Only rule is if you're going to rant like a raging autist, this is the wrong place to vent.
>GMs too invested into telling their original story, instead of fun
>Giving contradictory challenges to a PC, such as the fighter trying to stealth and steal the MacGuffin
>Seeing a player guzzle 3-5 cans of soda per session
>GM doesn't describe shit about environments
>expects you to be constantly aware of your surroundings
That's a ground rule of every game I've played and I love it.
>Entirely nonhuman parties
I like to have a grounding human in the party, but I always end up being the human. Now that I'm not playing one, it ended up all being rare races in-setting since people made characters separately.
Speaking of which:
>Players who can't take 20-30 minutes to get together and tie characters together
This, especially in stuff where you're "sticking it up to the man" in some respect.
Shadowrun gets a lot more interesting if the PCs need to invent new cheese each run.
Or TNT. You could always make more TNT.
I think it's more the issue it eventually becomes a pissing contest between the players and the DM.
>Oh, the players are actually prepared for my challenges and getting comfortable! Time to add bullshit until they have to step up their game!
I'm fine with people playing self-serving mercenaries who eventually grow to care about their party members. That's good character development.
But FUCK neutral characters who would betray allies for a reward/personal gain and never develop any attachment to the party.
Why the fuck are you even playing with other people? Just play by yourself if you want to be such a self-serving, edgy little wankstain.
>people who don't want to go on an adventure.
>in a tabletop game
Why the fuck are you even fucking playing the game then?
>But FUCK neutral characters who would betray allies for a reward/personal gain and never develop any attachment to the party.
Zapp Brannigan in a nutshell.
>our DM is making us step up our game!
>what a cunt, right? I didn't make this broken-ass min-maxed build just to end up facing a challenging game anyway!
Our dm has killed 6 player characters in the last 4 sessions. He does not believe in xp and won't let us level up until we 'earn' it. Keeps increasing difficulty because we should be getting stronger, and that we would not be in such a bad position if we didn't keep dying.
>mfw all deaths were insta-"save or die"
I make broken ass min-maxed builds entirely BECAUSE I want to face a challenging game, I want to see how hard I can punch above my CL and how much ass I can kick.
Nigga I don't min-max because I want to ezwin. Ezwin is boring, might as well freeform if there's no challenge. I min-max because I wanna take on stuff that's WAY out of my league, and win anyway.
Surely your "roleplaying" brand of shiteating is better, you grown man playing pretend. I sure do like to WordsWordsWordsWordsWords and MY IMMERSION like a faggot!
... not really. Games are for overcoming some challenge through learning to gitgud, not circlejerking over your fictional effects on a fictional universe and how IC you are.
But if the DM is scaling encounters to your character to provide a desired level of challenge, min-maxing has no meaning and won't change anything other than potentially disrupt the internal balance of the party.
>Okay guys, the scene is set up and the world lays out before you. You can follow the plot and chase Darkwraith McBabykiller or you can just go exploring or follow your own character arcs or whatever; I'm open to whatever direction you guys want to take this campaign, lets have a fun adventure!
>lol I go to the ghettos, buy a shack, and turn it into an inn!
>What it's in character!
>Adventuring is dumb, my rogue with gout would obviously want a safe and cushy if boring life as an inn manager.
FUCK THOSE GUYS.
>DM tells us we'll be playing a heroic campaign pitting heroes against the forces of evil
>bearing this in mind I roll up a good old Paladin
>edgelord #1 makes a Lawful Evil Wizard
>edgelord #2 makes a Neutral Evil Ranger
>edgelord #3 makes a Chaotic Neutral Rogue
>backstories full of murder, rape and betrayal
>life goals are loot and lulz
>"My character has no reason to be with the party".
It's not always that one player's fault, anon.
>People liking things that I don't like?!? Blasphemy!
Some enjoy the acting while others enjoy seeing how big their numbers can be. The good AND bad thing about TTRPGs is that it can appeal to such a large variety of people in different ways.
The only bad people are that guys, and that's because they're playing pvp in a co-op game.
Paladins are the worst. Every group I've played in when someone rolls up a paladin, its been a horrible experience due to them acting like the entire RP is about them and their character without consideration for the rest of the group.
>Everyone is playing their special snowflake
>Whatever, I play a human to ground the party
>Get called unoriginal and boring
After all that, I end up being the most useful character in the party. Fuck people.
>three non-good characters
>makes a paladin
>complains about the rest of the group not fitting with their needs
Sounds about right.
>DM says it's a heroic campaign about fighting evil
>Implying the guy making a Paladin is the one doing it wrong
Honestly, though, that's why you should do character creation together, rather than doing it all seperately and then bringing them together in the first session.
On the other hand I'm imaging an adventure where three evil people somehow desperately need this specific paladins help, and go through all kinds of wacky shenanigans to try to hide the fact that they are generally awful people from John Goodguy.
>DM says it's a heroic campaign about fighting evil
Ok fair point, I think I skipped over that line.
This got to be a thing often enough at the table that I made a hard rule nobody's allowed to bring in their character until they have a compelling reason for that character to work with the party and the party to work with them. Because "none of my character's goals align with anything the party does" and shit like >>45289462 prove well enough that often you fucking NEED to force people to coordinate how the party fits together ahead of time if you don't want trouble.
YES, you fucking DID you stupid cunt. Why don't you stop wanking for five fucking minutes to let your sight recover so you don't keep shitting up the boards with your uninformed comments.
>start a new group with an experienced DM friend
>he invites his friends to play
>one of them is a 15 year old
>always answers "I don't know" or just laughs when asked things in character
FUCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK I EVEN HAD MY CHARACTER COMMISSIONED FOR THIS
>GM wants you read his mind to know shit he never told you
>Want to do a mundane action
>DM forces me to roll for it
Do I really need to roll Athletics to catch something lobbed to me? I could understand if we were on horseback or in combat but nah, it was just one PC tossing another some rations.
It's something I keep to myself, because I don't like being the jackass who tries to dictate the party's makeup, but it does get on my nerves how often people seem to make THAT NEUTRAL when we play D&D.
The one where neutral is played as "as good or evil as is immediately convenient," mistakes having some standards for having morals, and never, ever gives a shit about what's going on besides finishing the job and getting the paycheck.
Never gets excited or upset in battle, just pithy remarks. Even when it would make more sense for the character to be considerably more emotional, such as when a demon is in the middle of biting their goddamn face off.
These characters have come to annoy me more than the actual dick-ass evil guy because at least he seems like he gives a shit.
>having to tell your dm you do pretty mundane shit like eating drinking and doing the business.
>mfw he wants it every. Single. TIME.
I have been guilty of this a couple times, usually I simply forgot to mention it, and I always let my players redo their action with the new knowledge as it was my fault they didn't know.
