The one where a small but outspoken group of social outcasts pretend that they are the only people who have ever played traditional games and somehow should be allowed to dictate the entire hobby from their parents' basements despite the fact that they contribute pretty much nothing to it.
>>44749117 Concur. Being into /tg/-related activities doesn't preclude one from being a healthy and well-adjusted human being, and the whole concept of "normies" is pretty much embracing that false dichotomy.
Dice towers, fictional character alignment grids, the term "rollplaying", dice shaming, intentionally making poor combat decisions to avoid "metagaming", electronic dice and character sheet apps, NAT FUCKING 20, DMs who fudge dice rolls to "keep the story interesting/moving forward", and referring to real life things in D&D terms.
Not him but listing your hobbies as vidya and shit really did get you beat severely back in the day, if what my uncle tells me is true.
These days it seems to make literally zero difference. I've told people who are (for lack of a better word) /r9k/'s "Chad" boogeyman and they're always nice about it. Most normies at least occasionally play games of some sort these days, they're just usually casuals (which is fine).
>>44749502 >the term "rollplaying" This is like, the one thing on /tg/ that gets me angry. It implies a false dichotomy between a well thought out character and knowing the rules of the game. Pic related.
>>44749502 >Dice towers Sure. >fictional character alignment grids Harmless fun. >the term "rollplaying" How else do you want to refer to boring players who exclusively interact with the GM through the clack of plastic against the table? >dice shaming Yeah. >intentionally making poor combat decisions to avoid "metagaming" You sound like a rollplayer. >electronic dice and character sheet apps Someone was molested by a convenient smart phone app, apparently. >NAT FUCKING 20 Do you hate the idea of a crit, or is this more the overly excited reaction that you dislike? >DMs who fudge dice rolls to "keep the story interesting/moving forward" I can see this being polarizing. >and referring to real life things in D&D terms As with all things, there's a time and a place for everything.
>>44749215 I've a friend who's son's favorite bedtime book is "C is for Cthulhu" I have mixed feelings about it, especially when I hear the child attempt to say "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn"
but there are indeed too many badly done things regarding "eldritch abominations" out there...
>>44749343 why is she awful? >says the guy who's only seen her in a couple of shows.
>>44749402 Lovecraft has his ups and downs. The Call of Cthulhu being a down in my opinion...
...I intentionally stigmatized myself in grade-school...nobody picks on you when you imply that your hobbies include gun-cleaning and blowing shit up.
never had the /tg/ stigma. I made one I could cast off once I left school...
>>44749502 for me it's only the people who do these things wrongly or too often. >if you need a dice tower someone around you is too distrustful or untrustworthy >etc. etc. though, electronic dice at the actual table are a shitty thing to do unless nobody else has any...
>>44749573 Not him, but I personally hate the "Nat 20 lets you warp reality!" meme. Nat 20 is at best an automatic success, and if you have a 1 in 20 chance of succeeding in ANYTHING you try, no matter how improbable, then your world is a cartoon.
>>44749422 Yeah, I fucking hate the idea that you have to be some greasy no life loser to be able to enjoy these fucking hobbies. Stop it with these retarded basement-dwelller clubs. If it invites "normies" that's G O O D N E W S.
It's not a trend, per say, but I fucking hate this complete lack of enthusiasm I experience from players in general. And not just a small sample size either. The obvious comeback from someone who's retarded would be "lol if ur the common factor it must be u!", but we know that's not the case because I can bring up any video of a group playing D&D right now and see the exact same thing.
No matter how much the DM flourishes, acts, portrays scenes, or cranks up the tension or drama, somehow all players can ever muster up is "Eh, I roll perception I guess.". End on a tense cliffhanger? No response. A favorite friend from the past shows up? Yeah, cool, whatever.
If you don't care about what's going on, why do you keep showing up? Why do players only seem to exist with this "I can only ever put 0 effort into my hobby" mentality?
>>44749696 >Stop it with these retarded basement-dwelller clubs. If it invites "normies" that's G O O D N E W S. Let's not get ahead of ourselves here buckaroo. It's true that being into tabletop and whatnot doesn't automatically preclude you from being a normal functioning human being, but that's really the last thing you want. There's a difference between being normal, and being a normalfag. Once your hobby starts getting flooded with normalfags it's only a matter of time before it starts getting gutted like a fish.
We've seen it with comic books and video games, don't repeat our mistakes.
I don't know what to call it, but it's something I've had to deal with multiple times already with someone in my groups.
>guy is outcast most of his life, finally gets a real girlfriend in college or something. Girlfriend is some couch activist, and this guy bends over backwards and completely changes his ideology to please her because he's so scared of losing his shitty girlfriend
>>44749832 That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about applying real world modern stigmas onto fictional characters where that stigma doesn't exist in that setting. Ie shit like slavery or arranged marriages or whatnot.
>>44749798 >We've seen it with comic books and video games I've never seen so many good videogames before. And comics, actually. Yeah, they're not the one marketed and advertised, and shit, but they still exist. Your failure to search and find shit you like isn't a failure a market. It's your failure only.
>>44749848 Please, Marvel stuff was better when it was actually marketed towards the general public.
>>44749761 Some people just want to turn their brains off and play a fun tabletop game with their friends, not everything has to be some super serious involving political campaign with loads of drama and hardcore roleplaying. I can't forgive players who never know their shit, but people who just want chill out and play are always welcome and usually never negatively impact the game. Take a chill pill anon.
>>44749783 It's a houserule that propagates itself through those kinds of people. I remember being forced to roll a skill check I was literally incapable of failing because "there's always natural 1s", after the session I explained that natural 1's and 20's don't actually apply to anything but attack rolls and saving throws; which was met with universal disbelief at my table. We still use that rule, and I fucking hate it.
>>44749821 Are you fucking kidding me? Comic books went through a fucking dark age with the CCA, and they're still getting kicked in the genitals every now and again, the only reason they even get a recovery time is because people long since moved onto video games, which have gone through no less than 6,000 moral outrages since the fucking 90's and are still going through issues of censorship and moral crusading.
>>44749812 >invisible safety net So you don't understand what fudging dice is for, then. It's not to artificially save the players from themselves. >>44749859 So edgelord murderhobo? In most games, unless the setting specifically is based on real life historical mores (and it will tell you) or the setting works on a different set of assumptions, then it works with a approximation of modern ideals.
