>get invited to play a dnd game
>want make a combat focused character
>find out that the DM based his campaign on undertale
>mfw pacifism is encouraged
anyone ever have moments like this?
Play it to the absurd. Make your character as distrustful, paranoid, and belligerent as possible to add some spice to your party's interactions. If your DM is worth his salt, he'll play off that for comic and maybe even dramatic effect.
I played a 7th level, 8 charisma Orc Barbarian named Krug, in the GM's political shenanigans and peacecraft campaign.
My Orc just kept insinuating everyone was weak and that peace was for losers who cant win; that our Country is losing the war because we're weak and pathetic, and letting the southern countries take our people, our farms, our money, our people. He just kept basically calling everyone shit eating, nancy losers, and accepting every duel coming his way, and challenging everyone to a duel; maxing intimidate, horrifically.
It was not what my GM wanted.
He wanted a 'cooperation and rebuilding' era, while my character just wanted to plunge the world into a violent era where men are men, and the strong take what they wanted.
Why? Why would you rail against a campaign this hard when it's obvious that the GM intended it to be about something else?
If you know that there's going to be a political shenanigans and peacecraft campaign, why the everloving fuck would you make a barbarian who just wants to hit everything as much as possible?
Just because you weren't supposed to and it'd cause problems?
>anyone ever have moments like this?
oh yes, at one time it was all too often.
twice, in PF, I built characters oriented around high adventure and combat.
once, a Kobold Gunslinger,
then a wizard with utility spells not so much for combat but just odd and unusual situations.
both times the GMs ran "political intrigue" campaigns...
...I hate political intrigue-type games...
There wasnt a reason.
I just felt like playing the underpriveleged, angry person who doesnt see reason and peace as an alternative to popular hate and aggression.
Worked out pretty damn well.
Once he got himself some magical gear to cover up his charismatic shortcomings he built up a powerbase of agitators and angry, low income,rebellious poor-folk, tired of the same bullshit, every day.
Eventually, he died, surprising his party members by having a terrorist attack againts the King of the Southern Country when the main diplomatic meeting took place. 300, hyped up, drugged drunken, frienzied peasant madmen and Krug carrying alchemist fires and other assorted explosives the GM allowed.
The GM thought I was going to have a demonstration, you know, people lighting themselves on fire.
It wasnt -that-.
Krug died, succeding in his attempt, grappling the king, as like a dozen dozen arrows flew toward him; then blowing himself up, as the other raging, angry peasants blew themselves up in fiery, drug induced madness.
>the players have to follow the GM's perfect vision
Not how it works, especially not in a bait and switch scenario like OP described.
Anyways, there's always going to be a place for a fighter, no matter how peaceful things are supposed to be.
The DM is a retard and you should just leave the game. You're not going to be missing anything.
DnD is literally a combat centric system. All the rules that exist are either for combat or a brief explanation so more combat rules can be explained.
I actually think it's somewhat fitting. Undertale apes a few typical JRPG conventions, and then subverts them; need to have the aping in order to subvert them. D&D might be the perfect 'known system' to add new things on to to subvert it.
You can quickly change ' peace' into war. All it takes is a few right actions, a few stabs, a few mishaps, and there be war!
If there's someone really skilled, pushing for peace, get him gone.Not heroically killed, that creates a martyr. Just have him vanish.
Why the fuck would you even run a game about peace and cooperation and all that faggotry in D&D?
Why the fuck would you even run a game about peace and cooperation and all that faggotry?
Roleplaying games are where we step away from what we have to be, in order to be what we want to be, what we wish we could be. EVERY GODDAMN DAY I swallow my hate for my stupid office cunt coworkers and I swallow my desire to rip their pretty little empty dolled-up heads right THE FUCK off of their shoulders. Real life is peacecraft and pacifism and not giving people the wake-up knife skullfucking they deserve. Why THE FUCK would any reasonable person want to play a game about that faggotry.