Other times I shouldn't have to mention it cause it's like saying the sky is blue.
I shouldn't have to tell you there are security cameras in the Horse race track parking lot, in SHADOWRUN. You should just be assuming there are cameras everywhere, especially where rich people go. Why would you think there wouldn't be cameras?
>When you're a GM and you have shit you wanna tell the players but during an exposition about what their environment looks like orr what their enemies are doing you forget.
>PCs somehow always act in some way that interacts with whatever this omission was and you, knowing what you meant or had in mind for this scenario, bring up consequences that make sense in your mind but don't to them
>People getting mad over it before you correct yourself, "oh shit guys my mistake I totally meant to say this was there/that was a thing"
It doesn't happen often and it's not always an environmental thing. Just sometimes I'm a shitter.
This still falls under assuming the players can read your mind. You can always mention if there's spots that are out of the ordinary. Because otherwise you get paranoid shit like the PCs throwing a chaff/EMP grenade into each room, and we all know PCs aren't made of money.
Or, ya know, give them a map.
I don't wanna play with Edgelords
but I don't wanna play with Moralfags
can't a man create a Nazi utopia where everyone is genuinely happy and working for the benefit of their people and their nation?
Why's the choice gotta be between "genuinely happy utopia where people work for their own benefit, also it's tolerant and accepting" and "shitty dystopia where the populace is unhappy and stifled, but at least there aren't any dissenters or undesirables ruining it for them"
Like cmon son. Even the most evil of Lawful Evils know that the easiest man to cage is one who believes he is free, and people will happily work to the benefit of their 'own group' without you needing to step on them with your jackboots.
Just as /v/ has finally started getting over Undertrolling (mostly because there's a 24/7 squad of chucklefucks that thing triggering /v/ is the most hilarious thing ever and /v/ has finally learned that ignoring trolls is the best way to fight them), the other boards are getting trolled.
ARE YOU ME???
My players have optimized themselves for combat, gotten a thousand mods for their weapons, wearing armor and implementing cyberwear like its going out of style but they freak out when their characters go through some bumps in the road.
I've seen them Nope right out of quests, missions, and rewards all without even assessing how dangerous those missions were because they got spooked.
I honestly do not know how to set up encounters for them anymore, if I give them anything harder than an Easy encounter they start crying.
The funny thing is that they've all chosen their avatars from badass video game heroes but they act in complete opposite of who those characters are.
I ended up playing the former in a SwoN game. It was a lot of fun, and I really got in character with it.
Which made having to kill two ex-party members that went completely insane more impactful
>playing D&D 5e
>pretty good game, if a bit generic
>good times are had
>DM grumbles and rolls his eyes a bit whenever we're in towns, but never elaborates or explains
>About....8 or so sessions in, we pass through another town and he finally gets upset and rolls some dice.
>We all drop dead about 5 feet outside the town gates, we get pissed.
>He explains not once in the in-game month or so we've been traveling have we eaten or drank anything, and he's tired of fudging the secret starvation checks he kept making to see how long we could go without food
>He even blames us for ruining the campaign
>Next time it was my turn to DM, I had his character drop dead halfway through the first session
>He gets pissed and throws a fit because I told him he suffocated since he never said he was breathing.
>We have to make a group rule to "Assume eating, drinking, and breathing happen even if no one explicitly says they do" so this shit doesn't come up again.
Dick move on my part, but I regret nothing.
I have called them pussies and called them out but its in one ear and out the other.
For instance, we were on an ice planet and the players had been offered the biggest reward to date to go out and kill a large creature that's been killing the livestock of that planet. The creature they were looking for was a natural predator that was larger than normal, you know, the classic trope. To buff up its credentials I said that this creature had destroyed several automated drones.
That put the panic in them. Responses ranged from "We're going to need to be paid a LOT more than this!" to "We're going to need bigger guns!" and general panic. In the end they never took up the assignment, they never tried.
If I could shame them into being more courageous or bold I would, but some people you can't shame because they have no dignity or integrity to be shamed.
>player gives DM race of lolis that he found on the "D&D Wiki" for his character
>don't do anything because it'll risk loss of good group
>try to ignore it
>it hurts within
I bought it on a whim since my friends made is seem like the best thing ever, but it just reminded me to play LiSA and some other RPG maker games I have again.
>Dm's that let a single player derail their plot and actively try to kill other party members because they find it funny.
A specific example, Dm gives player extra levels and basically an army. He seperates from the group as he is chaotic evil and doesn't care about them. he uses army to attack party's homeland.
Why has this character not been demoted from player character to BBEG?
Ducking out of jobs like the second there's any hint of danger is going to seriously ruin their street cred, as it were.
Chances are, if a team of murderhobos like that are acting cowardly like that, word's going to get out and people are likely going to not even bother talking to them about any but the easiest jobs, the type that pays in peanuts, because who'd trust a bunch of cowards with anything remotely important?
Then, when they struggle to make ends meet because fucking nobody is willing to entertain the idea of hiring them for anything, someone comes in to offer them a job that'll help them start repairing their reputation, a job with a moderate amount of danger of course.
At this point, the group has either 2 choices.
>1. Take the job. Sure there's a minor risk, but this is the first guy in months willing to give them any kind of paying job.
>2. Leave it and flee, their reputation going into the gutter. Word continues to spread of their cowardice, and they'll likely end up having to start selling their epic weapon and armor mods.
If 2, once the reality of how goddamned hard it is to do anything when no one will take you seriously, throw another moderately dangerous assignment at them.
Repeat until they either take the job and start manning the fuck up, or they keep refusing, and eventually sell of everything they own and are basically screwed.
Actually, just thought of something.
If this continues long enough, bandits/thieves get bolder towards them and start attacking them, because they're massive cowards with very nice, very expensive shit.
>Players want to make really bizarre/uncommon race
>Gets angry when people are unnerved or shocked at them
>Never thinks about the consequences of their race
Dont turn into a fucking gorilla in a hotel lobby during a Dresden campaign.
Don't play a chaotic neutral skeleton necromancer in a setting that doesn't like the undead in 90% of locations.
>Minor female NPC enters the game, probably wont be in more than 2-3 sessions and maybe crop up now and then after that
>People flip their shit to white knight a NPC (made and voiced by a male DM)
It's one thing if it fits your characters but god damn we're in a swamp and this chick was chained and tortured in a dungeon full of undead, I dont think she wants to fuck you.
This reason is sorta why I play married characters, because at least then I can say "I'm doing this out of the goodness of my heart" and the white knighting, "plz fuck my 8 cha half orc barbarian."
See I take X Y and Z as challenges if I have nothing better to do. Having ways round guards/giant boulders/locked doors is fun as it is a challenge.
However if it's railroading it is easier for the DM to just ask "do you go down the single passage open or buff up first?" ij my eyes.
