What player options do you ban from your table and why?
>run Stars Without Number
>Ban everything from Codex of the Black Sun because I want to play Sci-Fi instead of space fantasy
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Weebs and freakshit lovers
No pets that can fly
Combat wheelchair is banned. Also serves as a litmus test and leaves me a way to kick its defenders in the bollocks.
>combat wheelchair
I'm unfamiliar. Explain this one to me.
Someone decided to make a wheelchair item in order to represent the disabled, which is fair enough, except it was unreasonably overpowered and was clearly her lashing out at her own -temporary- disability, and she interpreted all criticism as an attack on disabled people as a whole. It was also heavily astroturfed because in current year it's expected to virtue signal constantly instead of actually solving the barriers that keep people out of your game.
Meanwhile, D&D continues to gatekeep the disabled with a lack of large print books and character sheets (which benefits the visually impaired), teaching people some basic sign language for in-game terms (which benefits the deaf or hard of hearing), and relying on natural language instead of legalese (which benefits everybody in general).
In other words I ban it because the creator is a absolute thunderc**t. If someone gets upset over that and starts lashing out, it gives me two things to say to counter. The first being "Your reaction to the ban justifies the ban", the second being "I'm not describing violence against the disabled", which one I use depends on present company but both prove to be effective.
>Someone decided to make a wheelchair item in order to represent the disabled, which is fair enough, except it was unreasonably overpowered and was clearly her lashing out at her own -temporary- disability
In that, she was literally dying.
>In that, she was literally dying.
*lying
>she was literally dying.
Sounds pretty temporary to me.
>she was literally dying
Clearly not fast enough.
The stairway to heaven isn't wheelchair accessible.
> "Your reaction to the ban justifies the ban"
That cliche must be our signal to start clapping.
none of this happened AND you fell for the bait? Absolute state of anons ITT
>none of this happened
The combat wheelchair thing was an actual item promoted by WotC on their website.
>Meanwhile, D&D continues to gatekeep the disabled with a lack of large print books and character sheets (which benefits the visually impaired), teaching people some basic sign language for in-game terms (which benefits the deaf or hard of hearing), and relying on natural language instead of legalese (which benefits everybody in general).
In other words, Noooo please think of the morons.
How about "No".
Gaming remains the only industry where basic accomodation for the disabled (note: lowering difficulty is NOT considered an accomodation and to claim it is is considered ableism) is not legally mandated.
aeronautics
>"Your reaction to the ban justifies the ban"
Absolute rank stupidity.
>"I'm not describing violence against the disabled"
Blatantly dishonestly representing yourself while simultaneously strawmanning people you disagree with.
Yeah, I'm not surprised they're both effective at getting people to shut up, you're making it incredibly obvious that interacting with you is going to be torturous at best if you don't get your way at every step. If you respond, don't embarrass yourself by accusing me of caring about the wheelchair's presence or absence.
Wow, it just keeps working! I may have to copy this technique.
>heh... don't call me out on something i am obviously doing or.... you um... you le lose!
>Someone decided to make a wheelchair item in order to represent the disabled, which is fair enough, except it was unreasonably overpowered
And ridiculously cheap, too. There was literally no reason for any character not to use it, disabled or otherwise.
>teaching people some basic sign language for in-game terms
Now I'm thinking about banning players talking when doing stealth actions and instead they need to communicate with hand signals.
You cannot write rules in 'natural language'. It leaves too much up to interpretation.
learn to fricking read or ask someone who can for help.
>It leaves too much up to interpretation.
PLAYER.
PROBLEM.
Stop interpreting things in moronic ways then.
>You cannot write rules in 'natural language'.
Yes you can.
>It leaves too much up to interpretation.
Don't play with autists.
What kind of setting are we talking about? Because, while I do loathe the idea, I am also not an ideological wienersucker so if it does make sense with the technology and culture of the setting then it should be allowed.
My setting's tech level is somewhere in the realm of Suikoden. Simple engine technology exists but it's quite rare and expensive, and the number of people who can work it are few and far between.
Then yeah, a combat wheelchair is abject homosexualry of the highest order. I run a near future urban fantasy game, so I have no reason not to allow motorized wheelchars with guns mounted on them. My uncle made one as a joke like 3 years ago.
In most settings where it can exist paraplegia is easily fixable by magic or cybernetics rendering it moronic 99% of the time
moron.
The wheelchair is an item and a homebrew thing, you have to go out of your way to add it.
If you think 5e fruitloops don't demand homebrew be included when the show up to a game you must clearly be avoiding them somehow and you have my envy.
