Yo

>>48432023
imagine being so retarded you ask this question

>>48432044
I can imagine being a psychic magic robot from Venus who solves time-crime in a ice cream van and I still can't imagine being that stupid.

>>48432102
>I can imagine being a psychic magic robot from Venus who solves time-crime in a ice cream van
So, GURPS?

>>48432102
>psychic magic robot from Venus who solves time-crime in a ice cream van

Story time?

>>48432023
It's a thing people use to tell you why you shouldn't play things you enjoy.

Only consistent way I've found is to play with people you like, and that get along.

If you can all relax and enjoy each others company what you're actually doing is just icing.
If you can't get along you'll probably never find a consistent way to have fun, regardless of what you do.

>>48432186
It's a buzzword that idiots try to use to demonize anyone how criticizes their way of playing, usually because those idiots are quite proud of themselves.

It's one thing to enjoy what you enjoy, but another thing to pretend that your personal brand of fun is above ridicule just because you are enjoying yourself.

Well if you play a 40k RPG and all your characters are female Grey Knight renegades that worship Slaanesh and Khorne, that's "wrong".
Do it as much as you want, but you're playing something that can't even be equated as 40k headcanon, seeing how you're going against 2 of the like 5 canon facts of 40k that are completely set in stone.

>>48432246
It's still fun and you're entitled to play like that.
The only thing you can't claim is that it's true to the original setting.

File: DatBird.jpg (345KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 1920x1080px

>>48432262
>It's still fun

Some sick, stupid people think animal torture is "fun." Ergo, when sick stupid people think they get to unilaterally redefine common English terms, they are what clinical psychologists call "Fucking Wrong."

Sick, stupid people have wrongbadfun because it's the only kind they know.

QED

>>48432262
You're entitled to play it in private with the blinds closed.

You seem like a child indoctrinated in a "shameless" culture, so while this may not be able to get through to you, you should at least hear that if you feel entitled to share something, other people are entitled to judge you, and you are not entitled to try and dismiss their judgement with selfish and ultimately inconsequential concerns like whether you were having fun or not, since the main consideration is your decision to share your story.

People are free to call you an idiot for doing something they consider stupid, regardless of how much fun you are having.

>>48432331
>false equivalence
>strawman
>objective-subjective fallacy
Whatever.

>>48432348
Ah, the fallacy-fallacy, my favorite.

File: baby-boy-crying-photo-420x420-ts-56570356.jpg (22KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 420x420px

>>48432359

>>48432339
People are also free to consider thinly disguised opinions that masquerade as 'helpful advice' and 'informative discussion' as worthless and things to be ignored too. It works both ways. People enjoy claiming that their opinions are valid critiques all the time, especially when they're simply opinions.

>>48432390
Basically, you are taking things in the direction of the breakdown of discussion and conversation.

Person A submits something.
Person B offers their opinion, whether it's helpful advice or senseless criticism.
Now, Person A has two valid options, with one being to entertain Person B's opinion, or to ignore it. Saying something like "You can't judge me, I'm having fun" isn't ignoring Person B, it is committing a fallacy in an attempt to dismiss Person B's opinion.

You can argue that Person B's opinion is wrong, but you can't try and say they are wrong for having their opinion, nor are they wrong for sharing their opinion if it is a reaction to Person A sharing theirs.

>>48432262
Nigger that's exactly what I said.
You can do it if you want and think it's fun all you want altough you must be a complete faggot and an entitled special snowflake imo. But it goes completely against the setting rules. So it's not 40k anymore, meaning you are factually wrong.

>>48432339
That doesn't really stop him from having fun.

You seem a bit "fixated" on the idea that things are only right if everyone else likes them.

>>48432440
>48432390
Such as "I play Pf because it's fun."
"But it's broken, you can't possibly be having fun."
"Yet I am."
"That's badwrongfun, and you're a bad person."

That is literally how badwrongfun is most often used, to shame people for having fun in a way that someone desn't like.

>>48432464
>That doesn't really stop him from having fun.

