> be running zombie apocalypse game
> using GURPS lite because it felt best
> four players: three experienced RPers, one new girl who had never played before
> this is important
> start out with characters all together for some NPC mutual friend's wedding
> zombie shit starts happening
> characters eventually end up in it
> fighting zombies, scavenging for food, etc.
This was shaping up to be fun, until:
> all players except newgirl have read Max Brooks' Zombie Apocalypse Guide
> adopt his flawed doctrines to a T
> they don't take the M4s and M16s they find on dead soldiers
> instead insist on hunting down Kar98s and M1 Garands
> I track ammo weight realistically
> ammo for these guns is also hard to find
> they don't hold many bullets
> max brooks is an idiot
> two characters are killed because of their shitty gun choice
> meanwhile new girl was the only one to grab an AR and ends up getting 2x the kills of everyone
> before long she is the only original member of the party left alive
> I am secretly kekking the entire time
> two PCs rage and accuse me of being a whiteknight, then quit
> end up finding new players
> game goes back to normal
Any similar stories of retarded players?
Good ol' Zombie Survival Guide and it's hi-larious claim that the M16 can't even take a bayonet (it claims the thing will break!)
Did you remind your group that that book is found under the "Comedy" section?
>Player can cross a gap by having the wizard cast fly on him
>Instead has his character try a acrobatics to jump across the gap.
>Missed the DC.
>Missed the "Grab onto ledge" DC
>took enough fall damage to knock him into the low negatives.
>Dies right before anyone can get to him with the CLW wand.
You have a wizard with spell slots. Use him you stupid shithead.
>GM: Okay, we're using Books 1, 2, and 3
>Player: My character uses classes, races, feats, skills, spells, prestige classes, and racial templates from Books 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16...
Does D&D 3.5/PF cause retardation, or are retards just attracted to it? This is some chicken and egg shit going on right here, and I swear to god it happened every time I tried to run anything in 3.5/PF. This shit right here is why I don't play it anymore.
I have a theory on that. Players ( the shitty ones), see others playing, and think it looks fun-ish, but could be better. So they join game, and then try to "spice" it up with their special, unique brand if cocksuckery. 3.5 and of don't draw them in, its just the mist visible gamed going. Those retards would fuck up any game.
It kinda causes retardation by having way too many races. I don't mind all the splats, the issue is not the splats but people who make overcomplicated builds then don't photocopy / write down what any of their shit does.
It's been a long-standing tradition in my group that no matter what the system, you put a small summary of what every feat/talent/advantage/whatever right next to it on your sheet. Saves so much fucking time, and prevents people forgetting they have abilities.
It's the thought in the back of their minds that says "No, don't make the plain jane stereotype [insert class here], it needs something special because everyone is making the plain jane stereotype [insert class here]."
Problems with that.
1. NO ONE JUST PLAYS THE PLAIN JANE STEREOTYPE. No one. And it's because everyone assumes 'everyone' does. No one plays the Fighter, they play the 'Two-weapon wielding but can also cast some spells and do some rogue stuff "Fighter"' No one plays the Monk, they play the "Element fisting and kicking with a dash of Anime bullshit 'Monk'"
2. This leads to the "Ok, just one more special thing" which snowballs into mary sues.
3. And if it wasn't bad enough they assume that the goal of DnD, or any roleplaying game not specifically made for the purpose, is to WIN. Not roleplay, win. Like a video game. Like the goal is only to do the DM's end game boss, but soon realize they have to do work to get there, and quickly abandon the game because there is no instant satisfaction.
My theory on this is, and I'm guilty of it too, I don't care who sits down in front of a Player Character Sheet, they lose at least 50 IQ immediately. At least 50, often times more. Self-Preservation goes out the window, and so does Critical Thinking due to it. Concept of Consequences and Cause and Effect follow soon after.
It's like Player Character Sheets sap the intelligence of the user, reducing them to nothing more than knuckle dragging murder hobos. No one is safe from it.
It's either which way at that point to be honest.
It really depends on how far the snowflakeness goes.
And in that mindset, if left unchecked or with no concept of "less is more", I think it can turn a character into a sue more often than not.
It also depends on the person's concept of what makes a "good" or "interesting" character.
For instance, one of my friends insists that when making a character, pick 4 quirks or gimmicks for that character. That is now a good enough basis for a character personality.
His first character had a thing for big hats, and would kill anyone he found who had a bigger hat then him.
In short it was retarded. Snowflake? Maybe. Sue? No. But god damn it was stupid, and if it had gone farther than 4 he might have started digging into anime tropes for things to slap onto his character.
As stated before, I'm guilty of this too.
But acknowledging the problem is the first step to fixing it.
I'm currently going with the "less is more" option for making characters.
My last character had more, but was pretty bare bones compared to the rest of the party.
A druid who came from a feral tribe (Druid/Barbarian), feral tribe has a ritual for old age, go find something big and die a glorious death.
So we have basic back story, reason for character classes, and reason for adventure.
I'll say it again though, I'm just as guilty of all the stupid shit I've seen before. And will commit it again no doubt.
Not him, but 4 quirks don't make a personality.
Personality traits are better: is he kind? Diligent? Patient? Or rather hotheaded, lazy and cruel?
You can expand on why he is like he is: was it because when he was little he liked setting mice on fire and ripping off the wings of butterflies? Or maybe he was raised by a kind monk, who taught him the virtues of kindness and selflessness?
Explore his backstory, make it something that molds the character into what he has become nowadays; in short: think about it, following reason and logic, maybe ask yourselves some questions. Would he be friendly towards strangers or rather abrasive and/or wary? Is he trustful? Does he like to get to know others better before he opens up to them?
Quirks are a nice touch to add, after you've got the personality down, I think.
To answer the question more accurately, I would suggest making a more simple character and letting it develop more organically from roleplay and combat experience rather than "First though best thought" mentality.
However, this only really works for 1st-6th level characters.
Once you get past that, I'm not sure what to suggest. Actually sitting down and thinking out scenarios for your character maybe? What if stuff and what not?
Keeping complex ideas more as goals than going for the instant satisfaction of Flaming fists or a swiss army knife fighter right off the bat?
I don't know. Would warrant a decent discussion for do's and don'ts for beginners of RPG's.