>"banning" a homebrew item
Just don't add that shit in the first place, dumbass.
Confirmed nogames. No one has ever asked you to include a combat wheelchair and no one ever will.
>can't play a Modok monster with a withered, atrophied body but a giant head with brain veins all over it in a super tank-hover-chair
this is bullshit man
Players whose only tabletop experience is DnD/Pathfinder, because these fricks are LITERALLY INCAPABLE of playing anything else without ruining it by constantly trying to force it into a "DnD'isms" mindset. They're usually lonely desperate fricks who only want to play DnD and only applied to your game because they were already kicked out of everything else. You can't fix DnDrones, don't waste your time trying.
To play devil's advocate of sorts:
You can cure DnDrone. Except it takes so much time and effort, you are better off simply kicking them out, rather than ruin it for the whole party for the next 4-6 months of de-moronisation of the drone. So no point bothering, rather than impossible to achieve
>apply to game
WTF?
Wondered that one too. If you're trawling for players online/flgs/university/whatever, you are already going to get shitstains no matter what. Whether they happen to be dndrones is of no consequence, if they were decent players and socially wel ladjusted, they would have their own group to play with.
Bro ive only played dnd cause their no one running something else
I tried to find something else but there is nothing close by
>only plays D&D because no one else plays other systems
>finds a gm who doesn't play D&D
>is not allowed to join because he only played D&D
You are like those employer buttholes who deny giving new recruits working experiences because they have none.
You have to start GM-ing your own table dumb frick
Ah yes, perpetuate the cycle of being an butthole because no one is into your niche of the hobby, instead of welcoming more people to your niche to, perhaps, make it less niche. That's def good for the communities long-term.
You can't welcome people into anything when you're a player dumb frick. Make your own table and then you can decide who you play with - that's the solution and it always will be.
>d&d hater
>immediately outs himself as a deranged schizophrenic
every damn time
Regardless of the system, I tend to ban "Summoners" and "Pet" classes. Nobody wants to sit there and watch you play Pokémon Teainer while filling up the turn order with a dozen different summons and hiding in the background while they do everything.
>What player options do you ban from your table and why?
None, really. It all depends a bit on the game, but generally speaking, each thing will be judged individually and adjusted or banned if necessary.
I find that applying existing rules appropriately (which usually entails no direct personal control over whatever minions) and simply asking players to not be shitters and bogging things up is enough.
If they're OK with abstracting mass combat, I am ok with them running it, but generally speaking, no-one should have more than 1-2 minions over which I maintain control, although they can (obviously) give them orders as appropriately.
>ban nothing
>make calls if necessary
>allow players whatever
>but hold them accountable to the consequences of their actions
10/10 This is how it's supposed to be done.
I always warn players if their decisions will make a game unplayable during character creation.
Also I allow players to do the meme thing like "I seduce the X", but the world reacts to it accordingly. One player tried seducing an ancient spirit possessing a woman during a boss fight. He rolled a crit and then another one, only for the thing ignore his advances and ragdoll the dumbass across the room. I still chuckle at his betrayed tone, when her was arguing "But I even applied my Appearance quality!" You double homosexual, you can't seduce some things and even if you could, not after your friend emptied a 9mm into it's chest.
Honestly, this sounds assholish, but it helps me filter out players and my current group is a solid one, who complement my style and we have a lot of fun. I had to let got thrice as many players, but now I am happy.
Congratulations on finding a good group.
>But I even applied my Appearance quality!"
Can I ask what system that was? I think I've seen something like this, but I forgot what exactly it was.
Unisystem, more specifically Armageddon the End Times from Eden Studios.
So my hunch was false, thanks.
Kekekeke.
Also, after that guy, this is a long running joke around our table. Whenever someone wants to do something stupid and they know it, they ask if their "good looks apply". Fricking love these homosexuals
I ban non-alchemist artificers.
I don't want your stupid fantasy paintball guns, and you're not building robots out of sticks and rocks.
>Medievalgay seething over things that might make playing in the kingdom of generica bearable instead of retreading the same uninspired slop
If you are incapable of finding wonder in simplicity, and rely on quirky classes to compensate, you creatively impotent, and your takes on inspiration are worthless.
>finding wonder in simplicity
There is no wonder in mudcore - it's just a shitty fetish that morons try to impose on others.
>I ban class responsibe for crafting
>I don't ban 50 different flavours of caster
>This is simplicity
>This is good
Ask me how I know you are just b***hing about pllayer bringing grenades and/or a pistol with their character, and it triggered your autistic meltdown, despite the game accomodates for both for longer than you are alive
your game is boring trash and you're not creative.