>Big dimension ending tier adventure set in Sigil
>One player makes a 1 foot tall warforged thief that has shit combat skills, actively avoids both combat and dialogue, and just wants to fuck off and steal shit for money
Ask for a solo campaign or something, fuck. Having you complain about nothing for your char to do sucks, listening you to make an hour of stealth/athletics rolls to steal unimportant stuff sucks.
I can do that. Since we're playing Traveller, news may take longer to travel but arguably that's a good thing because that gives me more time to accumulate their little bullshit and jump it on them in a big heap.
When the villainous organization is always 2 steps ahead.
>"We MEANT for you to find those documents/plans/etc., so we could lead you astray!"
>"We KNEW you were coming, so we evacuated everyone important!"
>"We PLANNED for you to shut down this operation, so we could redistribute the resources elsewhere!"
Just for once I'd like to catch them with their pants down and make some real headway.
I never understand people who don't bathe regularly, especially if you'regoing out in the public.
Though the fact the are litteraly a neckbeard show that they don't have any dignity in making them selves look good.
are they the "euphoric" kind?
>That one guy that turns up stoned
>He never brings enough to share
That's not a dick move, he's a retard.
I think with people like that, I need to remind them that even though the player makes decisions, the character knows and does shit. It's like a knowledge check on something. It's possible to metagame and recognize you're fighting a minotuar, but if you're fighting a new monster and you win the knowledge check, your character reveals that he learned something in his youth or some shit.
Things like eating when hungry and breathing are like a -5 DC that you can succeed with passively and you shouldn't need to take note of it.
Anyone who sincerely believes you need to track eating, but doesn't bring it up before the game as a "survival mode feature" or some shit probably shouldn't be DM.
Cripes. They have lifestyle rules for a reason. Pay the upkeep on that and you can fucking assume all the eating and drinking expenses are covered.
Even Pathfinder doesn't get that anal. What a dick.
>We MEANT only to get five dollars in loose change, as it allows us to trade non-traceable coins from all over the world from purveyors of bad pornography as a vector for our scrying TV series "worlds worst porn watchers"!
Anon they at least take the effort to put on clothes. A friend of a friend used to game with us and there were days when it looked like he rolled right out of bed, into the car, and into the game. Wife beater, pajama pants - at least he put on socks and shoes. I honestly think he was mentally stunted in the sense that no one taught him basic hygiene or basic manners.
You ... did remember to check which god the mormons were worshipping before you did this, yes?
But thanks. Now that we've got a mormon on the regency we don't NEED you to catch us with our pants down any more!
>that "We want to avoid danger because it's scary" party
Yeah, sign me up for that one, too.
I was running a game for my bro and a friend. The pair was a giant Minotaur warden and a Shifter rogue in 4e. I felt bad about it, but I had to railroad every plotpoint into them because they always always always stay inside if it's raining out.
The plot so far was that they escaped a slave trade thing, they were in a country they don't know, and they had very weak leads as to means of getting home.
At the time, they thought there may be a literal underground railroad in a Dwarven city so they headed that way to seek help. They stumbled upon a chamber of terrified statues and a snake lady with snake hair. As soon as the Minotaur realized it was a medusa, the player flipped out and kept repeating "oh fuck, am I dying? Don't look at it! Am I dying? Don't look at it!" and kept trying to hide behind the skinny Shifter that's half his size. I don't think he landed a single attack, he spent all his turns trying to devise an escape route.
If I had told either of them "There's a cave full of cool ass treasure, but you have to fight a medusa" I know there'd be zero chance to get them to approach the cave at all. It was frustrating at first, but then it just became a running gag.
Our Gm has 0 mercy. He refuses to let us level up past 1, and keeps throwing enemies that one shot us or kill us on a lucky roll. He also likes to throw out traps that deal 8d8 damage, which kills us.
He then has the audacity to complain as to why we are so cautious.
You know what surprises me? MOST of these problems are the kind that sound like they can be solved by just sitting down and fucking talking to each other. You know. Like a human being.
And no doubt that's what a lot of you did.
If your player/GM is being a bitch, just fucking tell them what the fuck is up. Coming to teeg and bitching about it isn't going to help.
has happened twice in game shops I was in. Just unbearable. I'm fine with vaping in general because good for you for not smoking or whatever, but you still have to do that shit outside.
>players who whine if the monsters act as anything others than vehicles for them gaining loot and xp
I have since devised a test. Shortly into any game with new players at my table, you will be attacked by a fairly large band of weak monsters acting as bandits. This fight will be calibrated to be pretty easy for the party. When about 1/3 of the baddies are down, the rest break and flee.
Anyone who complains about the behavior being unrealistic, or how I'm "stealing" their XP gets the boot.
to date, I've axed 5 people over this
>Trying to explain the scene to the players, including vital details that will help them answer questions they've been asking
>they assume it's just window dressing and yadda yadda yadda me
>never figure out that mystery
what more could I have done
Even if he wanted to force you to describe every meal or whatever, your characters would be feeling hunger pangs and screaming up at you in sim-like frustration. It would be on him to say "you're a bit hungry, do you guys stop to eat?" or something.
Future DM here
How can I actually do this and not have it come off as infuriating or retarded? There are a number of settings where this is a legit occurrence, be it espionage or conspiracy or horror etc. No way without making it few and far inbetween?
I always kind of wanted to do a campaign where the character and plot's main goals are essentially impossible due to the above and all the meat of your success is in the details. Grimbright or something I think it would be called.
>GM doesn't describe the enviornment
>You describe the enviornment for him, setting things up in your favor
I have tried to talk to the player why his character not interested in going the adventure, multiple times, then I basically asked him point blank "why are you even playong this game?" And got extremely upset, that I DARE ask him to make an adventurer in a fantasy adventure game.
Some of the other things like showering and hygiene stuff should not have to be asked, it's common fucking sense at this point.
Actual scene was they were walking through like illusion rooms with different important visions in each, but in one it was a random brothel and I specifically describe a boy sweeping the floor who matches the description of an important character they want to find dirt on. I even say AND HE'S A HALF ELLLFFffff like as I remember and say it was too obviously. "ya ya we keep going whatever"
I did this once. The players were supposed to take out badguys, each one was powerful or clever or protected, but they all had weaknesses that could be exploited. Some through fights, some could be bought, etc.
But I needed the players to be intimidated by them so they wouldn't charge in and fight. SO, first session starts with the princess being kidnapped. Orcs snatched her and the group's off to rescue her. They fight some orcs, like 2 small combats and some forest travels. They get to a lake where she's tied up on the edge with a shaman chanting some shit. It looks like she's going to be sacrificed, so they fight the orcs and rescue her. They untie her and a big hydra pops out of the lake for his dinner. The players are a little scared, try to attack (they were somewhat low level at this point) and aren't doing much damage.
