>playing D&D >one of the characters is playing a bard

>>52949253
you did good

one of the most cancerous new trends in roleplaying is letting players retcon the setting for mechanical advantage. for example in Dungeon World, players are encouraged to describe what rumors they hear in town. that sort of behaviour is a bad trend.

File: de6.jpg (66KB, 831x445px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 831x445px

>>52949253
>playing D&D

>>52949253
This agian.

Not even Fresh PASTA.

>>52949253
>I literally broke my back to accomodate his character's personality
Are you ok?

>>52949309
It's a figure of speech faggot.

>>52949297
>thinking this shit happens in d&d only

>>52949291
It is actually a pretty great trend. The GM should have the final word about anything except the thoughts, feelings and actions of PCs, but letting players have a hand in ongoing worldbuilding works out just fine.

>>52949323
In that case go and break it for real, desu.

Why did he need to reference battles in the first place instead of just making up tactics.

>>52949253
That GM thread?

>>52949297
The problem with the "have you tried not playing D&D" is that people use it more often than not when playing a different system wouldn't solve anything.

Few problems discussed on this board can be solved just by switching systems, largely because at the end of the day, the system is actually only a small component to the game that's being run, and that switching systems just leads to a new veneer on the same old problems.

"Try X system" is not always bad advice, but it's not particularly helpful in a thread about problem players, or about story issues, or even alignment arguments, because even in the last case it's just a name (or a different name) for things you'll find in find in almost every other game. Even games "without" alignments still have degrees of morality to them or factions with codes of conduct, and most alignment arguments typically revolve around these two features of alignment.

Does D&D have flaws? Certainly, but most of these are remedied in far less time than it takes to learn a new system, and the idea that you should abandon a system just because something didn't work out is why we find a lot of people hopping through multiple systems hoping that a change of game will solve their problems.

Most of the whole problem with system discussion is that it's actually political in nature. Play X game or play Y game is a tactic to try to garner support for one game or dissuade people from playing another, and is largely dishonest in its lack of transparency. D&D becomes a target not because it's a bad game by any measure, but because it's popularity means people are less inclined to play other games.

As a person who has played his share of everything under the sun and now plays homebrews almost exclusively, I've really gotten tired of people claiming system superiority or inferiority when they're all just talking about the same inferior games just under different disguises.

If only they knew how amazing Duck in the Circle was.

>>52949323
Speech is formed by sounds, you cant make figures with it, retardo.

>>52949397
More like That Player. OP did literally nothing wrong.

>>52949356
This. I don't get why anyone would get annoyed by that, as a GM I love it when players come up with stuff for the campaign. They're basically doing my job and enjoying it :D

>>52949291
>one of the most cancerous new trends in roleplaying is letting players retcon the setting for mechanical advantage.

This. One of my players in Pathfinder just got sick of his current character so he's making a new one to show up and kill the old one. And he expects to get XP for it. he also made up random bullshit about the world that doesn't even exist, then got salty when I refused to change it to accommodate him. When I first started playing D&D, the DM wrote our character backstories for us. Our families, the towns were from, etc. His argument: you don't get to choose where you're from, or your upbringing. And it worked well. No edgelord backstories, no stupid-ass character motivations that got lost half the time, no faggots with no idea as to the tone of a fantasy setting, inserting anime bullcrap. I wouldn't agree with his method entirely but damn it sure worked in that case to improve the game.

>>52949419
>Blow up over literally fucking nothing
>Get mad at a player roleplaying well a character
Yeah, That GM thread it seems

Btw, I'm perma GM and I wish even half of my players were like that instead of number faggots who only care about what's written in their sheet

He was kinda right, and you seem like an absolute anti-fun DM.
But sometimes you and your players don't want to play the same game and if you knew that you should have prevented it from happening instead of throwing your childish tantrum. Who fucking cares if a historical battle never happened, it's just a way to roleplay his tactics. If you had let him, then told him afterwards to abide by your rules or not come back, you'd have been way less of a douchebag.

>He allows his players to roll, speak or even have ideas on their own
Go play videogames

>>52949253

Well despite you escalating the situation quickly, I agree with you. That's the same type of player who reveals he has a hidden skill because its part of his backstory but never came into play until now. Yeah uh huh.

But he does have a point. You do sound control freakish over this.

So, after getting told off on /pfg/ and /5eg/, you come to be told off a third time?

Your pasta is getting stale.

You are so fucking autistic.

>Player tries roleplaying.
>Not even looking for a mechanical advantage, just saying stuff that fits his character.
>"Nuh uh, no."
>Player tries recovering in character to save the game.
>"NUH UH NO!"
>Explains that he's just roleplaying.
>"Nuh uh, you're trying to fuck up my world."
>Says you're being a control freak.
>"Nuh uh, get the fuck out of my house."

Holy shit, anon.

>>52949253
>Player roleplays
>Invents tactics in a fun way that has zero effect on the world the DM created
>DM gets mad and acts as a rude asshole because "you're trying to fuck up my world"
>Fuck up my world
>Literally a forgettable tactic in a battle you'll never hear about again
>Fuck. Up. My. World.
Seriously, you need anger management issues OP. Either that or roleplaying isn't for you.

>>52949253
>he refuses to break character and says to me (the DM) "oh of course it did, back in 1132 B.V., the great battle of Caruso, you can't tell me you don't remeber that?"
wait a minute, were you playing a DMPC?
holy shit, ahahahahahahahahahahah

who the fuck cares about some random battle ages ago that doesn't matter, was just used for fluff and will never come up again
fuck you, you're That GM

>>52949452
Yeah, there's no evidence that the guy was looking for an advantage. All he was doing was having his character compare the tactic they're using to a "historical example", literally all flavor.

>>52949519
The pasta is stale but it's still a good topic for discussion. One major difference between old school and newer rpg design is how they approach the setting. The old way of doing things was for the DM write everything beforehand and let players discover it, while the new is to let them in on creating the setting as they play.

In olr games when a character comes to a new town he asks "do I have friends here?" and the answer depends on the DM fiat. In new games there's most likely a specific game mechanic for introducing NPCs to the setting, and it's a question of a dice roll.

I much prefer the new way, because it eases GM burden and integrates the characters better into the game world.

File: I+found+your+problem_63d461_4117229.jpg (62KB, 780x472px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 780x472px

>>52949253
>playing D&D

>>52949446
>When I first started playing D&D, the DM wrote our character backstories for us. Our families, the towns were from, etc. >His argument: you don't get to choose where you're from, or your upbringing.

I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing but that's not an argument. His conclusion just restates the premise. It's circular.

>>52949253
Everytime i hear a story about d&d its about either a gm or player that tries to change the rules or lore into their favor. Why do people still play this?

>>52949607
refer to
>>52949409
>>52949338

>>52949628
Because of all the options it's the most accessible and popular.

>>52949618
Not that poster, but the argument is that you, literally you the human being, don't get to choose where you come from or your upbringing; so it should be for your characters.

>>52949595
Also, lying is something that happens, as are legends. You can, IRL have someone argue to place giant mirrors to burn down boats, but it doesn't mean it was actually used when they said.

>>52949595

I prefer somewhat amorphous settings where the GM has a general timeline of history and layout of geography but leaves things open enough that pretty much anything can be adapted to fit the existing narrative, so long as it isn't violating the tone of the setting.

Wicker soldiers used as decoys is great, because it works in even low-magic settings.

File: 450pxNero_1.jpg (35KB, 450x600px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 450x600px

>>52949253
>plays role play game
>throws a tantrum when the players actually roleplay

>>52949409
>>52949338
I don't have a problem with the system but around me the only people playing D&D are either pre-teen munchkins or people who want to use 3.pf to make a doughnut steel half-orc/dragon/angel deity of paragon of the hill folk. Maybe this isn't a world wide endemic but my experience with the player base is that they're cancer.

>>52949253
Write a book; no one comes to a game to watch the GM jerk-it to his own world-building.

>>52949291
>one of the most cancerous new trends in roleplaying is letting players retcon the setting for mechanical advantage
But that didn't happen. The bard was able to make the illusions either way, he was just claiming that the tactic came from such and such a battle to stick to his character. There was no mechanical advantage at all to this.