Yes. You will develop good taste even if I have to beat it into you with a lead pipe.
>Mudcore
>Good taste
Yes, it is not a good taste.
It is the BEST taste.
Yes. My taste is better than yours.
If you don't want to play in the setting, don't play. Don't try to forcibly change the setting that everyone else was enjoying because they're not an edgy contrarian moron.
>kingdom of generica
Thanks, anon. I was in need of a good laugh.
You should try using a system that handles minions properly.
Name three.
Nah, I only need one. A group of minions is treated as a single character, with health equal to it group size. Each net success in combat defeats one minion. The minions use their threat level as their rank for all challenge rolls.
Not a system, doesn't fix the problem..
>Minions are additional full player characters.
>Minions are additional full player characters.
>The ruleset is absolute dogshit.
>Minions are additional full player characters.
You lose.
Nta, but from the top of my head
>GURPS
>Hollow Earth Expedition
>OVA
>Any given 2d20 system, let's make it Achtung Cthullhu for the variety sake
Do I get a cookie now
Genesys has all minions group up into one initiative slot and can perform one action
For DnD specifically, I ban races if they hit one of the following three criteria.
>Has natural flight.
No, frick you, I'm not letting you shit all over a game based on 2d combat and traversal by unlimited flight.
>Has shape-shifting beyond 2 forms.
A Shifter that has a human and a beast form, fine. A changeling that can perfectly imitate anyone, GTFO.
>Has Magic Resistance
Resisting a specific element, like Fire or Necrotic is fine. Resisting ALL magic, no. Not unless you want something like a vulnerability to all physical damage to balance out that overpowered shit.
In survival focused games I also ban races which don't need to eat/drink/sleep, as well as the Goodberry spell and Outlander background.
As a player, I refuse to play at any table that bans flying races.
>Banning flight
You're a moron who doesn't know how to balance encounters.
I ban flying races because they look and feel incredibly gay
I'd say I made the right choice if my bans keep morons like (you) from applying to my games, so mission accomplished.
Also, you same morons who whine "you don't know how to balance encounters!!!!" are the same playerpig trash that has autistic neltdowns if the DM dares to give the enemies ranged weapons to shoot back at your precious feathershit snowflakes.
>Also, you same morons who whine "you don't know how to balance encounters!!!!" are the same playerpig trash that has autistic neltdowns if the DM dares to give the enemies ranged weapons to shoot back at your precious feathershit snowflakes.
What? That's based though. The fun of flying races is that flight is a high risk, high reward thing.
What risk? There is no "risk" involved with just being completely immune to 90% of all melee enemies in the game. Don't deed me this disingenuous bullshit about "risk".
The risk, anon-kun, is if I get knocked prone, drop to 0 hp, or hit with a spell like Sleep or Hypnopattern, I'm flat out dead. Flying races don't have hover, and that's what makes them so fun.
How you a melee enemy knock you prone or cast a spell on you? Also, don't assume we're playing D&D.
>Also, don't assume we're playing D&D.
Then that makes ranged combat viable and thus flying targets having far worse time
"How does a melee enemy cast a spell on you?"
I want to you to really think about just how stupid you were just now.
I will assume you're playing D&D because you're whiterooming all your encounters taking place in flat, featureless plains that nobody can make usage of cover or circumstantial weaponry from.
>I am an unimaginative frickwit
>Therefore I can't counter fying targets
>Nor see how vulnerabe they can be
Thanks for sharing
>send the melee enemies after the grounded party members
>throw the archer/caster/crossbowmen at the flying target
You are a new DM, and you are bad at the game. One day, you'll git gud.
Every single flightgay uses the same argument. Not all enemies can use ranged weapons, dumbass. If you are fighting something like a pack of wolves, flight makes you instantly win.
Everyone should ban flying races just to keep out morons like you.
You are extremely incompetent. Even the basic premise of the game, being in a dungeon itself, is an obvious way to nerf flying.
there is no such thing as a "melee enemy" pretty much everything has range and melee options
only in your schizo head is flying op
If I get a flying homosexual in one of my games I put in a ton of shit that can knock them prone. Or just have ranged units focus them until they drop and instantly get a failed death save from the fall. You have no idea how satisfying it is to see someone who thought they were outsmarting everyone and gaming the system be hoist by their own petard.
How do your no-games play out?
This. The more you post about all the fun things that happen during your games, the more painfully obvious it becomes that you don't actually play games.
Stay jealous.
>DnD
>in survival focused games
It is expected for everyone to be flying constantly by 10th level. It's why bird race constant flight turns on at 10th. Just nerf it into "your racial flight doesn't turn on until 10th because reasons"
just play a game that isn't broken by something as mundane as flight.