Your friend has cancer, don't talk to that people again or give them a .45 calibre anticancerine pill
It would make sense of it was a political campaign? Unnecessary killing could cause a war, or violence between noble houses. Pacifism isn't just a moral stance, but a necessity.
It'd be kind of fun to have to go on quests that aren't just 'kill twenty goblins, get the loot.' Maybe we'd have to negotiate with a dragon to have him preside over the crowning of a king, and we'd have to track down a bunch of macguffins that he wants. Or it could be a campaign where the players have to trek across trade routes, buying various goods and wares and selling them back home.
The way in which I want to step away from what I'm stuck being in real life is having the wisdom and fortitude to do the right thing and make the world a better place instead of being cowardly garbage. I'm not really an angry person so I don't get the revenge fantasies and whatnot so often and turning to violence as a first resort isn't always that satisfying.
Also having cool friends and allies in games is neat.
There's an answer for political bullshit, it's called MORE KILLING. There's an answer for economic bullshit, it's called RAPE AND STEAL EVERYTHING.
I'm not trying to toss bait out there, I'm dead fucking serious, so I'll be fair and admit you have a half-decent point somewhere in that. Occasional stuff like that can be a nice change of pace. But basing an entire campaign around playing nice with others rather than conducting swordpoint diplomacy? Having more talky-talky than choking bitches? Fuck that noise. My heroes are of the Iron Age variety.
I played my character, roleplayed to a 't', never broke character, played with a voice.Never broke a single rule, and little by little created a plan based on writing down everytime the DM allowed me something, or let me buy something, or told me something I'd use later.
By the end, I had created a far reaching, long term plan on a rabid,drug crazed semi-warrior rebel group who saw me as a mighty-hero-entity.I had saved 300 alchemist fires and explosives over the course of a year of roleplaying,buying things little by little and took the necessary skills slowly to cultivate a long term plan, that happened to trigger when I realized my character would never get his point across to the nobles of my Kingdom. They didnt hear the PEOPLE who wanted vengeance, the people who didnt want to be subservient, or lose anything when they could -WIN-.
It was a political campaign. I just chose extremism, and decidedly, played my hand well, killing the Sourthern King, and the majority of his counselors, triggering a war that rallied the North to fight againts all odds.
We never saw what happened afterwards, because the campaign ended a few games afterwards.
>I played my character, roleplayed to a 't', never broke character, played with a voice
>Never broke a single rule, and little by little created a plan based on writing down everytime the DM allowed me something
Not so irrelevant.
Hmm, I guess you can be on the grey zone.
I do feel bad, that the campaign ended three games later, guys.
I do, I just thought the GM would roll with the punches. I mean, what is an angry, frustated warrior going to do when no one hears his point after months of roleplaying politics? Shut up and accept the wishes of the party?
Does the DCCC abide by the GOP's wishes?
I still feel guilty, though.
Kinda did end the campaign, I guess.
You played politics just fine. Just a different sort of politics than everyone else was playing. But hey, it was a political campaign and you still played politics. Rabble-rousing, organizing rebellion and terrorism are all politically-oriented activities. Nobody can legitimately argue otherwise. Violence in the furthering of political goals is merely politics by other means. Two thumbs up from me.
The DM can legitimately argue that he didn't want ISIS in his Model UN.
>What's an angry frustrated warrior to do.
If you're playing 'Republican Caucus simulator', you don't show up to the table with a self proclaimed socialist. You fucked up. Just because you played the character well doesn't mean it's the character you should've been playing.
I made a character centered around intimidation and fear and then it turned out we were going to be fighting mindless automata and undead..
Only had a chance to glare at some nameless cultist mooks before he got torn apart by skellingtons.
Chairman Mao once said, "Politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed." This is, obviously, an observation based off of the also-famous saying by von Clausewitz. In an international context, violence and politics are inseparable.