But it stops the presumption that his brand of fun should be encouraged.

There are many rules to roleplaying games, some of which go unspoken for long lengths of time, and chief among them is the idea that if it makes things more fun, you are justified in doing it: The problem is that people misconstrue this to mean "Anything you do is justified, if you say you are having fun."

If you decide to not stick to the lore of a setting, you need to justify your reasons behind your change, because the initial assumption is that the official lore is internally consistent and that altering it may lead to a cascade of inconsistencies. It might really be as simple as "I prefer X over Y", but that likewise may require qualifiers to explain why you prefer X over Y.

This may sound tedious, and I won't argue that discussing something with someone who doesn't understand your personal tastes never gets a bit onerous and sometimes even downright unpleasant, but that's where you have the option to ignore them. You don't have the option to commit the fallacy of presuming that saying "fun" magically absolves you of any greater sins you may have committed without considering the aftermath of your decisions.

>>48432561
But that relies entirely on the assumption that gaming outside the lore of a setting is a "sin", which is an entirely subjective definition. You only have to justify a change to your other players, and that justification can just be "I'm the DM".

>>48432475
No, that's someone making the mistake of using a poor definition of "broken", and the first person deciding that instead of correcting them (it's not broken if people can play it without encountering any major issues) or ignoring them, they decided to throw up an ultimately useless reply of "I'm having fun", as if that wasn't already assumed.

More importantly, people rarely actually use the term "badwrongfun" except when making strawmen.

>>48432561
>You don't have the option to commit the fallacy of presuming that saying "fun" magically absolves you of any greater sins you may have committed without considering the aftermath of your decisions.

What sort of sins?

>>48432262

No. Then, what you do is, you get a lot of really loud, whiny, bitching people together on a purple Internet message board, and bitch loudly and long enough that the original setting is changed to match your desires.

>>48432023
stabbing your party members to death with a lamp is badwrongfun

>>48432593
>But that relies entirely on the assumption that gaming outside the lore of a setting is a "sin"

No, the assumption is that gaming in direct opposition to the lore without qualifications is a sin. If you have no reason for doing something, you shouldn't do it, right? Especially if doing it potentially has many negative repercussions, such as altering the internal consistency of a setting.

This doesn't mean that you should never alter the lore to suit your tastes, what it means is to do so with caution and consideration, to think through your decisions, especially if you plan on sharing and advocating these decisions as ones other people may want to try.

>>48432561
>greater sins
This is just a fucking role-playing game dude.
There is no fallacies or sins in there, if it's fun, it's fun, if it's not fun for someone else they may just not play it or discuss it and achieve a compromise.
There is nothing to judge since it's just personal preferences in playing games.

>>48432596
Maybe because some people are not huge autists and don't wan't to start correcting people opinions all the time and it's easier for them to just show that person that they don't give a fuck since they are having fun anyway.

>>48432653

Some groups care about the setting's internal consistency. Some don't. Neither is wrong.

As long as the whole group is enjoying the game, you can play a giant robot from the moon if you want to.

>>48432390
Why does something stop being a valid critique if it's someones opinions? Aren't all critiques opinions? What other kinds are there? I think you should wait til you've finished school (primary level at least) before you start posting here again anon, this is embarrassing.

>>48432023
Some people forget, but the point of these games is to have fun. So if you and your group are having fun, you've by definition won. So if someone thinks you playing Fallout Equestria ruins the integrity of his elf games, fuck him

>>48432475
>"I play Pf because it's fun."
>"But it's broken, you can't possibly be having fun."
>"Yet I am."
>"Then obviously you must have never experienced any other game or are so severely retarded that you can't appreciate a better game and I feel deeply sorry for you."
FTFY

>>48432629
Depends on the setting

>>48432600
>>48432654

For an example, one of the greater sins a GM can commit is bullying a player. If a GM alters the setting and mechanics to strip the player of power and agency and to submit them to a variety of humiliations, that's a sin, regardless of how much fun the GM and the rest of the group is having and how much punishment the victim player is willing to endure.