>>44749833 My group has, I hesitate to call him this, a friend who changes everything about himself to try and impress anyone new he meets, so when he was dating an upper class girl he started getting more right wing. It's actually funny watching him with us because he always tries to be what he percieves you as, so around one person he's a musician, around another he's an actavist, around me he's racist because for some reason he thinks I hate jews.
>>44749573 >How else do you want to refer to boring players who exclusively interact with the GM through the clack of plastic against the table? Different players engage with the game in different, implying any one way is superior to any other is ridiculous.
>You sound like a rollplayer. I'm a DM.
>Someone was molested by a convenient smart phone app, apparently. I don't like phones at my table, and it's hardly more convenient than just rolling dice/using a pencil.
>Do you hate the idea of a crit, or is this more the overly excited reaction that you dislike? I hate the player mentality that a natural 20 (outside of combat) must automatically succeed in any situation.
>>44749613 >Forever player detected, every GM I know has done this shit and it almost always works out for the best.
I'm sure it works out great for them. It does let them keep their game going exactly how they want it to.
>>44749502 As a gm, I know and every player knows gms fudge a few dice rolls to not completely deck a party member. Hell, I use it as a means of control.
If I have a weasel or a rules lawyer trying to tell me my simplified grappling rules that save 5 minutes of rolling or cheating their own dice rolls I tell them I will no longer fudge any rolls for or against them. One guy didn't take me seriously, so i removed my gm screen and rolled a crit right in front of him from a stone golem. His -6hp was a good memory for him to have. This keeps people honest and doesn't let sessions become a bog of arguing over nothing.
>>44749812 As a forever GM, I agree that fudging rolls can make things less excitings. But I do it sometimes, when I feel it would just let the players down. Or when it would outright stop the game, like if their characters were gonna die, we're only halfway through the time the scenario is going to last and it would take too much time creating new characters. I don't fudge rolls for DH, for example. Characters are quick enough to create.
>>44750044 As the DM, I kind of have that right. I get to choose who plays and who doesn't. And since it's not fun for ME to have players who are disengaged and don't give a shit, then that is not the kind of group I want to put together.
The problem comes when players insist on not telling you "By the way, I am literally incapable of any sort of engagement. I will monotone my way through every situation no matter how involved I am, and I don't see a reason to change", it means you have to waste a lot of time sifting through shit players.
I know as a player, any game will do for you because you have no standards and just want to roll dice, but that doesn't mean you actually get to be in every game just because it's there.
>>44749549 I was in a private school, and they banned mtg and Pokémon back in the day despite only 5 people even playing the tcgs. If we even mentioned did it was ISS for two days, and the jocks would steal our shit and dump it or hock it if it was "nerdy". This stuff happens, just some people didn't have to deal with it.
>>44750092 >As the DM, I kind of have that right. So you're admitting that you're completely entitled and that you're active dismissing players because of minor gripes with how they play a fucking game? How petty are you?
I don't know, I've seen her in plenty of stuff and never saw any reason to call her "awful." I do know there's some spergotron who makes threads about how much he hates her all the time. I think he feels that she's patronizing towards his people, the perma-virgin mega-nerds. Or maybe she didn't answer his fan letter and now she's ugly and terrible.
We also get the same thing with Wil Wheaton threads, but at least he comes across a little too smug now and then. I never saw a justification for Felicia Day hate, except "ew a girl and a normie reeeee."
>>44749859 Are you talking about slavery and arranged marriages regarded as bad or just their use in general? I use slavery a lot in my campaigns and don't see it as a bad thing in those civilizations since it's their economic choice, although it tends to be used by less than moral groups.
>>44750200 I can't speak for everyone but Felicia Day seems to have no internal filter, based on the inane comments she makes on twitter, and that really irritates me. Also the fact that she gets treated like some sort of pioneer for being a woman who enjoys videogames and tabletop I find it more harmful than good because it makes people think women being 'nerdy' is uncommon and should be commended.
>>44750210 That's the thing though, there are plenty of women who work in various "nerdy" industries who don't get half the credit she does.
Roberta Williams, Rihanna Pratchett, Ursula LeGuin, Octavia Butler, and hundreds of others have contributed much more greatly to nerddom, and have done so with more talent than Felicia Day. Yet Felicia Day receives endless worship.
>>44750234 Honestly, Marvel is far more SJW now. DC has it pretty bad, but nowhere near as bad as Marvel. For DC, it's something stupid every other 5 issues. Marvel does some propaganda piece every issue
>>44750310 >Ursula LeGuin I remember asking /lit/ about feminist fiction, and all I got about her was that she was a degenerate and that people who were reading her were pussies since her stories were about that.
Aha, I found the problem. Twitter exists solely for people to make inane comments and for other people to get inordinately worked up over that. Best to just ignore that shit and spare your blood pressure. It's much easier to get through life that way.
>>44750306 Indeed, much of Sci-Fi would not have been made were we to not involve politics. The issue is whether the politics serve as a framework for the story, a theme if you will, and thus serve the narrative, or are just hamhandedly inserted into the narrative at its detriment.
>>44750322 What, you mean the non-heterosexual almost supernaturally (If not supernaturally) gifted woman of incredible perkiness isn't unique? Surely you jest.
>>44750342 >Ursula LeGuin Well, she was a pioneer. But her stories are basically fanfic-tier shit with main protagonist who is super awesome girl who can do everything and everyone is stupid but her, you guys. And she had some horrible views on guys that are somehow offensive no matter where you land on political spectrum.
>>44750384 Yes i am complaining. Rogers will be back and Falcon then will obediently go back to his role. Let the fucker have his own identity. And let's not pretend that Rogers won't be back, Bucky wasn't cap for long neither.
Ironically Ged the main character in Earthsea is a strong malr character and pretty cool at teaching manly lessons like being independent, level headed, and not overly concerned with female attention.
I agree she's hardcore feminazi in other pieces but she also wrote one of my favourite characters of all time. And while it had some SJW shit because >lol no white people except the bad guys I actually still enjoyed reading a fantasy world where people weren't just white
Yeah, no, OP. Fuck you, the horse you rode in on, the whore of a mother who gave birth to you, the bastard of a father who wasted his sperm to give you life, and you know what, fuck your little dog, too! I fucking hate REEEEEEEEEfags like you, trying to make the hobby I at least *try* to enjoy and get my family involved in a fucking "SOOPA SEEKURT KROOB" where only the "worthy" may enter and partake in consuming the fruits.
