero so it doesn't count.
Game didn't last very long
Personality type that makes your knuckles itch.
I mean, to play devils advocate, was there and easy way to disable the baddies that required a reduction in their HP?
I mean I wouldn't want a player like that in my game at all, but I'd point out that whatever their character intends, they still need to persuade the NPC they mean what they're saying, and therefore they need to roll.
I've never really had a player piss me off by being stupid, though I did have one player who had a bad habit of having his character be rude and unhinged around NPCs with authority. One of the other PCs thumped him and generally the NPCs assumed he was touched by madness (not unfair, and not untrue - he'd seen some shit during the Storm of Chaos).
>mention D&D
>friend says he has played before, this starts a whole discussion that leads to us starting a game with me as GM
>midway into session one players find a body at the bottom of a chasm with some obviously magical boots
>i've already mapped out the dungeon and they will end up down there later
>guy who has played before instead insists on trying to scale down the cliff with his level 2 bard
>emphasize pretty strongly that trying to free climb down there without even a rope is probably going to be a one way trip
>he manages to talk someone else into trying anyway
>it goes badly
>fudge some rolls so that half the party dosen't die to falling damage 30 minuets into the first session
>they are both at the bottom of a cliff with low HP but at least they got the magic boots
>except guy who has played before decides he wants them after the other player hobbles over before he can get there
>"i roll to attack"
>"you what"
>gets fricking splattered by other guy in one hit
>turns out an elven bard with 6 hp remaining trying to PVP a half orc barbarian with a two handed weapon and rage still available is not a good matchup
>the other two party members are cheering from the top of the cliff
>shit is so far off the rails at this point that i just let him take 20 on climbing back up so we can resume actually playing
>bard player is assblasted for the rest of the night and quits the game
>barbarian later pisses on his corpse when they actually make it back down there taking the intended progression
>all of this was over a pair of boots that give +1 to reflex saves
>fudge some rolls
That's some infuriatingly stupid bullshit a DM can pull off
Satan being a salty nogames b***h all the way from Gehenna.
As disruptive as what happened in my game was it was still better than "you fricked up that climb check and unless I roll a 1 on every die the 8d6 is going to turn your character into a greasy smear"
fudging rolls when the GM thinks that it is needed or acceptable is an rpg tradition since forever, what are you even smoking
Standard nogames autist contrarianism. Someone somewhere in the mainstream said you can do it, so now it's the worst thing imaginable.
Please be patient, clearly that guy's "rpg traditions" are only from watching Critical Role in his mom's basement with a dildo in his ass, so it's understandable that he says moronic shit like
Do yourself a favour and work on your reading comprehension, Anon.
You're a moron,
is agreeing with
as am I. You're a nogames homosexual at worst and at best you're a playerleech who has never GM'd a session in his fricking life.
Horseshit, you'd be screeching and crying and whining about UNFAIR ENCOUNTERS because you're a filthy playerleech who has never GM'd a game in his life.
Sir, if you wanna project I suggest you go to the cinema.
What's up your ass today?
Oops, lets try again
"We roll dice because of the noise they make"--Gary Gygax
Fudging rolls is fine if it’s not constant.
Really it all depends on what your players want, if your players want to be crushed by hard rolls and luck then don’t fudge them, if your players are invested in their characters and want a “RP during combat” experience, fudging is fine, especially at lower levels.
You as a DM should have control over how your game is played, just don’t be a homosexual
Slavery was a human tradition for thousands of years and that does not make it good
>was
"We roll dice because of the noise they make"--Gary Gygax
Games should be 95% deterministic, 5% dice rolls.
>Goblin rolls a crit that would instantly kill your brand new character in the first session of play
>GM fudges the roll so that you don't get one shot
>WOW HOW INFURIATING
We all know you'd be throwing a b***hfit if your PC died round 1, session 1 to bad luck and whine about the GM making "unfair encounters" or some other nonsense, so your opinion on the matter is clearly from a playerleech perspective and thus invalid.
rolls a crit that would instantly kill your brand new character in the first session of play
it is what it is
>Goblin rolls a crit that would instantly kill your brand new character in the first session of play
Pure white room nogames Black personty. This Literally does not happen.
>damage of cr1/4 goblin = 1d6+2
>chance of rolling max damage (8) = 1/6
>Chance of rolling crit =1/20
>HP of starting 14 con wizard - 8
>massive damage rule - twice max HP damage instakills from max HP.
Oh, look, a 1 in 120 chance of instantly losing your 14 con level 1 wizard whenever attacked by a shitty goblin.
The chance of rolling a 6 on both dice in the event of a crit is significantly lower and even then you wouldn't add the goblins modifier twice.
My group has had this happen twice.
Once in D&D during a cult ambush.
Once in Black Crusade where a psyker opened up combat, Perils of the Warp'd and was sucked into space-hell kicking and screaming never to be seen again.
I got shot and then crit from 130 feet away by a goblin with a crossbow in my Pathfinder 2e game. It's rare, but sometimes shenanigans happen.
Not goblin, but the first thing that ever happened to me in D&D was getting one shot by an orc crit at level 1. I didnt even get to move, just fricking died
I've killed PCs in dumb ways. I've had my PCs die in dumb ways. I've once killed a friend by accident. You know what we did? Laughed it off and kept playing, because it's a fricking game you moron. If you don't follow rules it's no longer an RPG, just RP.
>I've once killed a friend by accident.
Man, that sucks. Did your group retire his PC or turn him into an NPC companion?
It's the DM's game, and they can make different rules if that would improve the game. If everyone there, including the DM, would rather see the character live, I think it makes sense to let them live. You can play the game in the way you like, and they can play it the way they like.
>friend says he has played before
>doesn't buy a rope at character creation
What a lying sack of shit.
Bards.
Bards.
It do be like that.
And yet if you hadn't fudged the whole bullshit would have ended much faster as they died going down the cliff. I hope you learned your lesson that fudging is not ok.
Or if you really wanted you could have just let them climb down without a roll, or state beforehand that failure doesn't mean death but some other problem like damage or the party being separated or a monster appearing or some such.
>fudge some rolls
stopped reading right there. Have some honor you gutless cur.
Come stop me you little b***h.
Did someone on Critical Role mention this or something? Because pretending that the GM should run his games like a computer seems to be the new autismal hotness on this board. Or is it just a new generation of nogames transplanting video game logic to the tabletop?
People have been arguing that point for at least the past 10 years. Where have you been?
It's nogames culture warriors poorly larping as OSR grogs in order to appear based and traditionpilled.
>Or is it just a new generation of nogames transplanting video game logic to the tabletop?
You think this shit is fricking new? People have been arguing "exploits" and "loopholes" since this board was opened, like "Drown up to 0HP".
It still happens in 5e, I've just started banning players that try to argue those on the grounds of "I'm here to play a game, you're here to start a fight".
It's a new funny in joke. You're supposed to pretend that fudging isn't okay morally or would ruin the game even when every GM does it.
>>i've already mapped out the dungeon and they will end up down there later
GMs who think they can read minds but are bad at predicting player behavior tend to be infuriating bullshitters.
Sure, it can be a problem, but there's nothing wrong with having the dungeon prepared and giving the party a hook for it. He was more accommodating to the player's stupid idea than the rules would expect.