>>52949679
True! GM should set up the history in broad strokes and the players can then fill in the details as they go. You could even accommodate something contrary to the accpted history by having it be a fabrication or the event being told from a different viewpoint. It's not like people see even the real history the same way everywhere.

>>52949253
You are a cunt OP. If you really told him to leave after something so insignificant, only because you were butthurt, they you are and idiot and a cunt. You ruined that session, don't blame anyone else, but yourself.

>>52949761
This is basically how I make characters, too. Broad strokes initially, details as you go.

True, isolate yourself and dedicate your time to wanking.

>>52949253

> He doesn't follow the "yes and" approach to improvisation

Settings are for storytelling.

You are only one person. There are only so many stories you personally can tell in your setting. When you invite others into the world you've constructed, you're inviting others to tell their own stories in that world. Every time you do that, you make the setting you've written become more real.

By all means, set boundaries. If someone tries to break the laws of magic you've written, or do something completely out of character, or something that offends your sensibilities, smack them down. You're the creator, after all. You're the god of that world.

But even God gave Man free will, and for a reason.

If your player wants to invent the Battle of Caruso in 1132 BV, let him. Maybe it wasn't as big as he says it was, and was effectively just a skirmish. Maybe he's remembering the name wrong, and Caruso was the name of the river, when it really took place in the city next to the river. And if it's truly, truly out of character and style for your world, maybe the bard was just making shit up to inspire his friends to go through with a shitty plan.

To answer your question, OP, this is largely the result of decades worth of liberalism and academic "critical theory" interfering with design philosophy in RPGs. As far back as the Storyteller system's spawning, there's been a subtly encroaching philosophy that giving one person at the table complete control of the world and its reactivity (i.e., the GMs responsibility) creates an imbalanced power dynamic within the social group itself. Not the game, mind you - this whole idea of players re-writing the world is rooted in armchair sociology that thinks your social circle itself is privileging the GM to lord power over the rest of you.

This is why, generally speaking, OSR players tend to skew conservative and narrativist players tend to skew leftist: it's because narrativist game design is inescapably rooted in a leftist desire to "equalize" the social dynamics of your play group whether you like it or not. The nearly direct correlation between game developers whose products include mechanics for players declaring new aspects of the world on the fly or advise rewarding "plot points"/"fate points"/"bennies" to online personas that whine about politics in public forums is not coincidental, in this sense.

This is also why you should be cautious of PCs with extensively detailed histories before play begins: whether intentional or not, it's an attempt to exert direct control on your setting beyond what is typically expected of a player, and is usually indicative of other ideological entitlements towards how much a game should bend to "accomdiate" player expectations during play.

>>52949879
You have to go back.

>>52949665
Oh. That you. Whoops

>>52949253
This man has had too many vaccines in his life. Pray the autism away from him, /tg/.

>>52949253
> He doesn't follow the "yes and" approach to improvisation
>If your player wants to invent the Battle of Caruso in 1132 BV, let him. Maybe it wasn't as big as he says it was, and was effectively just a skirmish. Maybe he's remembering the name wrong, and Caruso was the name of the river, when it really took place in the city next to the river. And if it's truly, truly out of character and style for your world, maybe the bard was just making shit up to inspire his friends to go through with a shitty plan.

Fucking this. What I usually do when the shit my players make up in this kind of situation is, if it provides an advantage, make them roll how true it is. Usually they're okay with that and it's pretty fun when they fail

>Player take the role of a marchant NPC in the street because his character died
>See the PC fight against stupid villain #37
>"Let me pass ! I have an unbreakable net !"
>"Make an unbreakableness roll"
>*Rolls*
>Fails
>"The net breaks as bystanders stare in bewilderment"
>"Let me pass ! This chair is made of massive oak !"

>>52949253
so tell me OP, what would you do if the character simply lied and said it anyway? How would the other characters even know?

>>52949665
>so it should be for your characters.
Why?
And in the same line, history isn't dictated by a GM, is dictated by the people, so fuck GM worldbuilding, players say what happens, happened and will happen.

File: 38c5a6e8-fe4b-443d-890b-bc74ecefda68.jpg (76KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 600x600px

>>52949253
>>52949291
Not sure if this is a troll, but I actually agree.

Rise of narratavist systems have seemed to spread the idea that this it's a good behavior, to be encouraged. "It doesn't it the batching and let's everyone have the fun of words building!"

That's fine if everyone agreed to that sorry if thing ahead of time. And the GM deliberately left the world open for stuff like that.

But if that's not the case then the player is stepping on GM agency the same way a a gm would in player agency via a railroading.

>>52949891
He's right, though.

>>52949950
Let me borrow her for a week.

>>52949879
So what you're saying is that you like being a little autocrat that dictates everything to your group of players.

>>52949742
So, you're aware that you're just making baseless broad statements when your real problem is ultimately unrelated to what you're complaining about, aside from personal conjecture on your part?

I mean, it's nice of you to tear apart your own credibility by yourself, but to do so in an attempt to justify your shitposting? For shame.

Can you tell me what game you play? I'd like to go ahead and use my personal experience with you to label the player base as senseless whiners.

>>52949879
Then again rpgs are an interactive medium, and it misses the point if the players are reduced just to passively consuming the material GM comes up with (and also harder for the GM too for having to bear most of the burden of making the game happen).

>>52949879
>narrative systems are a liberal conspiracy to force equality on your group
Jesus Christ this is Alex Jones level of conspiracy theory

OP is a colossal faggot.

>>52949423
>>52949423
It's fine if related to the characters backstory/family and discussed with the gm first but making up shit on the spot to gain an advantage isnt. He could have rolled history to remember details of any decoys in previous battles. It's what the skills are there for.

File: maze of the blue medusa.jpg (219KB, 700x900px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 700x900px

>>52949879
> OSR players tend to skew conservative and narrativist players tend to skew leftist

...that's quite strange, now that I think about it.

How do you explain the art weirdo OSR guys, like your man who made pic-related? They seem quite leftist

I love player characters making up their own stuff in the story because it's one thing less for me to figure out, they can usually come up with far better stuff than I could've done for them, and they're having fun doing so.

There are games - operative word here "game" - where such a thing isn't relevant because the players just go down to the dungeons to kill things and loot, but outside of those instances, I cannot comprehend the kind of imbecilic control-freaky faggotry that some of the DMs in this thread exhibit.

>>52949423
I'm fine with having players have a hand in worlds building, but that should happen before the game even starts.

I wish my players would help define the setting and bring the world to life. Instead they just stare at me whenever I ask them where they are from. OP is like a turbo faggot with women just throwing themselves at him.

>>52950014
They were already using decoys. The bit about the battle of Caruso seems to be just roleplaying for flavor.

>>52949950
>stepping on GM agency
But it's really not. GM is a director and adjudicator, but the setting is free for all who take part of the game. Players get to make their characters after all, and that includes people they know and places they've been.

>>52949879
While pseudointellectual philosophies are always fun, it's actually just about letting players do stuf like that while the GM still has the final word having literally no downsides. It does have plenty of upsides, though, such as making use of cool ideas players have, encouraging attachment to the setting and campaign and rewarding creativity in small ways.

>>52949253
Fuck, I hate it when people completely shit on the established lore. I'm sure that the battle of Caruso was an important defeat, one that changed history and has large ramifications to the current party/situation.

File: 1462925018362.jpg (678KB, 1226x1650px) Image search: [Google]

678KB, 1226x1650px

>>52949253
You posted this in another thread before. I probably would have allowed and encouraged that sort of creativity. To make it fit your world better you could have made the battle he was referring to something way more small scale and inconsequential to the grand scheme of things in your world. It could have been a tactic that he picked up reading some niche history books. Guy had to be pretty engaged in your game to want to play a character like that in the first place.

>>52950014
But he's not gaining advantage for free, he's paying for it by adding to the game setting and making it richer. The GM is free to give out situational bonuses you know? Same thing here, with the extra benefit of a little enjoybale story.

>>52949253
You were in the wrong here mate, sorry to say. Your player was doing a good job of improvisation and role-playing and you shut him down because it didn't fit your autistic worldview

I think the idea of a character referencing historical battles for tactics is awesome and im totally gunna steal that.