Politics is not some fucking hugbox where everyone agrees on things over tea then get in a nice little circle to suck each other off. Politics is the brutal art of who gets what and who gets donkeypunched. If the DM didn't account for a rebellious rabble-rouser, that's on him. Indeed, there should have been rebellious rabble-rouser NPCs. There will always be people who will find a way to profit from war, there will always be second sons who want to carve out something for themselves, there will always be moneylenders who will be happy to finance a war that looks feasibly winnable for the right price.
Yes, there should have been rabble rousing NPC's who wanted to upset the social order with violent means. However, it doesn't seem like that's what the DM wanted from the players, which makes it a departure from the tone of the campaign.
In effect, the Player was a villain in a party of heroes.
The DM probably did want something different. That was his first mistake: wanting things. Besides, it doesn't seem like much of a party; instead, it sounds as though the player was completely ignored, along with all of his objections, all the way through. If you totally ignore the objections and ideas of someone, why should that someone give a used fig leaf for what you want?
>DM's shouldn't want things.
The DM's mistake was in allowing the character in the first place, and if it was clear that the player wanted to take things in a more violent direction, he should've talked to him to sort things out before it reached that point.
Both sides can be wrong.
At what point did it sound like the player in question had a reasonable expectation of being listened to? For all that it sounds like his endgame was anarchy, a plan leading to planlessness, it sounds as though everyone else was all "into the hugbox!" or cowed into backing that. In a country that's at war. That's probably what blows my mind the most. That people were asking "how do we into politics" and "how do we make peace" rather than "can we turn this war around and how do we do so."
One of the first rules of DMing is that you can damn well expect the players to kick the train off of the tracks and do things that come out of left field. Just sayin', from all my experiences on both sides of the game. So...yes, wanting and expecting players to go along with your vision perfectly, or sometimes, at all, is indeed wrong and poor DMing.
Why did he even let you sit at the table you fuck. Did you also take what ever you wanted out of his fridge and then sat with your feet on the table? Some fucking courtesy please
It also helps if you have Perfidious Austria in your setting.
>Make a sadist barbarian type
>Another character is a pacifist
>Retire them and make a regular fighter
>Party vetos your ideas involving fighting because they're bad at it
>New party, make a charismatic rogue based on talking more than fighting
>Rest of party are built for combat
>First dungeon: all undead.
Th OP didn't describe a bait and switch scenario. The OP made a character before knowing what the game is about.
Or maybe you could not make the GM overthrow his plans and fuck things up for the other players of your campaign?
Are you the guy that just deleted me on skype?
Chairman Mao also caused more deaths than hitler with his policies. Maybe he's not the perfect example to follow.
If the DM wanted a pacifist game the group most likely wanted that too.
And you forced your will onto people who did not want it, and it resulted in the death of a campaign. You have all reason to feel bad.
Just please try to think about what the others might want next time.
>you can damn well expect the players to kick the train off of the tracks and do things that come out of left field.
True, I am not disputing that.
>wanting and expecting players to go along with your vision perfectly, or sometimes, at all, is indeed wrong and poor DMing.
My gripe is here: if I want to run a gritty game, dark and serious and the players show up with tongue-in-cheek characters, I am a) going to call the session off so I can organize something more light hearted, if I play with friends or b) just remove all the players from the game and search for players who will not abitrarily go against what I want the game to be about, if I play online. (this because I said I wanted one thing and they clearly didn't want the same thing as I did. And I am not the player's slave.)
>Told we're going to be a tank crew in WWII
>Friend makes a character hyper-trained in driving
>A few sessions in we lose our tank, won't be getting a new one for ingame months, all stuck on foot
>Friend shows up late for next session, ingame relegated to clearing mine fields
>My character does some cool driving shit and kills elite russian troops with Tank Commander (our gunner is KO)
>Find out later that GM intentionally busted our tank and took us away from it because he thought a tank crew campaign was gay
>Friend flips shit because hes shit with guns and can only really drive
So yeah, kind of
>Why the fuck would you even run a game about peace and cooperation and all that faggotry in D&D?