Then three of the bad guys show up and the warlock easily murders the hydra. They dickishly thank the party for their help and escort the princess away, basically taking credit for saving her.
So the players a) hate these fucking guys because they stole their thunder b) know they're strong c) learn something about the relationship between these npcs
Then the players got to go rescue the rest of the princess's group who were also captured and were held at orc camp. So they still got to save the day, they felt like they did good, they were just pissed at the bad guys (and more importantly NOT mad at me.)
Just give them a few real victories. It doesn't matter how infrequently they occur or how small they are, as long as they actually happen. Maybe throw in a secondary villain for them to defeat.
The main problem comes up when the party is putting all their efforts into fighting this one enemy and they never make any headway. It's just no fun to hear that all your efforts have been utterly pointless.
Thanks for the ideas
I guess I've got in my mind sort of like Deus Ex (...original, still haven't played HR), where everything is fucked, you're fighting everything being fucked and ultimately there is no good solution for it. But all the minor side plot details ranged from shaping people's lives which were far more interesting than the save the world plot.
>Tell GM you will be using Animate dead as your focused spell.
>Get a long series of feats to enhance CL for that spell.
>Get feats to enhance things made with Animate dead.
>8 levels later, cast animate dead for the first time on the frost giants we just fought.
>DM is surprised I actually animate things to assist me because I do shit all otherwise except write fancy letters and do spell research.
-gm "Oh my god anon, now I have to balance encounters against you having those."
>two encounters later, gargantuan T-rex.
-me "I'mma raise that."
-gm "How do you figure sports fan, your pushing the limits of your character's control as is.
-me "Easy, I won't. I'll just command it every 8 days."
-gm stomps off swearing.
>Wtf did he even expect? I don't even do the most in combat. The Barbarian and Stalker from POW trash everything that gets remotely close in combat. He might as well ask the barbarian not use Rage.
Am I the asshole here?
We started at level 1, I'm playing a sorcerer. So it was 8 levels later that this became an issue. We've been playing for over half a year now I think, and any time I could I've commanded/persuaded any undead we came across to join my Lich boss's army.
How DO you tell how long a Roll20 game has been going, is there something on the site?
Then it sounds like the GM is shit out of luck, you did nothing wrong
Fight and kill a big thing, you win and have a fuck huge minion
Fight an army, you win, and have a new army
It just sounds like the GM has no alternatives combat wise
>Other players that like to talk shit about how powerful their character is and how he could kill other party members if he wanted to
>Players that do the above when you or another player's character is very obviously stronger than said character, but isn't bragging about it because he's not a faggot
Yeah, sure, your level one sorcerer is sooo powerful and broken. If you actually turn on the party though, I'm going to ask Mr. Barbarian McMurderface to teach you a lesson about party loyalty.
This to the max, oh my god. I don't care how strong your archer build is, we're level 3 and you get one attack.
Shit talking me playing my unchained monk will not change anything.
When people do something selfish and they say that they're just "being in character". This may just be me annoyed at nothing but:
>Playin 5E, having fun
>3 players, but no one to heal, shouldn't be a big deal
>Fight fuckload of hobgoblins and the leader wrecks me in a few swings.
>Rogue goes down too
>Sorcerer kills the hobgoblin who basically singlehandedly knocked out the party
>Proceeds to loot the bodies while the Rogue and I roll death saving throws
>Goes so far as to walk past one of us to loot a body who fell next to them
>Claims that his character has only known us like a day and doesn't trust us and we shouldn't trust him
>We ask him his alignment if he acts that way
>Whole table calls him on bullshit
Am I in the wrong? I personally thought it was kinda lame what he did.
>Claims that his character has only known us like a day and doesn't trust us and we shouldn't trust him
>We ask him his alignment if he acts that way
>Any type of good, ignoring people in need
>People who fought alongside you
nah, he's a cunt who doesn't know what Chaotic Good means. He wants to be Chaotic Neutral.
He admitted his mistake, something that 95% of people on 4chan would either not bother to do or refuse to do. Get the sand out of your vagina and try to show some semblance of grace in your response.
More like CE.
Actually, just sounds like the player's an asshole.
>someone links me Los Tiburon
>someone links me Sir Bearington
>people joking around about natural 20s on skill checks
This is something a lot of novice DMs need to learn, that the dice shouldn't be relied on for everything, and if possible, should be avoided.
No, I don't need to roll climb to get onto this 4-ft tall wall unless we're having a chase sequence.
Just make the wizard fail the STR check on the large rusty lever without the roll, the Fighter should have been doing it anyway.
Rolls should be exciting, and thus used sparsely so that people are actually anxious about the results of a roll. If you roll for everything people lose interest in the outcome of the dice.
>Gm not using you as the basis for his next villain
What a pussy. I'd make you the greatest lich in creation. You'd be fucking Vecna's eye socket with Kas' broken off dick before the players even smelled you.
>someone mentions some card interaction
>that's not how that works
>tell him that's not how that works
>he insists that he's right and he looked it up
>look it up on Gatherer
>the additional rulings that are plain as day and clearly visible prove him wrong
Depends how it's handled.
I played one game that didn't use exp that worked decently. In lieu of exp, we basically gained a level when it felt thematically appropriate, usually after a big plot moment, or some major event.
Of course, this is partly reliant on a good DM, and is entirely up to the DM's call when you level.
I love this shit.
>"He grabs your gun, throws you over the counter and follows you there. You guys are fighting in the kitchen now. There's pots and pans and shit all over the place, and a few loose knives around."
>"So, like, would there be a deep fryer in here?"
Whenever one of my players does this I'll just say something like "Alright, Dickass the Rogue goes and buys a shack, turns it into a successful inn and lives a relatively cushy life, re-roll, and this time make it someone who actually wants to play the fucking game."
Los Tiburon (which should really be El Tiburon) makes perfect sense. Pinned the dragon's wings so it couldn't fly and dealt falling damage.
Sir Bearington is pretty ridiculous though.
He was playing his alignment very wrong.
This is also why it helps to plan parties out before hand with a session 0 so you have some combined agenda aside from being a bunch of murderhobos waking up in a dungeon together.
When you're trying to get a person to honestly change their awful habits, they need a reason. Especially when it comes to hygiene, because you are generally unaware of your own smell.
You can always try being polite and asking, but that will have a mixed bag of results. More reliable in it's results however, is shame. I've had great success with just confronting people about it.
>"Hey dude, I noticed some of the other group members were complaining about the smell. Could you try to do something about before showing up for gaming next week?"
There's really no good way to sugar coat it, and honestly it shouldn't be. Disgusting people plague our hobby and draw terrible stereotypes to it. Even so, I don't care what group of people you belong to, not bothering to clean yourself routinely is shameful. Instead of ignoring it, hoping they'll reach some epiphany soon and stop violating your nostrils, take a stand.