You think I feel proud when I try to stonewall my dad from finding out what I'm in to? You wanna know why I have to lie, straight-faced, to my mom when she asks me about the RPG books/.pdfs I buy? Do you honestly believe I feel comfortable keeping my (18-year-old) little sister from cosplaying at the conventions she basically invites herself with me?
It's people like you that I have to protect my family from, asshole. I want them to enjoy and have fun with this hobby, I really do. But I'm afraid of what REEEEEEEfags like you will do to them.
So go fuck yourself with the rustiest cactus you can find, OP. You and your ilk disgust me to no end.
>>44749761 Totally agree anon. I've cancelled the last 4 games due to lack of response. I only play with friends right now and while they sound excited beforehand, they turn shy during the game. I know its not me nectar m because they swear I do great, and they keep asking me to run games, but I have to have fun too you know?
>>44750160 >and that you're active dismissing players because of minor gripes with how they play a fucking game?
Yes, I weed out players all the time. Again, I have that ability, because I am the DM. If you want a game where you can just "chill out" with other lazy, uninvolved faggots and make bad jokes and flake out all the time, you can go DM your own game and invite those people.
Surprise, we get to choose the types of people we enjoy hanging out with.
>>44750388 Humphrey Bogart plays a very convincing greedy craven villian in Treasure of the Sierra Madre. He was capable of playing an immense range of characters even if he always carried a certain amount of style. Comparing Day to Bogart is like comparing the Star Wars prequels to Citizen Kane. It's being really fucking unfair to Day.
>>44750506 I started reading some of her works too young to notice...but now that you point it out, yeah, she does. doesn't stop her from being a pretty good author, just like it didn't stop Heinlein...
Okay, say John Wayne, then. There's a guy who never played anybody but John Wayne in anything. Like that Bible epic where he plays Roman soldier John Wayne who waddles up to Jesus on the cross and is all "Tuh-ruly, he wuz the sun of GAAAAWD."
If wanting my family to enjoy this hobby with me makes me a shitty person, then I will fucking be that sort of shitty person. I'm legit not comfortable wit them joining the hobby as it stands right now.
I always found him to be a hypocritical asshole outside his films. He was ready to spit on anti-war protestors and hippies who didn't want to go to Vietnam and get their asses shot off, but when it was HIS turn in WWII, and other actors were shipping off overseas into danger, he cut a deal to put his ass in a nice safe movie studio, where he could PRETEND to fight Germans and Japanese in propaganda films instead. I don't have a lot of respect for him due to that.
>>44749985 Nah, I couldn't care much less on religion as long as it's not the "kill everyone who disagrees" or "Hey, you should drink this awesome koolaid. Hell, give some to the kids, too!" kind. I'm able to disagree with someone without resorting to shit-flinging.
>>44749074 >traditional gaming related "trend"/normie forced meme
See, here's what I don't get. Why do you care about "normie" stuff in traditional games? Lets assume all this you complain about exists. Traditional games are not video games. You buy a rulebook along with some models or whatever and that's it. Everything else is your prerogative. The story, the characters, even the rules are up for change if you want it. It's not like when you buy a video game where you have to buy the gameplay and everything else in a package and you have essentially no liberty to change anything without an extreme investment of your time.
Yes, I do find many things annoying but frankly none of this affects me at all. Some tumblrtard (or /pol/ack for that matter) has no say in how I run my game with my friends regardless of how loud they cry. Felicia Day? Like I give a shit. I didn't even know this woman existed until now.
Just do your own thing. At the end of the day that is the greatest strength of traditional games.
>>44750340 No, it's explaining something to someone who already understands what you're talking about, possibly better than you do, because you have a penis and are therefore qualified as a master of all knowledge.
>>44749566 You can't pretend like there aren't people out there who are incapable of seeing RPGs as anything other than a collection of numbers and dice rolls. I've played with many of these types of people. They simply never attempt to do anything other than stats stats stats builds feats roll roll stats roll
>>44751152 Except the term "mansplaining" exists because it was created as a dismissive tactic, used to try and wave away someone's arguments or invalidate their position because they're "doing something wrong", and that thing is explaining something to a woman/colored person/whatever.
And it ignores the fact that apparently feminists know everything and should be listened to specifically because they're NOT men, at least according to their ideology.
>>44751176 Mansplainers aren't necessarily wrong, they're just unnecessary - and they're assuming they are necessary. That's the annoying thing. If I know what Vancian casting is, I don't need someone explaining it to me, even if their explanation is perfectly sound. I sure as hell don't need them assuming I need it explained because I have ovaries.
>>44751297 >>44751273 [loud lawyer voice] OBJECTION! on the grounds that this is not a courtroom and the debate need not directly follow any standardized set of rules or practices. [/loud lawyer voice]
I am of the opinion that these threads keep happening because interpersonal rage is fun to watch and they seem to allow a relatively harmless outlet for it..
>>44751297 If i had to correct every ignorant asshole i talk to i would have spend all day looking for sources. If said assholes instead took 10 minutes of their lives to find the evidene themselves then i get to play my games in peace...
>>44751329 >That's the annoying thing. If I know what Vancian casting is, I don't need someone explaining it to me, even if their explanation is perfectly sound.
How do they know you know? Did you tell them? Did you use the system, or a term related to it incorrectly? Would it be "womansplaining" if the same exact situation happened, but with a woman explaining to you a concept or fact you already knew, but they did it anyway assuming they knew better?
>I sure as hell don't need them assuming I need it explained because I have ovaries. What if they don't know you're a woman? What if you're being an idiot, and they assume that you don't know things, because you act like it? Why are you assuming malice in their action? How do you know they wouldn't be explaining the concept just the same to a man in your position?
Fuck yeah I mad. I mad at you faggots who want everything made the way *you* want it, *especially* if it's to the detriment of other potential customers. I mad at the publishing companies who cater to you because if they don't their fucking bottom-line nosedives because you faggots will convince others that the companies "don't really care about our community waaaaaaah!"
And I mad at myself for not standing up to you bullies sooner; for not having the balls to call you on your bullshit until I realized it was too late not to anymore.
>>44751210 Nihilism is the cancer destroying society, and Lovecraft represents enough of a contributor that I will happily embrace anything spitting on his memory, including games where protagonists heroically rise up to punch abominations in the face to awesome metal soundtracks.
>>44751442 >I'd point out that on the internet a debate like this needs both people working to prove the point as well as people working to disprove the point. You'd be wrong. I have no reason to work to disprove your claim, because the default position is to assume it is untrue until you demonstrate the opposite.