>fudge some rolls
this is where you fricked up. Let players reap the rewards and suffer the consequences of their actions.
>No, I'm not -
>I didn't ask. Roll a bluff check.
>player A gets knocked out due to moronation
>the other PCs rescue a level 15 vampire elf that we just freed from some crypt
>we are trying to negotiate with said vampire
>Player A's character wakes up, instantly attacks the vampire for no reason
>vampire kills him in retaliation, vampiric instincts kick in, drains his blood and then party wipes us due to the blood triggering his vampire rage or some shit
we had to walk that back because we were 5 sessions into a new campaign but frick me was he moronic. He coped by having explaining it as his character's natural reaction to waking up and seeing a vampire but we all knew he was just mad that he had to sit out a long combat session due to his moronation with a prior puzzle
Why is one person trying to do everything? It's a team game, party can distribute the tasks efficiently. Have the character with highest Charisma/Persuade tell the prisoner he can go free in exchange for the information, and actually mean it. Then have somebody else follow him and tie the loose ends, so to speak.
Do you really think a player that has the audacity to try this shit is thinking about anyone but themselves?
If the Persuasion character was present for the conversation about planning to kill the prisoner then it would still be Bluff.
You could arrange in-character conversations in such a way to compartmentalize that information. But most players wouldn't think to do that.
Control water controls blood because they have water molecules.
About 75% of the brain is made up of water.
71% of the Earth's surface is water.
The city needs tea.
>"Ok, roll Persuade."
At what point is water not water anymore? If I piss in a bucket, is that piss or just water with piss in it?
Sounds like a shitty way to get what he wants without risking losing to RNG. What a b***h.
thats stupid, why roll bluff?
your dumb anon.
A paladin player that kept trying to take things away from random peasant because "tithe" while he wasn't even a part of the sect that people worshipped in the part of the world we played in. He got stabbed by a farmer with a pitchfork and died.
Some moron tried to get us to run D&D, but luckily we all know it isn't a game, so we rejected his homosexual idea.
Last session our team barely survived a battle with a cult, gut we won. The only people left connected to its leader had been taken out of the fight by the only woman on our team convincing them to wait in a room at an inn with the promise of a threesome. Another player had his assassin go pick them up and say that the tiefling girl sent him to fetch them. Instead of, you know, bringing them back to question about any valuables in the house or any possible threat, the assassin told them the tiefling would meet them in the outhouse for sex. Once the two brothers were in the outhouse, he tied it shut, doused it with oil, lit it on the fire, and stood in the front yard pointing and laughing while they burned to death.
Somehow the town guard wasn't alerted.
>playing high society game
>one character breaks a law they were technically unaware of, the player barrister never let him know
>serious enough charge, the investigation goes on in the background while we play
>rumors are spreading amongst the nobility and that character is getting shunned and cut off
>he decides to run, but let him know if he escapes he'll be leaving the campaign since we're sticking with high society
>he claims its fine, that his character would rather be free than in jail
>confer with him out of game to confirm that if he turns himself in we can move forward with a minimum of jail time and some light sanctions
>he claims his character would rather be free than in jail again
>end the session going nowhere because he wouldn't turn himself in
Why do some people insist on RPing in a way that inconveniences the whole group?
reminds me that game I played
>nazi occupied Paris
>players are planning to break a party member out of jail
>the night before the break out, one of the party member gets caught outside past the curfew
>instead of turning himself in, probably getting a slap on the wrist/spending the night behind bars (where he could share the plan with the party member) he decides to tackle the german to the ground and run off into the night
>he keeps failing his direction rolls as wehrmacht soldiers start cornering him
>gets caught in an alley way, nazis on both sides
"I'll pick up my switchblade and charge at them!"
he died and the rest of the party sat there in astonishment at his decision making, he justified "it's what my character would do!"
This happens all the fricking time in real life, lol.
>were technically unaware of,
not his fault
you just made some bullshit up to frick him and got mad when he told you people to frick off
He didn't dispute the crimes and was fine with that part, it was just refusing to accept easy jail time for them.
Everyone else at the table even talked him into surrendering, but he walked out after he learned it'd be a few in game months before the trial would start, which was generous since its usually a year or two between arrests and trial.
He just needed to be patient through it, then throw his characters parents under the bus so we could move forward with probation instead of years of jail time. We talked through it and confirmed he could get through it relatively unscathed if he just worked through the system, he just decided to RP his way out of the campaign.
If I had a choice between
>Roleplay through a month-long process of trial, sentencing, and reduced sentence imprisonment
>Roll a new character
I would pick the latter, and I like social campaigns. No one wants to spend 2 sessions talking to trial lawyers about plea deals.
So the rest of the party goes and does fun social intrigue shit while the guy who's probably just trying to be nice by saying "oh yeah woops I fricked up" when you hit him with some stupid gotcha and made his character unplayable gets to sit in a fricking dank cell twiddling his thumbs. Frick that shit, I'd want to roll a new character too.
>a year or two between arrests and trial.
maybe in muttland
>Hey anon if your character takes this course of action then you're gonna need to roll a new PC
>Okay GM, that's fine. It's still what my character would do
>What the frick /tg/, why would my player do this to me? RPing a new character introduction is a total inconvenience for our RP game!
>Roll a bluff then
Your problem right there. If the player acts it out good enough/gives good enough explanations to the GM, you don't roll, it just succeeds.
Read the first few pages of ANY ttrpg from ANY decade. It will tell you to do this.
Unless the enemy has some power/background that lets them be some lie detecting person, you don't have to roll unless you want to gloss over/speed along the encounter and use randomness instead of players/GM talking it out.
Okay, and if he doesn't act it out well or that's just not how they play at OP's table, he asks for a check. Stop being an ACTHUALLY homosexual when your point isn't even what's being discussed here.
"Look me in my face and tell me that's how I should allow this scene to go down, homosexual."
>nfuriatingly stupid bullshit a player has attempted to pull at your table?
1.wants to play a ninja/bard/wizard (illusionist) multi-class werewolf don't remember the race but not even a gnome, it was 2e Ravenloft.
2.players collectively ignore instructions by major NPCs given to them along with many magical items when playing the greyhawk adventure 2e City of Skulls by Carl Sargent (9th-12th level) they all die, then wonder why.
3.Wants to create an infinite loop effect by a mechanical moronic word by word interpretation of the rules. Answer, no Dick it does not work and your character knows. 3.5e Faerun
4.Wants to create an infinite duration effect by a mechanical moronic word by word interpretation of the rules. Answer, no Dick it does not work and your character knows. We already had this discussion. 3.5e Faerun
5.Starts a fight with other players and it deteriorates into real life because he is a very egotistic butthole. Then blames it on others. They kill him in-game as he murders an elven trader with a hand axe because he wanted to get a magical item and had no gold pieces to pay him. 2e Dark Sun
6.As a mage, 3rd level, abandons party and goes "scouting" in a military camp of goblins, hobgoblins, ogres, draconians of various types, evil humans and other creatures. Gets caught and imprisoned in a wooden cage. 2e Dragonlance
7. As a mage does not cast any spells but buys lots daggers and throws them. Never cast a spell, like never. 2e Faerun
8. Players think they are very smart and tactical. They talk to each other via cell phone sms in real life thinking they will win a battle if i am not aware of what they are saying. They manage to get themselves killed by their own spells due to bad communication and the monsters do not even get to attack them. I am buffled and laugh, what the frick are you guys doing? 3.5 Greyhawk
9. Room with a dead npc villain, is alone with him. Proceeds to roll pick pockets to steal the dead person's stuff. 1e Faerun
>6.As a mage, 3rd level, abandons party and goes "scouting" in a military camp of goblins, hobgoblins, ogres, draconians of various types, evil humans and other creatures. Gets caught and imprisoned in a wooden cage. 2e Dragonlance
continued->party fails to liberate him seeing that the endeavor is vain and would get them all killed wait for the major pitched battle to commence and then attempt to liberate him. They do.