This was the point I was trying to make, but I suppose I wasn't too clear, re-reading.
But yes, just picking
>Likes big hats
>Thinks people with bigger hats are threats/looking down on him
>Kill all who are threats or look down on him
>Also dabble in Necromancy
A personality does not make. It does point towards personality traits, but that is not how he played it at all.
I play zombie apocalypse games sometimes. I use All Flesh Must Be Eaten. I feel like the game does a perfectly fine job splitting up guns into different types, but my players seem to crave a bit more detail.
Is there a website or other reference I could use to flesh out the gun list into a more extensive one with common real-world models?
I don't need an extensive list of every modified version of moistnugget ever produced, I'm just looking for some ubiquitous guns, to add verisimilitude.
Go to the Call of Duty wiki and look up a gun list from World at War through Modern Warfare 2.
Then taking that list google them and find out what caliber they come in or can come in.
That's the easiest way to get the results you want.
After that just research. If you want to make the guns more unique and have special rules, like this one is more accurate but with less damage or less accurate with more damage, that's up to you.
I'm gonna be that guy, but GURPS High-Tech has a pretty good listing, along with reasonable stats for them that you can compare with. Obviously a different system, but if you can find what fits what you have, you can use the relative differences and go from there.
>No one plays the Monk, they play the "Element fisting and kicking with a dash of Anime bullshit 'Monk'"
So they play...a Wuxia monk? Desert Wind isn't really a new thing in the world of D&D.
>playing our group's 5E evil campaign, level 5, on a quest to resurrect our party's longtime leader Devlin Diablo
>travelling through the world's deserts with a halfling convoy running protection in exchange for passage
>one of our players is playing an annoying cunt of a halfling warlock
>His idea of evil is to be a money-grubbing little cunt at every turn
>our party literally almost ended up slitting his throat in his sleep he was so annoying earlier on
>stuff happens, we go to fight a bandit group in a set of ruins
>we steamroll through the first two rooms like fucking machines, the shitty halfling warlock isn't there because he thought to "stay back and protect the entrance" even though we were down two flights of stairs and his movement speed was 40ft dashing
>first two fights he literally shows up just after we kill the last guys
>he's fairly salty at this point because he hasn't used a single spell in combat yet
>more crawling ensues, we're finally lead into a long hallway with many doors
>He decides to split up and go back to a random door
>promptly opens it and is smashed unconscious by a swinging log
>it's around a corner so we don't even notice
>end up in an absolute fucking shitstorm, going back to back and eventually busting our way through two thirds of the bandits without magical assistance
>we're slowly beaten down and taken out one by one
>end up alone and dropping with five points left on the big bad's health
>tfw our DM told us how much health he had left and literally one more attack would have stopped him and the entire onclaught, because in this bandit group "you kill Slicer, you become Slicer."
>Warlock is still being a pissy bitch because he got himself killed before combat even started
God we were shitty with him after that game. He was purely billed as a support mage as well.
The problem with 3.5/PF is that the system encourages this kind of stupidity throughout its character creation process. Multiclassing options and feat selection are a minmaxers fetish fuel. Varying weapon damage and the hilarious power of casters only adds to the temptation to create a perfectly optimized murderbot instead of trying to actually make a character.
I think it has to do with the way main characters are presented in many fantasy books. Those characters are often special snowflakes that break rules. Many players try to copy that, they want their character to be that main character.
But RPG's tend to be about groups and that means that nobody is really the main character, at least all the time.
The books that is fine with one weird special race that nobody has heard of in the party falls apart as a campaign if the party itself has everyone being some special super rare different race.
What's wrong with zombies? I figured it'd be a good way to draw in non-roleplayers, have plenty of fun meaningless combats (I had zombies insta-die at 0 HP so it went quicker) and a fun story.
It's better than yet another D&D campaign if you ask me.
They might have looked at GURPS' guns first. Kar 98 and M1 do 7d6 and 7d6+1 piercing damage, respectively. M4 only does 4d6+2 piercing and M16 5d6 piercing. But then yes, they really don't have the same rate of fire, and are a bit heavier, and then there's also ammo as OP mentioned, but that's more setting-dependent than what they might have seen when opening the book.
>Be playing DnD
>New guy joins
>Rolls up a half-orc fighter/barbarian.
>Camping in the wilderness for the night.
>He's on guard. Rest of us are sleeping IC.
>Hears something rusling in the bushes and some boots stamping, but not sure exactly how far or how many people it is.
>What do you want to do?
>He thinks for a moment, then decides to go investigate the noises, leaving the rest of us sleeping and defenseless.
>GM asks "Are you sure"?
>Is astute enough to realize that the GM is asking him that because he's about to do something massively stupid.
>Thinks for a moment, and then brightens up.
>If I go looking for them in my armor, they'll hear me! I take it off first.
>Mass simultaneous facepalm.
He did get a little better with experience, but not much.
You also have the handling and recoil to consider, naturally. Also the strength requirements.
Modern assault rifles will be very kind in some regards to relatively green survivors of average stats seeing as how they were always somewhat intended to fit Joe Average Recruit or Conscript. That and service revolvers.
Although truly achieving lethal effect against the average b-movie zombie as described in the Zombie supplement also requires a fair amount of skill, skill "Wow, it's basically a realistic civiliian!"does not have.
Of course, this is shared by all firearms. It's just that the highish energy, large projectile ones, or just plain "high energy" guns suffer less.
Not that you should necessarily be fighting zombies with an axe either. For they are grabby and run in packs, and the combination is not good when they mob you.
You also need a pretty high stat investment for a low point survivor game/one off to even be that efficient with an axe anyway. For something that's kind of stupid in a lot of circumstances anyway.
(Same is true of HURR HURR SHOOT FOR NO RAISAN AN ATTRACT ALLA ZOMBEEZ! of course)
>Creation rules: Only 5e books, no homebrew, only a set list of converted stuff from 3.5e that i restricted like North Korea restricts thinking for oneself
>Party entering an ancient city infested with eldritch horrors
>Goes through all fine to the big castle in the middle
>Find the literal "heart of the city" and i reveal them that the city itself is a Lovecraftian creature
>They are captured by tentacle formation #27 during their race to see who dies last to the waking god
Roll appropriate skills to escape
>"I roll intimidate"
>"I roll intimidate to make the tentacles let me loose"
They're mindless and the creature that controls them neither understands your language nor care for petty threats from ants. Roll athletics or-
>"I roll intimidate!!"