I think how you should have handled this OP was not have him reference a battle that diddnt exist but let him use his knowledge of tactics learned from history to do that.
Because those decoys were a good idea and just because you weren't ready to RP outside of your super special setting doesnt mean they're a bad player.

>>52949968
>borrow
No. You can rent at 3k an hour though. >>52949879
>This is also why you should be cautious of PCs with extensively detailed histories before play begins: whether intentional or not, it's an attempt to exert direct control on your setting beyond what is typically expected of a player, and is usually indicative of other ideological entitlements towards how much a game should bend to "accomdiate" player expectations during play.
I was kinda with you up till this point.

>>52949253
I would just said that his character made that battle up, it's not like it makes any diffrence if he made up the battle or not if the manuver was real.

>>52949879
I love both narrative and OSR, depending on what I feel like at any given moment and what my friends and fellow players/DMs would like to do.

What does it say of me, politically speaking? Or could it be that trying to fit someone's political views on what kind of entertainment they prefer is a whole bunch of bullshit?

>>52949991
That's ignorant to the fact that GMs have been fully capable of fulfilling their end of world creation and management without narrativist mechanics for decades. Players are far from "passive consumers" in a setup that lets them interact with the world with the degree of freedom that rpgs allow for. That one party "interacts" and another "creates" isn't imbalance - it's just different roles, and skewing the two devalues both.

>>52949983
>autocrat
Your speed in attributing political connotations to the social dynamics of the completely apolitical setups of a traditional gaming group is proving my point for me, so thank you.

>>52949992
>Alex Jones
Uh oh! I hope the next part of your plan isn't publicly defaming me until I lose custody of my children and then celebrating my inability to see my own kids anymore online. It would sure be weird to see somebody claiming the moral high ground while laughing about their media campaign to strip a man of fatherhood, so its a good thing that's not something that would ever happen.

>>52950031
Where we disagree is that the world building should be a continuous process, it just doesn't stop the instant game starts. The GM of course retains the final say as the curator, but as a general rule it shouldn't matter where and when the addition to the world comes from.

File: Damn, he got me.png (57KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 625x626px

>>52949253
>playing comes up with a cool personality trait for his PC
>can make up cool ad-lib shit on the fly, enriching the setting and increasing the player's enjoyment and connection to the game world
>REEE DON'T TOUCH MUH SPESHUL SETTING
>ruin everything for everyone with your autism

this may be bait, but boy, does it make me mad

>>52950096
>No. You can rent at 3k an hour though
what, is her pussy plated in solid gold?
No piece of ass is worth that.

>>52949253
haha I saw that post too
very funny op
haha

File: next time.gif (499KB, 188x138px) Image search: [Google]

499KB, 188x138px

>>52949253
>He's a DM
>He puts his oh-see donut steel setting over the game
>He thinks this is okay

>>52949879
>bennies
why do people not know this is drug slang for horse tranquilizers?

File: disgust.gif (107KB, 650x450px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 650x450px

>>52949253
>this annoys me

Why the fuck would this annoy you? The guy's well into the game, enjoys it and enjoys your DMing, and wants to contribute to it as well as he can. What kind of a faggot could be anything less than delighted by such enthusiasm, let alone downright annoyed?

>>52950143
This. Any other considerations aside, there sure as hell are times when something the GM didn't even think of becomes relevant as the campaign progresses. Some world-building almost inevitably takes place during the campaign.

>>52949950
shes hot. where did you find the pic?

>>52950057
>but the setting is free for all who take part of the game.
No. I couldn't disagree more. The setting is everything in the GM's purview, from locations to history to NPCs.

Changing the history of the song isn't any different than changing NPCs or other major aspects of the game in any way except scale.
>I decided that x event happened
Isn't different than
>I decided that the dragon was a myth, so we don't have to fight it.

>>52950124
I don't know enough to judge your politics based on your gaming habits. However, your post tells me that you're either too thick to understand that "tends to skew" isn't an absolute or have decided to deliberately misread a post to make a smug point about it, which gives me certain suspicions either way.

>Or could it be that trying to fit someone's political views on what kind of entertainment they prefer is a whole bunch of bullshit?
Someone's enjoyment of media? Sure. The deliberate and inherently politicized choices someone makes when they create media? Absolutely not.

>>52950133
It's not a matter of capability but of convenience. The new way of doing things is just better with little downsides to it. The setting becomes richer with the GM doing less work, everybody wins.

>>52950204
>The deliberate and inherently politicized choices someone makes when they create media?

It's entirely possible to create fictional works without letting your real-life politics leak into it, all the more so when you're just playing a game and only really created a character and perhaps a bit of their history, instead of the entire world around them let alone the ruleset you're using.

>>52949879

That's stupid. My group plays exclusively narrativist games, because they are objectively superior AND we're all conservative (and in two cases, reactionary) af.

But you're too much of a cuck to realize this. Go back to listening to Fox News and jacking off to OSR "funnel."

File: 14359212_1115147121887320_3479896180324889125_n.jpg (104KB, 510x960px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 510x960px

>>52949253
my guess that this is bait.
there are a1000 and 1 different ways to approach this better than OP did and it's littered with little hints that he's just trying to make people angry.

>constantly plans tactics and refers to battles where they used certain maneuvers
>this annoys me but I have a list of famous battles for him to draw on and i tell him some (usually passing notes) to keep it true to the setting

translation wahh a player RP'd too good so I had to put in more work

the player came up with a random battle on the fly and the DM spazzed out. fuck the character could have bene bullshitting to boost troop moral but DM had to have an autism fit.

the OP is baiting, anyone who agrees with him should be ban from RPG's and shot on sight if seen with one.

in my book the player in OP's story is one I'd pray to have in my game rather than these retarded blank slate murder hobo's that get annoyed when you ask them to roll play for something.

>>52950133
>proving your point
I was simply going through with the rest of your point for you. If you want to align political ideologies with how you set up your games, your preferences must clearly mark you as a little autocrat.

>>52950197
>Isn't different than
Yes, it's very
The difference between [insert someone world wide famous] don't existing (Trump for example) as a minor battle that almost no one might have heard of it happening is not the same.

Anon is adding something insignificant, you're removing a present threat.

>>52950197
That slippery slope is at such an angle is almost as obtuse as you.

>>52950143
It can be a continuing process but I think the where and when do matter. Setting changes need to be considered and evaluated.

There isn't really time to think about and implement anything more than very minor changes during a game.

One of my current GMs and I have done a lot of collaborative world building, but it was all between games.

>>52950197
>The setting is everything in the GM's purview
Okay, I get that's how you see it, but what I don't get is what's the benefit of keeping the setting solely as the GM's purview? Why not crowdsource it instead and use what works?

>>52949323
Then don't use the word 'literally', dipshit!

>>52950254
>>52950281
So you both admit it's purely a matter of scale?

Should GMs be aloud to make changes to your character's background or personality as long as they're minor?

>>52950344
>Should GMs be aloud to make changes to your character's background or personality as long as they're minor?

Uh... yeah?

>>52950286
Sure, but the example in OP was most definitely a minor thing.

>>52950335
If that's what the GM wants than sure.

But for some people it'd be as weird as crowd sourcing character creation.

>>52950338
"Literally" literally means "figuratively" nowadays.

>>52950390
Weeelll character is more personal thing than an entire setting, so not really seeing it sorry?

>>52950413
Literally or figuratively literally?

File: 127a3c5e-8a0b-4d5a-9965-b35cbdeda3e0.jpg (150KB, 899x712px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 899x712px

>>52950361
>Will the barbarian is now Wilhelmina
>Still has a big meaty chest, so no major character changes.

>>52950448
I'm ok with it
Would be hard to explain my large cock though, but would be awesome addition to my char

>>52950417
A single character is minor. The work of a few hours. I've spent days in my setting. I should be able to make "minor" changes without your approval, because you're less invested than me.
Sorry.

>>52950448
You don't think a GM has ever intervened in character creation for something as small as a name, or a backstory?

>>52949665
But D&D isn't like real life, it's a fictional world and the story is entirely dictated by the players' ideas decisions.

>>52950335
>what I don't get is what's the benefit of keeping the setting solely as the GM's purview? Why not crowdsource it instead and use what works?
Consistency, broadly speaking. Coherency, as well.