I'm guilty of this as a GM. But in my defense, it's because a) I actually do plan that far ahead and I know my players well enough to predict what they'll be doing in 2 or 3 sessions time, and b) the bad guys are literally the illuminati, though they haven't figured that out yet.
>Best gear humanity can get their hands on
>Access to fine guns and drones
>Panic immediately when put under any pressure
I think you're running a good xcom campaign there
And gotta be subtle about it.
I've had a GM running that shtick with uber-competent BBEG that got us on every turn; and the occasional time we managed to actually win anything felt way too telegraphed by the GM. It was too easy.
Basically felt like the amount of effort the characters put into things don't matter at all.
Half of things fail no matter how much effort went into setting them up; other things succeed without any challenge; with no rhyme or reason.
This is one of the most infuriating things to me. There's this obsession among a certain subset of nerds about having villains that are "smart" and "intelligent", which apparently means "are impossibly level-headed, nigh-omniscient chessmasters with infinite resources and unshakeably loyal underlings". The Villain can't be arrogant or greedy or over-confident. The Villain can't make bad decisions in the heat of the moment, or obsess over sentimental matters at the expense of practicality. The Villain can't have underlings in positions of power undergo a change of heart.
No, all weaknesses must be scrubbed out, and all flaws must be smoothed over. If the protagonists ever manage to outsmart, outmaneuver, or emotionally manipulate the villain, that villain is Dumb and Bad and you're an idiot if you like them. A much better Villain would be one that the players have no chance of ever overcoming, because that's how Good Stories work, amirite?
They justify this in X-com 2 with your rookies being whoever you can talk into getting on the sketchy fucking spaceship and armed with stuff a crazy Chinese girl can build alone in a metal shop the size of a 7-11.
What fucking savages. Just because you're cool with the clouds that come out of your mouth doesn't mean everyone else is. Plus, if you go hard enough, you'll dank up the room, and that ain't cool in an flgs imo.
I guess neck beards gonna neck beard.
Is this not how characters who value their lives behave pretty much all of the time? Most of my encounters end in one side or the other surrendering. If the PCs carve up half of an angry mob in two rounds, they're going to be decidedly less angry on round 3 (or at least less likely to act on it). You can even convince PCs to surrender if you point enough spears at them.
>actually pretty shitty in most sorceries
>the one and only he thing does is animate other stuff
>but daaaamn he's good at it
Can the party find out about him and stop him before his skeleton katamari reaches levels they can't hope to handle?
It's important to remember d&d jokes don't have to be perfectly accurate but God damn it's annoying when they're not. Pic related. Two friends linked it to me and it's infuriating because they're clearly making fun of the hobby not "laughing with us." And it doesn't make any sense, clearly written by someone who only knows a little about rpgs. My friend has only played a tiny bit of d&d and is basically a fakegamer with all the wil wheaton type stuff he does so that might make it worse. Other friends actively mocks me for playing.
Leaving aside the matter of calling charisma a *skill* (and there's probably a game out there somewhere that does that, anyway), I don't see what the problem is. It sounds like old school D&D where the DM is using an attribute check to determine the outcome of a situation. Sure, he's being a bit silly and unnuanced about it (no penalty to that roll?), but it's not like it's particularly unrealistic portrayal of (some) DMs. And I've played with people exactly like the player depicted there, at least in terms of the "while he is distracted, I stab him" part (they usually aren't quite so eloquent in setting up the situation).
No, I've actually never heard of or experienced games being run without XP. Every game I've been in has had levelling tied to XP, even if it's the DM saying "alright, you've earned [x] experience so far, so you're due a level now".
That's why you abstract it a little beyond the "that orc was worth 100 exp, so split it 5 ways" shit and leave it at "you've killed/done a lot of shit, that's probably enough exp have a level". Don't tell me you're one of the free form degenerates who think it's fun having levels tied to major plot battles or something.
>Have a player who always plays it safe, never takes any risks, never steps out of the bounds of the known and always defers to other players when he has a chance
>Because he does literally nothing, he gets no character development, no shiny items, and no extra bits of flavour
>whines he never gets anything cool
Those cool things are REWARDS you fucknut! They are what you get when you take risks. Hell, I even tried punishing him for playing too safe, showing that if he'd taken the risk, every time he would be better off, and you know what he did? EVEN LESS! The guy's first response to any question is to give a deer in the headlights look followed by " I don't know"
He's a close friend of everyone in the party though, so I can't just kick him!
>That there is no input on difficulty from the GM is main problem I see with this.
Yeah, it's a shitty, lazy way to game, but like I said, it's not a particularly unrealistic DM depiction.
I have. I asked him why he never does anything. Did he not understand the system, did he not like his character, did he even want to play, etc.
Deer in the headlights look, "I dunno".
For folks who might not be familiar with old school ability checks, see pic. You're not rolling to beat a DC, so your DM doesn't technically need to tell you a difficulty. You're just trying to roll under your attribute on a d20, and if he doesn't give a difficulty, then there's simply no modifier to that roll.
They do, just not strictly. They keep in mind the relative strength and value of enemies and grant levels where appropriate. A GM who doesn't track XP could literally hand you two levels in the span of a minute because their plot calls for it.
Okay, I'm stunned. Literally fucking stunned. I can't even begin to understand how someone can be so *broken* that they can't explain why they're not getting involved at all.
...it has to be mental health problems or disabilities or fucking ganja or something, because I can't see how anyone with a sane, neurotypical mind could do this.
Dammit, why does this phone not have a suitable image?
One of my players (cool guy generally) has legitimate ADD and occasionally he can't help himself and interrupts in the middle of exposition.
Again, he's a cool guy, always apologizes, etc.
But I guarantee you, EVERY TIME after that it turns out I forgot to tell them something.
I'm really getting into the habit of just having a list of words in front of me for everything in a nice little table, and checking them off as I used them, to make sure I told them everything they needed to know.
There is some difference between "you have done roughly X things, that gets a level" and "you have triggered plot flag Y, get a level".
The former gives it based on what characters have actually experienced, including random detours, the latter gives it only by getting back on rails and moving along.
I think we're just arguing semantics at this point. If I were to look at that quote of yours a few posts up, this one:
>"you've killed/done a lot of shit, that's probably enough exp have a level"
That's a GM that doesn't track XP. Specifically, I'd call that a GM that doesn't do "XP accounting", as the Anon you were quoting is calling it. You're actually using that as an example of a GM that *does* track XP, but I think we have very different definitions of what the word "track" means in this scenario. Evidently, that greentext quote right there qualifies as tracking--or maybe that GM does it in his head or something, whatever. Either way, we both seem to agree that that quote is an OK way to do things, so that's cool.