>Can't be bothered since the guy is known for being bullheaded
You intimidate the tentacles. Nothing happens.
>"I roll arcana to see if i know what they are intimidated by!"
>Rolls nat 20
You know that the monster controlling the tentacles is intimidated by creatures that can split stars by looking at them
>"I roll performance to act like one of those go-"
Roll the fucking acrobatics already or you are going to die
>Succeeds the roll and acts like what he was doing all along to be the right choice
>running Dark Heresy with some new players
>They have to press gang some crew off an asteroid mine
>They get told by their CO to get in and scout
>Ship docks with the mine, air lock style
>"Open up, we're with the Inquisition!"
>Spend a minute or two blankly staring at the screen
>friend in the group pms me that if I wanted subtle I should have spelled out a cover for them
>Tell them they they aren't believed, since it's just a comm
>They shrug and go drag down their CO, who is believed
>They march into the staging bay on the station
>Within seconds, there's a shake, a crash, and the ship breaks the airlock
>Air rushes out, sucking the healer and the CO into space
>Vacuum damage starts murdering them
>CO saved himself and gets pulled halfway in
>Healer is flying back on her servo skull
>Point out that by now there's no air left in the room
>If they want to breathe they'll have to open another door further into the station
>They immediately do that, without closing the gaping hole into space
>CO gets knocked into space and dies, taking the Inquisitorial Rosette with him
>Later they get confronted by guards, quote "Stop right there Criminal Scum!"
>Psyker says nothing and immediately sets the man on fire with his mind
>Party is almost bludgeoned to death by shock mauls
>Survive by burning them all to death with hand flamers and stealing a ship to get back to the Inquisitor
cont. on the same guy
>As they are running from the city, the dumbfuck decides to see if you he can dive into the sewers as means to escape
This city has no sewers, there no has been any sewers in this city and besides any sewers would lead directly to the monster
>"Then i cast Time Travel and go back to the birth of this city"
.....Run that by me again. You are going to do what?
>"I cast Time Travel, go back to the past of this city and teach them how to make sewers"
First off: You're a low ranking wizard and have spent years of your life just to learn the fireball spell. You can't possibly know how to make proper sewers. Secondly: what the fuck is the Time Travel spell.
>"Well it's my homebrew spell that allows me to go to a specific point in time by taking over the body of one of my ancestors and-"
Thirdly: No homebrews, i told you this ages ago. When did you even put that spell in i checked your sheet.
>"Last session when i thought it up"
Fourthly: How do you know you have ancestors in this city, the chances for that are...You know what, nevermind, grab your stuff and leave.
And henceforth i am apparently the GM who doesn't allow fun and make stupid rules on the spot to ruin people's characters according to him.
Zombie apocalyspe is a bad setting because it's either :
>you PC are smart and you are honest : your setting is fucked in minutes because zombie are no danger. They are fragile, slow, unable to cross mountains or oceans, they decays and never heal, they suffer both from cold and heat, they can't use tools or weapons.
>you are bullshitting your zombies to make them strong/resistant OR you PCs are really stupid and playing with stupid people is...well...
Just stick to post-apocalyspe, drop the zombies. Let's kill that trend already !
You know, I just want to say, one of my favorite characters, possibly just because the DM I was with was good, was from Star Wars Edge of the Empire. Street rat turned thug that got betrayed for reasons unknown (wanted to discover it in campaign) and burnt alive. Not lethally, but enough that she wore a full body space suit at all times. She was a sniper, pretty good at well oiled assassinations but when she got cut loose, had to start improvising the other parts of the job. And of course, she had a bit of a problem with force escalation, and panicking when thing get out of hand. All came from being abandoned and terrified she wouldn't live the next day for her entire life.
So she turned to explosives. Didn't know shit about them but figured she'd learn as she went. Suffice to say, every fight was straight out of an 80's action movie as everything started exploding and I was doing flips across the battlefield headshotting priority targets.
I really wanted to get a lightsaber, but I dropped group for reasons involving having to put up with two players skyping in and being just obnoxiously slow play and unable to hear anything.
>play in group of 4-5
>it's the shittiest group ever
>one always plays either a murderhobo or a goofy lolrandumb PC, minmaxing like hell
>another is a massive minmaxer who always builds his PC in order to counter the other party members rather than be useful to them. He also is an unsufferable cunt bot IIC and OOC, never accepting to be wrong and never allowing any opinion that doesn't match his
>a girl who is relatively new to RPGs, a lesbian so mentally obsessed with another girl in our group that her PC will ALWAYS try and either rape or have a romantic relationship with this other girl's pc. Bonus points if male gay sex
>the other girl is average legit.
I still manage to have fun with them, but by god i'd never be their friend outside of game sessions
>Brawler and Summoner decide they want in on sweet pirate booty
>Form an equipment, steal a ship, eventually get a few hundred gp
>Suddenly, escaping from a few navy ships through a strait
>Also begin being attacked by bombard cannons
>Order the ship to stop
>"shit, what do we do"
>other side of the strait belongs to kingdom rival to the one whose navy is attacking them
>"dude I know, we give 400 gp to one of our men, send him to the other kingdom and have him pay them to declare war on our enemies"
>actually give the money to one of their men, send him to the other kingdom
>meanwhile, their unmoving ship keeps being damaged
>one of us points out they could just leave
>"No we can't, we're stuck here."