People have bad games. That shouldn't be a shock to anyone here. The terrifying notion is that some people don't even recognize that they are having bad games, and will refuse to examine their games by instead simply saying "I am having fun" as if that suffices to explain how and why they are having fun, if at all.

In this hypothetical, the bullied player may have been convinced by his GM that he's having fun because the spotlight is most often on their character, and that everyone else is having a great time through him being mistreated. While the player could have more fun having more respect and agency, they commit themselves to being bullied because they've convinced themselves that their "sacrifice" is for the good of the group, and that no matter how much they hate playing, they can enjoy the idea that they are some sort of martyr.

Now, I don't want you running away with the idea that I'm advocating that anonymous strangers over the internet will always know about whether a person is truly having fun or not, but what I am saying is that there are plenty of times where a person will say they are having fun when they are just trying to justify making a poor decision. Without presuming that saying the word "fun" is a universal form of absolution, people are forced to examine WHY they are having fun, which brings to light whether they are really justified or not.

>>48432755
And yet. Having fun.

Or are you going to imply the only thing mattering in having fun is the mechanics of the game?

In that case, let me use something very quotable in your own post:
>Then obviously you [...] are [...] severely retarded [...] and I feel deeply sorry for you.

>>48432755
Oh look, it's eternally triggered bitch-anon.

>>48432331
>le epic pink feather boa meme

>>48432755

You understand that's not any better, right? In your version, you're just a condescending and frankly incorrect dick. Pf is broken. Some people like it. Some people who've played many other systems like it. I don't, but many people do. People like different things, how are you incapable of comprehending that?

>>48432785
This, I thought I was having fun when I played 3.5 and PF, then some friends invited me to Anima BF and I realized what fun really is

>>48432734
>opinion
>a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
You know what words mean right?

>>48432814
Are there actually games besides 3.5 and Pathfinder?
My playgroup says that there are not.

>>48432798
Many people like PF, coincidentally most of them are the magic>everything kind of players so I understand why they like PF

>>48432246

It does not say that this can not happen in the canon.

>>48432814
That may be your situation, but it's hardly universal.

3.5 and PF are great systems for most people, and they have plenty of fun with them even after trying out different systems.

You really shouldn't just make shitposts like yours just because you need to take every opportunity you can to express how upset you are that a game you don't like is more popular than you would like.

>>48432851
Is hardly universal that you can have more fun? I doubt someone can find the absolute point of fun

>>48432831
This, sorta.

We switched to 5e and one of my players is bitching that you can't twink spells to have impossible to make saves and hold person doesn't eliminate the target from the fight.

>>48432785
>sins
Why you keep talking about sins, were you visited by some angel of autism who brought you the list on the golden plate or what?
Fun is subjective, if someone is having fun, they are having fun. Nobody has to give you any explanation or absolution on why they are having fun or not, as it's their own problems on whether they are really having fun or not.
If you don't believe that someone is having fun and you have some need to examine them whether or not they are really having fun, it's your problem not theirs.

>>48432851
>thinking the post is actually about 3.5 and PF and not just metaphor of "you can always have more fun"

>>48432891
Your shitpost asserts that Anima BF is "what fun really is", as if you could not really have had fun with 3.PF. That's hardly a universal sentiment.

But, you know this already. You're just here to shitpost.

>>48432851
Hey, would you adopt a trip? I have literally seen everything you have to say now for about 10 times already, and now it's just wasting space.

Think about it, you could be a respected tripfaggot 3.PF fans can rally behind, as their game slowly starts sinking due to 5e, for one last, final edition war before your bloated, cancerous game finally dies.

>>48432922
>thread is about subjective opinions and how valuable are all
>the moment I submit a subjective opinion I'm a shitposter
Nice double standards there

>>48432922
He said he had fun with 3.5/PF, you paranoid.

>>48432906
I like using the word sin because it triggers hat-tipping autists. It's just for flavor, don't take it too much to heart.

>Fun is subjective, if someone is having fun, they are having fun.