Because brain damaged people who still play 3.PF think it can function as a one game to play them all tour of system and try to force any type of game, no matter how against the system it is, into working.
BIDF sure is out in force today
>let you take whatever you wanted out of the fridge and sit with your feet on the table
>YFW you have a guy that actually does this
>YFW he also smokes weed like it's his job and can never focus in-game as a result
>YFW he's genuinely convinced that being a hippy excuses him for being aggressively antisocial
>YFW he prefers to launch 20 minute philosophical debates in-game because the DM dropped something about geopolitics or physics
>YFW he's related to you
>YFW you brought him into the campaign
>YFW he has no other friends and you can't bring yourself to shatter his cozy illusion of peace and love n sheeeit
>DM says wilderness- type adventure
>encourages us to put ranks into wilderness shit. Knowledge. Survival. Etc.
>lots of skill points..so I can handle
>even take track feat.
>swap cha for wisdom
>DM starts game " OK, you grew up in a tiny village, right next to a large forest. No other villages nearby."
>mfw I have the a good rogue for this shit...fuck yea
>DM literally next sentence: " so you all were drafted into the army..."
Rest of game till tpk was spent inside a huge city, patrolling the dock area.
Next game same thing.
>DM you will start in a wilderness are, then go to a city
>make my rogue a city specialist
>DM has us sent into the forest to help the elves...never saw a fucking city.
Perhaps I was a bit hasty... maybe he's just on his period or something. Or he's having a burnout because of all the GMing.
How so? Why do you say that was he metagaming and an ass?
Not really. It's all par of the course to organize the game: you don't make a mermaid to a game taking place in the desert, for example.
There is nothing wrong with making a character that is useless but instead optimized for what the player wants to do. Trying to be useful is a very laudable thing to do.
However you think that it's wrong: just rest assured that you're in the minority. Normal roleplayers think the opposite.
Exactly, that's good.
You don't make a druid if you're going to play in a city (unless there is some way to make it work, but the GM would have to tell you)
And there's nothing metagamey about it. Nor assholey.
>Make a sadist barbarian type
>Another character is a pacifist
Why do you care if another character is a pacifist? Do you really need the approval of someone who plays a pacifist in a game centered around combat?
>Bonus points for killing the rest of your party at the end.
In this case, I agree that PvP is actually good; since the party is shit either way, it's not a problem if it dissolves after the game.
>Get invited to a GURPS game
>GM says it's going to be a political intrigue and subterfuge game
>Make a mafia informant with a good portion of his points into contacts and allies and the rest into handgun skills.
>Game starts and the rest of the party is optimized mainly for diplomatic situations.
>First encounter is a opposing politician's assassins trying to kill us in some back alley
>We barely survive because I'm the only one good with a gun and the others were hiding behind/in a dumpster throwing trash
>Next three sessions each contain at least one unavoidable combat scenario and all of the other player's characters get murdered except mine by that point.
>GM tells them to make new characters
>GM then puts the campaign onto a political subterfuge path when the other players come to the table with people who can survive combat.
>Next combat is five sessions later
Seriously what the hell. The game was sort of fun but there was some serious miscommunication between the GM and us players.
Ask to reroll, then make your character again only part of a plant-based race.
>GM talks about what his plan for the game is
>has people draw up characters to fit that game
>decides to be a nigger and makes it the complete opposite
>fucks over the entire party and wastes their time
>the players are somehow in the wrong
Get a trip so I can filter you
A campaign based on Undertale done right should be built around the different ways that the players can solve a situation and maybe even allow the players to go back and try different solutions.
>a violent era where men are men, and the strong take what they wanted.
D&D is a roleplaying game, not some hipster's shitty attempt at "art"
Then don't shatter his cozy illusion of peace and love and sheeit, and just tell him to actually have some regard for other people.