>"What? no. I never said anything like that. I really don't know why you didn't keep escaping"
I've got one:
>Start new Pathfinder game about a year ago
>Everyone rolls characters
>Psionic who can animate weapons, Orc Barbarian, Warlord, Kitsune Arcane Trickster, Druid with a mini t-rex
>Session 1, party meets in some fringe lumbertown
>Asked to go kill orcs harassing the townsfolk
>Go to camp
>Session ends when we kill the chief and rest in the camp
>Talking to a friend about new game
>He's never played a tabletop before, asks to join
>Run it by the DM, gives the green light
>He wants to play a Dwarf Barbarian
>Help him with chargen, take him through a test run against my character
>Being a Sorcerer/Rouge fox girl, I get pasted by the dwarf's retard strength
>Friend tells me he's looking forward to next session
>Session 2, dwarf comes to camp looking for orcs to kill
>Spots the orc in our party
>Tell him Orc's from a different tribe, he's cool
>Doesn't care, rage and charges
>Entire party dogpiles on him
>Dwarf gets dropped to negatives, unconscious
>Had a servant, Druid tell him we'll heal him for a fee
>OOC friend says he doesn't want the servant to do it
>DM controlling servant goes with it
>Some more shit happens, I don't remember
>Game goes on a mini hiatus because DM reasons, group starts making jokes about "ded gaem" "rip in pepperonis ded gaem"
>Friend leaves chat
>Ask him about it later, he was upset the entire party jumped on him
>After we told him multiple times to back off, he was outnumbered 5-1 and OOC the orc was another PC
I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt so bad. But then I made the mistake of inviting him to a one shot game
of Maidwith a slightly different group, where he learned absolutely no lessons and proceeded to continue to make an ass of himself.
Mother fucker, what did you think was going to happen when five other players and the DM say "Don't do it, you fucking moron." I get you were trying to be in character but come on.
Actually, they DID act intelligently, and it STILL was not enough. Partly because I put in an actual PLOT (rescuing family in another state), not to mention there were loads of bandits in the mountains.
> Let's kill that trend already !
Oh, I forgot, just because it's popular, means it's shitty and I'm a "normie" for playing with it. Grow up and stop being a hipster.
This is true, and adds to the "DnD is a game to be won" mentality which while can be fun, is the wrong mentality to have.
It causes problems in groups that don't all have the same mentality.
I suppose it's not so much a wrong mentality, but a mentality that only works with itself.
This is also true.
Everyone wants to make Legolas or Gandalf, nobody wants to play the merchant or - god forbid - a regular dude who has a family.
See now, to me that doesn't sound bad.
Your character has a personality, concerns, reasons for adventure, and is adapting to situations that were not expected.
And yes I am discounting the fact that this all can be compounded by having a shitty DM.
I've been there, I've been that shitty DM.
It's comes with being a new DM on top of not wanting to tell the players no.
And can get worse because of that.
Recently I got an offer from my friend to play a Rogue Trader game, I agreed wanting to play the rogue trader and see how I can manage.
The offer was extended to his brother a few co-workers of his. However, his brother has a problem with playing human characters.
Citing that he wants to play a game to escape not be a regular dude.
This is a problem. Not just specifically because we'll be playing a 40kRP, but also it causes some problems for any RP we'll do in the future.
I'm not sure what to tell him, or how to convince him that playing a fucking Tyranid in a Rogue Trader game is not allowed.
And yes, I have spoken to him about it, and I'm only 70% sure he's just trolling me now.
Go start a flamewar on >>>/k/. We don't need your shit in here.
>Everyone wants to make Legolas or Gandalf, nobody wants to play the merchant or - god forbid - a regular dude who has a family.
Everytime I played a man with a family or a merchant in a setting in which Legolas or Gandalf could be legit characters, the family was killed/kidnapped and the merchant's stocks and fortune stolen by the BBEG, or the arc du jour's boss.
So no, I keep those for non-D&D games now. And for D&D, I'll just stick to playing a murderhobo from a distant land, thank you very much.
It was mostly impulse. I had never played an Arcane Trickster before, and Kitsune fit the "trickster" archetype to a T. They got a bonus to Cha and Dex, so I was planning Rogue/Sorc/AT.
It was very poorly optimized and I was generally stuck being the party mascot because once actual combat rolled around my backstab was pathetic and I chose shit spells for the Sorcerer part. Nobody else seemed to mind, but you've already decided I'm having badwrongfun so whatever.
This, honestly. 4d6+2 and 5d6 work out to be a very similar amount of damage, well within variance explainable by the slightly different cartridge and the barrel length combined.
It's explainable, though not necessarily great.
That is a legitimate point you have however.
Anytime you have a character that is connected to something, a family, a business, a town, etc. it will inevitably killed/burned/stolen by the BBEG.
I would attribute this to bad DM, or unoriginal DMing.
I don't blame you for not making that character, but it does say something about the setting as a whole that forces people to either step up and make a murderbot on the edge with no family or get shit on by everything else.
>Everyone wants to make Legolas or Gandalf, nobody wants to play the merchant or - god forbid - a regular dude who has a family.
If you wanna play a normal guy, play Warhammer FRPG
Ah yes, I guess they do give rather similar results in the end.
Plus, Anon, modern 5.56 is made to wound, not kill. :^)
It just seems to always happen in D&D-like settings, with different DMs. Even with those who don't go after family/businesses in other settings.
Chekhov's gun, don't introduce story elements that will serve no dramatic purpose and quite honestly if you want to play some slice of life drama D&D, with the utmost love and respect, is not your system. Everything you need to know about what you should be planning your character to do is in the name.
It is not a bad option, Warhammer Fantasy is not a bad option at all.
But first step is convincing people to step away from DnD and try other roleplaying games.
If they want to go back to DnD after that, that is their choice.
It's the same argument I have for understanding different languages or cultures.
If all you know is what your familiar with, then all you are doing is limiting yourself.
I'm a native English speaker, I've recently taken a year of German and went to Germany on a class trip.
I would have never gotten the experience that I did from that if not for that trip.
I now realize how much of a bitch English is as a language and how different my culture is from Germany.
The same argument can be made for RPG's, I feel.
I suppose this would just go into a discussion of the pro's and con's of DnD and who wants what from it.
I'm not saying make the normal dude with a family and expect nothing to happen to them. He's obviously adventuring for some reason.
But if the BBEG personally comes down and stabs his wife, it's got a different feel from the adventurer going off to get an antidote for her that the BBEG just happens to have/knows where is.
It all has variables that can culminate into a very stupid experience or a very awesome experience. Just like any RPG.
>It's just that the highish energy, large projectile ones, or just plain "high energy" guns suffer less.
They will suffer far more if its a headshot zombie. Harder for an untrained person to hit the head in the first place and will do effectively the same damage if it hits the brain. And much less leeway for messing up with ammo capacity.
To be fair, there are player made modules for letting you play xenos in rogue trader.