Players might have more initial "buy-in" for a world that's been "crowdsourced," but players are almost universally selfish thinkers no matter how much of a group effort roleplaying is. Players might add things into the world that they, personally think would be cool for their character to interact with, but the GM is the only person at the table who is actually forced to constantly pay mind to keeping EVERYONE at the table entertained, and they're best suited for building and amending their campaign for everyone's best interest as a result.

You can claim that there's "no downsides" to crowdsourcing your worldbuilding, but that's really only from the player's perspective. After every player goes round-robin blurting out their favorite fantasy tropes and produces their melting pot of Cthulhu-inspired magic and gnomes that fly on talking mushrooms, it's the GMs responsibility to take that mess of oftentimes contradictory themes and turn it into a "complete" package. Usually they end up as weird kitchen sinks with nothing holding them together: it's the curse of Too Many Cooks, when the GM building a setting themselves is usually a more consistent vision that's easier to present at the end of the day.

>>52950488
>I've spent days in my setting
Aaand there's your mistake that you're making. Spending days on your setting is insane since the players are going to change it anyway.

>>52950519
>the players are going to change it anyway.

Unless you forbid them to, that is, which in turn makes you a faggot.

>>52950488
Do you think that literally taking player agency out of a character's hands is "minor?"

>>52950512
True, but a player going "hey, maybe my character knows a local priest here we can ask about the holy relic? " isn't too many cooks situation, it's just overall good thing. Then the GM can ask "How you met?" and he comes up with something the GM can use later.

>>52950413
Yeah, thanks to fuckwits like you.

>>52950500
>in character creation
That's exactly what I'm talking about.
If you wanted to have a say in the setting, you should have contributed during setting creation.

I'm a big proponent of players having a hand in world building, just as much as GMs need to have a hand in character creation.

But making recons in character at the table is still a faux pas in my book. Not something that is worth throwing a player out, but something you should discuss with the player.

>>52950448
>Bebegurian the dragon is now a filthy, lusty humanophile
>Still an evil, greedy, giant fuck, so I roll to seduce.

>>52950519
Players are going to interact with the setting, first and foremost: and any change that comes to it is supposed to come through how they engage it.

Players author their stories in a roleplaying game by reacting to it, not rewriting it. Nobody is recommending that the GM create an immutable "adventure path" and guide the players down a prewritten story, but the caveat of giving players freedom to do what they want inside of a game world is that they do what they want INSIDE of that game world.

>>52950572
Nobody has advocated retcons in this thread. A retcon specifically means something that's already been etsablished, though, not intorducing something new that's in line with previously established facts.

>>52950584
>Players author their stories in a roleplaying game by reacting to it,
I disagree with this. Players should take proactive role and it's the GM who keeps reacting to what their characters do.

>>52950608
It's pretty explicitly both. GM gives players a quest, players react to it. A player wants to go look for some specific thing, GM reacts to that. etc.

>>52949948
>>52950508
Not my argument, I was just clarifying the meaning intended.

>>52950632
>GM gives players a quest,
This most definitely should not happen. The game starts by players making characters with concrete goals, then the GM crafts opposition to those goals. From then on it's a cycle of players pushing and the GM pushing back.

File: 1467351547332.png (189KB, 478x405px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 478x405px

>>52950600
But then it will not be like my favorite Planescape:The Torment! I am the master of my setting, not some dirty-ass punks with no appreciation and love for the craft of worldbuilding, so what they do they do with MY say-so!
That's not to say I'm a railroader, I have 4 to 8 options prepared for each major decision and 2-3 for minor.

>>52950608
But that generally happens before play begins: it's completely acceptable for the players to decide before the game begins that their goal is to get rich delving dungeons, become kings, or throw off the shackles of an evil empire, but it's not the purview of the players once the game starts to then declare that the treasure they seek is in the hitherto unmentioned iron mountains, that the king will offer his daugher's hand to whoever can beat him in a jousting tournament, or that they know of a bastard son who wants to help them overthrow the empress. That's for the GM to decide.

>>52949253
Have you tried to stop being autistic?

>>52950656
I mean not giving a quest in the "Here's the thing you're doing, get to it" way, but rather by means of hooks: bounty posters, women screaming for help, noblemen hiring them, etc.

You get what I mean though.

>>52950519
>Players should be allowed to alter the setting.
>Because investing time in the setting is dumb, when you know the players are just going to alter it

Lolololololol

>>52950548
That was exactly what I'm trying to say.
Taking away player agency isn't any different than taking away GM agency.

>Rocks fall your character dies
Is much the same as
>I shoot the lich it's dead

Can limiting a players agency improve everyone's fun? Sure, some people like rail roads. Same goes for limiting the GM's agency.

As long as everyone is enjoying themselves there isn't a problem. If a player or dm has a problem they should voice it though. Ideally in a more adult manner than the op.

>>52950668
It's for the GM to decide, but if a player suggests that maybe the duke has a wayward son who likes slumming it in the taverns and he wants to seek him out, I'm going to say yes to that because I want to know where he's going with that, and now I have a duke's wayward son to play with even though I had not thought about the duke's children at all when making the setting.

File: bbMjTdo.jpg (220KB, 3000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 3000x3000px

>>52949253

>>52950584
This.
>>52950608
There's no reason it can't be both.

>>52950673
I get what you mean, it's just that I've found the players take up the hooks much better when they've made them by themselves is all.

>>52950692
If OP put so much work into this setting and defined the history such that a single out of place battle mentioned off-hand had a 100% chance never to have happened, then OP put too much work into the setting, and forgot that people would have to actually interact with the damn thing.

>>52950761
Depends. Sometimes those hooks are clearer and easier to work with than other times. I've had many players whose characters haven't had much more coherent motivations than to see the world and get rich, and that's fine - in those cases I make up some quests myself or draw from the backstories of other players.

>>52949253
OP, why the fuck didn't you just tell the player that stuff like that isn't really to your liking? Why did you let the player do his thing, signalling that it was okay, until it suddenly wasn't okay anymore? I mean, I get that it's bait, I get that it's pasta, I get that the whole thing never happened to OP, but as a general question, qhy wouldn't a G; discuss things like this with his players?

>>52950780
>haven't had much more coherent motivations than to see the world and get rich
These are hard to work with because they're so ill-defined and fuzzy. It's a good idea to ask them to specify how they're going to go about becoming rich, just the first steps are often enough.

So:
Players agency is character creation and partially background creation, then character's actions
DMs agency is everything else.
Seems fair.
Both agencies, as we can see, are completely equal and must be equaly protected.

>>52950568
>hey, maybe my character knows a local priest here we can ask about the holy relic?
Is different than
>My character knows a local priest who knows more about the holy relic.
The first one is asking about the setting the second is dictating it.

>>52950600
Very true. Retcon was an incorrect term. Inserting historical events would be like inserting events into s character's background.

Something minor like:
>You used to visit the local priest's sermons on market days
Is probably fine.
>You used to be molested by the local priests every market day
Is probably going to upset the player.

>>52950833
I wouldn't really speak of GM agency, because the GM is not an independent actor like a player is. He's more of an enabler or user interface than active participant in the game.

>>52950833
>are completely equal
I don't think I'd go that far
But I agree with:
>must be equaly protected.

>>52950846
>The first one is asking about the setting the second is dictating it.
The player intent is clear in both, the first is just more polite about it. The end result is the same.

>>52950870
>GM agency
What term would you use?

>133 replies and 13 images omitted.
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME
IT'S COPIED STRAIGHT FROM /5EG/ A FEW DAYS AGO
I'M SO FUCKING ANGRY AT YOU /TG/
GHHHHHHRBBBBBBBBBHRRHHHHHHTTTSsss

>>52950902
Dunno, participation? Agency implies ability to act, which the GM lacks (he's the force that is being acted upon).

>>52950892
>The player intent is clear in both, the first is just more polite about it. The end result is the same.
Are you trolling?
One is asking permission, with the dm given a clear option to deny it.

That's be like saying
>May I fuck your wife
Is there same as
>I'm currently fucking your wife.