>it allows for more interesting entertainment from the watchers... Not really my concern?
>I also bring up a point, is it still "mansplaining" if a man does it to another man? I don't know, I don't write the definitions. Feminists tell me that it's not sexist if it's against men, because men have the "institutional power", and also everything men do is sexist BECAUSE of that power. So how something can be both sexist because of it's source, and not sexist because of it's target, I don't know.
You might as well ask if a black person can be racist against an asian.
>>44749573 >How else do you want to refer to boring players who exclusively interact with the GM through the clack of plastic against the table?
I once ran a campaign that I let occasionally spin into a solo session for characters that focused on their backstory and character development.
One player excelled at knowing the rules and then figuring out how to make the most broken builds you have ever seen. Not a bad player, mind you, but he excelled in all parts stats, rules and dice rolling.
When it came time to do his solo session, I built it with this in mind. I knew he loved being able to stomp his enemies and twist the rules to his favor, so I built a few encounters and battles to let him do just that.
But I also wanted to challenge him, so I put a twist at the end. The entire session was to prove himself worthy to the gods so he could get their blessing in rebuilding his lost tribe. He fought and worked his way through their tests only to get to a divine doorstep and be stopped by the demigod doorman who said, 'This last test is simple. Convince me why you deserve this boon.' The player rolls diplomacy and declares his number and I nod and say 'That's nice, now convince him.'
He was a little miffed that I had him actually speaking in character and arguing why his lost tribe deserved being refounded to a figment of our imagination rather than just accepting his roll, but I stood by it and think he was the better for it.
For those that were wondering, the doorman did let him through and the gods did grant his boon.
So, yeah. Where was I going with this? Oh yes, don't have it just one or the other. Blend it together and it sticks out in the player's memory rather than that one time he rolled a 20.
>>44751513 >Lovecraft represents enough of a contributor You never read anything by lovecraft, don't you? >including games where protagonists heroically rise up to punch abominations in the face to awesome metal soundtracks. Kind of like in Dunwich Horror?
>>44750020 >Different players engage with the game in different, implying any one way is superior to any other is ridiculous. After you just complained about people roleplaying their characters by taking sub-optimal combat choices because it fits the situation.
>I hate the player mentality that a natural 20 (outside of combat) must automatically succeed in any situation. But it necessarily must, otherwise what is the point of asking for a check if there is literally no possible way to succeed?
>>44751427 If I'm part of a hobby, then assume I know what I'm doing. If I don't, then I'll ask someone for assistance. It may be you, it may not be. But if you just assume I don't know what I'm doing, and decide to explain to me what I should be doing, you're an asshole. If it's because I'm a woman and you're a man, you're mansplaining; if not, you're still an asshole.
Now - if we're currently involved in a game, and I'm breaking the rules somehow, then yes, go ahead and say "hey, that's not how things work." But I don't need an explanation of the entire rules to the game, and I sure as hell don't need one if I just made a mistake or a bad play or something.
"Funny" /tg/ pastas like Sir Bearington, Los Tiburon or Old Man Henderson. People who can't stop quoting those at the table or try to shoehorn similar "hilarious" concepts into serious games for teh hella epik win and get upset when they get shot down. People who treat /tg/ as a repository for funny reddit stories.
>>44751666 >If I'm part of a hobby, then assume I know what I'm doing. Why would I do that?
>If I don't, then I'll ask someone for assistance. Why would I think you'd do that?
>But if you just assume I don't know what I'm doing, and decide to explain to me what I should be doing, you're an asshole. People explain unnecessary things all the time. This is literally part of human interaction, because we don't walk around assuming everyone is already on the page we want them to be on. Most human beings don't get angry and throw a temper tantrum about this, they just say "Yeah, I know already." and move on with their day.
>If it's because I'm a woman and you're a man, you're mansplaining How would you even conclude such a thing? Like, what about the context, outside of specifically saying "I'm explaining this to you because you're a woman" would ever cause you to come to the conclusion that someone was explaining a concept to you specifically because of your gender.
Do you really just walk around with the mindset that everything you don't like that happens to you happens solely because of "sexism"? You must really be an unpleasant person to be near.
>if not, you're still an asshole. Sounds like the only person being an asshole here is you.
>if we're currently involved in a game, and I'm breaking the rules somehow, then yes, go ahead and say "hey, that's not how things work." I would, but I'm afraid you'd flip the table and yell "QUIT MANSPLAINING, SHITLORD!"
>But I don't need an explanation of the entire rules to the game You might.
>and I sure as hell don't need one if I just made a mistake or a bad play or something. ...what? If you made a mistake, yes, you do need to have the rules explained. That's the point.
>>44751720 Obviously this only includes people who are actively part of the hobby, rather than someone who you know are playing for the first time. But if you don't know I'm playing something for the first time, and I don't ask for help, grant me the courtesy of not assuming it's your duty to rescue me.
>>44751774 >Why would I do that? Common courtesy. If someone is investing time in an activity, it's basic human decency to assume they actually know what they're doing, rather than a blank slate to fill with your wisdom.
>Why would I think you'd do that? That's what people who need help actually do.
>People explain unnecessary things all the time. This is literally part of human interaction, because we don't walk around assuming everyone is already on the page we want them to be on. Most human beings don't get angry and throw a temper tantrum about this, they just say "Yeah, I know already." and move on with their day. No, most people don't just start explaining things to other people, especially when you're involved in the same hobby. At best, they ask and then explain. If you just explain things all day, then I feel bad for the people around you.
>How would you even conclude such a thing? Like, what about the context, outside of specifically saying "I'm explaining this to you because you're a woman" would ever cause you to come to the conclusion that someone was explaining a concept to you specifically because of your gender. Observation. If you explain things to women a lot, then it's a pretty easy conclusion to make.
>...what? If you made a mistake, yes, you do need to have the rules explained. That's the point. If it's a mistake in the rules, yes, saying "that's against the rules" is reasonable. If I make a bad play, I don't need you to spend five minutes telling me why that's a bad play, and why I should bow to your stunning wisdom and game mastery. People learn by making mistakes, and if (for example) I cast a spell too early and wind up out of magic, then I'll learn not to do that in the future.
>>44751644 You make it sound like I was trying to be vindictive and failed. I wasn't trying to teach him a lesson by being 100% roleplaying, I was trying to get him out of 'rollplaying' all the time and dabble in the other side of the spectrum for once.