For the record, awarding levels or XP at plot points is totally cool too. In some games it's even the rules. But that's a different conversation.
>you have accomplished character goal X after exerting Y effort (resources, time in-game and real)
XP for plot works best with a GM who can vary the plot according to what the players are doing. Aka sandbox games.
Enemies defeated usually corresponds to accomplishing goals anyway, unless they're just pointless filler combats. Don't do that.
>I think we're just arguing semantics at this point.
Yes, we are abit. Also I'm another guy jumping in.
Still, there are levels of involvement in XP tracking.
"3 regular orcs, 1 big orc and 5 goblins add up to 478 XP, write that down" vs "Ok that warband was about 500 xp"
>PCs make spot/listen checks as they're going through the country side
>A shadow across the horizon rises
>Eagle eyed ranger sees some sort of large creature that's hard to make out approaching, and it looks like it's covered in something white
>faint music is heard
>As it gets closer, the white stuff is revealed to be an army of skeletons, armed not with swords, bows and axes, but guitars made out eachothers' bones and muscle fiber.
>The the top, there rides in a heroic pose the grand lich, with lesser liches throwing fire in the air behind him for added effect, as he's riding at the PCs on his skeletal Tarrasque.
>Players who insist on recruiting tons of combat helpers to assist them with quests and make me play 2-4 extra characters in every combat
FFS guys you're the ones here to play my game, I *promise* I balanced the challeneges to suit the party as-is, so is there really a need to make me rp all your NPC buddies? I generally try to discourage this by making helpers 1. greedy and demand huge portions of loot, 2. generally cowardly and run from tough fights or 3. duplicitous betrayers. But my players never take the first kind, and 2 and 3 get run off quickly, and since not every person they meet can be a douche I'm ineviatbly forced to roll up new characters to play MY OWN GAME.
Next time you start up a game with that group, it might be worth looking into a system with follower/mook rules. Some systems (looking at you D&D 3.5) make every additional combatant its own headache, but not every system does. Reign does them really well, and uses the same system for both friendly and enemy canon fodder.
It can be pretty great when PCs start leading platoons of redshirts into battle.
>I balanced the challeneges to suit the party as-is,
Keep in mind that players have absolutely no way of knowing that unless you tell them. Trying to vacuum up all the helpful NPCs frequently just plain makes sense.
But MMOs scale shit to your level.
Boars in one place are level 10, then in another level 20, then so on and so on, then suddenly demon board are 60, then undead boars are 70 (after previous locations' undead boars were 20 and 50), then skip a bit and demon boars in alternate timeline are 90 for no reason...
Or stop forcing them to fight. Make the rep go ahead and people or supervisors not giving them any combat assingnments or fights. Give them some detective work. Creative situation, problems to solve, traps. Killing shit is not 100% of adevturer's life. Either they like it or not, and when they doesn't point out chickening from fights and talk some sense into them. One way or another, everyone's a winner.
Go forth and conquer then!
>Lich reaches PCs
>Does big speech about how they don't stand a chance, even with the Empire's army behind them
>Proceeds to summon forth thunderclouds as the battle is joint
Make them a DMPC since thats what they are asking for.
And then in Legion you have zones which you go through in any order and they just scale to your current level. So if you backtrack everything is suddenly higher level.
i think it depends on lentgh of game. I mean, if you have unlimited time, it's just building your frustration to let you take greater joy from cracking them, sticking your filthy chaoting fingers and working around to make them fall in a long run. Unless this DM is doing that all the time, in all campaigns, than it's boring.
Sometimes I think we need a reaction image for times like this. something like "WE'RE STILL OKAY"
Snacks are normal at a d&d session
Bringing entire meals and eating them with your mouth open, talking with your mouth full, and spitting over our miniatures is not normal.
Nor is a 300lb weight, but I guess that's unrelated.
>DM talks a bit slowly, doesn't really ever get loud
>group is loud and talks fast, sometimes talking over the DM in their haste to explain how their character is doing something
>later complains about how everything is taking too long
>group overall just wants combat, lots and lots of combat
>rails at investigation, diplomacy, etc, only works through what's necessary between combat
>DM just keeps on throwing gruntwork and other low level jobs at the party - take a message here, carry this stuff to this town
my current group runs one 8-9 hour session per week, last group did 6-7. probably not the norm but it fixes some scheduling problems if you pick a day where no one really has obligations
Not who you replied to, but when I play we have to get people together from 3 cities, and it's like once every few months. When we play, it spans from late day to afternoon on the next. Don't think we've ever had a session last less than 8 hours, except for a silly evil monster oneoff.
Am I a bad person for including not very plot relevant things for the laughs?
I just find it really funny that some dark lord of all the western badlands, king the armies of the seventeen skulls, could have a ten year old daughter he just dotes on, and as the party would be making their way through his stronghold they'd stumble across her toy-filled room and she'd try to drag them into her coloring session.
Or in a Shadowrun game, if a tough as nails Triad guy is trying to do an interrogation, and his mother suddenly barges in, yelling at him in Cantonese, and drags him out of the scary room by his ear. And then when the PCs manage to escape and try to make their way out of the house, the Triad guy is in an apron cutting vegetables as his mom makes supper.
>Player who always makes Evil characters and consistently tries to ruin the party.
>Players who constantly duel-wield to do the most damage and prove they have the biggest dick.
>Player who only plays thieves.
Well, you just managed to make yourself sound overly cocksure, and as such a liability.
For some, that would count us fucking up.
That being said, it's not like an answer to a not ever stated rhetorical question matters eh.
Congrats though if it's true, however unlikely it is.
I fucking hate deities.
>You do something I don't like?
>TOO BAD A GOD COMES DOWN AND FUCKS YOU UP
>You behave bad towards my NPCs?
>THEIR GOD COMES AND HUMILIATES YOU
I fucking swear this shit happened to me with 2 game masters in to different game groups in a row.
That's never happened in a game I played. Gods are usually less direct if they do anything at all.
One time I had a bad guy who worships Vecna that there players killed pop back up as a death knight, but that was planned.
We have blaze breaks, but that is fun and exciting, and doesn't have to happen every hour. Especially if you are only topping up edibles.
Things that annoy me:
>which one is dX again?
>what the fuck, can i get a re-roll these dice are shit
>Fuck paying a toll at the gates, ill take jail! *you cant* ok then ill attack the nearest guardsman
>Oh but I know all these extra spells the GM said so (where GM is fucking said player)
>Hey guys has anyone got a spare pen or something?
and also some of this >>45286416
>if a tough as nails Triad guy is trying to do an interrogation, and his mother suddenly barges in, yelling at him in Cantonese, and drags him out of the scary room by his ear. And then when the PCs manage to escape and try to make their way out of the house, the Triad guy is in an apron cutting vegetables as his mom makes supper.