Fun is sort of like love. You can be deluded or seduced into thinking you're in love or having fun, but it falls apart when you take a moment to step back and distance yourself from a purely emotional interpretation of fun and love.

Fun is subjective, but it's not entirely contained within the emotional spectrum, because really nothing is. Even a joke doesn't simply qualify as funny by whether it makes someone laugh or not, because there's different levels of humor, just like there's different types of love and fun.

You seem intent on dumbing things down to a base level of "if it makes my peepee tingle, it's love" equivalent of fun, which is the very last kind of fun that people should advocate for because that is the kind that most easily lends itself to self-destructive behavior.

>>48432947
>thread is about subjective opinions and how valuable are all

Because that's not what this thread is about.

>>48432793
>>48433014
Just stopping by this thread to tell you you're still a faggot.

The definition of wrong and right when applied to rpg seems to have confused a lot of you faggots. I will attempt to clarify.

If a game has rules, as in this is the intended way of playing it, then by not playing by the rules, it is possible and useful to define right as following the rules and wrong as not doing so. For example, making an illegal move in chess.

This of course has nothing to do with bad, or right and wrong as applied to having fun, or in judging the player's worth as persons. It is neither useful nor instructive to do so. Bad and good could relate to player skill, as in wins/losses in competive games, but only because such an objective metric exists. If a good game or a good player is defined by the amount of fun, this metric is subjective, an therefore it is a fallacy to apply it to any one person other than those already observed, and only from the observers of those themselves.

>>48433035
You are literally going to be eternally triggered, so you will never stop bitching. D&D will never stop being popular, no matter how much you complain.

>>48433014
Do you really think that there's only a single person tired of your antics?

Or is everyone who falls into that group "eternally triggered bitch anon"?

...

Are you fucking sixteen maybe? That would explain the persistence with which you shitpost, having nothing better to do in the summer.

>>48433065
If you're eternally triggered and a bitch, you're eternally triggered bitch-anon.

What's hard to understand about that? You will be shitposting forever, and calling you out on it just sort of helps illustrate how annoying you are.

You can end it all just by not being a bitch, but since that's beyond you, just enjoy being eternally called an eternally triggered bitch, anon.

>>48432023
Hol' up
So you're telling me
That there's a wrong way of sitting around a table, playing make-believe with other people while doing maths?
Sure, there are shitty ways of mathimagining but even the most shitty, niche, broken methods will appeal to certain kinds of people
Especially considering that roleplaying games attract people with rather abnormal tastes

>>48433124
There's a wrong way of doing math though

>>48433237
Sure
But how often does a player not comprehend basic Maths

File: 1447385047467.jpg (333KB, 700x1690px) Image search: [Google]

333KB, 700x1690px

By the Emperor you're all a bunch of complete tosspots.
Yes that includes you.

>>48433298
Math follow rules, if the outcome of those rules don't suit the player some might ignore them, is not just not understanding them

Same with games, if you don't follow the rules you're playing that specific game wrong, you might have fun, sure, but you're playing that specific game wrong because you're ignoring it's rules, you're playing another different game then

>>48433344
>you're ignoring it's rules, you're playing another different game then

What if the game's rules include, in writing, that the GM can alter and adjust the rules as they see fit, including variant printed rules in the books themselves?

>>48433374
A shitty excuse :^)

>>48432847
Marines can only be male. Period.
Grey Knights are incorruptible and literally explode if a Daemon tried to posses them.
You can do some stupid fluff gymnastics and have Bile roid up some feral world women with Chaos and all kinds of genetic and technological fuckery to make them on a similar level as Marines and then outfit them with Chaos versions of GK gear. Or maybe get some bullshit device to use actual GKs as puppets, even if that never fully worked in the fluff. Or any other other headcanon bullshit you can think of.
But somehow creating fully fledged female Grey Knights then having them willingly fall to Chaos is impossible in the fluff. You are welcome to do it, but it's factually wrong so it's the wrong way of playing a 40k RPG.

>>48433404
>iterally explode if a Daemon tried to posses them.