>Run Dark Sun
>Player believes, incorrectly, that flight will break the game in his favor, plays aarakockra
>Cries that everything either has flying or ranged attacks that can shit on him and he has LA
>Not even trying to frick him over, just pulling things that look cool out of Terrors of Athas
Nothing personnel, birdgay.
I usually ban Divination magic of the "ask the DM" kind. I really can't be arsed to come up with the answers.
Those are cop outs because players are stupid and lazy. It's like looking up a wiki entry.
Nothing, because there is no need for that
Have you tried vetting your players first, so you don't have stupid problems later?
>inb4 but I'm playing with friends
Did I stutter? Or you are trying to tell me you only have 3 friends in total?
Some people actually play games and encounter issues that only arise during during play, nogames.
>No, vetting is not possible, you WILL have morons at your table
You were saying somehting about being a nogame?
It's hard for you to understand because you don't actually play games, but sometimes unexpected things happen.
>but sometimes unexpected things happen.
Like I've said, the no-exp claim.
You are beyond predictable.
... and banning game mechanics solves that... how, exactly?
Oh, right, I forgot: I'm taking with a terminally bored homosexual, who's only form of entertainment is being contrarian online and thus getting a semblance of human attention.
And then you probably wonder why you have to do this sort of shit, as everyone else tells you to frick off.
>... and banning game mechanics solves that... how, exactly?
nta, but for me I had a friend who was being a moron with some autofire mechanics and making things unfun for the rest of us. Just kicking him out of the group would have soured an otherwise fine friendship, so I adjusted the mechanics instead (not a full ban, but same idea of houserules to make play more enjoyable for everyone at the table). He sulked for a bit, but he got over it.
>Like I've said, the no-exp claim.
It's pretty obvious you don't. When you're playing with friends, you have to accept them, warts and all, and figure out to make it work. Everyone has one thing they're moronic about, like you and pretending you play games.
>Playing with well-adjusted people and agreeing on things before game is not possibe
>Talking with players about the game, discussing the rules and plans on how and what to run along with what they want out of their characters is also impossibe
>You must have issues that only emerge during play, and those issues are going to be all lthe trivial stuff that vetting and talking solve prior even char-gen
Here is the (You) you are so desperate to get. I mean you just made it clear that you have close to zero (or maybe zero) experience with running shit, doing the "You can't predict the unexpected!" spiel. Yes you can. That's why you communicate with your players, rather than treating them like cats to herd with an electric rod.
I play with friends, and let them know which powers are restricted ahead of time.
>D&D 3.5e
No race outside the phb ones minus gnomes, two manlet races are more than enough. Only iconic characters are allowed (as in no character can share class, abilities and race with another, only exception is for the human). Core only with curated list of extra splats. You can't start with having already levels in a prestige class, you can buy magic items in chargen but only from the dmg and only if rolled on the "minor" list (you can roll trice for each category you're interested in and pick what you prefer out of these).
>2004+19
>Still tormenting people with 3.5
I retract what I've said
, just kill DnDrones on sight.
>tormenting people with 3.5
Hey, i just keep running it for my 3.5aboos moron xllenial friends, otherwise i prefer running literally anything else (from Primetime Adventures to full autism GURPS).
>3.5
>core only
so you hate martials?
Did you miss the "curated list of extra splats" part?
lets be real here any "curated splats" will likely be so limited casters come out ahead significantly
It's a catch 22 issue: if you're going for the caster supremacy narrative having unregulated access to splats won't solve the issue but, on the contrary, exacerbate it. At least curating a list would give some control on general powercreep if anything.
maybe, but there's also the other factor that basically every caster class released outside of core is less powerful and gamebreaking than a wizard/cleric/druid
If someone brings a beguiler to a table your first instinct shouldn't be "ban this" it should be "oh thank god"
Casters only really need the core spell list to work well. I hardly ever used splats.
>What player options do you ban from your table and why
I happen to have a game abuse section named after me in a particular "design around this points system" game (not saying which one because not my blog, anomimity, etc). I ban anything covered by it. Because it would force me to bring the counters I developed against them, and I don't wnat THOSE banned by the game developers.
3.xE: material from Book of Vile Darkness.
4E: material from Book of Vile Darkness.
Coward.
No psionics, no innate flight, no "my mum fricked a dragon/extraplanar/etc." races.
>my mum fricked a dragon
I would allow it for the sheer audacidy alone. Mum getting fricked by a dragon is boring. Mum mounting one - that's a different story
In that case, the player should bring the mum as the character.