To be fair, this is pretty realistic.
>I just find it really funny that some dark lord of all the western badlands, king the armies of the seventeen skulls, could have a ten year old daughter he just dotes on, and as the party would be making their way through his stronghold they'd stumble across her toy-filled room and she'd try to drag them into her coloring session.
I can just see the Paladin in my group go full Judge Dredd at this point, and with the most stoic look simply turn at the DM, squint his eyes and say.
>tie characters together
Thats the GM's job.
He has to bring them together somehow with an action or event that forces interdependency.
Example being :
Players are at an inn.
All introduce themselves 1 by 1 as they enter.
Inn is overcrowded so they all end up at a table infront of the fire.
Man bumps into one of the PCs and theres an altercation of some level, probably without violence but with some insults etc.
Guards of the despot local warlord bust into the inn, looking for a magically tracked item.
Leads to your party.
Make it clear that these guards are higher level than your party and would win in a fight.
Party is forced to flee.
Once they've escaped, mention at the next place they rest that there's an unusual magic bag/wooden box covered in runes in their possession in addition to their normal character sheet.
If you have a mage who can understand it and bothers to identify the magic, tell them it is locked with some unopenable magic and has an anchoring effect on the guy who touched it barehanded, so it can't be thrown away.
There's your first adventure.
Speaking of smoke breaks...
>Go to shop to be sociable and get some painting in
>Finish basecoats and apply ink layer to Warjack
>Head outside for smoke break while it dries
>Come back inside to see mongoloid MtG player holding my still wet warjack, inspecting it
>His hands are coated blue with ink, and he asks my "why is this wet?"
You know what annoys me? PEOPLE WHO TOUCH YOUR SHIT WITHOUT ASKING
> Combat in 3.X and D&D in general. Shit gets SO tense when players are in danger of dying, it always leads to fights.
> Similarly, people who won't play anything else but 3.X, regardless of the excuse (a favorite seems to be "because its the story that matters, not the system").
> Players who try and hide their rolls by plunking dice down or holding hand near dice as they roll. IE players who cheat and keep doing so long after being called out on it.
> Players who get mad and defensive about their characters in combat, to the point of starting ooc fights. They're just characters you guys, not worth stopping the fight and starting a bitter argument over
Yes, your honor, I believe my defendant did have grounds to commit murder. The victim had touched his still-wet model.
Seriously though, can't people tell wet paint from dry paint? Don't they realize that, if its still wet, they should set it the fuck down? If I'm looking at other people's models, I'm very careful. The worst I've ever had was being politely told to not lean on the game table.
>D-detect evil is impolite!
Your paladins gets detect evil for free. Even in 5e it's like 7 times per day. If he isn't using that shit in every social encounter, he isn't doing his job.
>is he expecting a trick from a little kid?
He's expecting a trick from the DM.
>Demanding they should be able to get out of any situation with a good diplomacy roll
"What? I pissed them off by saying 'shove the queen up your ass' to the king? Well my diplomacy roll is high so he pretty much just laughs, right?"
>Players who think half baked plans shouldn't fail and if it does, its railroading
Had a player run aboard a ship with a single molotov cocktail type bottle. Threatened to throw it down on the ship if they didnt let him be captain. When they tackled him and easily put the fire out, he blamed me saying "if you didnt want me taking the ship, should have said so".. (his plan was to hold it up the entire 3 week trip.)
>Jobs not being evenly distributed
This pisses me off so much. We have a barbarian, a ninja, a swahsbuckler and a merchant. They argued for 10 minutes on who would go ahead and scout. Then argued who would do the talking, to which the barbarian said he would when the merchant stated hes the best at these situations. You all have a fucking role, holy shit. Just let the other players have some god damn spot light.
>aggre on a survival horror campaign
>setting is high school trip getting jacked by monsters
>players bring a secret agent masking as a high schooler
>kid of a spetznatz who's training with his dad
>a super genius with 142 IQ(player is a fucking idiot who has no idea how to solve simple puzzles)
>last guy brings a normal highschool jock who fucks bitches and plays football
That was the last time I played over public forums, that football guy was a bro tho and we played on more forums.
I wasn't questioning if detect evil was polite or not, I was laughing at the idea that a paladin would think it was necessary for a ten year old girl who just seemed eager to show him the picture she's drawing. It would be like detecting magic on a broom that had been a perfectly ordinary broom.
Trust me, if you knew me as a DM, you wouldn't be worrying about traps behind every corner. If the paladin detected evil, the girl wouldn't ping evil. If he was paranoid enough to attack her anyway, he'd fall, because it's a horrible thing to attack an innocent child, even one raised by the dark lord of all the western badlands.
There are people like this, who just panic and freeze up when it comes to making decisions.
The reason is, as far as I have been able to parse out, is because they are deathly afraid of making the "wrong" decision and people "being mad at them".
So everything must be as simple and safe as possible, to the point of doing nothing, because doing nothing is safer than doing something.
And "I don't know" answers are the above: the nothing answer, because it's not "wrong" to say.
>Friend of mine wants to try DMing
>makes a homebrow D10 system, high fantasy setting
>Party is Rogue, Paladin and Warrior
>Let's us choose one thing of personal value that can be worth anything, but are not willing to part with until we die
>Paladin chooses a flute
>He decides that when we're stopped to camp to play the flute
>[DM rolling intensifies]
>DM rolls three crit successes
the computer dice roller he made was extremely biased to 10 and 1, fyi
>Decides that means that all evil within 10km is smited, including a town he planned to TPK us with
>Paladin's god gives us gear much higher leveled than we could even dream of finding/making
>Immediately (and always) whines about how we ruined a part of his campaign
>He literally chose to himself
This was the only time I've seen a hand of god in a campaign, and to this day he still bitches about it because it made the rest of the campaign a cakewalk.
>diplomacy roll bullshit
Goddamn do I hate this. It doesn't help that it really is so nebulous, and sometimes a player is not as good at speaking as his character sheet would demand he be. But no, you cannot roll high on diplomacy and convince the warlord to step down and let you command his horde.
Rule of thumb - if you couldn't convince people to do it in real life with just your words, it won't work in a game. Not unless you work the odds in your favor, like threatening the guy with a bunch of arrows pointed at him.
>that one guy who always has to secretly be a talos worshipper or some other evil schmuck so he can backstab the party later for no reason
like 75% of his characters do this, it's not even interesting at this point. "oh we're fighting the bbeg? let me go under the table and cast a ritual and sacrifice an infant."
Oh it gets better. This is from the same campaign:
>Somehow get a staff of fireballs
>Again, homebrow so he makes its effects based on character level (CL/fireballs per shot, CL*d6 damage, etc)
>No PC can use it, and we're CL 3 - 4 so he thinks it's worthless to us, but we hold onto it anyways
>Fast forward a couple weeks, we're facing the BBEG's massive army about to attack the town we started in
>Oh yeah we got that staff don't we? Who has the highest level again?