>>44751919 >If someone is investing time in an activity, it's basic human decency to assume they actually know what they're doing, rather than a blank slate to fill with your wisdom. That is fucking called suicidal overconfidence. You never worked in a place where knowing what the fuck you are doing is important, didn't you?
>>44751833 If I don't know what the fuck is going on, then I will ask for assistance from someone who does.
>>44751843 I have, actually. People who call tech support (gasp) are asking for assistance with a problem they're having. Tech support doesn't call people up and tell them they're doing it wrong.
>>44751897 You're "trying to be nice" by assuming I'm ignorant, and that I can't figure things out on your own. Wouldn't you be frustrated if people kept assuming you didn't know your own goddamn hobby?
>>44751592 This. >you're an asshole. If it's because I'm a woman and you're a man, you're mansplaining; if not, you're still an asshole. So to you, "mansplaining" is a word that means "extra asshole". Any pairing of genders doing this means there's an asshole, but if it just happens to be a man talking to a woman, he's not JUST an asshole, but is ALSO "mansplaining".
This "mansplaining" thing is sophistry, a feminist boogeyman designed to make men feel bad about things that they never do, and which never happened, so that their behavior can be controlled. It also feeds the false feminist narrative that women in modern Western society are victims of and are oppressed by men.
>>44751919 >If someone is investing time in an activity, it's basic human decency to assume they actually know what they're doing, No it's not. I've learned to STOP doing this and explain everything no matter what because if I don't, idiots will waste my time with bullshit nearly every single time. If you'd ever worked tech support or played an MMO you'd know exactly why this is a fucking stupid idea and tabletop games are not magically exempt from this.
>>44752042 >You're "trying to be nice" by assuming I'm ignorant, and that I can't figure things out on your own. Yes. Because you probably are a mouth breather who can't tell your ass from hole in the ground. When you prove otherwise we can talk.
>>44751919 >If I don't, then I'll ask someone for assistance. >Why would I think you'd do that? >That's what people who need help actually do. Seriously nigger? Everyone who needs help asks for help? Since you're crying about your feelings here, I would have figured that even you understood that sometimes people hold their questions inside and don't ask.
>>44749761 Wrong type of people/ issues in terms of 'acceptability' of input.
For the former, there's little you can do, beyond pushing them to say or add more, and trying to get enough of the group to do it so it's self-sustaining. The games I play have their moments where people devolve into calculators, but that's because the task they're presented with is difficult. They don't have the time to figure out the best move and be showy about it without holding up everybody. But we also have a bunch of big emotional moments. But all my friends have theatrical backgrounds, so it makes sense that they put in the extra acting effort. I've also had friends who were just there for the mental exercise, and in a group of actors, they'd come around to trying stuff.
The latter issue can be an unspoken one, but it's based on solid footing: the player never knows as much about the situation as the DM. Thus, they can never be certain that their action is "Correct." I don't know how much HP the monster has, so I have no idea if my attack is doing a lot. If I describe my attack as "a full out frenzied assault, slashing, hacking, cutting." and the battle lasts another 12 rounds, it's pretty clear my attack didn't do shit, so I feel like my character isn't contributing. If I say "I run my hands over then walls, knocking occasionally, trying to locate the secret door he used", I have no idea if that's how the door works, or if there's a touch activated trap, or anything.
And the instant a player gets punished for something, they don't want to do it again. This is actually where murderhobos CAME from. Practically every DMing text in the world goes "Does their character have a family? Do you need some instant tension/drama? Threaten them, or imply a threat to them!" Bad DMs take that too far, and kill off character families to show off how evil VILLAIN X is. Player feels helpless, decides next character won't have a close family. Warns other players. Eventually, murderhobos.
>>44751919 >Common courtesy. If someone is investing time in an activity, it's basic human decency to assume they actually know what they're doing, rather than a blank slate to fill with your wisdom. I'm a chef. Every single kitchen I've ever worked in began with someone explaining extremely basic shit to me while assuming I've never done it before. The difference between you and I is, I don't think this is sexist. Hell, sometimes it's been women doing it.
>No, most people don't just start explaining things to other people, especially when you're involved in the same hobby. Of fucking course they do. THIS IS WHY YOUR PERSPECTIVE IS TAINTED. You have this view of the world that is completely false, so when normal things happen, you assume it must be the "sexist fringe" targeting you specifically, rather than the status quo.
>Observation. If you explain things to women a lot, then it's a pretty easy conclusion to make. How can you observe that? Dudes explain things to other dudes all the fucking time, and no one shouts and yells about being "talked down to" or "invalidated". We say "Yeah, I got it." and move along. Because we don't give a fuck about turning everything into a personal attack and being a victim.
The only thing you "observe" is what happens to you, not what happens to the rest of the world around you, so you develop a skewed picture of reality.
>If I make a bad play, I don't need you to spend five minutes telling me why that's a bad play, and why I should bow to your stunning wisdom and game mastery. How would anyone know that? If someone makes a mistake or botches something and you don't point it out, chances are they'll KEEP FUCKING DOING IT.
I think it's supposed to be just a specific type of asshole.
I'll admit that I've seen guys do this. I get the impression they think maybe the girl will sleep with them if they impress her with their incredible display of knowledge or some shit. Offering to help is one thing, launching into a monologue to show off is another.
>>44752021 >malicious intent What the fuck are you on about? The evil neckbeard is plotting to reinstate the patriarchy by being a dick for 2 minutes? Get a fucking grip on reality and stop with this siege mentality.
>>44752042 >You're "trying to be nice" by assuming I'm ignorant, and that I can't figure things out on your own. No, dipshit. It's just an extremely small effort to see whether or not everyone is on the same page. It makes for some tedious small talk, prevents wasting time and encourages people not to be fucking autistic to each other.
Shit, when I started playing various /tg/s people always asked if I knew what I was doing or if I played before or whatever. It's common courtesy to ease the new person in rather than assume that they automatically know everything about a niche hobby.
>>44752042 >Tech support doesn't call people up and tell them they're doing it wrong. Telling people that they're doing it wrong and explaining in extreme detail what they need to do to fix their problem so they can't fuck it up worse is part and parcel of tech support, dumbass. Assuming that the person on the other end of the phone line knows what they're doing is a recipe for disaster no matter how much they say they know about computers.
>>44752138 >I think it's supposed to be just a specific type of asshole. That idea fails, because as explained earlier, such people are "ignorant assholes". Going further on the basis of gender is stupid.