That is fandom. Seriously, the 'They explode if someone tries to corrupt them' has no basis in canon.

File: 1465452359307.jpg (128KB, 595x998px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 595x998px

>>48432023
If you can adequately describe fun so that any instance of gaming can be measured against it, yes. Problem is everyone has their own definitions.

>What are some consistent ways to have fun while gaming?
Work out the definition of fun that works best for your group.

>>48433414
They have wards tattooed on their bodies to do that. Or at least I'm like 99% that the GK trilogy mentions that the wards prevent possession by killing the GK.
Could be wrong though, I think them having wards inscribed on their bones is fandom too.

>>48433374
I'd say ok, but with some buts depending on the consistency, reason, etc

File: 1467535263975.jpg (114KB, 853x629px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 853x629px

>>48432785
>Sins
>Greater sins
>The messiah of /tg/
>The Autismo Prophet

This is real autism people, bask in the glory of its apparently sin-free existence

Pic related, its anon raping my sensibilities with his sin free talk

>>48433507
No you're confused what is the guy who fucked up the lore he's the fan fiction writer you're arguing about

>>48432653
Why are you so salty about this? People mess the lore up to make it sillier all the time, but the actual lore is still there.
Anyway, rpg settings are nearly always childish and stupid, so there's no message or philosophical theme ruined by turning the stupidity up to 11.

>>48433098
By this logic, you're an eternally triggered bitch-anon.

>>48432023
it all depends on your playgroup

if you go into a playgroup that really loves character-driven campaigns and just murderhobo your way through with little though to your character, then your group is going to complain about "badwrongfun"

but if you join a group where everyone enjoys playing that way, then there is nothing wrong with it because everyone is enjoying themselves

it's just about finding a group that plays how you do

>>48432331
>changing make-believe setting fluff so your game of make believe is more enjoyable is the same thing as actually eating feces or actually torturing a living creature
This is what /tg/ actually believes.

Technically there is badwrongfun. For example, if you and your friend have fun by torturing animals and people, or by raping, any other sort of activity that harms an unwilling participant, that is badwrongfun.

But referring to /tg/, not really. Some people want ultra edgy adventures in demon highschool, some want to be Arthurian Knights saving people and reciting barely legible poetry. So long as neither of these get in the way of anyone else's fun, you're fine.

>>48433404
>s factually wrong so it's the wrong way of playing a 40k RPG.
>give players rules to game
>okay, now you need to read through X number of books that explains the setting which you need to follow religiously or else you fucked up
Fuck it, now I'm never playing 40k. If I have to purchase and read through everything they've ever published to play it right, I'm not going to bother.
What a shitty fucking system.

File: 1467338194933.gif (999KB, 500x277px) Image search: [Google]

999KB, 500x277px

>>48433566
>>48434157
By the glory of the Autismo Prophet, I shun thee nonbeliever!

I don't know about badwrongfun, but I do believe their is a wrong kind of fun where you actively shit up fun for the rest of the group.

Players who steal from party members, players who do disruptive things and hide behind the "It's what my character would do" shield, players who do nothing but actively try to derail the game, etc are what I'd consider wrong fun.

If you only gain fun by actively draining it from the rest of the group you need to stop.

>>48434266
Oh man, so threatened by your gif of some dude shooting someone in the face. How will I live out the rest of my days, knowing that you could be around any corner waiting for me?

>>48434341
As long as the majority is having fun there's no such thing as badwrongfun

>>48433404
No. Marines are male just because. There is no GOOD reason given.
Headcanon is not canon, they don't explode.
Technically the whole timeline is already set anyways, so if you wanna cunt this place up with your silly logic then anything you do in the rps or tabletop is not canon capable unless it's an exact reenactment.

>>48434402
There's, you might not like it, but has to do with cloning from a male base and the Y chromosome.

>>48434433
Which is an asspull that means nothing in a universe where there are space Marines in the first place. I capitalized good for a reason in that last post.

>>48434480
Again, you might not like it, but it makes more or less sense and has way more thought behind it than other dogmatic stuff from 40k

>>48432440
but opinions are fundamentally terrible. person b IS wrong for thinking the opinion worth sharing with anyone.