>DM pipes up that his magic casting DMPC is level 11
that was in our party the whole time
>Why don't we give him the staff?
>DM is dumbfounded, but agrees that it's perfectly logical
>We easily wipe out a 300-400 goblin/orc/troll army with it
>We get a bunch of levels and are worshipped by the town
>He thinks it's bullshit still
Come on, it's hard enough to get a group to stick together already, especially when so many characters don't really get along. Why would you want a character that will arbitrarily backstab the party - not even necessarily for a good reason?
I have an evil character that I'm working on, and yes, he would betray the party, but only when he felt that he had gotten strong enough that he could take at least one of them in a one on one fight to 'assert his dominance.' Because that's his character. Before that, he'd be working with them in order to defeat other people to gain power over them. It'd only be when he felt he didn't need the group that he'd betray them.
That's okay. No such thing as badwrong fun. I just fucking hate it when we are playing a lighter more role-playing focus game with more handwaving, and then all of a sudden the GM ramps up the difficulty for no fucking reason and turns it into a tactical minis game and we spend the whole session in combat.
It feels like gm betrayal because we agreed not to do that type of game.
>someone makes an incorrect claim
>prove them wrong with incontrovertible physical proof, presented immediately but politely
>they get sulky and hold a grudge
Holy shit these fucking people. It's like being wrong is worse than death. Do they think being wrong will make their penis fall off? Do they think being wrong about anything, ever, will cause them to be treated like an outcast in society? Do they think being wrong will cause their hair to light on fire? Jesus Fucking Christ, it's okay to be wrong sometimes. We're supposed to learn from our mistakes. God damn.
I've had to explain that 20s aren't automatic successes on skill checks to people who genuinely didn't know multiple times, and in some cases that argued I was wrong until I brought up the srd/book and showed them where it said such. However, in my post I was more referring to when people say things like "Roll 20 on spot check, I can see forever," or "Roll 20 on gather information check, I now know the meaning of life," or stupid shit like that.
>player who insists on several rule changes, house rules, and stretches of the system's intentions to make a lackluster character concept work
Player in our current AD&D game convinced our DM to allow a rule change for his character, then died on the very first session.
>but I don't want to learn a new system
Then I guess you're not playing with us next week
Hey, first Anon here, yeah I meant it as kind of a joke, but seriously though, it depends on the scenario.
If the BBEG is a master wizard for example, and started a civil war by manipulating powerful kings against eachother, then polymorphing something evil into a kid to act as his innocent little girl so that the noble heroes have a reason to hesitate killing him before her eyes is just the kind of thing he would pull, and the paladin friend I mentioned does not tend to trust wizards, even though the DM rarely pulls this sort of stuff.
Also I forgot to include this picture when I made the post, so here's a better idea for you about what Dredd is like.
That's a good point - it's really necessary to know the entire scenario to make that sort of call. I'd been thinking of the BBEG as a rather stereotypical dark knight warlord sort, and I'd have to make it clear that it was a humorous interlude, not a serious part of the plot.
What if I had made some implications towards him having a daughter beforehand, and making it clear that it was somewhat humorous?
Like maybe he's giving an evil monologue using some scrying crystal, and then suddenly the PC's can hear a kid's voice crying about how Ralph at school called her a dumb butt, and the bad guy is all "I WILL BURN THE WHOLE SCHOOL TO THE GROUND FOR THIS INSULT but sugar princess give daddy five minutes to finish up his work okay?"
This. It would be too slow and too annoying to constatly describe EVERYTHING (not to mention difficult), but I love when players imagine the scene for themselves and interact with the stuff there.
Even if something's not usually in this kind of place, just ask if there is one.
Besides it helps me GM because 90% of the session is improvised
>GM gives a puzzle.
>People can't seem to solve it.
>They even come up with some super creative solutions but they don't work.
>This shit has went on for over an hour.
>GM refuses to let the story/session progress until his specific kind of solution is found.
Even worse is the same situation but the GM doesn't know the solution nor what potentially solving the puzzle does.
>DM insists on improv'ing literally everything, because he's been indoctrinated by /tg/ to think that planning anything in advance is heresy and railroading
I'm not saying all people who improv are shit. I'm saying that YOU, the DM reading this post, are shit at it and your games are a million times worse than you think they are.
nigga give me a clue so I know its not me. I improve only character interactions. I have the world and its important currant events down to minute details. Its the fucking players, who insist on trying to be 'clever' and 'outsmart the GM' that cause me to say "fuck highly planned out tavern crawls."
Dude, it is SO not difficult to plan a story out and still leave room for the players to fuck with it. The fact that you don't know how tells me that you are just DMing with your head in the sand, and never being self-critical or analyzing anything that's going on around you. And let's be fair, if you can't look at your work and say "What can I improve here?", you've failed before you even start.
Plan in broad strokes first, focus on the story beats. The major plot points of the story: Big opening scene > First Task > Second Task > Dungeon. Then scope in on each event and set things up, your maps, your enemies, who they are and what they want, why they're doing what they're doing, and how they would react to the players.
Then let the players plow through it and take as direct or indirect an approach as they want. You don't need to plan what SHOULD happen, you only need to plan the patterns of reaction the NPCs have so you can make what DOES happen seem natural.
Also drop your group and find a new one.
>Player/DM is very obviously only talking/Dming to 1-2 members of the party when they should be speaking to the entire group
>quiet enough you have to strain yourself to hear them
>gets mad when you ask them to repeat it
This isn't "I'm plotting something", btw. it's "I'm giving out options for the groups next action" or "I'm literally describing the landscape"
I've simply started asking the person they were talking to if they'd like to share with the group.
Now I understand how my HS teachers felt holy shit
>Players that don't learn base aspects of their character
>It's been 3 weeks into the campaign, 5 if you count the two before we started
>they give shit excuses
IMO if you somehow don't have the time to simply read 3-6 pages in the base handbook over the course of 5 weeks you probably don't have time to play RPGs.
It's not even 8 hours, more like 3-4 hour session. Also, one can of soda is already 75% of your daily sugar. 3-5 cans is diabeetus levels of unhealthy, even more so when the drinker is also 300+ lbs. Also doesn't help when he leaves soda stains on the floor.
/fit/izen who's also a massive nerd
I'd just like to comment that any DM who sets things up such that the players can level up several times within the span of a few minutes should probably rethink how he does things, whether the players level up at plot-appropriate moments, due to XP accumulation, or any other method.
Unless. of course, he means for them to gain several levels that session because of some reason (IDK, training montage in an 80s themed game or some shit), but in my experience that's very rare.