>>52950925
if you actually looked at the thread you'd see that it very quickly turned into an interesting discussion on player and GM agency

Also not everyone reads your generals. That's one of the problems of having 24/7 generals. Nobody catches the discussion if it's a game they don't play

>>52950925
>it's coppied straight from /5eg/ a few days ago
How was I supposed to know that? Why would I ever go to /5eg/?

>>52950712
What if the player declares that he has an AI ship in orbit that is 100% loyal to him, the only spaceship in the universe, and can drop orbital strikes of 100d100 on anyone, every turn?

In non-spelljammer D&D?

>>52950950
Anon, you are free to say "no" to both of your examples. Whether a suggestion is being put out assertively or politely is irrelevant to your decision making process.

Okay, you're free to say "yes" too if that's your thing but that's besides the point.

>>52950963
Then you'd have quite the strawman, anon.

>>52950963
>Okay so if this is all right, then isn't this all right too?

Being unable to agree on a vague but satisfactory middleground without going to ridiculous extremes is a clear example of autism, and possibly powergaming, either way making sure no one's going to have any fun.

>>52950963
God damn anon your funny, awful at arguing,but funny

>>52949476
This anon gets it. OP is a fag for 1d4 rounds

>>52950963
Then I'd say "no"?

I mean, this is not rocket science.

>>52951022
But is it brain surgery?

>>52949595
Literally nothing was threatened by op's alleged player. What is there to discuss?

>>52951056
The roles of GM and players in crafting the game setting?

Do you have autismo? sincerely asking

>>52950988
>assertively
No you're not assertively doing anything, you're making an assertion.

If you want something to be true, you ask the dm if it's true and the dm makes the decision. You don't make the decision for him and then find out if the decision stands.

If you tried that shit with me the answer would always be no. Or possibly yes if it made things worse for your character specifically.

>>52951135
This is 4chan you've got to be more specific than that.

>>52951185
To blow a fit like that for a unharmful event like this is a symptom of something not going well in OP's life

>>52950954
>interesting discussion on player and GM agency
IT'S KINDERGARDEN TIER PSYCHOLOGY
"THIS IS GENERALLY ALRIGHT TO DO" "THIS ISN'T" "DEPENDS ON YOUR STYLE OF HAVING FUN"
calm... still... calm...

File: 1452710539126-1.png (736KB, 783x767px) Image search: [Google]

736KB, 783x767px

>>52949253
may be bait but still has me triggered, you are an example of an autistic PoS DM, him making up the battle of Caruso does nothing to your world, he didn't even give any details or anything.

just something that would justify his using his tactic, nothing that affects "your world" kys both for baiting and making me read this shit.

>>52949561
No he said it OOC. Another reason that he got booted.

while I do think that players ought to run things by the GM if they want to contribute, OP is just a huge asshole making mountains out of molehills

>>52949536
I mean jeez. Besides he's playing a bard, dint you think he could just be fucking bullshiting like bards tend to do and be quite good at? Jeesus and the people here agreeing with him. Im usually on the side of grognards but this time, not so much.

>>52950883
If power isn't equal, protection of it shouldn't be equal.

>>52951243
Finally someone said it.
This isn't a discussion. This is stall tactics by OP and faggots who agree with him so that he can save the last remaining shred of his reputation (for lack of a better word).

>>52949937
>make them roll how true it is.
Kill yourself. Your character's skill level does not affect whether something is objectively true in the world.

>>52951218
Pretty sure it's copy pasta.
In the senario, I think the dm has a legitimate complaint even if they acted poorly.

>>52951156
>If you tried that shit with me the answer would always be no.
Exactly. You're free to say yes or no regardless whether the player asks or makes an assertion. The information conveyed to the GM is the same in your examples. Sure, asking politely is more likely to make the GM agree but that's not really the issue here.

File: merriment forbidden.jpg (228KB, 736x602px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 736x602px

>>52951300
[SCREECHING]

>>52951243
You seem like a generally unpleasant person, and we're going to continue our conversation in spite of you.

>>52951294
That's dumb. You're dumb.
This isn't a work place or a political arena.

It's a game. And it's intently unbalanced by it's nature. That doesn't mean that players it GMs deserve more rights or enjoyments than the other.

>>52951359
Okay, okay, whatever floats your boat.
Disagreeing with my opinion displeases me, but it's alright, i'm not god, right...

(The correct answer to any question you might discuss here is "Communicate with your players" anyway)

File: Quot+scanning+in+progress+quot+_dbef22c9608a9d1b5ee6a8ffd18bcc83.gif (32KB, 293x200px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 293x200px

>>52949879
bad, back to /pol/ put that power level away!!!!

>>52951344
It's disagree. It's a fundamental issue. How you ask is as important as what you ask.

Rude players (and GMs) don't get invited back.

>>52950963
nice slippery slope argument, allowing players to world build has nothing to do with something as stupid as this

>>52951296
On an anonymous image board?

>>52950991
>>52950996
I ask because I remember a story here about a new player having in their backstory being a noble, with a manor house; when they went there near the beginning of the game, it had burnt down, so the noble started digging, and said he pulled a full suit of armour out from a vault under the house, and everyone went crazy about how this guy didn't get the game.

>>52951022
Where do you draw the line? If everyone starts claiming being friends with wayward duke sons?

>>52951002
If nothing else, if I've brought a bit of humour to your lives, my 30 seconds of keyboard mashing has been productive.

>>52951408
You want the player to maintain respectful tone, and I get that. To me, personally, it wouldn't make a difference whether the player said "I want to meet the duke's son in this town" or "could the duke's son be slumming it in this town?" because the information conveyed - that the player would like to have this particular NPC introduced to the game - is the same. I don't see one approach encroaching on my decision making more than the other, you know?

>>52949253
Is this pasta?

>>52951471
>Where do you draw the line?

I've played for a decade and never ever had a problem with this sort of a thing. There's never been lines that's been needing to draw.

Probably because I've never played with autists who keep skirting all sorts of invisible lines and require whole new rules to be invented purely for them.

>>52949253
>I literally broke my back to accomodate his character's personality, I wrote out DOZENS of notecards of famous battles throughout the history of my world for him to refer to. Yet that wasn't enough for him.
Why didn't you just tell him not to do it outright, instead of spending out like some ducking retard. Grow some backbone ffs.

>>52951513
Yes
http://archive.4plebs.org/tg/search/text/Why%20do%20people%20have%20to%20be%20such%20jackasses/

>>52949253
You are being a control freak. Maybe, y'know, his character was delusional. Or mistaken. Or just made things up to sound clever. In character.

You are a retarded faggot and you deserve to have your back literally broken and confined to a wheelchair for the rest of your life.

>>52951340
Really? its like saying my character's boots are blue, it literally doesn't affect the game

>>52951471
>Where do you draw the line?
Where it feels appropriate to do so, what else can I say. I don't have some universally applicable list of rules for allowing player requests.

File: Damage Control.jpg (126KB, 650x650px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 650x650px

>>52951452
hence the "for lack of a better word" part.
Now that I think of it, Damage Control was probably a better word to use.

>>52951572
Oh hell, I bit the bait and spoke to pasta. Welp.

>>52951593
I have hard time seeing a losing side here though, it's been an enjoyable exchange of views instead of an argument imho.

File: agitated skeleton.jpg (64KB, 680x680px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 680x680px

>>52951381
No you. No you!
You fucking argued that DM deserves more protection since he invested more in the game, and now you're flip-flopping on it with your "not a workplace" bullshit! And we're discussing power of DM and players here, so your "not politics" blurt is the same bullshit, too!
You're fucking full of shit, matey!

>>52949950
I love how you had to borrow the picture of a boobmonster to try and distract from your shit arguments.

>>52951647
Exactly. That's what stalling tactics look like.

>>52951671
OP's not even original, though, it's copypasta from /5eg/. What could be gained from stalling if the first post was already by someone else to begin with?

>>52951703
Not the OP, maybe, but the assholes agreeing with him.

>>52950925
>assuming I go on generals.

Fuck you faggot

>>52951671
The OP isn't even here anymore. It's a copypasta. Nobody's "stalling," because nobody's actually arguing. People are discussing group dynamics, and peacefully at that. Chill.