Player is infuriated with me and the players because we "wasted his afternoon" and that the DM and other players are to blame for this moron going in invisible at level 3 as a mage in a camp with thousands of monsters. Deteriorates this to a real life conflict. Again
Same guy with some other cases.
>"wasted his afternoon"
what he actually planned was for the party to all die trying to rescue him. His actual desire. His afternoon he considered wasted because he failed to get everyone killed.
>6.As a mage
15. This guy again, multiple major infraction nobody likes him but he squirms his way all over the place, have not played with him for 10 years and we end up in a friend's house (was common friend and bad timing created the event) where we play AD&D 2e and its the first for the other friend. Three more normal actual friends are there. We played 2e Faerun or Dragonlance, some starting 1-3rd level adventure. He proceeds with a mage again (he is a mage with 1 human fighter ice barbarian, 1 half-elf ranger, 1 cleric of mishakal healer) and once combat begins he abandons party and finds a female NPC 0-level commoner a peasant girl. He murders her with his dagger and proceeds then say "i pick up an arrow and rape her with it."
Session stops, house owner tells him to leave. Session ruined. Nobody ever invites him ever again for anything, even acquaintances are warned. This was in the 90s and was extremely weird.
>6.As a mage, 3rd level, abandons party and goes "scouting" in a military camp of goblins, hobgoblins, ogres, draconians of various types, evil humans and other creatures. Gets caught and imprisoned in a wooden cage. 2e Dragonlance
this guy thought that "whatever he did was ok" and that the DM and all other players were obliged to move heaven and earth, distorting everything and certainly the adventure so he would be able to again "do whatever he wanted".
killing npcs, killing fellow pcs, getting into huge trouble and everything you can possibly imagine
>9. Room with a dead npc villain, is alone with him. Proceeds to roll pick pockets to steal the dead person's stuff. 1e Faerun
Out off all the stupidity, that one manages to seem the most flatbrained to me.
10. Player makes a pacifistic character caster class, from a mag or some class cannot recall, he wanted to make like crazy. First encounter he murders an innocent with his bare hands. What the frick, are you doing? Blank stare, i just wanted to kill him he says. 1e Faerun
>What the frick, are you doing? Blank stare, i just wanted to kill him he says.
Reminds me of one of my first RPG campaigns. We were trying to escape some heavily guarded buildin, and were just barely able to down 2 guardsmen in a small hallway. More guardsmen tried to swarm into the room, but weren't quite in attack range for my character. Instead for some reason I picked up the crossbow of one of the downed opponents, held it against his chin and declared that I would execute him. My OOC reasoning (in my head, atleast) was that a dead opponent is better than an unconscious opponent. But what I told my GM and fellow players was that maybe I could scare the other guardsmen away if I act like an absolutely deranged lunatic. I think that explanation only made it worse, as my fellow players and GM just stared at me.
This sure is a TTRPG player post.
Wishful thinking through and through, with a terrible of understanding of the social dynamics at play.
Atleast I got the kill, right?
Don't worry, I got better.
should have held him hostage
11. Player fights with other player's character while on a rented Silt Sea boat for petty argument. They start to get violent, one if a half-giant fighter and the other a half-elf fire cleric/mage. Ship mage tells them to immediately stop, half-giant says he charges and attacks her with his bone sword. NPC casts phantasmal killer and half-giant dies failing all rolls. Crew attacks PC party to defend their mage. 2e Dark Sun
12. Thief scouts ahead and comes upon a room with a glowing white orb. He touches it and gets electrocuted with 1d6 damage. Continues doing so until he dies. When asked says he wanted to deplete it. 2e Faerun
13. Same guys above as a ranger. Goes scouting alone with invisibility potion and a spider climb potion or item, enters room with many orogs and amazingly locks door behind him. Takes position away from the door. Attacks orogs and dies. Greyhawk adventure 2e City of Skulls by Carl Sargent (9th-12th level). When asked says he does not give a clear answer.
>When asked says he wanted to deplete it.
Holy shit, ahahahaha
>>to deplete it.
>Holy shit, ahahahaha
in real life this fella was incredibly prone to accidents. Out of nowhere he would get into an accident and in one way or another bleed profusely or almost lose a limb.
No-matter what class he took he was a trap magnet. When it was thief he always failed to detect them and would fall upon them and activate them, failing all saves and checks, even when they were placed in strange places and activated by strange actions. Even when given items to protect him he would frick up.
At a single session he had depleted all healing spells of the party and magical items, potions, ointments, staves, wands and everything you can possibly imagine including some npc stuff so many times that it was ridiculous and utterly unbelievable.
>This is literally roleplaying. Funny voices and accents are not required for roleplaying. You can describe your character's actions 100% in third person the entire campaign.
>theater kids
No it is not, there is no requirement for funny voices or accents or any theatricals nor did i ask it of them or in the thread. They need only speak normally (as human beings can if you are familiar with it), but just as the characters. You cannot describe your SPEECH in third person as it makes an entire capacity, of speaking, actually speaking and listening and interacting with other party members and npcs and the entire environment null and void.
They are not special needs persons. Speak, talk use your mouth in-character. Role-play, not roll play and then send a telegram about what you supposedly ----->say<---- in some generic vague manner.
There are requirements in adventures where the character says this and that and something special happens. It is lost if they just describe things as if its some faraway synopsis.
Can't just talk? Go to a speech therapist. You cannot even play a game or fathom to speak properly?
Speak motherfricker, speak.
to quote the above video clip if it was and rpg session the
NPC would say, as in the DM would say as the NPC
''Describe Marcelous Wallace'
the Player would have to speak as the character and say
"mr Wallace is a black african american bald man with glasses...."
and not "I describe him to the NPC" or something similar.
That is not roleplaying a fun game, that is ASS. This is someone with brain problems.
He was clearly cursed by a witch.
And don't bother replying to that guy who's seething about proper roleplaying. He made it his personal crusade to push his own definition of "roleplay" on /tg/.
>"roleplay"
get a brain scan, you cannot understand basic things of reality
A role-playing game is a game in which the participants assume the roles of characters and collaboratively create stories.
This includes talking as their characters. Unless they are all mute or telepaths.
>A role-playing game is a game in which the participants assume the roles of characters and collaboratively create stories.
Roflmao. Role-play has nothing to do with collaboratively creating stories. This is narrative/performative play which is another thing entirely.
cant have one without the other in a good ttrpg group, moronbro
You absolutely can. If I go out for beers with the bros we may end up with a story to tell. At no point did we engage with collaborative storytelling. Same thing with ttrpgs.