I dm'd a game recently and had an ork kommando and a genestealer 2nd gen working for a trader. It worked out fine, even though the ork was trying to make armour out of everything he came across (and I mean everything. ) and the stealer tried to fornicate with everyone to spread his dna.
All in all it was pretty hilarious and we all enjoyed ourselves
Caster edition pioneered the concept of character "builds" for D&D and created a full-fledged game-within-the-game revolving around customizing character stats. Because caster edition is a broken unfun mess in every other way, this is the only selling point it has and it's what everyone knows it for. Video game stat building games are fun, everyone knows this, and it's a big part of what makes a lot of tabletop games fun too, like list-building in war games. I personally find such stuff counter to the types of rpg's I run though, so I don't find the system of 3.5/PF (and 4e) useful. I prefer to have little to no character "building" and just focus on the actions and fluff, like in OSR editions and games. Characters are rolled up in like 5 minutes with very little stats, and their personality and power come through play.
I don't doubt it can be done, or be fun for that matter.
I've had the thought of playing a Ork in a 40kRP, I really like the Orks despite playing Tau in 40k.
I forgot to mention in that post that the DM explicitly said no xenos races.
His reasoning was it causes more problems than they warrant.
His choice not mine, but his brother is quite insistent.
So you think he should have magically given people who chose old rifles with more obscure ammo extra ammo and large magazines out of the ether?
The guns have stats in the game system, its not his fault they chose the ones they did. Nor is it his job to save them when they chose to ignore the guns the dead soldiers he put in the game had.
I ran the campaign as I ran it. I don't have any hatred for Max Brooks, but his advice wasn't very good. The game proved that. I did not pick on the characters in any way. If anything I had the zombies go after the girl and her M16, they had it easy. However they ended up barely finding any ammo for their guns compared to plenty of 5.56 and .22 ammunition.
>The game proved that.
You mean the world that you had complete control over and every single aspect is inherently fictional, that you still used to punish other people who were only out to have fun out of some misplaced sense of superiority?
Yeah, nah, you're a cunt
>Modern Warfare 2
The same game that said the Russian army still uses the AK-47, and uses the WA-2000 as a marksman rifle?
Delta Green has a nice little list of weapons organized by caliber, but if push comes to shove, just ask /k/ for a list of common weapons by caliber.
>You mean the world that you had complete control over and every single aspect is inherently fictional, that you still used to punish other people who were only out to have fun out of some misplaced sense of superiority?
I was trying to run it realistically, and the players knew that. They ignored MULTIPLE signs that their strategy was bad, and insisted on using it anyway. It was meant to be a lethal, difficult campaign, and bending over for stupid decisions is not in the spirit of such a campaign.
Just because I didn't suck their dicks for making retarded decisions doesn't make me a bad GM.
I did not pick on them, I simply let their choices have consequences. I was completely impartial.
> Yeah, nah, you're a cunt
Yeah, nah I'm not.
>, just ask /k/ for a list of common weapons by caliber.
No, what you do, if you're not a dick, is you talk to your players like human beings and say "Hey guys, I know you read that book that I hate and it told you what you're doing was a good idea, but in this game, the game where I control the universe, this is a bad idea. You're going to have a bad time."
Then, if they decide to continue on with their original plan, they are at least doing it knowing they're screwed.
Also, if they wanna use an old gun, why not let them use an old gun? I mean, it's a game. It's a game with zombies in it. Mutual enjoyment is typically the goal there, not the accurate fictional representation of the availability of specific categories of ammunition.
Unless it _is_ and you all just have a highly specific fetish, in which case more power to you.
I believe you missed the part where I said "after that just do research."
The COD games are good for getting a list, not for if they are good/common weapons used or found on the battlefield.
I never claimed they were good for that.
After gaining the list of weapons, just using common sense and researching what the actual use and commonality of the weapons is on you.
The monk spade wasn't really a bad idea, though a bludgeoning weapon would be better from what I've seen /k/ say about the topic.
Why am I a faggot? I know the way I told the story makes me sound cuntish but it's just me shaking my head and players refusing to learn from their mistakes.
No, what you do, if you're a decent GM in a survival game is include weapons that people actually use in the time frame you are playing in
As a player you find that you have trouble finding ammo for a weapon and you find tons of ammo for another weapon.
You pick up that common ammo gun as a secondary or you switch
>Also, if they wanna use an old gun, why not let them use an old gun? I mean, it's a game. It's a game with zombies in it. Mutual enjoyment is typically the goal there, not the accurate fictional representation of the availability of specific categories of ammunition.
It was meant to be a realistic game and they were intentionally using subpar weapons because of the advice of a meme book from 10 years ago.
> "Hey guys, I know you read that book that I hate and it told you what you're doing was a good idea, but in this game, the game where I control the universe, this is a bad idea. You're going to have a bad time."
A magical voice does not come down from the sky and tell you if you're about to make a bad decision. That encourages lazy decision making and expecting the GM to bail you out of every mistake you make.
These guys REPEATEDLY got fucked over by their bad weapon choice, while watching the chick kick ass with an M16 which they had several subsequent opportunities to acquire.
You think that talking to your players about things that will directly affect their ability to participate in and enjoy your game leads to lazy decision making and is akin to having god descend from the heavens in-game and tell them they should be using Gun_A and not Gun_B because Jesus hates Max Brooks?
I guess it really is a fetish thing for you. You're lucky to have players who will accommodate you.
Are you really this metrically ass hurt? They didn't die immediately, they died after REPEATEDLY failing to read the signs that their guns weren't working out. The girl even pointed it out to them. I didn't say anything because it's not my job.
>It fucking sickens me that I share the hobby
Chill out man.
> get out.
No. No other group of players have been this asshurt, and I am the most popular GM within my gaming circle. Just because I don't cater to willful stupidity, does not make me "the fucking worst." I dunno if you are projecting or what, but you do not have a legitimate ground to stand on and accuse me of being a bad GM.
Nice job quoting things I didn't actually say.
I did not say "I hate his fucking books" at any point, and I did not capitalize that his book was a "meme" book. Though it is.
> Nice impartiality.
I was impartial. Max Brooks' book gave bad advice, and that advice led to the deaths of players. I did not tweak things for or against them. That's just how the dice fell. I would have done the same thing if they had tried Walking Dead strategies that wouldn't really work, and so on.