>>52949253
>play a rogue pretending to be a wizard
>party asks where I'm from
>"I'm from, uh... The Tolarian Academy!"
If you, the GM, decided to "break your back" worldbuilding a Tolarian academy, and then get pissed and ask me to gtfo for a pure flavor, one-off remark I used for a bluff roll, you're a faggot. It wasn't his fault you decided to waste your time on pointless bullshit he was doing to flavor his character.

File: 1429214036420.jpg (147KB, 400x392px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 400x392px

>>52949879
I like your style.

>>52951576
It realy isn't a big deal. But if my deciding your character's shoes are blue or his hair is brown without asking bothers you, would have a legitimate complaint.

Not something worth ejecting a player.

This is obviously an attempt at perpetrating rape culture in your campaign. By asserting his control over your past and raping history he showed his dominance over the present and changed your future because of it. It is an easy mistake to allow men to have anything to do with decisions of the world thinking it would be fun to accommodate their base notions of fun but you have to remember that they will always try to rape anything they can get their cis hands on and scince nearly 95% of all dnd players are male RPGs are one of the biggest perpetrators of the rape culture.
Good on you OP for keeping you and your players safe.

>>52951745
>Tolaria Academy
we don't talk about it, it's a forbidden matter, anon

File: IMG_20161101_082120.jpg (31KB, 480x477px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 480x477px

>>52949253
Shit DMing desu senpai
What you should have done is this
>bard comes up with idea, refers battle that never happened
>players do it
>it fails completely
>players either wipe or are forced to flee because of said failure
>THEN you tell bard that the battle never happened

>>52949253
This is only a problem if he was metagaming, if he guessed that they might be decoys and wrapped it up in his flavor it seems ok. If the flavor was a problem tell him that he would need another rationale for explanation. It does not seem far fetched at all that a person who studies military tactics would be able to deduce a military tactic.

File: 1432939198167.jpg (73KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1000x1000px

>>52951772
-_-

>>52949253
You're both assholes, but you were the bigger asshole.

The dm is a referee and has final say so the player insisting 'yes' to something that was 'no', even if you were wrong to say no, was out of line. I wouldn't kick someone for that as a first offense, but if it was recurring I would for sure.

However, you did a shit job of being dm and way overreacted. The world? Once you let players into it it's not yours anymore. If you don't want players fucking it up then don't let players into it, that's what they fucking do!

File: dragons of the world.jpg (157KB, 1224x563px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1224x563px

>>52949253
This is so obviously fake.
What DM would have every possible battle in the entire history of his entire setting mapped out and set in stone?

>>52951755
I accommodate, if that didn't happen in the battle of Caruso it maybe happened in the battle of Petersen or the battle of Fishburn

>>52949253
>my world
>I tell him he can get the fuck out of my house
Yeah, you're "that" guy.

>>52951834
>No linnorms

Shit chart.

>>52951903
linnorms aren't dragons in my setting, fagot, fucking get out of my house you humongous cunt

Glad to hear that player won't ever have to suffer with such a shit DM as you. Also a huge bonus that you sperging out made it awkward for everyone and showed that you're a huge autist.

>>52951834

Oh man I love using my magnifying glass to read text

>>52951663
Power isn't equal because it's a rpg.
That doesn't mean everyone doesn't deserve equal consideration.

File: cade1cdd-294c-48d3-a6ca-59bfc672f02c.jpg (99KB, 960x924px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 960x924px

>>52951667
>Needing a reason to post boobs..

>>52952013
>3d shitu pigu boobs
fag

>>52949446
>The DM wrote our character backstories for us
That's... actually pretty interesting. I wouldn't do it myself because I don't wanna fuck with the player's agency but I wouldn't mind at all if this happened to me as a player from time to time.

File: 03bf541c-b509-4df5-b6f2-8e862c6ccc93.jpg (46KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 500x500px

>>52952043
Flat chest is Injustice.

>>52952100
>Awfully done fakes
nope

>>52952089
I like pre generated character's some times to. It'd have to get really attached to a character want to keep playing the long term.

File: 772.jpg (42KB, 800x587px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 800x587px

>>52952100
>flat isn't best

This is a good illustration of the class divide and intense class struggle between the DM, who is easily mapped to Haves and the Player, the Have-Nots. Haves have almost absolute power in their domain, both political and economical, yet the source of this power is in aquiescence of Have-Nots. With it, comes order, comes predictability, yet comes inequality. Whenever the circumstances are deemed passable, or even satisfying by the Have-Nots, the order and the power of Haves stands unperturbed - yet when the Have-Nots discover some inkling of ambition, it sends small ripples through the social edifice. And so the Haves, ever vigilant in regards to the pillar of their station, seek to quash any dissent in its budding.

>>52949253
OP you sound like a massive autistic faggot. You have a player that's actually trying to immerse himself and you sperg out because he quotes imaginary battles. How exactly does saying "hurr that reminds me of a battle with X monster" hurt """"""your""""" world or narrative.
Neck yourself.

File: speedy.png (193KB, 640x359px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 640x359px

>>52952100
SCUM

>>52951991
It doesn't have to be unequal only because it's a rpg. Why would DM, the little authocrat, who can bin any rules printed in his fancy books, who dictates anything about his game in any case, have the same consideration as players, who are merely sad guests on his feast of fantasy?

>>52951837
I got that reference

>>52952152
>>52952237
Since times I legit can't tell if this it's what they thinks.

>>52952310
(it's not)

>>52952330
Are you sure?
>>52951294

>>52950512
>Players can't hold to a coherent tone and set of influences

Man, I'm sorry your shit groups have turned you bitter as fuck. Not, like, sorry for your sake, just sorry that it happened because you're here shitting up my board with your ignorant crap.

Are a lot of these commenters reading a different opening post? If the DM is taking time to write out lore about a bunch of in-game battles for the bard to reference, it's not really unreasonable to ask the bard to not invent new historical battles without clearing it with the DM ahead of time.

The DM is the one tasked with maintaining the logic and cohesion of the setting. You wouldn't let a player use his own houserules in someone else's game, I don't know why people feel that it's fine for players to insert their own setting lore without clearing it first. Maybe the DM had plans that throwing in a new historical battle makes nonsensical.

Either way, if the DM is already being generous enough to write up a bunch of specific lore for a character to reference because that's the kind of character the player insists on playing, the player can have the fucking good graces to not be a greedy asshole with it. They wanna design a world? They can DM a game.

>>52952152
It's a game with one person portraying the world and the other people portraying characters within that world. It's not social justice bullshit, stop projecting shit on to it. You wouldn't let a soccer player overrule a referee either, is that a fucking class struggle?

>>52952586
>inserting their own setting lore

PCs are by definition unreliable narrators.

>>52952622
Exactly.
I don't blame the player for trying to invent a chunk of lore, that's fine, but when the DM says that a historical event didn't happen, it means that, at least as far as you're aware, it didn't happen. The player crossed the line when they tried to insist on it.

Frankly, if the player was being such a fucking primadonna that all the prepared battles weren't good enough and they ABSOLUTELY HAD to have a reference for EVERY LITTLE THING, even to the point of telling the DM the history of their own world, then they absolutely deserved to get booted out. If that player wants to write all about the ancient battles they've studied, they can go write a book because they clearly aren't interested in exploring that character idea as part of an adventuring party in a tabletop game.

>>52952357
I've just seen a hard-core reactive, conservative take on the situation >>52949879, then feminist screeching >>52951797, so why not provide a commie perspective? It's a troll thread, anyways.

>>52952586
Nope, DM is a dickhead in this case.

DM never should have written a bunch of notes on battles - it's pointless. At most, he should have said Nation X and Y fought to a stalemate for 100yrs, while Nation Z was crushed by Faction W.

Unless you're playing a fucking stone age setting, it's entirely reasonable that someone in military history used decoys, and the player should be encouraged to flesh out the world AS LONG AS they aren't re-writing the outcome of a fucking war.

DM is anti-fun and doesn't understand that role-playing is sharing in crafting a story.

>>52952673
Or, y'know, it could have been settled with a simple,

"Sure. That's what your character says."

Why?

Because PLAYER CHARACTERS are UNRELIABLE NARRATORS. The dude could have been lying, if the setting detail was relevant.

But apparently that's too fucking complicated for modern /tg/. Christ, what a time to be alive.