>going out with friends is the same collaborative storytelling as with playing a ttrpg with friends
im sorry you seem unprepared ill give you another chance to explain yourself. take your time.
>Role-play has nothing to do with collaboratively creating stories.
This idiocy won't become true no matter how often you repeat it.
Actual poseur take.
>You cannot describe your SPEECH in third person as it makes an entire capacity, of speaking, actually speaking and listening and interacting with other party members and npcs and the entire environment null and void.
Yeah you can, you can use direct quotes in third person. You yourself make it reasonable by only asking people to speak normally, depicting what a character does in-setting in a more convenient way. You can't reasonably expect the players to speak every language their character might, so you accept a level of abstraction for the sake of the game. Its the same principle.
There're plenty of times where "I describe him to the NPC" is a perfectly reasonable way to depict an interaction. I've had GMs forget to describe someone, I've forgotten npc descriptions, I've had other players not describe their characters properly, I've asked to skip the RP because all I was planning to do IC was buy some minor stuff, I've had scenarios where the GM didn't convey that it was an important interaction with consequences. Not to mention, the difference between a film and an rpg is director mcfootfetish has months to refine witty and characterful dialogue, and I've got to do it in the moment. Nobody is at their RP peak at all times, so abbreviating what the character says to what the player wants to convey is a useful and valid crutch.
14. Characters know one of their potion containers has a very powerful acid. They do not cast detect magic to see which ones are magical, nor test the potions in any other way. A dwarf is very injured and they give him vial which is the acid. He dies. They proceed to stuff him in a bucket and throw a ring of regeneration inside. Ok, that was kind of funny at the end. 2e Greyhawk.
I had a player who wanted to strip and sell random dungeon furnishings, scraps of armor from dead orcs, etc.
I didn't want to do tons of bookkeeping etc and indulging this autism, so I just said the local townsfolk didn't want the shit because it was so badly damaged, they were superstitious about stuff coming from dungeons and ruins, etc. He freaked out and was apparently trash talking me on some DnD forum.
Upside: I've really come to appreciate the mostly popular game of each genre(40K/DnD/MtG) as flypaper for the worst people.
You're fatarded. Should have just said you didn't want to do the bookkeeping like a normal person.
16. Female Cleric of Lathander. Party is ambushed in the underdark by dark elves. She does not help in the least bit and casts protections on her along with sanctuary as the rest of her friends fight heroically. Just when things seem to dictate that if she helps the party would win she becomes invisible via potion and flees. The c**t left. All party members die except her. Was very egotistic and a b***h in real life that would screech like a harpy if you tried to help her in anything or touched her stuff when trying to help her and she had asked you for help. 3.5 Faerun.
17. Druid half-elf. Buys PHB and druid's book. Busts everyone balls about his druid in World of Warcraft. Everyone prepares for the first session of the campaign which would last 3 days on vacation. We all coordinated to have this free time all together. Has not read PHB or the druid book (masters of the wild i think it was). Casts no spells and starts using WoW terminology for spells to hide the fact he read nothing and knows nothing of the class or the game. Proceeds to attack a Griffin NPC steed, not an enemy creature or a random encounter, with his scimitar and dies faster than you can blink. Ruins adventure for everyone. When asked why he says he wanted to see if he could kill it. Faerun 3.5. Millionaire parents, kid a moron and scum and so was his father.
Thing is, persuading people of what you honestly believe in or what you outright don't believe in are different (if related) skills
Lying and convincing aren't exactly the same, and some people really struggle with the former while being quite good at the latter
So it makes sense to separate the skills,(somewhat)
They fall into the same category much in the way that climbing a tree and climbing a rock wall involve different techniques/equipment, but they're still climbing. The end goal of "I want them to believe in what I'm saying" is the same and involves most of the same skills, ie. presenting convincing information, constructing appealing arguments, oratory performance, etc.
While you're right that it's often easier to be convincing if you actually believe in what you're saying, especially if you have moral compunction against lying, it's also often easier to convince people of a lie because you can literally just make up all the evidence you need while twisting any real evidence to suit your purposes. You'll often find that even when people are trying to tell the truth as honestly as they can, they will present real, factual information in a misleading way, because the goal is rarely "Tell the truth as accurately as possible" and far more commonly "Convince people that X is true."
The main issue is actually player expectations, with players doing their best to avoid having to roll for things (since rolls provide opportunities for failure) and being well aware that bluffing demands rolls while there's no explicit roll required for telling the truth. It would make no sense that just because something is technically true (or a character believes it's true), the other party will just automatically believe it with no roll required, but that's how many players often end up playing the game. Some players even try to work around having to make bluff/deception checks by thinking they can just lie through misdirection/omission/half-truths etc. instead of using flat-out falsehoods.
If a PC wants to convince the town their mayor is a witch, the town is going to have the same amount of skepticism and resistance regardless of whether the mayor is actually a witch or not, and the PC's speech could very well be identical in either circumstance.
I never played DnD, does the system really not have a "convince" check?
>"convince" check?
diplomacy skill, you talk your way out or in, or past a situation.
Ah, that was it. I knew I've heard of something like this through cultural osmosis.
you could "convince" or "persuade" him also via intimidate or bluff skills.
No, I was strictly speaking of verbally convincing an NPC of something that your PC believes, not threatening or tricking him into accepting it.
then only diplomacy
https://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm
or a charm spell or some other spells (suggestion carefully worded) and items
Circlet of Persuasion
This silver headband grants a +3 competence bonus on the wearer’s Charisma-based checks.
Tome of Leadership and Influence
This ponderous book details suggestions for persuading and inspiring others, but entwined within the words is a powerful magical effect. If anyone reads this book, which takes a total of 48 hours over a minimum of six days, he gains an inherent bonus of from +1 to +5 (depending on the type of tome) to his Charisma score. Once the book is read, the magic disappears from the pages and it becomes a normal book.
https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/symbolOfPersuasion.htm
In 5e that's 100% persuasion
One thing folks forget about things like bluff and diplomacy is that the character you're trying to convince is willing to listen to you and you're being reasonable.
Too many folks try to treat these skill checks like fricking magic. "WHOA YOU CONVINCE HIM TO STRIP NAKED AND GIVE YOU ALL HIS SHIT, NICE ROLL BRO"
Oh the ironing
Reminds me of that thread some years ago about the players in a game of Rogue Trader trying to treat it like that to take down a Craftworld and being butthurt that it didn't work that way.
Persuasion, deception or intimidation
>most infuriatingly stupid bullshit a
18. Players become so mechanized in their thoughts that using skills becomes the following, and i had someone even say i cast "bluff, or sense motive or any other 3.5 class or non-class skill" 3.5 D&D in general. They do not roleplay anything, just to say something not fricking ancient greek theater performance but just say i use this or that skill.
>18. Players become so mechanized in their thoughts
eventually i record the audio of a session and in 6 hours 5 players have uttered 0 to 6 sentences or mere words as role-playing and the rest is computer-like and indirect declarations of what they say and do. They never describe the details of information conveyed and say oh i tell him the story.