/k/ here, I'll whip one up. You can find bolt action rifles in almost any common cartridge, so I didn't bother listing those for every category.
Marlin Model 60
AR variants chambered in .22
AR-15 (includes M4, M16)
Military assault rifles that are NATO compliant - this includes lots of european military infantry weapons. SIG SG 550, Steyr AUGs, the FAMAS, L85s, whatever
AK-47 and AKM variants.
SVD (Dragunov) and PSL rifles
Mosin-Nagant (bolt action, but notable in this category)
Several Soviet/Russian machine guns (PKM, DP28)
>7.62x51 (only difference between this and .308 winchester is powder loads and bullet type)
A fuckton of NATO battle rifles and machine guns - the M60, M14, G3, FN FAL, MG3, and so on.
A ton of bolt-action hunting rifles. This is a good big game cartridge. Remington, Savage, Mossberg, Weatherby... there are a lot of them. The models don't matter so much unless you want to get into autistic detail, but this is the point where bolt-action becomes more common for non-varmint related uses.
>.50 BMG because i might as well
Barrett M82 (there's a bolt action as well as a semi auto one so differentiate)
The cool looking space gun from District 9 that is apparently south african
You're wasting your time. You're arguing with entitled millenials who've been raised in a 'nobody loses' culture. They think that handwaving realistic elements in a realistic game is acceptable if it means they get to succeed. In their mind, if they miss a DM's signals and hints then it's the DM's fault for not making them more obvious (you will routinely see people saying things like this on /tg/, it's a perennial problem).
You'll also note they can't make an argument without flying into shrill exaggerations and straw men. This is the same demographic as the Yale university students after all. You're unlikely to get anything rational out of them, some of them are probably bored/drunk on Friday night and baiting you anyway, so you should bail. This anon, at least, sees that you've been in the right.
>HANDGUNS AND SMGs
Target pistols that look like space guns, and saturday night specials which are used almost exclusively by drug dealers (also come in .25 ACP and .32 ACP flavors)
Glock 17 or 19
HK VP9 (lol)
Spike's gun, look that shit up
Sig Sauer whatevers
Really there's a crapton it's not hard to just say it's a glock
Tec 9 if you're feeling gangster (note, it's not fully automatic. It just looks like it is.)
Sten, Sterling SMGs
once again there's a shitton so just google if you need more
>9mm slavshit edition
Pretty much all of the 9mm guns are also chambered in .40 but you should google first
Thompson submachine guns
a lot of those 9mm pistols are in .45 too
>7.62x25 in case you need more slavshit
The Czech not-makarov pistols
A lot of old police revolvers. Some other bullshit
A bunch of revolvers. Can chamber .38 special as well, but don't put .357 in a .38 gun. S&W, Colt, Remington, Taurus, Ruger, etc. make .357 revolvers. Colt Pythons, Ruger LCRs, S&W 686s, there's a lot.
Also the desert eagle is chambered in this as well as .50 AE in case you feel like being retarded and actually getting one
deagle brand deagle
>Learn easier language, immerse self in newfound ease of communication
>Realize own language is horrible in many ways, limits what can be said, is often unnecessarily complicated
>Still enjoy home country, but forever remember there are easier ways to communicate
This analogy speaks to me
The dumb ones you mean?
An appalling number of them are for a top tier University but at worst, only half of any given University is fucking stupid, and that includes a lot of "fuckwit undergrads that won't graduate or will take a piece of shit Major".
It's probably more like a third that are terminally stupid, which is still way too many, but give Universities some credit.
Even if many more are wrong, some of those will also admit they are wrong.
Of course, some ARE as said, terminally stupid and will not admit they are wrong.
And yeah, those guys clearly were dumb. Their notions of what constitute fairness and realism are flawed, they will not listen to reason, and GURPS is pretty reasonable and consistent no matter what take you have.
(Although the default, "gritty" assumptions, especially adjusted by house rules and judgements made by actual devs and writers of sourcebooks and articles for Pyramid, which can be had in vairous sourcebooks, on the forums, and Pyraimd, are pretty realistic, and make sense to anyone that isn't an idiot.)
If you've never gone through an experience like it, it's hard to really quantify how much it actually makes you grow as a person.
DnD is a fine system, just the way English is a fine language. Both have their problems, and both have their perks.
But until you break out and learn something else, you won't really know just how many problems and how may perks it has.
You are both awful players if you expect to be hand held.
Do you REALLY think its the GM's fault if players repeatedly and consistently refuse to use better weapons with more widely available ammunition when they have an example right there of how much easier someone else is having it?
Of course. I play rpg to win, if I wanted to be able to fail I'd play Dark Souls. Why would I have a person whose entire job is to tailor the game around me if not to make me win wathever I do otherwise?
Sorry anon-kun telling me to drop it, I'm going to give it the cold college try.
So I think where you and I differ OP is where we get our fun from.
I know personally, while GMing, I get a lot of my fun out of creating a world that is internally consistent, and there I think we both agree, but I get a lot more of my fun out of creating an entertaining and engaging experience for the other players.
I have fun, I win, when everyone at the table is having fun.
To do that, I not only have to check in with people with a reasonable frequency, but I also have to talk about the game to people. If someone's character is struggling, for instance they constantly run out of ammo and aren't able to participate in battles to the same degree as other players, that sounds to me like something that might be making the game less fun for them, so I'll ask.
A lot of the time, the answer is going to be that they're fine. I know a lot of people who like to play, but don't necessarily need to be in the center of the action, and I know an equal number of people who like being the underdog who always has to scrabble to succeed. Checking in, talking to your players, is a good way of figuring out which group they fall into.
If they ARE having problems and they're not having fun, then we all have a problem they we need to deal with, because, as I mentioned, the fun I get out of running a game involves the people playing it enjoying themselves. If people aren't enjoying themselves, I'm not doing my job properly.
I admit some bafflement when I try to figure out what your goals are as a GM. It seems that, like me, you want to create an internally consistent world, but beyond that... I'm having a hard time understanding your intentions.
Where do you get your fun from OP? I'm sure that to you, your actions make perfect sense, but to me, and apparently some others, they seem very strange.
I usually have a cycle of boards I browse.
/tg/ over to /v/ over to /k/ over to /f/ over to /b/ and back. Sometimes going to other boards for specific threads.