And you would ban it over the "hurrr female warrior durrr dragon rider reeee!", you humourless homosexual
actually i would jerk off to it
The only powers I consistently ban are Omni Power and Time Travel. Not because of balance, but because Omni Power is kind of a trap for players; it usually results in them having to ask me if they can do something every round, instead of just granting them the agency to do what they want, while being expensive enough that they'd always be better off spending those points on specific powers; and with Time Travel, it's just too much of a pain in the ass to deal with, both for players and the GM.
Pretty much just freakshit. If I'm playing D&D it's not going to be a new edition anyway -- you can be a Human, and if you are actually going to play the character and not just treat it identically to a Human, you can be an Elf, Half-Elf, Dwarf, or a Halfling. That's it.
If that doesn't sound disagreeable to you, you're probably fine at my table. If it does, I probably don't want you there. Not because other races are even bad as options, but because your strong insistence on having them is a sign you're not going to jive with my table.
>no fantasy allowed in my fantasy game
What's the point then?
This is why I set the rule. When you react like this because you think Dwarves, Elves, Half-Elves, and Halflings, alongside dragons, trolls, wizards, and all kinds of other shit still isn't enough to be considered "enough fantasy" for you, it's because you're moronic. You want to play freakshit to satisfy some gay compulsion you have. You're likely some kind of furry or other freak with a weird fetish or something else wrong with you that makes you detestable to people who aren't like you. The rule works remarkably well.
I'll play whatever I want, and you're too fat and slow to kick me out of your house.
>seething level: A B S O L U T E
>I'll play whatever I want, and you're too fat and slow to kick me out of your house
I usually try to leave my players with as many options as possible. There are a couple of third party books I allow my 13th Age players to use in their entirety, save for a class called the Fateweaver because its ability to frick with the narrative is more than I want to deal with as a DM.
I too hate the Fateweaver, especially since the Occultist is right there and better in every way
> my pronouns are-
Not just from my table but literally any interaction I have IRL or online that in any way involves this I shut down immediately.
I ask for people's pronouns when I put an ad out on roll20. It helps weed out undesireables. If someone puts something other than male or female pronouns then I know they're not someone I want to play with. If they put male or female pronouns I interview them and if the voice doesn't match what they wrote down then I know they're not someone I want ot play with.
but if someone doesn't buy into the pronoun bullshit they'll ignore your posting because they'll think you do
That's also good. People who get their panties in a twist about pronouns are fricking insufferable, I don't want them in my games either. I want people who have basic empathy and understand that other people have a right to express themselves and be addressed however they want, because those people are generally pleasant to interact with. I don't want to deal with mentally ill trainwrecks of human beings that use other pronouns or try to surgically alter themselves to look like their preferred gender because their conditions and temperaments are usually dogshit. They get my empathy, not my time.
I'll give you whatever pronouns you want, just don't waste my time being a primadonna about it or expect me to know what they are without being explicitly told, zir. This is the calculus: to them it matters a lot and to me it matters not at all, requires no real effort on my part, and usually derails conversations about player safety beyond going over what I expect to show up in a campaign: violence, ultraviolence, violence ad absurdum, no sex in the campaign room, and realistic depictions of the game world which will include evil capitalists, evil autocrats, evil wizards, evil cats, and evil hats (do you not?) plus you know rape, racism, slavery et al which your characters will not be subject to because this is a power fantasy.
If this triggers you, I'm glad we both determined we don't want to play together.
You sound just as exhausting to deal with as a They Themmington.
not even close lol
That's why you're a no-games.
samegay
desperate
>evil hats (do you not?)
Nope. I'm more of a fudge player.
>other people have a right to express themselves and be addressed however they want
They really don't and I do not understand how people casually throw that out as a self-evident truth without feeling stupid. There's no empirical or logical factor that makes people inherently entitled to some sort of self-chosen, personal title. Btw my preferred pronouns are 'your majesty' before you say anything bigoted in return.
100% in agreement with this post, it's like basic common sense just went right out the window with these people.
>There's no empirical or logical factor that makes people inherently entitled to some sort of self-chosen, personal title. Btw my preferred pronouns are 'your majesty' before you say anything bigoted in return.
Before you accuse me, a different anon, of being woke or trans or homosexual or tell me I'm never going to be a woman or whatever insult of your choice, my issue is less your bigotry and more your illogic of false equivalence.