There's this thing called language. It's used to communicate ideas and information to other people which have the potential to resolve a conflict.
Why are people never communicating.
>party and GM wants to run something
>i want something else
>kill them, the campaign and dissolve the party
Oh boy it's that time of the day again when everyone on /tg/ is just That Guy
>party and GM wants to run something else than you signed up for
>they tell you this after you went through all the trouble of making a character and showing up
To be honest, it's not wrong to be completely pissed because of this event: if they didn't want to fight, they should've warned you about it.
If the players don't want anything to do with the game I've planned, they can damn well fuck off and find someone else to GM for them. No, my games don't go as planned and no, I don't railroad them, but there's a huge difference between not sticking to GM's plans and doing your best to achieve the exact opposite, starting from the character you make.
First time ever in our group just happened.
Only involved 2 PC, but I think it had torn our group apart.
Weekly games for almost a year, and because of one tiny detail and one action, I think our group will shatter.
I'd hesitate to encourage PvP.
He didn't even make the character. He WANTED to make a combat focused PC, THEN found out that that wouldn't fit with the planned campaign. Nowhere does it say that he completed or even started making the character.
If I remember correctly
Nobody inside of the aura can take violent actions, unless somebody within the aura is damaged and then the aura is broken until you leave and re-enter it.
To take a violent action within the aura requires a will save that was pretty high.
The aura affected everybody, except mindless undead I believe.
Then why would he not have stayed in the back, if mindless undead were attacking people and they couldn't defend themselves by counterattacking?
It sounds like he is, with this aura of his, condemning the very same people he is trying to save or something. Also, could enemies shoot the people that were inside his aura?
The undead was a separate thing, and he's actually very good at killing undead as he has mass cure spells so him being upfront is sorta excusable there.
But yes, you can shoot into the aura if you are outside of it.
See, that actually sounds like it would have been a kinda cool campaign if the GM wasn't railroading everyone into those situations. A little transparency and chances to avoid being...biotically misassigned?...would have given the players some kind of agency at least and the whole gestalt monster thing would be a fun angle to play from if it weren't forced. It's a shame he rocks-falled the entire thing.
On a side note, how the hell would a quarian get geth cybernetics?
Okay, it's an absolute shit ability, I have no more doubts.
To be honest, I can't fathom why the GM allowed it and/or didn't warn the guy about how idiotic that idea of his was.
Here's hoping your GM gets his shit together, since you mentioned that he's usually a good GM.
If you think a campaign is going to suck, then you have every right to man the FUCK UP and tell the GM that you won't be playing in that campaign. Thinking that it's okay to ruin it for other people means you should kill yourself.
The party and gm as a whole are really good, I think I just got unlucky with how the others played which left my characters in a bad spot.
I doubt they're going to live much longer anyway
Genocide run is a lot more enjoyable than pacifist run: it's perfectly in-character for him to go full out murderhobo, since it's undertale inspired.
The GM brought this upon himself.
>doesn't enjoy the good challange that is the Genocide run
What a fag
>4 PCs. Rogue, mage, ranger, fighter.
>we had built a raft and were floating down river. Big snake encounter. Raft isn't doing well.
>land raft. Find small tower in jungle. 2story. No door. 12x12 room at top.
>ranger climbs up to check it out.
>fighter sets up camp. Rogue gathers wood and sets some traps. Mage rests.
>ranger finds a dagger, in a pretty box. It had a shadowy blade. No clue what it is or what it does. He takes it.
>"anything up there bro?".
>ranger: "nope." PokerFace.jpeg
>rogue, is pissed.
>ic asks like 10 times " you certain? Nothing up there?"
>DM steps in. Tells rogue " your character has no knowledge of the dagger"
>rogue is buttmad. Big time.
>ooc " dude u can't even identify it!' 'I can get a better price'. And shit on and on.