And this is the biggest bait I've seen in months of doing that cycle.
>this fucking tumblr shit
"are u alright"
"is everything ok"
"aww you're not doing so great, let me hold your hand"
GMing isn't about >>44654697 - tier bullshit (yes it's obviously bait but it provides a good example), its about addressing tropes and themes that your players want to engage. In a contemporary survival game, things should probably be consistent as much as possible with, I dunno, reality.
Poor choices should not be rewarded in ANY system. Sounds like OP gets his fun from actually overcoming obstacles and approaching things thoughtfully and clever, not from having a happy hugtime with his friends.
Are you aware it's possible to like... help people without rewarding them for bad choices?
Helping people doesn't mean violating the consistency of the shared fictional space. Making a game where everyone has bought into the idea of being as realistic as possible less realistic is not a good solution. It's actually a really bad solution, because it kinda violates the whole social contract deal. If people signed up to play a hardcore survival sim and you do not deliver on a hard-core survival sim, you are kinda screwing them over, right?
On the other hand, if people aren't having fun, then in my group we try to figure out why. Maybe they're not good at hardcore survival sims and honestly need help? Maybe they haven't been tracking ammo and haven't realize their problems stem from the fact they don't have enough bullets? Maybe they don't really want to be playing a hard-core survival game and thought it was going to be a cinematic game with zombies like the Walking Dead?
The idea that asking people if they're having is the equivalent to coddling them is... just silly. If someone isn't having fun, is there a better way to deal with that then at least confirming that your observations are correct by talking to them? If there is, I'd love to hear about it because talking to people takes a lot of time.
Do you never ask your players if they're having fun? Especially if their characters have, for example, recently died due to not having enough ammunition because they picked a gun that you decided wouldn't get enough ammunition?
Fixing this could be as simple as offering the advice that anon suggested upthread to pickup a backup weapon that uses a different caliber of bullet. People are dumb, they may have honestly not realized that this was where the problem was.
Chekhov's gun is for storytelling.
Roleplaying doesn't have to exclusively be storytelling, though a large part of it is. Ambience and atmostphere and just having a comfy time is a big draw to the genre as well, which is why Tolkien's works are still respected despite the Silmarillion being 90% fluff that never ends up mattering: you weren't there just for the story.
>In their mind, if they miss a DM's signals and hints then it's the DM's fault for not making them more obvious
Eh, this thinking isn't exactly wrong per se.
The purpose of hints and signals is to transmit information to someone without handing it to them directly.
If the players failed to receive the information the GM tried to convey, it means they didn't understand them for any number of reasons (in OP's case, because they were too stupid to understand the signals).
Does this mean it's the players' fault for not becoming smarter than they are, or the GM's fault for misevaluating their intelligence (or not giving them something appropriate to their modes of thinking)?
Well, neither, really. Placing blame is kinda pointless.
The only real fact is that the information wasn't conveyed.
All one can do is take steps to solve that problem, either by dumbing down your style (by explaining OOC that the players are being retarded, for example), or smartening up your players (by dumping the current ones and getting better ones, for example).
Just ignoring the problem and continuing as before seems kinda strange to me. It's certainly not improving your situation, though admittedly it isn't making it any worse
>That's fucking retarded. Who made this splat?
It's entirely true. The M16 and M249 develop more velocity than the M4. This is why problems crept up during Gothic Serpent and a new round was introduced.
They are also the same people who shit on 3.PF for having too many rules. When there are rules for almost anything it means success is greatly determined by how well your character is built and GM improvisation in these situations is minimized. This means players have to actually put thought into their plans and they can't rely on the GM to make their lol so random plans to work since the rules decide whether they succeed or not.
Playing in a system that's rules light means that conflict resolvation requires more GM improvistation for situations where more specialized rules are needed, which leads to more situations where the GM will let a player get away with something more easily if he personally likes the plan. In 3.PF the GM is in a way more of a faceless impartial judge than a fellow player. It doesn't matter that much whether a plan sounds fun or not for him, since most of the time the dice decide whether it works or not.
3.PF is rightfully criticised for being unbalanced (lol caster edition), but the most vocal ">playing D&D"-people usually hate the system not because of this, but for having a chance that the player might fail and forcing them to put thought into their plans.
Why are you bringing up 3.PF?
3.PF is objectively terrible game design and not just because it's imbalanced. It's not that there's a lot of rules, it's that all the rules suck and make no sense.
There are significantly better simulationist systems with more complex rules.
>Why are you bringing up 3.PF?
As an example of the attitude described in the post i replied to. Players hating on things where the GM won't let them get away with anything and having a cahnce to fail
>3.PF is objectively terrible game design
I don't think you know what 'objective' means if you're serious
>It's not that there's a lot of rules, it's that all the rules suck and make no sense.
Many rules make little sense (i.e. most things post level 11) or work reasonably only in nonextreme situations (i.e. fall damage), but saying that all the rules suck is an overstatement.
>There are significantly better simulationist systems with more complex rules.
I bet there are since 3.PF is not a simulationist system
You're not running a game, you're running a daycare
You spoil the players, ruining any kind of tension, which is what makes the game exciting
No one will remember your games with the enthusiasm they would if death and failure were real and palpable in it
You numb the player's sense of acomplishment
You change the world to accomodate their needs
You don't really need a rulebook
you just need to sit down with your players and have them make self-inserts so you can tell them how great their characters(and themselves) are. You are never going to create a consistent world that is also consistent with the PCs.
I know reading comprehension is hard anon, but I believe in you. I think that if you really put your head down and try super duper big boy hard, you just might be able to realize that this, the thing that I said:
>> "Helping people doesn't mean violating the consistency of the shared fictional space. Making a game where everyone has bought into the idea of being as realistic as possible less realistic is not a good solution. It's actually a really bad solution, because it kinda violates the whole social contract deal."
- is actually the exact opposite of this, the thing that you said:
>> "You change the world to accomodate their needs"
If your definition of 'running a daycare' is 'talking to the other players about the game' then I think it's fairly obvious that you have no idea how daycare works and likely little understanding of how talking works either.
>Chekhov's gun, don't introduce story elements that will serve no dramatic purpose
So what if the DM introduces elements that the players flat-out ignore? They won't serve a dramatic purpose if the PCs don't bother with them.