>>52952751
The impression I got from the opening post was that the player wanted to be able to reference specific tactics from an in-setting historical standpoint, and that the bunch of notes on battles was written by the DM to allow the player to do that while at the same time actually informing them about the world.

>>52952761
I absolutely agree that that specific issue could have been handled better, but frankly I'm not concerned with the setting integrity since I realize a detail like that likely wouldn't make a difference. What I take issue with is the Player's insistence on the point. Why is the character's trait of "quoting a relevant battle" so important that he should be able to, without the DM's consent, dictate parts of history? It's the attitude that would make me give that player the boot, not the specific event. What's the next thing the player is going to dictate about the setting? Who WON some war? Who's king in some other country, following that war? The fact that they weren't even willing to break character to discuss it with the DM OOCly says a lot about the player, and frankly I wouldn't want them at my table.

>>52949253
You're in the right but maybe you could have told him when he made his character that the list of battles you will provide will be exhaustive.
Otherwise I'm with you on this

>>52952954
Doesn't even have to be exhaustive, it could just simply represent the ones his character is currently familiar enough with to draw tactical information from, i.e. those are the battles he knows more in-depth than "X fought Y and Y won"

>>52951282
Exactly. I play a swashbuckler who constantly lies his ways in and out of various situations and I've never has the dm sperg at me for "fucking his world"

>>52953553
Did you ever smugly tell the DM that his understanding of the history of his own world was wrong?

>>52953648
I feel like he was prodding the GMs manic need for exhaustive control.
Honestly the "writing battles on cards" is a huge red flag in this instance. Anyone else, it would be cool and provide framework. OP on the other hand has some need to micromanage the lore and players.
I think the player was in the right for effectively calling out the GM putting the OC donutsteel setting above the playere.

>>52949253
Jesus Christ, stop being so damn autistic.

>>52954024
I can see where you're coming from, and honestly I think this entire discussion has reached the point where, without a few more perspectives of how the game went / input from the other people at the table, it's hard to tell who was in the wrong. The DM could have been a total sperg, the player could have been a demanding pissbaby, and in fact both of those things seem probable at this point.

>>52954230
Yeah I see where you are coming from too.
But it was OP who came and decided to be the Sperger King. So guess who I'm going to be aiming my piss at.

>>52949253
>telling someone to get out of your house without a good reason.
Yep this is the moment no one ever comes back to your place. I would have left with the dude and never came back. Evicting someone from the game is an absolute last resort for a reason and is pretty much guaranteed to break a group. Fuck you and your 'I'm taking my ball and going home' attitude.

>>52954301
...fair point.

>>52952089
Pre-generated characters are not uncommon in one-shots and introductory games, and it's not uncommon for those two to eventually become campaigns if the first day was good enough. I've played plenty of pre-generated characters and one was the best I've ever played. In two or three sessions you've already made the pre-generated guy actually yours.

If the player is bringing up a historical "detail" for flavour that has no bearing on the campaign's story like the name of a battle/obscure noble/small town then I'll note it down and add it to the setting. Because I love that shit, and if my players care that much I've done something right.

If a player tries to bring up a detail that impacts the plot I'll remind them OOC that "well, you'd know that in the setting's history that it was X instead" and probably then go back to "but your idea happened at this other place/event instead"

Best advice? Take a fucking chill pill and work with your players to make sure they're not retconning stuff you've already told them, but also that they get to populate the world's blank spaces with inconsequential flavour stuff because that's fun.

>>52949968
OK, but the photoshopping isn't included.

>>52949253
How the fuck do you know there was never a battle that involved the use of decoys in the whole history of this world?

How is there only a handful of battles that can be referenced without ruining your world?

>>52949253
You are literally autistic and anti-fun, you deserve high fives to the face with multiple chairs.
Why are you even DMing if you are a literal failure at it, no group wants you.

>>52955146
Those are accurate uses of "literal".

>>52949419
OP reposted like a faggot.

So yeah, That DM. He didn't get his cock sucked last time, so he is trying again.

Same result, faggot. You are still a terrible GM.

Yeah, he overstepped his bounds, but you are being a terrible GM way before that even happens, acting like a bitch, and not just being a reasonable adult, who fucking voices his concerns and issues.

What Are you, OP? 12?

>>52955209
Bro, I'm pretty sure 12 yo can DM better than the absolute autistic shitfister we have in the OP, that's really an insult to 12 yo.

I would've had him make a history roll after the session. If he passes, the battle was real and actually did happen - the player got to add a bit to the setting history. If he fails, he was just making shit up.

How would that have worked, you think?

>>52949253
Never GM another game until you learn some fucking chill and how to engage your players, you fucking autistic spazmonkey.

Did his little detail matter ONE BIT to the current setting and story? Did it convey him ANY mechanical advantage he couldn't have got otherwise by just going, "My character does x?" The answer is no and you've probably soured a great roleplayer to the hobby now. you have objectively just made the community a worse place.

>>52949253
Apologize to the player, you literally retarded autistic shitlord. Get on your knees and apologize, you piece of shit.

>>52949253
How the fuck do you know anyone who can tolerate you?

File: IMG_1246.jpg (150KB, 970x545px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 970x545px

>I'm a noble and my army is coming to save us

>>52949253
Autistic cunt, why the fuck does your spepcial setting and its integrity matters more than your friend to the point where you go apeshit when he mentions irrelevant trivia about it

You could have played it as "the bard has heard stories about this fictional battle in world" but no, you had to play the autism card and deny his fun

Shit GM

>>52949291
Mechanical advantage? Are you a fucking imbecile?
The player just threw some unrelated trivia regarding the tactic they are using, how the fuck does that even relate to mechanical advantage?

File: 1353399100310.jpg (231KB, 800x678px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 800x678px

>>52949253
One thing that I've noticed by skimming this thread is that these people saying they're DMs and such are real tyrants.

I don't mean in a sense that they're railroading or whatever, I mean on an interpersonal level. They sound really stiff and formal and like they want to run a game like it's a business, where their authority is absolute, they can never be questioned or confronted on something, minor arguments are worthy of instant consequences, and defying their rules or authority at any point is met with serious punishments.

I have to wonder how people like this function in real life. Do you have any friends if you treat them all this way? I can't imagine people like this ever getting along with anyone.

>>52955443
It's really petty of them for goddamn sure, but it really makes think this game is the only avenue of control they have in their lives, they are powerless and inpotent in all other areas.

>>52950954
>>52950961
>>52951733

Reading the thread would be a start.

>>52949519

>>52949297
You are the reason why this place is cancer.
You are the same kind of persone people complain about in this thread, just you are being a dick about different things.

>>52955443
I'm a GM and I'm nothing like a tyrant
I'm the kind of GM that loves to reward players more than punish them. It might be something I need improvement in, since I'm usually too lenient with the players getting shit that some other GMs would declare a TPK for
Don't get that impression, it is just some of the faggots in this thread

>>52955582
Yeah, I just meant it as a generalization, not as an absolute on all /tg/ GMs.

>>52955467
It's probable.

>>52949392
Because D&D doesn't have anything approaching a "tactics" skill and instead lumps it into History.

>>52955443
I'm a tyrant GM, my world and my game are my babies. I welcome and frequently invite my players to take the GM seat for another setting or game, but that's the difference. When I'm running I'm not playing. When I'm playing I'm not running. If you want to take away the GM role from the GM and give it to the players, then you simply don't need me there, I may as well make my own PC and join in.

>>52949253
>player makes up fictional battle
>"you are trying to fuck up my world"

You got anger issues or somethimg?

>>52955681
Just because no tactics skill exists doesn't mean the player cant lay a trap with decoys without a reference to a past battle.

>>52952721
this

>>52955695
You're a fuck up, stop DMing as all tyrant DMs should and it'll do wonders for RPGs.

>>52955765
If all I did was read stat blocks out of a book and help players add their modifiers up I wouldn't have any fun.

>>52955695
Then no one is going to play with you. Get actually good and learn how to actually DM and actually understand what it means to DMs, you are telling a story with them. It's not some fucking power trip, you autistic piece of shit.

>>52955791
What the actual fuck? Do you even know how to DM?