>>48434355
Wat

>>48434542
>more thought
>girls can't cuz bad genes
K

>>48434679
Yeah, genes have nothing to do with organ compatibility

>>48434713
That's blood type, retard.

>>48433836
Ssssssh, the irony is the best part of his particular flavor of shitposting, don't ruin it.

>>48434713
>knows the difference between a male and female spleen
Share, plz

>>48434433
Anon, it's not really a good reason, considering how 40k runs on handwaving alone and the Y chromosome is probably the shittiest part one could use for just about anything. I, for one, are completely okay with it because I like th accept and appreciate the vision of the creator of a thing as the creator made it.
But it could still be different and nothing would change in the game. Marines would still be giant, idealized, living gods of war, with bodies honed to the perfection and minds completely made from zealotry and battle-training.
Really, I don't get why people get so strung up on this from both sides. There are no female Marines in the canon, because there aren't any, just like Superman is a dude because he was written that way. If you want to change it in your own home, by all means, do it. But stop bringing it up, because thirty years of writing a fictional universe in a certain way is probably reason enough to not change it.
What's next, people complaining that Paul Atreides isn't a woman and that Dune should be rewritten to make the Muad'dib a girl? Or Samus a dude?

>>48433836
>>48434753
The irony deepens by your own eternally triggered posts.

>>48434755
>spleen
Nice strawman, sadly is not a spleen and it needs certain hormones (gene dependent) that you can't find on women. Btw there's some examples like this irl, some transplants are waaaay more riskier if the organ comes from a different gender than you (cornea for example)

>>48434940
Bullshit.

File: baitmaster.png (60KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 625x626px

I'm not sure if op was trying to troll this hard but if he was kudos.

>>48434940
Double bull. Nice try defending your autism, though.

>>48434940
>Specially created organs made with 30th millennium science by an immortal genius godman aren't compatible with women
>Must be because women are so different and not because the Emperor doesn't want any girls in his burly beefcake clubhouse

>>48435006
>>48434958
Google is free, look it

File: Untitled.png (47KB, 404x1202px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 404x1202px

>>48432331
It's more like this

>>48435024

>women

Those some kind of abhuman? I've never seen one in 40k.

>>48435024
I didn't say it makes perfect sense, I said it has some thought behind it, again Google search is your friend

>>48435038
Probably just a mutant of Slaanesh's creation

>>48432596

>implying a whole archetype of character for which there are multiple classes (martial) being completely useless isn't broken

Kek

>>48435033
this pretty much goes for most of this thread actually

>>48435054

Fucking degenerates and their weird fetishes.

Why sisters of battle are women only? Why only women can use faith to do bullshit stuff? This is misandrism

>>48435123
Pretty much the entirety of 40K is people doing bullshit stuff, just let it happen

>>48432023
Its a thing because some people want it to be a thing. But ultimately nobody can tell you that you can't play CoC with a team of black guys in the 1890s in the south. And maybe it turns out super fun but if you talk about it to someone they might get mad at you, or say you cant.

You can do whatever you want in my opinion, with a couple exceptions.

Such as, magical realm that makes others uncomfortable, or makes little sense in the setting. No you don't have some cat girl girlfriend, and no, you can't have khorne be a crazy chick.

I also hate the players who insist on playing clones of video game characters, or anime characters and then bitch when I don't cater to them.

For example,
>Friend makes a human ranger
>Shows me a homebrew when he levels up, he steals souls from his enemies on kill, and can use them to heal. Or he can use them to make himself stronger
>A bonus feat gives him bonus rolls against orcs
>He just finished beating shadows of mordor
>His class gets a bigass cat mount.
>Guess who spent the first 4 levels fighting kobolds, goblins. Bugbears. And trolls. But no orcs.
>Guess who fought in cramped places his mount won't fit.
>Guess who quit the group because he was tired of instakilling trolls at level 2

Seriously, don't play broken homebrew if insta winning is boring....