>ranger replies ooc "don't worry about it"
>DM intervenes again. " don't use ooc info guys. "
>rogue investigation begins.
>" do I see a lump in his backpack? Did I notice the rope stretching more on his climb down from the extra 1lb of weight? Does the ranger seem edgy? "
>DM allows a sense motive roll. Natural 2. Ranger counters with a nat 20.
>nope. Looks normal. Nothing seems off.
>we make it back to town.
>ranger says he has some ranger stuff to do, and will meet back with group later.
>rogue wants to follow ranger. Shadow him.
>DM asks why. " cause I am suspicious about what he found in the tower".
Rogue confronts the ranger. Calls him a dick. Demands he hand over whatever was found. He does this IC.
>DM says " dude..stop. Your PC had no idea. "
>thief says " I attack him for his gold then. Fuck it."
>ranger kills rogue, but almost dead himself.
>player if thief says " well I g2g. Later all." And leaves.
>mage then says to ranger player.." Ya he metagamed but you are a dick."
>mage player looks at phone and says' I gotta go too.'
>rest of us sit there a minute, debate it a bit..and finally split.
No sure if we will play again next week.
Smh. Fucking gamers man.
Ranger was a bit of a that guy, but rogue went completely fucktarded for some reason...
You should make a new game without the rogue, see if it works.
Ya. When I called the guy playing the thief, and asked him what the fuck, he said " I wanted that fucking dagger dammit!".
I like these guys. Or I wouldn't let them in my home to play. I really don't know why they both got so fucking pissy about that dagger.
Not a huge town bro. Finding a decent DM a normal players was a gift.
I go out of my way to host games. My wife makes sandwiches and snacks, I buy the drinks. We have the whole dining room with a custom table ( I made out of cabinet grade plywood and poly'd and stained myself).
It is going to suck ass if we can't keep it together. We've had 1 fucking incident. 1. Just 1. Out of a years playing. Like 45 sessions.
Over a fucking dagger...
>party and GM wants to run something else than you signed up for
The OP never mentioned this.
The post makes it seem like he signed up for a game without knowing what it was going to be, made a character without asking the gm what it was going to be, and when it turned out that his character doesn't fit what the game is, he fucked it up for everyone.
Or DMs should communicate with their fucking players.
You dont really have to rail against it. Most good stories have at least 1 character who doesn't quite ''jive'' with the rest of it. Theyre suspicious and paranoid where everyone else is trusting, etc. It can make for interesting interactions if its handled well.
On the other hand, that sorta requires an experienced DM and a party that can recognise that. Otherwise you're just becoming That Guy, whether you intended to or not.
A couple weeks ago yeah.
DM ran a Bloodborne/Lovecraft inspired game, and I got the feeling he was upset because we rolled 2 Englishman hunters and a mute and didn't take it seriously at all.
Well, I more meant ''the DM should try to play what the players want instead of pushing their own game on the players'' to be honest.
But either way works I guess. Communication is the important part ultimately.
I disagree with you. The GM needs to have fun too, he's not the players' slave.
At best the GM should find a compromise with his players. If they don't want a compromise, he shouldn't just accept the players' entitlement and run something even though he knows that he won't enjoy. it.
Yeah, fuck that. If the players want to play something other than what the GM currently wants to GM, one of them should GM. Fun at the table is everyone's responsibility, not just the GM's, and the GM should be having fun too.
Well, yeah. But then as a forever DM myself, if the players dont want to play what I want to run and dont want to compromise, they should find another DM.
Even if I did run the thing I have no interest in, it'd suck balls because of my lack of interest.
A certain amount of logic needs to be applied, ya know? But, fair point, I didn't explain my meaning clearly so thats on me.
In ME2 it's revealed that the Quarians have been experimenting pretty heavily with Geth components and suchlike, and given how coldly insane Admiral Daro'Xen is when it comes to hacking apart Geth it's not too much of a stretch to say that she tried sticking Geth parts into people once.