I agree that people aren't entitled to some sort of self-chosen personal title. Other than this, your position leaves much to be desired. Quite aside from disagreeing with your position on the grounds that I don't have any evidence that refering to someone as "they" in any way harms me or society, your argument is faulty in that "they" is not a title, neither is "your majesty", and neither is "your majesty" a pronoun in the manner of "they".
Mr, Mrs, Miss, Sir, Queen, Emperor, Doctor, Professor, Master, Honourable, Sensei, Sifu, are all titles and some of these may also be forms of address. Your majesty, your highness, your eminence, your grace are all forms of address. Sir, madam, my lady, my lord are all forms of address.
Your likening of "they", a pronoun, to a personal title, like "lord" is farcical as is your abuse of grammar by telling us to use "your majesty" when the proper form would be "his/her/its majesty". "They" is not a little like the others and your comparison is wholly without merit. Bigots are going to bigot but do you have to give bigots a worse name by being illiterate to boot?
This ridiculous nitpicking has no bearing on the issue itself.
First of all, you will never be a woman.
Second, you're a moron. Your "ACKSHAULLY" "gotcha" is completely irrelevant, because nobody made any grammatical equivalence. It doesn't matter if its a personal pronoun or a title; you're not entitled to pick your own either way. He insisted that his preferred pronouns are "your majesty", not as a title, but *as a* pronoun. It holds the same validity as "they" or "xir" in this regard.
Now feel free to go have a nice day, you autistic fricking mongoloid.
>grammatical equivalence
I didn't say grammatical equivlance, I said false equivalence and I explained why the attempted equivalence was wrong. That you don't understand the difference is probably why everything else but one thing in the rest of your post is also wrong.
Thanks for reassuring me I'll never be a woman. I had no doubt about that fact and I've no desire to be one but it's nice to know that despite everything else you wrote being rubbish there's a glimmer of hope as you got one thing right. You're not a completely lost cause and I hope this inspires you to some semblance of mediocrity if not greatness which let's face it is a big ask for you but at least you're in a better position than the rest of these jokers.
Frick you're a genius. It's not like I wrote that in the very first sentence or anything.
>you're not entitled to pick your own either way
Does that mean I can misgender the hell out of you and you have no right to correct me?
Yes, but if you call someone who's obviously a man "ma'am", it's you who will look ridiculous, not that man.
>I support minorities
>I hate having to interact with them in any way, though.
Lmao, why are so many people like this?
This is what tolerance actually looks like, numbskull. Depsite what leftoid tards like to claim recently, "tolerate" doesn't mean "accept" or "embrace" or "agree". It means "these people are fricking insufferable but I'm prepared to put up with and support them as long as they're not up in my shit".
Support is exactly the opposite word you should be using, anon. Tolerate is what you mean, support means affirmation and actively promoting them and their choices. That's literally what support has always meant. If you actually support that shit (which you obviously don't) but you let them hang around anyway, that's called tolerance.
I'm not even the same anon, fathead. And yes, you can support someone 's rights, access to healthcare, loans, social functions etc. without actually wanting to be near that person. If you've ever had to spend time around a downie IRL you know that's true. They even make their families insufferable, "oh he's so kind and gentle, just a beautiful human despi–" and meanwhile this fricking guy is trying to tear your cat in half and eat it. But they still need that frickin' care, and they should get it, for their own sake *and* everyone else's. I support that, but in defense of my cat: get that fricker away from me, don't ever bring his gentle ass to my house again.
Most people who have to care of morons are miserable, depressed, and resentful of them. You don't get to have a life of your own.
Have you ever interacted with minorities? It's completely understandable.
>Cognitive dissonance the post
I’d say its bait but I know Ganker is too far gone.
> T. pic related.
Either way you have the right to express yourself but you have no right to demand others to express your expression its called get this, the right to self-determination and how its illegal to compel speech.
Therefore I'm just calling them they, English has three pronoun types I'm happy to use if you are an in-between you are they or it.
>people have a right to express themselves
>people have a right to be addressed however they want
These are mutually exclusive statements, you disgusting insufferable homosexual.
>I want people who have basic empathy and understand that other people have a right to express themselves
this is indeed a right everyone should have
>and be addressed however they want
this is a privilege, not a right
shut up gay
I demand you not call me a gay sir
You do realize that your filter system would filter out people LIKE yourself, right? I wouldn't join your game because anyone would assume your game has the possibility of containing those people. Silently avoiding those postings is our way of 'tolerating' but not actually wanting to deal with those people.
What if I delete the line asking for pronouns from the application form?
>I ask for pronouns
I've already lost all interest in applying for your game, and I'm not even one of those snowflakes.
And what if their voice passes?
Nta but the trannies who put actual effort to voice train enough to pass don't tend to be the obnoxious type.