>>44752118 >I don't know how much HP the monster has, so I have no idea if my attack is doing a lot. If I describe my attack as "a full out frenzied assault, slashing, hacking, cutting." and the battle lasts another 12 rounds, it's pretty clear my attack didn't do shit, so I feel like my character isn't contributing. If I say "I run my hands over then walls, knocking occasionally, trying to locate the secret door he used", I have no idea if that's how the door works, or if there's a touch activated trap, or anything.
You haven't outlined a reason why these things, despite being situations where you lack information on whether what you're doing is "right", are bad things? So what if you don't know if there's actually a secret door there and it is one you can find by tapping on the wall? You don't know, just like your character doesn't know. That doesn't mean inaction is an option.
You're not SUPPOSED TO know how the door works, or that there's a trap there. You're supposed to experiment in the ways you think will yield results until you find it. That's literally the fucking point of the game.
>>44752021 >>>44751897 # >Assuming that there is not any malicious intent of course, which is what makes it mansplaining No, according to you above, it's mansplaining when it's a man lecturing a woman. Now you change that to mean there's "malicious intent"? What kind of malicious intent could someone possibly have in explaining a hobby's rules or procedures? You're not oppressed, you're not a victim because you're a woman. Stop buying into that bullshit.
>>44752223 >2 minutes again, and again, and again, until it takes up my entire day,
If you're constantly having things explained to you over and over every time you play, it's likely because you're a fucking idiot, not because of "da evil mean patriarchy and it's plot to mansplain until you're frustrated".
>>44752173 Read the entire post before responding, please. It makes you look stupid. People CALL tech support asking for help. Tech support doesn't randomly call people up and say "Hey, here's how to make your computer work better."
>>44750234 As a small point of order: punching a bound opponent isn't generally considered 'torture'. Especially given the implied context that she's hitting him to shut him up, that's a pretty generally used attack by both genders.
>>44752236 >Why are these bad things? I have no incentive to add details that do not improve my chances.
As I said in the next paragraph, no one likes to feel helpless/useless. Describing your actions before knowing the extent of your success LEADS to feeling useless/helpless, as you lack full understanding of the context of your actions.
A simple solution is to have the DM give you that information prior to your description.
"What do you do?" "I roll Perception, I guess. Roll of 15, total...22" "You find the secret door. Tell us how."
THAT gives the player the understanding "You succeeded." that gives them the freedom to explain without looking stupid.
>That's the fucking point of the game. No, the point of the GAME is to have fun with one's friends. That's it's POINT. However, You're right that exploring tactics and choices in the fictional setting is an important part of every one having fun. but "trying 40 different ways to open the door until I guess which one you picked" isn't, to take the extreme version of your proposal.
Further, given the player's lack of knowledge, I don't know if any description I give actively hurts my chances. Therefore, I am at my most effective when I DON'T describe things, because you can't use my wording against me.
Basically, players don't invest themselves fully because they're risk-averse due to results they thought were unfair, or DMs' questionable calls in the past. The trick to fixing that in your group is pushing the group to contribute, which can be simple as adding something like the 'stunt' rules from Exalted. (Describe your action in a vivid way, you get +1 to the roll. Describe your action in a way that uses the environment or another character, +2.)
>>44752612 >>44752591 Trying to change the meaning of words with established definitions is only going to inhibit discussion and cannot be useful for anything other than political motives. Language is a living thing and you can't just force a word to mean what you want it to mean just so your agenda is easier to push.
>>44752223 So a few months back, I'm tanking a raid for my friends in WoW and we get to a boss called Oregorger. It's a pretty easy boss if you know what to do, but if you don't, it's pretty much a guaranteed wipe. The problem mechanic in question is this one - the boss uses a move called Acid Torrent every 15 or so seconds which is shot at a random ranged character and is intercepted by the first guy standing between Oregorger and the ranged - it deals the same damage dealt to that guy to EVERYONE behind him AND leaves a stacking debuff on that guy that makes them take a ton of extra damage if they're hit by Acid Torrent again. The proper way to deal with it is to have the off tank get hit by the first one, then move out of the way of the next one while the main tank moves to soak it with their own mitigation, and then the main tank moves out of the way while the off tank moves back into it - so you keep the tanks cycling out for fresh mitigation to ensure that the ranged behind them aren't getting rekt by massive damage and to make sure Acid Torrent doesn't get extra damage on any of the tanks because that's almost a guaranteed wipe.
So, my tanking buddy, who DOES know the fight, has to leave because his girlfriend wanted the D really, really bad right then and there and nobody else in the raid wanted to off-tank for me, so we have to pull in a random tank, which was definitely where we went wrong but that's not the goddamn point. Of course, the first thing I ask him is if he knows the Oregorger fight as a tank, which he responds to with "Yeah, of course, it's an ezpz fight", so we summon him in and begin the fight after a little bit of setup.
Of course, the random tank just stands right in front of Oregorger and gets murdered because he won't get out of the fucking way of Acid Torrent, which leads to a pretty quick wipe afterwards.
This bullshit is not even remotely uncommon and it's easily avoidable by explaining how the fight goes every time. Fuck you.
>>44752688 >"You find the secret door. Tell us how." I knew this is where you were leading, and it's fucking retarded, specifically because it DOESN'T incentivize people to roleplay, at all. Why should they tell you how? They already succeeded? Why not just move on with the game? I mean, unless the DM specifically hands you the notes about what the trap/door/whatever is and tells you to use that information to describe your success to the group, you're STILL operating on a lack of information, exactly the same as you were before. You only know you rolled well, you don't know what actions might have been required.
Why are you making excuses to allow for a lack of effort on your part? Why shouldn't the DM press you for information, specific to what and how you want to act? Again, your complaint is "I don't know what there is to find, so I can't accurately describe searching", but THAT'S NOT HOW SEARCHING WORKS. If you're placed into a new room, you have no idea where anything is, YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE HOW TO SEARCH IT. This involves thinking, making context choices, and asking relevant questions.
If you ask to roll Perception, the DM should always be asking what you're looking for. You're not just "searching everything", because that's just a lazy cop-out. You clearly think there's something to find, you should be able to detail where and what you THINK it is. Even if there's nothing there, that's not the point.
>"You succeeded." that gives them the freedom to explain without looking stupid. They still look fucking stupid as they mumble "I uh...I find the door in the wall. Yeah. I push it and it opens." You've given them no reason to try, they already won.
>Further, given the player's lack of knowledge, I don't know if any description I give actively hurts my chances. YES THIS IS THE FUCKING POINT. FAILURE IS PART OF TRYING SOMETHING.