I tell them they suck and eventually we stop playing.
We played Basic D&D to 3.5 and Call of Cthulhu, Werewolf the Apocalypse and the VtM and some other stuff.
At the begging 1-3 years they were fine, but as time passed they eventually became worse and worse and at the 4th year to 15th year they were utterly totally and completely worthless. They were mechanized and computerized and incredibly stupid while thinking they were great.
this case is related to this one below and to computerization and mechanization of players.
>>18. Players become so mechanized in their thoughts
>eventually i record the audio of a session and in 6 hours 5 players have uttered 0 to 6 sentences or mere words as role-playing and the rest is computer-like and indirect declarations of what they say and do. They never describe the details of information conveyed and say oh i tell him the story.
>and the rest is computer-like and indirect declarations of what they say and do.
This is literally roleplaying. Funny voices and accents are not required for roleplaying. You can describe your character's actions 100% in third person the entire campaign. Have you never fricking DM'd and said "The dragon does X"?
god I hate theater kids
I'm just happy that "people" like you stay in their containment game.
>most infuriatingly stupid bullshit a player
best players were young players that had not been playing computer games for years or mechanics obsessed tabletop rpg games for years (whether it was basic D&D or 3.5 or any other).
I'm almost sympathetic to the player here, except (and this may just be because I'm hearing anon's side of the story) it does feel like he's cheesing it and trying to gain an advantage.
In the ACKS game I'm in, my fighter, Merci, is a hot-head who hates beastmen, and she routinely agrees to spare a beastman to interrogate him and then kills him despite the other PCs promising him freedom. And half the time she kills them before we interrogate them just because she's mad (if she misses a bunch in combat, she'll pretty much always take out *my* frustration on surrendering beastmen).
Now, as a player, I always know that Merci isn't going to offer any quarter or mercy to her enemies (her name is ironic, it's the one virtue she lacks) and that if she agrees to free a prisoner if he spills the beans she's going to kill him anyways. But I could legitimately argue that Merci doesn't know that, because she really does think she's going to go along with the party's plan right up until she doesn't, because of her flashfire temper. And that is roleplaying.
But ACKS doesn't draw enough distinction between reaction rolls and whether Merci is lying or not is irrelevant, the roll is still 2d6+1 (for Charisma), so in making that argument I wouldn't be gaining any benefit or circumventing a skill test. So when I say it's roleplaying, you know I'm telling the truth, because I have no reason to dissemble. When "roleplaying" is an excuse to manipulate the rules, that's a lot harder to swallow.
You have an incredibly grating way of writing.
Cool, thanks for the useless criticism.
You have an incredibly grating way of communicating, you anti-social shithead. How about, in the future, you consider the age-old advice "If you can't say something nice, say nothing at all. All you have accomplished with this comment is making me feel self-conscious and bad about myself, but with no idea what I could do different. You have offered a useless, pointless opinion solely because you're a pathetic, insecure fricking butthole who needs to puke negativity on others.
You know what? You should have a nice day. You're an adult who still doesn't know how to communicate effectively, and all you know is how to be an obnoxious pest. So have a nice day. You're a useless pile of shit and all you will ever accomplish in your meaningless life is annoying other people. The world would be better off if you bought a gun, some bullets, and then shot yourself in the head.
No, no, that's boring. What you should do is buy one of those green screen suits and write "FREE JOE BIDEN" on your chest, then dive head first off a six+ story building in your nearest urban center. Then, at long last, you will have done something interesting and creative in your pointless wasted life and give people something to talk about.
Or do the boring thing, I really don't care, I just want you to take your own life, you pointless, empty space.
is this pasta or just the uncommon deranged rant?
Every time I go off on some useless, drivel-posting anon, someone asks if it's copypasta. I'm kind of proud of that. Means I'm nailing the tone.
Surely it means you are the useless, drivel-posting anon if people think what you're writing is regurgitated.
They don't think its "regurgitated," they think it's copypasta, which has a specific tone and style. Because most anons are not particularly creative or capable writers, they cannot believe that someone could just write in that style as a choice without being insane.
These are people who don't realize the original Navy Seal copypasta was not a candid post but a piece of writing created with specific intention.
Different anon, I'll give you more specific criticism then. Your original post about the ACKS game has multiple run-on sentences. Compounding with your frequent use of interrupter clauses and parentheticals makes it unnecessarily difficult to follow.
Shorten your sentences and avoid parentheticals.
>Different anon, I'll give you more specific criticism then.
I wasn't asking for criticism. Nobody here is asking for criticism on their writing style. I have zero interest in dumbing down my style to sound like all of you semi-literate morons. If my frequent use of interrupter clauses and parentheticals makes my writing "unnecessarily difficult to follow," then you're just a fricking idiot and you should learn to read better, dumbass.
I just ran that text through a reading level checker. Here's the results:
>Score: 14.88 [ = grade level ]
>Reading Difficulty: Extremely Difficult
>Grade Level: College Graduate
>Age Range: 23+
In conclusion, you're a dumb frick. Sorry I write at an adult level and you struggle to read, but your idiocy is your problem, not mine. Don't b***h at me, git gud.
: 14.88
Nice try Hitler
When you write with parentheticals you write with Hitler.
You said yourself that people often confuse your writing for copypasta. That's not a compliment. Your writings are being dismissed as long-winded, regurgitated drivel.
Even worse, you're foolish enough to think that automated writing checkers are a good metric for analysis, let alone for casual conversation on an internet forum. Those systems consider complex sentence structure as a sign of higher grade level. That's fine, young children are unlikely to write like that. It does not mean such writing is necessarily better.
Skilled writers know that how to communicate is context dependent. Skilled writers don't aim for the highest possible grade level, they aim to communicate effectively.
You're free to ignore my advice. You will continue to be disregarded by people who find you're not worth the trouble to interact with. But at least you can take cold comfort in your precious automated reading score.
Shakespeare said "Brevity is the soul of wit," a much better writer than you'll ever be.
Get fricked. Why are you buttholes so fricking toxic? I fricking hate this place.
You're so full of shit and just mean to be mean. Why you are such miserable human beings? What the frick is wrong with you that you get off on being such shitty people? I don't get it.
>Shakespeare said "Brevity is the soul of wit," a much better writer than you'll ever be.
What the frick. Obviously, Shakespear -- widely considered the greatest writer ever -- is much better than me. Am I supposed to be as good as Shakespeare? Is that the standard you are holding me to?
Gte fricked. you pile of dogshit. You're not offering advice, you're just a fricking sadist b***h who gets off on ostracizing and belittling people from the safety on anonymity. You're just a miserable, hateful frick. Why?
Please have a nice day, you waste of life.
I gave kind and helpful advice until you responded hatefully. Only then did I treat you like shit. Reap what you sow.
>Am I supposed to be as good as Shakespeare? Is that the standard you are holding me to?
Yeah bro, Shakespeare lived like, hundreds of years ago. You should at least be as good as him.
>If my frequent use of interrupter clauses and parentheticals makes my writing "unnecessarily difficult to follow," then you're just a fricking idiot
The way you use them makes you sound like a teenager who thinks he's a genius and wants everyone to know it. The problem is that it's also obvious that you're not half as smart as you think you are and it paints a picture of you as the worst kind of person; a midwit with an overblown ego. These two tend to go together, but your posts also reek of autism. The literal kind, not the meme kind.