None of them pass.
True, but still, those who put in serious effort to look and sound the part aren't usually the terminally online discord troony type. And those terminally online discord troony jannies can frick off, this is within the context of traditional games.
None of them have any idea what putting in effort entails.
>no i swear guys some trannies are totally okay
Accurate.
she's not gonna let you suck her wiener dude
It doesn't.
Casters of any type and non-humans.
> Star Wars Saga
> HP
This is "condition track country", frick off.
I've never actually had to ban anything. I don't play wod anymore and I would probably do a level of snowflake restriction if I played it again.
Races with inherent flight I houserule limitations on. At level 1, you triple your jump distance but cannot fly, at level 4 you can fly, but must land at the end of your turn, at level 8, you can fly freely.
Kinda arbitrary, but the issues that flight trivialise are usually fairly trivial anyway by level 8.
Flight doesn't trivialize anything, you can have homies with bows
Self inserts, kids, robots, pets, snowflake races, loner character types, "creative" use of magic or equivalent powers.
Humans, they're boring and overpowered
Multiple monsters summoned from one spell. I am not going to sit through 10 turns of dogs missing their bites
A group of minions acts as a single character.
I tend to ban "The Shifter". It doesn't feel right to have a player choose becoming a titan as a playbook thing instead of as a result of a narrative dramatic moment. I keep the shifter rules handy, but I'm glad that in the later version of Titan World they game up with a new Rage-based playbook.
Thanks for coming to my TedTalk, other 1 guy on /tg/ who has played Titan World.
>What player options do you ban from your table and why?
Questioning my decisions. I'm the GM. My word is law. Cope or leave.
Social reject neckbeard detected. You get to enjoy the authority you command.
In TDE there's something akin to a trickster/joker race. When a human kid gets abducted by fey, they turn into a Schelm. My long time playing (that has way more experience than me) agreed on banning it because it's essentially "lol so randumb xD" distilled. I blindly copied this ban when I ran a short little adventure because I trust my friends' judgement here.
Why are pronouns even a problem? The only pronouns you should ever use to address your players are he/him, anything else should be out shopping or doing there nails or something.
>What player options do you ban from your table and why?
I simply curate exactly what race/class options and combinations are available at the outset and include it in a setting primer I give to anyone joining one of my tables. It helps ensure players are thinking within the setting for character concepts and nips any issues in the bud with players who don't like having any restrictions.
For example, I'm currently running three tables with OSE and a setting that has humans and four homebrew races, with two more I only allow players to play if they're already allied with them. Class restrictions vary by race and homeland and only humans are widespread enough to have every class available. I allow all the basic and advanced classes since they're suitable for this setting, and I added the Necromancer because the outer god of undeath and the Cult of the Night Eternal are major players. The Law/Chaos alignments are replaced with faction alignment/allegiance. Knights, Rangers, and Paladins must start as a member of one of their respective orders and maintain those tenets instead.
I don't ban anything, but I warn players of potential consequences and then enforce them.
When I ran a game set in a setting where all of the magic was dead and souls were slowly fading away, being drained by something, a player wanted to run a Bast, a feline race of shapeshifters that is magical, I told him that his character would not survive and all of the Basts went extinct when the magical cataclysm struck, a thousand years ago. So the homosexual nagged me and came up with the idea of a magically sealed coffin, where his character would hibernate and the rest of the party would find and awaken him. Told him many times that Bast won't survive for long if the coffin is opened and warned him that it's a bad idea.
Que to the players opening a sarcophagus with the cat person inside, who gets to say two sentences before a graphic description of his body being torn apart in every direction, atom by atom, as the magic is being ripped away from him, like from a helium balloon in a vacuum chamber, since the world is a magical vacuum of sorts. Boom, furry gay is dead and seething. He quit the game that instant and we proceeded to have a year long campaign of finding interdimensional elves who were stealing our magic to fuel their own world and geocoding them to bring magic back to our dimension.
Nice. The trash took itself out.
I don't really like when players pick sexy races. It goes to their heads.
Yes, but do you *ban* it?
I'll pull an UNO reverse
Reasons to leave the table
>GM is unable to take constructive criticism.
would you let your players play a homosexual character
All sex in my games is fading to black, so yes.
Yes, because he'd have to suffer the consequences, and also because I know my group would have a good fricking laugh with it.
yeah
but they have to be a catgirl
Fricking citrus fruits or any reference or allusion to citrus fruits.