>>44752741 Repeatedly, yes. But a single punch delivered to render them unconscious, or to render them silent, generally isn't. Should it be? Perhaps. But it's generally accepted as something superheroes/brash cops/action heroes are allowed to do without crossing the moral line.
There's also the consideration of target: punching a bound opponent in the face is more acceptable than the stomach, for instance. Presumably because you can't claim the stomach blow was to render them unconscious.
It's not discussed or explored, but it's an underlying assumption. Dozens of good guys have done it. Heck, I feel like Superman's probably done it.
>>44751881 Honest answer: because I have friends and I actually enjoy goofing around with them in a rough semblance of playing an RPG. I'd say I am enjoying it more than straight-up being forced to play as a character I am not.
>>44752688 >>Basically, players don't invest themselves fully because they're risk-averse due to results they thought were unfair
You literally just told me that anything that is not you succeeding is "unfair". Therefore, the only tactic you develop is to fight the DM, because you feel that you not succeeding is actively unfair and should not be a part of the game.
>>44752902 So you don't enjoy RPGs at all, but you have no problem weaseling your way into groups of people who do, specifically so you can get mad at them for taking things "too seriously"?
I mean, you just ennumerated how you want to "play" your games, which is not really playing them at all. And that's fine. But why exactly would you involve yourself in other people's discussion about the hobby you just said you want no part of, specifically to insinuate they're doing something wrong, just because you don't like it?
You have friends? Good, stay with them. Don't waste other people's time.
>>44752995 >So you don't enjoy RPGs at all, but you have no problem weaseling your way into groups of people who do, specifically so you can get mad at them for taking things "too seriously"? That's a lot of implications right there. I play with people I didn't play before because I enjoy playing with new people. If they take the game too seriously I just don't go back.
>But why exactly would you involve yourself in other people's discussion about the hobby you just said you want no part of, specifically to insinuate they're doing something wrong, just because you don't like it? Because nearly everyone I've played with likes a lighthearted beer and pretzels game more than deep roleplaying. So I'm here to tell you to take the stick out of your ass and stop pretending you are the majority of the hobby.
>>44752874 First off, let me be clear: I've been a foreverDM for roughly 5 years now, since my last consistent series of rotating DMs for 4 years, and was one for 8 years before that. When I use "I" in my posts, it's because 4chan has a post limit, and "I" is shorter than "they".
And look, you might have a fundamentally different experience with players than me. We're just arguing anecdotal evidence, but none of your post showed anything that connected for players in my experience.
The reason letting them know if they succeeded or not beforehand is because it means the description doesn't matter. They can describe whatever they want, knowing that it worked, BECAUSE THEY ROLLED WELL.
And I don't care if you, as a DM, want to press for information. That's your call, but it's also not the conversation. This started with "Why don't players TRY more in game?" The answer in my experience is "Because they've never been rewarded for it. They've only been frustrated or punished."
>>44752909 >You just told me any thing that is not you succeeding is unfair. That's not what I said at all. Here's what I'm talking about.
"I search the room for the secret door, tapping the walls to find if there's a hollow spot. I roll Perception, 22." "You don't find anything." "I search the bookshelf for hidden levers, 25 Perception." "You don't find any levers." 3 minutes later, I move on. "Pity you never checked the floor, it's a pressure plate." "What was the DC?" "21."
THAT's the kind of unfair, shitty DMing I'm talking about. Either of the first two checks should have found the door. I rolled Perception while looking for it, and beat the DC. The DM should have said "While walking around the room tapping the walls, you step on a tile that depresses, opening the chamber." instead, I was penalized for my description. A scene like that tells me "Fuck it, from now on, I just say 'I search for a door.' because trying just fucks me over."
>>44753035 Part of WoW is "all bosses have weird gimmicks, and you have to know the specific weird gimmicks to have a chance." So it makes sense that you'd go over the weird gimmicks to refresh everyone, even if they've heard it before. Sometimes that's the case in /tg/. But most of the time? The rules are always the same each time you play a game, and imperfect play won't get you killed. So if you want to refresh someone on a weird thing that almost never comes up, your analogy works. But the rest of the time, you're basically talking about explaining to someone how to tank or pull or heal.
If someone is sitting down to play a game, and hasn't indicated that they're new, then you don't fucking explain things to them unless they're things only your group does (house rules, for example), or they're clearly floundering. You do them the basic courtesy of assuming "hey, you've probably played this before, you have a clue." If they prove otherwise, fine, ask them if they'd like some help. But otherwise, just sit back and relax. Yes, even if they make mistakes. Forgetting that this creature is immune to mundane weapons and wasting a turn isn't the end of the world.
>>44752874 >Failure is the point of trying something.
And in cases like searching a room, it's a boring, useless part. It's a waste of everyone's time at the table for me to describe multiple methods and fail, when I can simply say "I take 20", and be guaranteed a success.
That's the point. Your players will try as much as they feel they have to, or should. The reason so many don't try is that they have never, in their gaming careers, been given an incentive to do any more than roll the dice, take the result.
Should they succeed every roll? Of course not. But when a player describes their attack in a vivid, interesting way, and misses, and the asshole in the corner just says "I aim for his gut.", and hits, that tells them that effort doesn't beget rewards. Only the dice do. So there's no reason to use anything but the dice.
>>44753247 >The reason letting them know if they succeeded or not beforehand is because it means the description doesn't matter. They can describe whatever they want, knowing that it worked, BECAUSE THEY ROLLED WELL. And this is exactly the problem. You've just reduced the entire game down to multiple hours of no one ever engaging with anything, just rolling check after check until they roll high, and then maybe if they want to, making up a story about how awesome they are.
I think it's telling that you suggested Exalted, a game who's rules are literally "Tell me a story about how badass you are, and I'll tell you if you just win the game, or if you SUPER ULTRA WIN." Your concept of game doesn't involve a conversation, it's just there to fulfill player's fantasies of rolling crits and having greentext stories of how they were the best ever.
That's not what a game is. A game is about players making choices, taking risks, and experimenting with things they don't know the answer to. Yeah, you don't know if there's a pit trap in this hallway. You have no way of knowing. Would there be one? Could there be one? Who knows? It's up to you to decide whether you want to act like there isn't one, or act like there is and get creative with your method of investigation.