You type like a pretentious redditor. How many trilbies do you own?
>I wasn't asking for criticism. Nobody here is asking for criticism on their writing style
nta but tough fricking shit. If you publicly post on an anonymous forum you are opening yourself to whatever other people want to say in response to you. You are also open to completely ignore it and move on on a whim since it is an anonymous public forum. Acting like you're somehow exempt from this implicit rule and throwing a tantrum over it makes you the stupidest person here regardless of what you actually say since you can't consider a social convention so basic and generally implicit that most don't even need it pointed out.
You realize a higher grade and reading difficulty is worse for communicating ideas, right?
Totally depends on the idea you're communicating. For a lot of common things, yes. But certain subjects will require the use of more specific vocabulary that will elevate the reading level beyond the basics. Plus, there are times when more complex sentence structure will actually convey an idea more clearly than through repeated, simpler sentences.
You're misunderstanding. A higher grade and reading difficulty is still suboptimal. Yes, more complex ideas will require more complex communication to convey. But this doesn't contradict the fact that it's still not ideal, and that complexity should be limited as much as possible while still accurately conveying information.
Alright, I see your point.
The best conversations I've ever had at an academic level are the ones where we refer to authors as "bastards" and their theories as "that shit with the solutions".
>you should learn to read better, dumbass
It's strange how listening to audiobooks and watching YouTube videos doesn't improve a person's capacity for thought or communication, whether it is through speech or text.
Yeah reading is good for humans too bad most of the moronic npcs aren't human and can't read
You're proud that people find your posts bland, uninspired, and hilariously out of touch?
You talk too much.
>I really don't care
>Writes a paragraph about not caring
need information from defeated enemy
>>"We could tell him that if he gives up the information we need, we'll let him go freely. Then we kill him so he can't warn his friends or anything. Okay, I'll give the enemy that offer."
there is no player/"character" talk of this type allowed, they must communicate to each other through their characters which is the whole point of the role-playing game. This is the same schizophrenic bullshit with the sms that got them killed, from a post above, from their own spells even before the monsters did anything at all.
This is a problem Gary Gygax himself solved in his 'session 1/0' advice where you're interviewed by the serjeant of the watch. It's hilarious some people still have a problem with players doing something that was soundly dealt with in the 70s.
>Gary Gygax himself solved in his 'session 1/0' advice where you're interviewed by the serjeant of the watch
what are you referring to exactly
Anyone able to expand on this or drop a link?
>>"No, I'm not bluffing, I'm telling him that if he gives us the information, we'll let him go free"
>>But you just said you're going to kill him anyway
>>"My character doesn't know that yet"
>>But you literally just said that was your plan
>>"Yeah, my plan, but my character doesn't know until then so it's not a bluff. I'm roleplaying."
this is schizophrenia and moronation of the highest caliber by the players.
role play your characters buttholes and shut the frick up in all other ways
>>"Yeah, my plan, but my character doesn't know until then so it's not a bluff. I'm roleplaying."
moron player, your character is not real and you suck. If you were roleplaying, known as playing the rpg with your friends, you would talk to each other as characters, form a plan and then act upon it.
"my character doesn't know" he is fictional you fricking butthole, he does not exist let alone know anything. Role play the fricker.
What the frick do these players think that this game is and what reality is?
Can they fricking count to three?
They cannot sit down, use the rules and talk to each other as their characters in a game that is not fricking rocket science.
What they say and do is, frick role-playing just do whatever to finish this.
What would actually happen if they roleplayed it, as in playing the fricking game is;
Char 1 says to the rest in a place, they have a discussion, they cannot be heard; We could tell him that if he gives up the information we need, we'll let him go freely. Then we kill him so he can't warn his friends or anything. Okay, I'll give the enemy that offer."
Char 1; goes to the prisoner to lie to him
Char 1; Lies to him, must actually say words, fricking speak fricker. The player must speak as the character fully or else nothing happens whatsoever. No my character says what i said before or some bullshit declaration of i don't want and cannot speak because i am a mongrel homosexual that cannot play a game.
DM; Roll a bluff
and during all this time the other characters would talk and say lots of stuff. But they are unable to play the game because most players are sadly brain damaged.
what you should have done is said ok, no bluff. And then have the prisoner give the information fully.
And then he would transform. his form would be torn and the creature would emerge. into a fricking Balor and kill them all. Or fricking Zodd from berserk and just tear them to ribbons literately. Play the battle, brief battle, and describe them getting torn limb from limb and squashed and broken.
And then you would say
"Yeah, the adventure was 1-3 level, but my DM persona doesn't know that that my real-life persona knew that this creature was a major fiend fit for Epic level characters. I'm roleplaying. You see that fiend was there but i did not know that yet. Now that its out and killed you, now i know."
Makes no sense just like the stupid player.
have zodd kill them, get new players
Berserk - Zodd the Immortal fight
>he most infuriatingly stupid bullshit a player
not roleplaying, as in not talking to each other as characters at all, or in a negligible amount, has the additional result of invalidating the existence of spells, items, monster powers, plot points, plot fulcrums and a ton of other stuff. You cannot play like that. The action-reaction of saying things among themselves, others and their general environment is lost.
>I'm roleplaying
so far from doing that, that he has to declare that he is. Don't you know DM? I am roleplaying!
It wasn’t even that bad, but I had a player who insisted that since they were half-orc, they’d obviously be able to speak Goblin.
They did not have Goblin as a language on their sheet, but said that since they spoke Orc, it should translate easily.
I told them that they couldn’t speak Goblin just because they knew Orc, but if they wanted to try and get any info based on body language, they could give me an insight check. They went ahead, and did alright, and gained as much info as you’d get watching two Mexican guys speak to each other when you don’t know Spanish, like when you can kinda tell if they’re talking about you, but not really much else.
Our bard, who had Goblin as a language, then stepped forward and spoke in Goblin. And the Half-Orc got really mad, because they didn’t understand why the Bard was allowed to speak in Goblin but they weren’t.
It took 20 minutes for me and the rest of the party to explain why.
>as you pass by the police car, it turns on its sirens and begins to tail you
>"how can it see me? My car is invisible"
>no, you have chameleon coating, which imposes a -3 to perception checks
>"then how did he know I was there?"
>radar, and he saw your car with his -3 perception check
>"then what's the point of getting chameleon coating?"
>-3 to perception checks
>"that isn't worth it"
>then you shouldn't have bought it
later, same player
>you fail your sneaking check, the guard sees you and points a gun at you
>"how did he see me? I have a chameleon suit"
The only stupid bullshit here is using a system with worthless options, or having a GM make options worthless through passive-aggression.
Neither item is useless (especially for how cheap they are), they do make it HARDER for you to be detected, but not IMPOSSIBLE. If you blow the roll, you blow the roll.
So you make those rolls out in the open, right?
>stealth rolls out in open
Constant absurd diplomancing, which I initially tolerated and eventually had to crack down on. Lots of
>oh, you should obey me because I'm the protagonist here
Type stuff.
>"Sorry, but your character has too high of INT to choose that option."
>Ok make a wisdom check to see if your character thinks of that.