>>48435170
Shadows of mordor is so not lotrp

>>48435170
>guess who
Was it your brother?

>>48435262
No...was it your uncle?

>>48435350
No.
Man, guessing is hard.

>>48435390
Wait...I know who it is
>It was the butler in the kitchen with a candlestick

File: 566.gif (117KB, 600x338px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 600x338px

>>48435427
Sorry man, but...

>>48433041
Finally someone with IQ in this thread.

>>48432219
This.

You have the right to shovel as much shit into your mouth as you want.

And I have the right to laugh at you for it.

>>48435482
>right
You mean privelege

File: 1467409286306.jpg (14KB, 312x319px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 312x319px

>>48434355
Are you willied anon, got bunched?

>>48433057
Dude, are you high? The guy was talking about how 3.PF is shit and 5e is going to replace it.

Fucking DnD players and their lack of reading comprehension.

>>48435631
>pf shit
I agree

I could, hypothetically, use the handle of a screwdriver to pound nails. This would achieve the desired goal of "put nails into thing," but I'm doing it wrong. That's not the proper use for a screwdriver, and I would not call it a good screwdriver if I can use it for pounding nails but can't actually turn screws with it. Similarly, a "so bad it's good" movie is still bad. You had fun, which on paper is what you watch a movie for ("emotional experiences," whatever), but you're laughing at the movie, not with it.

You can have fun with a bad thing, but that doesn't make the bad thing not a bad thing.

>>48434402
There are only male Marines because the Emperor was only able to make male Marines and even if he could, he didn't want Marines to replace humanity in any way. But the actual reason doesn't even matter or how good it is. The fact is that it's canonically impossible to create female space marines.
And let me be clear on this yet again, you can do it if you want. Nobody is stoping you. But it goes against the one of very few pieces of 40k fluff that is set in stone and can't be changed. So it's a factual wrong way to play 40k, which is the question OP asked.

Like let me explain my logic here with generic examples. Because "technically nothing is canon because established timeline" is the most retarded logic ever. The setting is established and you play in it. Of course your fucking stories aren't canon, but that doesn't mean they couldn't happen. The timeline isn't completely set you moron.

>all of the known barbarians living in this setting are stupid and blood thirsty, but you want to play a smart barbarian
Completely doable. Just because it's unheard of doesn't mean it's impossible. Actually a great roleplay option to explore how he became like this or whatever.
>it's a fantasy setting without the smallest hint of dragons in it, but the GM wants a dragon to be an encounter
Again doable. Maybe just create a creature that is basically a dragon but call it some fancy made up name that fits the theme. If you think that's bending the fluff, then just mutate or transform some local lizards to dragonlike creatures, using whatever means the setting offers.
>everybody in the setting and the core rulebook background fluff explicitly state that it's impossible for wizards to raise the dead, but you want to play a necromancer
Now this is impossible. It's against the setting completely. You can maybe play a wizard that controls corpses as puppets or some other creative workaround. But if you insist on playing a necromancer, you are factually playing the RPG wrong.

>>48434341
>players who do disruptive things and hide behind the "It's what my character would do"

Oh yeah, the old PC Nuremburg defense. That is wrong fun right there. "So, dickhead player, who do you think decided what your character was like and the kind of things he would do, huh?"

>>48435684

A corollary of that, however, is that just because you didn't like a thing or didn't have fun with it, doesn't mean that it's bad. A lot fa/tg/uys seem to think otherwise -- I've argued with a few of them.

>>48432023

Yes, there is. If you're running your home game like a Magical Realm Calvinball containment board and you and the other inmates are happy as clams, more power to you.

But when you're fucking up so bad that it's driving resources out of the hobby as a whole, then fuck you, you're doing it wrong. This includes shitting up discussion areas with an endless cavalcade of "I chose to ignore all advice and the rules as written and now my game sucks, but if you tell me to follow the rules or listen to the advice I ignored you're a baka" threads and people who demand that any discussion of the actual rules as written stop every 30 seconds to suck the DMs cock.