>Netrunner (one day I'll try it but NOT TODAY)
>Custom modifications to Nomad Long Rifles
>When Gravity Fails stuff
>Drug creation rules (For one specific player)
Other than that we're pretty no holds barred
>Drug creation rules (For one specific player)
Alright, you're going to have to explain that one.
Evil characters.
If you want to do that, fine, go find some other person to run that for you, but I have no desire to facilitate that. I want to play games with the story of heroes.
I don't ban choices, I expand them. Then I make my encounters stronger.
Chaotic and Neutral Evil.
Chaotic Evil is a cancer and Neutral is, again, just a villain.
Lawful evil is allowed mostly because the players follow some rule that keeps them with the group.
I wish I could drop CN, mostly because the one player that always does it basically just does variations of the same, misanthropic butthole.
>mostly because the one player that always does it basically just does variations of the same, misanthropic butthole
Then shunt his alignment to chaotic evil.
I've given him a few warnings about said character and it does keep him in check, its more that this character gets played every campaign with slight variations. Shockingly, I have to point out that launching a fireball into a WOODEN BAR may result in it catching fire.
Players were not happy at him for that.
I think its more that he just doesn't want to commit to anything, I watched him play a paladin once and having to try and keep everyone in line was pretty funny.
Otherwise everything is CN
My only rule is "don't be Seth". Seth was this butthole who derived enjoyment from making the game less fun for everyone else, no matter what class or alignment he played. We have a few informal rules but that's the big one.
I've never banned player options because I'm not mentally moronic but I do ban players who prove themselves to be too stupid to participate properly.
Like any normal, well adjusted person I run and play a lot of 5e because it just works. Despite the system being very simple and easy to understand I've come to realize that the average tabletop rpg player is genuinely a double digit iq moron so I have to filter out idiots who can't even grasp a system as simple as 5e. The types of people I usually ban are
>morons who unironically believe casters outpace martials (hasn't been true since 3.5)
>morons who truly believe d&d is meant to be played on 2d maps and not 3d maps
>people who deliberately misinterpret simple and clear cut rules in order to theorycraft stupid shit (think, the peasant rail gun from older editions. That's not how RAW works but it's now a meme because morons who don't understand the rules kept claiming it worked until other morons just decided to parrot it)
this next one will sound contradictory but it's not
>people who are too obsessed with the books
here's what I mean. The rules exist and they serve a specific purpose. Many moronic people will take them too literally (usually 3.5 gays) and when an interaction that makes sense happens they will scream
>BUT THAT ISN'T A RULE
as an example, throwing flour everywhere so it reveals someone who is invisible. There is no rule that says this would work but any normal well adjusted person would be able to deduce that invisibility is not intangibility and thus, anything that disturbs physical space would allow you to sus out whoever is hiding.
Autists have a hard time grasping concepts like this so they need to go.
RPGs only function long term amongst people with working brains so I'm always meticulous in making sure the people in my games are properly vetted
Had a Pathfinder GM tell me smashing a huge jug of burgundy wine over an invisible enemy didn't do anything.
But I'm curious if you have pointers on how to represent 3d combat on a 2d mat as I often struggle with that.
I just use a vtt, solves the problem on the spot
invis makes what you are wearing or carrying invisible, you aren't wearing the flour you moron hence it reveals you and there's no reason to not allow this unless you're autistic or you REALLY want invisibility to break the game
If you're covered in flour, you're absolutely wearing that flour. That said, you'll still be able to see tracks in the flour on the ground.
ah, I see you're one of those
>I delibrately misinterpret things because I'm a homosexual moron
people, you'd be banned from my games
>you aren't wearing the flour you moron
You're literally wearing the flour, imbecile.
High-quality bait for sure there.
If you think the only reason a gm may decide to curate player options is for "muh balance" then you're hopelessly moronic.
>as an example, throwing flour everywhere so it reveals someone who is invisible. There is no rule that says this would work but any normal well adjusted person would be able to deduce that invisibility is not intangibility and thus, anything that disturbs physical space would allow you to sus out whoever is hiding.
>Had a Pathfinder GM tell me smashing a huge jug of burgundy wine over an invisible enemy didn't do anything.
It's not about intangibility, whatever it is covering the invisible person just also becomes invisible. Straightforward and obvious, the only sensible option unless you force characters to strip naked in order to be properly invisible (and oop! You can't carry a weapon, or they'll see your dagger floating around in the air!).
who unironically believe casters outpace martials (hasn't been true since 3.5)
Actual, unequivocable moron
No normalgays.
this thread reminds me of my irl buddy that still chastises me over an encounter he ran where I would fire ranged attacks at an enemy force and back up because all his encounters had the complexity of RuneScape NPCs