>Player currently plays temp pc cleric of a temple because the gm whisked away his actual character since he didn't have time for multiple session and we haven't found him yet
>GM gave the player lore about the temple and what is going on, but instead the player tells us nothing and kept pulling infuriating "that is what my character would do" shit causing us all to be stuck in that temple for don't know how many sessions despite that also keeping us from getting his actual character back
>multiple points where the pcs consider offing the guy for endangering them and only don't do that because ooc the player is a okay guy and this character is there so he can take part in sessions
>GM has a talk with him and we play it off as the characters begrudgingly working together to stop a summoning ritual in the temple (it was overtaken by cultists), everything seems fine now
>Deity of the temple bestows some artefact shield on us as a reward that "belongs to us all equally and we shouldn't fight over"
>Player has the cleric run up and instantly grab it, still intent on playing out him hating our party after we just got endorsed by his deity
The GM was obviously well-meaning and wanted this to be a thing were the characters reconcile despite what the player had been doing previously also being ridiculous. Now for some fricking reason he wants to check with the temple of his deity in the capital city after going to another different city if we can have the artefact shield. This is the kind of moment where the "meta gameplay" strongly outweighs what characters would do for me (not that his actions make any sense either), because the shield is very obviously meant for our party's fighter and even the pcs were in agreement to give it to him except for the fricking cleric who only exists so that the player can play. I really wonder if it would be fine to beat the shit out of the cleric even if that is something "my character wouldn't do".
>but my character doesn't know until then so it's not a bluff.
Why is it that I have heard this type of shit more and more recently?
I swear to god its spreading like an epidemic.
You didn't really ask but IMO I'd say it's part post-truth era, part social engineering for political or commercial reasons.
Some have grown used to the idea that truth can be negotiated.
>"Ok guys so in this campaign you will be playing a mercenary outfit led by a son of a CEO of a minor corpo"
>One player makes a middle aged, corporate assassin character, explicitly stated as having served the company for years, assassination skills pumped
>Plays him as most stereotypically heroic good guy who would never hurt an innocent or tell a lie
>Constantly protests morally dubious actions of the party
>Bitches out of character that his roleplay options are "cut off" by the other players
>Insists on doing rp things that while not bad by themselves, only affect his character and thus leave the other players twiddling their thumbs
>While at it starts creeping up on both male and female NPCs. Another player calls him out.
He left the next session. Everybody sighed with relief
I had a rat pet that I was allowed to make simple communication with. The partys task was to investigate a building that materialized out of nowhere in the city and yet locals saw nothing suspicious about it. We approached the building carefully and the entrances were locked and there were no ground floor windows. I asked if i could have my rat friend scout. GM says sure, but there seems to be no drainage systems for him to crawl into, the nearest window was fifteen feet up. I asked to lob my rat to the windowsill, failed the check, and my rat missed the window, bounced off the overhang, and died hitting the ground. Instead of consoling my dying rat friend i tried to interrogate him to see what he saw in the split second he was at window height. when the GM told me that i cant meaningfully communicate with my rat about that in its dying moments, i got upset. dont worry, i will kill myself soon enough once enough cringe builds up in my body.
The mental image of this is hilarious. A dude throwing his rat up against a building then shaking its little dying body, "What did you see? What did you see?!"
its extremely funny, just wasnt very funny at the moment for everyone involved which is the story of my life
Your GM sounds like a homosexual. Aside from stonewalling your attempts to do anything, rats can fall five times that distance and be completely fine.
>player a priest of a goddess presiding over natural death and against abuse of revival spells/raising the dead
>Gets mad that the enemy they were fighting dies before they can interrogate his or his soul (needs to be close to the creature on tje moment of death)
>Revives the enemy
>Kills them again
>Just to capture the soul to interrogate
>Gets pissy when his goddess-granted miracles evaporate on the second he tries it, his blessing removed
This guy was something else
Sounds fun so why not?
having fun is for normalgays
Forbidden Lands
>Forbidden Lands has a mechanic where you can earn willpower points by pushing a roll, risking injury to yourself
>Player wants to play as a spellcaster
>As a spellcaster in this game you need willpower points to cast spells
>Warn him he won't be doing too much but will have a big impact during the game with spells if he chooses his timing correctly
>Even let him start off with two willpower points
>Manages to get five willpower points and manages to blow them all in two hours real time, which is a lot
>Wizard then asks if he can play rock paper scissors, in the middle of a dungeon, with another player
>Confused, I ask why
>He explains so he can push his roll playing RPS to get willpower points
>I specifically state that pushing your roll to get willpower points only works if you are putting yourself through stress or danger of some kind
>He starts to argue with me as I just give him a hard "No"
>Another player interrupts and gets the game going
>The fricker puts another willpower point down anyway when I wasn't looking before the session ended
This moron caused a lot of other problems with our games, like straight up talking back to the GM over stupid crap, not paying attention to the game, constantly trying to power game with combat wheelchair bullshit and just generally being a murder hobo.
sounds like you deserve it
if you didn't want a murderhobo you'd have either taken him aside and talked to him like a goddamn adult or simply kicked him from the group
Nobody else had a problem with him for some reason even after he was being intentionally malicious towards the rest of the group and when he tried to frick with me I gave him a talk only for him to say "It's just a game bro, why are you so upset!" then tried to paint me as being the bad guy and tried to get me kicked from the group with everyone else saying nothing, which is why talking to these people never works. After that people just passively stopped inviting him.
I can kind of relate. Fantasy Flight Star Wars games allow characters to pass bonuses from one check to the next player's check. I started playing a quick game of catch before my character would take a sniper shot just to rack up a quick bonus.
Stupidly cheesy, and I stopped the GM asked me to, but it was fun figuring out that loophole.
That at least makes some sense mechanically. Forbidden Lands specifically states to only roll when danger or some sort of risk is happening specifically to prevent people from cheesing rolls and to encourage people to actually roleplay things out.
I seriously hate this place. I'm banned from every other platform and this is the only place I can talk about RPGs, but all you're allowed to post here is the same mind-numbing repetitive bullshit, and there's ALWAYS a ton of miserable, hatefilled c**ts who have nothing better to do than make other people miserable.
I fricking give up. I'm done with this shithole. You people are worthless fricking garbage and you're proud of it. You all should just fricking have a nice day. You're such garbage people.
>I'm banned from every other platform
That sounds like a you problem. Not even joking, you've got issues if you somehow manage to get banned everywhere you post. Why would Ganker be different in this regard? Do some growing or get some meds, it's no surprise you manage to antagonize yourself wherever you go if this is your reaction to mild criticism.
It's not "mild" criticism, it's unnecessary, pointless negativity. It's criticism being offered solely to irritate and annoy, and the only way to "win" is to ignore it.
And it's why Ganker is shit. The only way to interact with people here is to ignore them. That's why we have infinite threads of anonymous posts nobody reads or responds to, because there's only two kinds of posters here: posters who ignore all the other posters, and posters who shit on anyone who pays attention to them.
There's no point in responding to you. I am losing by giving you attention. You are such a worthless piece of shit that my life is actually improved if I don't engage with you. And you're proud of that. You think you have accomplished something by being such a thoroughly loathsome pile of dogshit that the only proper way to engage with you is to avoid you. Just like a pile of dogshit on the sidewalk.