>it's okay if the miniboss before the final boss mops the floor with the players because he rolls really fucking sweet
>it's okay if the finaly BBEG of the three years long campaign gets instakilled by one player in the first round of combat because he rolled really fucking well
Yeah... whatever you say boss.
>It's like Player Character Sheets sap the intelligence of the user, reducing them to nothing more than knuckle dragging murder hobos. No one is safe from it.
I have a new Cursed Item.
I don't think he said either of those things.
And honestly? The miniboss should would have to roll consistently well to beat a well built party, not just one roll, and the players should not be able to instagib the BBEG with a single roll, too. If either thing happens, it's either because you're a bad GM for having a shit BBEG if that was supposed to be a big fight, or your players are bad for being able to not use proper tactics to avoid being wiped by a single roll.
>new player in my group
>it is ok, new players do mistakes all times, I don't really have a problem with it
>playing a NB druid, gets interested to this legend about a tree growing in the spot where an ancient hero fell
>finds out tree, shit is so massive there is a whole village on its branch. Is told there is a small shrine on its top, goes to have a look and finds this wooden sword, clearly some replica of the hero's weapon
>"I take it and go back to where the cleric is"
> whole village sees him and they attempt to stop him, his first reaction is to cast spells on them. Luckily the cleric Holds him
>after the villagers have him punished in public by being carried face down in the mud, feet tied to a donkey, for a few hundred metres, I ask him why his character, not him, his character did so
>mind you I am not really mad at this point
>"Eh I figured it was a quest item"
> somehow manage to hide my rage and tell him this is not a vidya
>later vent on innocent punching ball
I know new players gonna meta and play this game like a RPG vidya but fuck, it makes me mad every time
Pro tip: First session every campaign is character making session.
>No problem with one person showing up with unfinished character, because hey, you're all gonna make them now.
>Way less retardedness because players curb each other's excesses when they have to say their snowflake ideas out loud, characters end up less silly and more down to earth.
>Way easier to give characters a shared reason for whatever the goal of the campaign is.
If you let a player sit around at home, google builds, browse through all kinds of books and so on, they very, very easily end up making something over the top or try to subvert the stereotypes. If you let players sit down together they go into bro-mode and sweet stuff like "hey, maybe we're brothers? Or from the same village? Yeah, and we both left at the same time!" Happens.
This is the cancer of the role-playing hobby. Becoming part of "gaming" rather than a part of the fantasy/sci-fi fandom (with rules to allow for unbiased conflict resolution) is the worst thing to ever happen to pen and paper role-playing.
New players aren't there to have adventures or experiences or because they're the kind of person who lies awake at night, bummed out that they'll never get to do any sorcery or get to experience anything like their favourite books. They're there because they play magic or WoW or Skyrim and the first thing they do is to break things down into videogame terms and figure out the "combos".
I'm too old for this shit.
I think it is a normal reaction. Just translate it to gaming terms to D&D terms.
quest item = Divine / magic item
Of Course you would try to take this clearly important item, just laying around.
Also the villagers deserved to get horribly murdered by an adventurer, for not even putting a simple warning.
You know I have a lot of newbies in my group and this problem tends to be related to actual age of the player rather than being new to tabletops. It is not like they don’t grow out of it, mind you.
Most of my players do both, and so do I. Vidya and tabletop have a lot in common after all, if nothing else because they both need an active input from a player, while books are a "passive" entertainment. You can actually learn from both.
In GURPS damage dice (for piercing weapons at least) are directly related to penetration in a linear way. Something that goes 10% deeper into a given target gets 10% more base damage.
Penetration in most solids scales to about the square root of kinetic energy if the contact area remains constant. Since kinetic energy scales with the square of velocity, that means penetration scales roughly with velocity.
That means that for any given projectile, the GURPS damage dice will scale with it's velocity. So the same bullet moving 10% slower will do 10% less damage.
The M4 has about 7% less muzzle velocity than the M16, so it's damage is about 7% less (17.5 points vs. 16 points is actually closer to 9% less, but it's the closest they could get).
>Several 7.62 rounds
>Civilian Rifle, Assault Rifle, Sniper Rifle
>All do the same damage
>Has .30-06 as a seperate 7.62
>Forgets 7.62 x 39 (AK Round)
>Forgets 7.62 x 51 (.308 pappys hunting round)
>7.62 × 54r (R for rimmed not Russia, used for shit loads)
I understand that it is a game, but if you're making one do a little research it's like making all mid-sized pointy things doing 1d6 regardless.
>It's not ok if my character dies
>my character is invincible, this game shouldn't even have a death mechanic, just buff my character for every hit he takes because his fury strenghtens him.
They have more in other supplements like "High Tech Adventure Guns" too. It's just that those are "fairly likely" or representative examples. You can just sort of wing it, look on the internet, or actually mess with the maths kind of too to extrapolate beyond that.
And yes, as they say there is not necessarily a lot of "balance" in the difference between some guns, and their costs. Some guns are definitely real bargains. Some are shitty wastes of money that are overpriced. Some are the .38 Volcanic is a gun I guess? (It's pretty shit. and it's expensive. Teething problems with a new action though. You get that with something that's almost a "TL+x thing. It's ahead of it's time and kind of half baked.)
Swords, and anything with ornamentation are much worse offenders, of course. (The gaming rifles like the elephant gun mirror this slightly). Swords objectively have good points about them but have a certain level of prestige pricing and you could get away with an Axe, probably. (Or do what a lot of "real" people did and either steal a good sword, or buy a cheap one. Which has issues. It will either be fragile, unbalanced, or dull. Or some combination. Which is realistic. At that TL a lot of cheap swords did break like motherfuckers at bad time or were just generally kind of shit in some way.)
Its also a generic list even within the specific tech levels. Its up to the GM to tailor it if he wishes.
A well researched game set in the Viking Age will have radically different sword costs to one set in the aftermath of the Black Death for example even though both are TL3. In the latter everybody who is not a serf can afford a serviceable sword whereas in the former they are almost relic weapons that can only be afforded by the rich in some places.
To be fair, you probably could have had a nice old villager inform him that it was just a replica and was special to the people, and something the PC wouldn't need, instead of sending a mob of villagers at him.