And maybe you're just slamming a 10-ft pole down on stone tile after stone tile, and by the end of the hallway nothing happened. That's how it goes because YOU DON'T KNOW when you choose what to do. Now you know. And now you can use that information to decide whether in the next hallway, you act like there isn't a pit trap, or there is.
>This started with "Why don't players TRY more in game?" The answer in my experience is "Because they've never been rewarded for it. They've only been frustrated or punished." Getting frustrated when you don't succeed and getting punished are two very different things.
>>44753255 Why would I waste their time? My lousy roleplaying doesn't affect how they play out their character's deep motivations and captivating personalities. I'm wasting my time, but that's something I chose.
>Isn't having a stick up your ass and speaking for the hobby what this whole thread is for? I thought it was just speaking for the hobby. Should I apply the stick now, or is it too late for that?
>>44753315 >and imperfect play won't get you killed. >Forgetting that this creature is immune to mundane weapons and wasting a turn isn't the end of the world. You're making a lot of assumptions about how the DM is running their game and what kind of game they're playing in general. If you're playing a game that tends towards rocket tag like AD&D or D&D 3E, yes, whiffing a turn due to player error CAN get you and your party killed.
>>44753326 >It's a waste of everyone's time at the table for me to describe multiple methods and fail, when I can simply say "I take 20", and be guaranteed a success. >That's the point. Your players will try as much as they feel they have to, or should.
Ok, so taking 20 is no longer a thing. Congrats, now you have to actually try. If the fact that a DM is now expecting you to actually describe things to him to flesh out your actions makes you angry or uncomfortable because you've "never had to do it before", that's not exactly the DM's fault, is it? He's trying to get something out of you, but you're the one insisting that because there's never been an incentive to put effort in before, you will never do it.
>But when a player describes their attack in a vivid, interesting way, and misses, and the asshole in the corner just says "I aim for his gut.", and hits, that tells them that effort doesn't beget rewards. I'm gonna tell you a story, and you won't believe it, but it's true.
I have a group right now that I've been DMing for, for 2 years or so. During this entire time, we've operated on three basic premises: One, the players will not see the results of a lot of their rolls for things like Perception and Knowledge. Two, when they ask to make a roll, I will almost always ask "What specifically are you looking for/trying to do". And three, almost everything that happens, even failed hits in combat, will be fluffed out with flavor text just because it's fun and creates a picture of what's happening.
And you know what? All of the players involved have gone off to DM their own games on the side, or brought those rules into other games they join, because they work and they add to the immersion and interaction of everyone involved. They feel rewarded for HAVING PUT IN THE EFFORT, not because they demand a +1 or 2 bonus just because they narrated how they swung a sword.
And maybe if you tried a little bit too, you'd find that playing the game is it's own reward.
>>44752885 >I feel like Superman's probably done it Punch an unarmed, bound prisoner? No. Superman has a moral compass and so does Wonder Woman or so i thought. I'm ok with Punisher, Batman or even Spider-Man doing shit like this. But those guys are supposed to be those ideal heroes that can't do wrong. Torture is not ok for them.
>>44753462 Plenty of times. I've also had player error nearly TPK us through a chain reaction on the final fight of a campaign on a system that doesn't instantly kill you for making a mistake simply because he did it at the worst possible time, so your argument can go fuck itself.
>>44753562 >taking 20 is no longer a thing. Congrats, you had to delete rules from the core rulebooks in order to force players to waste everyone's time while you jerk off to your 'oh so clever' puzzle, while no one is happy.
Because that's how it goes.
And again, the point isn't "I've never had to do this before." It's all too commonly "I tried, I was told I was doing it wrong. Another guy half-assed it and succeeded. I will just half-ass it."
I totally believe your story. Congrats. You got lucky. Like I got lucky playing with mostly people who WANT to describe their actions.
I DON'T HAVE THE "MY PLAYERS DON'T EXPLAIN THINGS" PROBLEM. I'm pointing out one of the reason other DMs might: because too often, beginning DMs shit on players' efforts, teaching players learned helplessness.
Other reasons: -That's not how the player has fun with the game, and your demands that they do X actively make them uncomfortable. -Your group has set time limits on how long they're going to play, so they're minimizing time spent in order to get in more game. -At any given time, a specific player might be dealing with an emotional issue that is distracting them from the game.
There's a bunch of reasons for this behavior. I've merely been explaining that, in some cases, it might be that players have never had a reason to do so. And in my personal philosophy and 17 years of DMing experience, offering minor rewards for extra effort gets you much more enthusiastic effort than making it a baseline demand.
>>44753855 Thank you! I've been playing for years, and I'm perfectly capable of reading a rulebook by now. But I still get people who assume I need basic things explained to me without me needing to fuck up. If it's not because I'm a woman, then it's still frustrating and I wish it'd stop.
>>44753716 Superman frequently resorts to violence or the threat thereof to get confessions out of criminals. He'll slap around people he's holding (which, given his strength, makes them effectively bound and unarmed)
However, my brief research hasn't shown him doing it since the Golden Age, and his characterization has definitely grown since then, so you may be right.
However, you're wrong in a couple important qualities: first, "having a moral compass" does not preclude knocking someone out at the end of the interrogation, which is, again, the implied action in the comic. Every hero you just listed has a moral compass, they just all point in varying directions.
Secondly, Wonder Woman is actually fairly aggressive, and comes from a martial society. Torture IS something she could condone, if there was a need for it. There's generally no reason, given her lasso, but she could conceivably condone it.
Lastly, again, there's a long-standing waiver on the "knock-out punch" as not being a 'bad thing', but rather the most efficient means for rendering a villain unable to fight back while you deliver him to the authorities. It's the high-action version of handcuffs.
>>44752612 >this is what libtards actually believe so is just plain prejudice ok because its typically what black people do to white people? Also I'm hispanic. If i say i hate black people, is that statement completely ok? by your standards mexicans don't have any power to complete your silly definition of Racism.
>>44749133 Not OP, but I think they're referring to the idea that some people are pretenders to traditional gaming an not the idea that everyone has to be on a subsistence diet of cheeto dust and internet rage in order to be qualified to speak on traditional games.
yes anon, you are, because the first two are not frowned upon by wider society unlike that third one which is a BIG red flag for 'this guy is a massive pervert and you should not talk to him.' you are right some people are "degenerates" but like normal people they keep it to themselves. it really really is not normal to talk openly to people (not just "normies" but people in your LGS (they probably talk about you behind your back btw and write 'that guy' stories here about you)) about liking to look at porn of cartoon girls.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.