But the tolerance for this kind of shitstain behavior is that Ganker is garbage and the only reward for participating here is getting shit on you. I'm done.
The rest of the internet is controlled by woke buttholes who respond to any criticism by throwing banhammers, and Ganker is controlled by socially maladjusted losers who think winning is being such an obnoxious frick that no wants to be near you.
Enjoy your victory, shithead.
>six paragraphs to say 'frick you, butthole'
The criticism was fair. I'm glad you enjoy cognitive dissonance between your true self and the verbose garbage that was drilled into you.
>And it's why Ganker is shit. The only way to interact with people here is to ignore them. That's why we have infinite threads of anonymous posts nobody reads or responds to, because there's only two kinds of posters here: posters who ignore all the other posters, and posters who shit on anyone who pays attention to them.
Excuse me we were having a perfectly good time in this thread telling and discussing our stories when you came here acting like a homosexual. So no, we aren't just shitting on anyone in range, you're just acting like a homosexual so we're shitting on you. Specifically. It's simple. You are the problem. Not us.
>Excuse me we were having a perfectly good time in this thread telling and discussing our stories when you came here acting like a homosexual.
Anon was acting like a homosexual by...telling and discussing his story? From here it looks like some anon attacked him for posting on topic, he returned fire, and then a dozen anons attacked him for firing back. Which would support his contention that the only winning move is to not post.
inb4 I regret challenging the hive mind.
Well no it wouldn't support your contention that posting in response in general isn't something you should do since it was shitflining in response to shitflinging opening the door to more shitflinging that got people fighting. Ignoring the meaningless stuff while still engaging with actual responses much like other posters in this very thread is the real winning move.
>Anon was acting like a homosexual by...telling and discussing his story? From here it looks like some anon attacked him for posting on topic, he returned fire, and then a dozen anons attacked him for firing back. Which would support his contention that the only winning move is to not post.
>
>inb4 I regret challenging the hive mind.
You're not even trying to hid that you're defending your own toddler tier ass ranting. Just because we're all Anonymous doesn't mean we can't read context clues in writing styles.
Black person.
>Which would support his contention that the only winning move is to not post.
For him, yeah. Because he's really annoying.
>get some mild shitflinging that could be trivially ignored since it doesn't actually matter
>respond in an angry rant while acting smug inviting in people to keep responding to that line of posting
>wtf how could this be happening to me
grow thicker skin and learn to not be bothered by shit that doesn't matter like an adult before coming back which we both know you will since you're too childish for anywhere else
>The rest of the internet is controlled by woke buttholes who respond to any criticism by throwing banhammers, and Ganker is controlled by socially maladjusted losers who think winning is being such an obnoxious frick that no wants to be near you.
>The Anti-Woke Guy can't even handle Ganker.
Tourist.
Nice to know everyone else on the web also hates your guts.
>I'm banned from every other platform
Yes, because your mental illness makes you fricking unbearable to be around. Follow your own advice and off yourself you whiny little b***h.
>I'm banned from every other platform
LOL
>Act like a entitled manchild having a temper tantrum the moment a small passing critque on Ganker barely scrapes them
>"I'm banned from every other platform and this is the only place I can talk RPGs".
You wouldn't last a second on Ganker.
Don't let the revolving door hit you on your way back in
Teehee Maccaroni is the bane of my fricking existence.
Every fricking campaign that my GM runs inevitably at some point involves running into an NPC named "Teehee Maccaroni," who the GM affectionately describes as "an epic level sorcerer who's also a moronic nudist gnome."
Teehee Maccaroni wander the countryside with a unique Rod of Wonders powered by "moron magic" shoved up his anus, and he casts the Rod of Wonders by diddling his penis. He says nothing but his own name in different inflections and the phrase "I like-a the goodberry, gimme gimme the goodberry." The GM thinks it's hilarious to have this character show up during the middle of encounters we're struggling at and start jerking off magic everywhere.
But the worst part is his chant. He wanders around chanting his name, so when he's about to show up the GM will start low;
>Tee-hee-hee, Maccaroni Maccaroni
>Tee-hee-hee, Maccaroni Maccaroni
And then get louder and louder until he's fricking shouting
>TEE HEE HEE, MACCARONI MACCARONI!
>TEE HEE HEE, MACCARONI MACCARONI!
And the table loves it! The other guys I play with think this is the best shit! Teehee Maccaroni has been our table's de-facto inside joke, our signature "running gag" for six years now. When that chant starts up, everyone else joins in like a ritual; the whole table is expected to start chanting "TEE HEE HEE, MACCARONI MACCARONI" by the end, and every fricking time I refuse because this is some embarrassing circa-2002 Penguin of Doom shit, it's always the same thing; "There goes Anon again! No fun allowed around Anon! Anon's just a big grouch who's getting angry because we're making him touch Teehee Maccaroni's penis again! Why won't you just let us have fun with this character, he's just here for dumb fun, you stick-in-the mud!"
These motherfrickers are all over 25 years old.
Teehee Maccaroni is going to be the death of me.
Bravo
Frick you I love it.
TEE HEE HEE, MACCARONI MACCARONI!
I was unofficially kicked from a group for this,
>first session
>playing paladin
>we get captured by bandits
>leader is much higher level than us
>get to rope bridge
>cross bridge with two other players
>bandit leader is in the middle of the rope bridge with some other bandits, two pcs are on the far side of the bridge
>say frick it and cut the ropes of the bridge plunging the bandit leader into canyon.
>we kill the bandits near us
>pcs on the far side get fricking murdered
>guys who lost their characters are fricking pissy
>never invited back
Did I frick up? I dont get it
Your DM was an idiot who, rather than starting you off as captives within the bandit hideout, decided to play out the scenario.
And then, because he didn't actually anticipate anyone trying to escape during his "cutscene", shit went sideways as soon as you did anything proactive.
Rope bridges are there to be cut, dm issue.
One of my players made a paladin, got bored of that character, then made a evil orc character who then raped their old character IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME
>the little b***h went on a reporting spree
lmao
seethe
Lol yeah janny troony freaked the frick out, what a LOSER
>Did any of you contribute anything of value to this thread?
No but you having a b***h fit is hilarious
What if the player did it, but without announcing his intent to the DM? So the player just promises the NPC to let him go, gets information, and then the player says he kills the NPC anyway. Would that not allow the player to bypass the bluff check by tricking the DM?
Does anyone else read threads like this and wonder if one day someone will mention some of the really retarted things you've done
Or is that just me?
I gasp in fear every time one of these topics sounds vaguely like me. It's never been the case but I'm ready for it.
>playing on Roll20
>exploring a dungeon
>player afks multiple times to get another drink
>turns start taking longer and longer
>get to puzzle room
>pcs cant figure it out
>now drunk pc solves it
>says that the dungeon is from a premade campaign handbook
>session quickly ends after this and another session was never scheduled
I was the drunk pc. Im sorry DM. You were rightfully pissed.
You could poke fun at him behind the scenes, such a vibe killer.
>I was the drunk pc
For of all sad words of tongue or pen...
>For all sad words of tongue and pen...
/misc/ was right again