>>52955809
>Then no one is going to play with you.
But I have a year long running game. Works for me. I haven't had a player quit yet. We got a new addition recently even.

>>52952954
>You're in the right

it's not nice to lie to people Anon

>>52955846
How would you handle situation presented in the OP post?

>>52955846
There's no need to lie.

>>52955526
Did that comment make you upset faggot?

>>52955861
Pretty similarly, minus the dramaqueen "get the fuck out of my house".
I reserve the right to veto or alter anything for any reason. I don't need to explain myself if a particular battle doesn't work in my autisticly calculated view of the world.

>>52955908
Yeah, you're a shit DM, stop DMing for the good of everyone. You wouldn't know good roleplaying if it hit you with a shovel.

>>52955908
Why would you not invite players to make up little details such as these? In my experience it only shows that they're invested in the game and happy to participate, not to mention taking a bit of a burden off your shoulder as you don't need to come up with all this shit on your own.

Outside of the autistic line-drawing like "Okay so if they can name the town they're in then how come they couldn't decide they're lords and have armies and shit?", where's the drawback?

>>52955947
No.

>>52955877
Go Mr. Cancer, and stay go.

>>52955791
Based on your answer, I believe this is what you actually do.

>>52955955
No, you really need to, you're a shit DM, at least as bad as OP and other tyrant DMs. Stop DMing.

>>52955908
Do you want actual players? Because that's not how you get players.
Do you actually have any players willing to play with you?

>read OP
>Ctrl+F
>autis
>1 of 22

Well, if everyone is in agreement.

>the bard makes shit up
What a travesty. Truly the players should the burden of most reliable narrators ever, their words shall be written down as the most accurate historical account of the setting for decades to come. Under no circumstances would decent players ever pretend ANYTHING false happened

>>52955954
I invite my players to make up their homeland/country and typically they play travellers in whatever the current country of plot is. I sitll reserve veto powers for aspects that don't fit into how the world works, then if they gave me enough to work with, I'll drop connection pieces into the game. Occasionally a player will make a character from an "important" land. Then I work out with them what they did in the land, what their role was, who they know, any important details we can anticipate, and use a modified version of Knowledge (Local) for things that may come up later. Thankfully none of my players are like the one in the OP and actually pitch their ideas or ask or make a knowledge check before writing canon however they want without any attempt at communication. As for why, as I mentioned, I don't need a to explain myself. That is my role. I don't make DMPCs to go slay all the dragons and steal all the glory, and I don't expect my players to take my godly powers of world building.
>>52956007
No.

Well, as the gm, you can always say no to that, that's hoW it works, but seriously, it's one battle at the scale of a world, and as he said, a pretty old one... Except if you truly wrote a "age of peace" or stuff like that, letting the players add "meaningless" elements to the setting is great, especially if they rp around it. Moreover, he is a bard, it could have been a completely made up battle, that started as a rumor and came to the ears of the bard. That might have been a great opportunity to put the bard in a nice situation to rp, with a loremaster saying stuff like "Caruso ? but this place wasn't even built when you say this battle happened" or "oh yes, the soldiers of General Hamon spread that they took Caruso, but in fact, they never went here, it was only a trick to lure the army of..." and so on

>>52952856
I don't think you understand what an unreliably narrator is. The player is unable to "dictate" the setting by simply telling people a thing happened because the player has the ability to lie. Thus their word is not ever the definitive, objective ruling on the setting ever, and it should've been obvious even out of character when the bard said a battle existed that he didn't have cards for. Even if the bard, the players, and the entire world believes the battle happened, the battle did not happen. Saying that the battle did happen is entirely harmless as soon as this is realized, but the DM is too socially inept to understand that players can lie to each other and themselves. If the bard wanted a mechanical bonus from the battle, the solution would just be to not give him the bonus because the battle didn't happen, no matter his insistence on it happening.

>>52956113
Stop DMing, you're an absolute failure of a DM.

>>52956327
>but the DM is too socially inept to understand that players can lie to each other and themselves.
He might be, but there's a difference between talking in character to the other characters and talking to the GM who was not playing a character.
>>52956337
No.

>>52956369
Couldn't you have done something like this? >>52955248

>>52955954
>"Okay so if they can name the town they're in then how come they couldn't decide they're lords and have armies and shit?", where's the drawback?

If you accept evolution is possible, then what is to stop you becoming as a god?

>>52956369
The guy never claimed out of character that the battle happened and it shouldn't have mattered if he did.

>>52956369
You deserve multiple high fives to the face with chairs.
Keep wallowing in shit.

>>52956113
So basically you're one stiff, rigid, no-fun asshole who feels like there need to be lanes in everything and won't back off for shit.

You need to chill out. Your DMing can only improve by it.

>>52949356
Agreed, to an extent. I'm pretty good at big picture world building and character back stories, but a lot of mid-level stuff in not great at. I encourage my players to ad-lib stuff, as long as it doesn't interfere with what's already been done.

That said, it helps that I've been playing with these guys for years. They actually got me into rp on the forum of a server we all used to play on

>>52956057
Absolutely this. Why not just roll for bluff in this situation?

>>52956398
Didn't say he was, he was maintaining his character while talking to the GM. Knockoff Deadpool got in a fight with a writer. It doesn't matter what voice he was using.
>>52956426
No.

>>52956369
>He might be, but there's a difference between talking in character to the other characters and talking to the GM who was not playing a character.
See, the weird part here is that what the player did seems really odd. He replied IN CHARACTER to the GM, which means either:
>A: He was only keeping it in-character for the fun or practice of it, and what he said to the GM wasn't meant to be taken as ingame narration.
That MIGHT be an understandable situation in which to claim he was trying to make an out-of-character claim about the facts of the setting. Or:
>B: He was keeping it in character to indicate that the claim wasn't necessarily one of fact
That would mean that the player was more or less perfectly in the right on this one.

>>52956473
You keep giving proof based on your responses why you shouldn't be DMing, ever.

>>52949985
>So, you're aware that you're just making baseless broad statements when your real problem is ultimately unrelated to what you're complaining about, aside from personal conjecture on your part?
Not him but I hope you're aware that the 3.PF being shit in magnitudes equal to the Sonic fanbase is a generally known thing. 3.PF is basically a containment system for the bulk of shit players who would've otherwise ruined other games, and that much is obvious by looking around any general, subreddit, FLGS, or roll20 campaign.

>>52956473
You're going to have to elaborate on why, if it is, talking in-character to the DM is a problem

>>52949419
Oh yes, referencing a battle that never existed in a game of pretend is the HEIGHT of being THAT GUY mate. The GM was clearly in the right to blow up at the dude, causing the rest of the night to be come awkward and possibly ruining the campaign for the rest of the players.

In case you're wondering, I'm being sarcastic. OP is a shit GM.

>>52956473
Again you would have no idea what actual roleplaying is even if it hit you in the face, you wouldn't know how to encourage roleplaying and it reads like you just autistically read out the statblocks and have no idea what to do with them.

>>52956585
Arguing with the GM over something the GM has absolute say in, whether by proxy or not because clearly that conversation isn't happening in the game, is a problem. If you don't believe the GM actually has any say over canon of course you'll disagree with me.

>>52951249
To someone who wasn't an autistic control freak, it'd be a relatively funny moment that didn't actually mean anything.

Sheesh OP, you did overreact there didnt you. Let the guy have his battle, it was hardly going to kill you. Maybe it did happen, or maybe it is just a fable.
FFS, I have players attempting to metagame and make guncotton by "accidentally" leaving cotton rags in a vat of nitric acid, or "accidentally" create Cordite and asking if they can play Vampires with no level adjustment, or start the game with bolt action rifles in a early blackpowder setting....
And you dont see me raging here do you?

>>52956684
That GM should stop DMing if they don't want be an absolute failure.

>>52956754
>metagame and make guncotton by "accidentally" leaving cotton rags in a vat of nitric acid

To be honest that sounds pretty funny to me. Like I've seen this sort of stuff happen in movies, where a guy invents some explosives or such by accident.

Have it blow up, help the party, but also create new problems to them. Or just provide them a lucky break if they're in trouble.

>>52956684
The DM shouldn't be an autistic controlfreak of a screeching literal retard. If you think DMs should act like that, stop DMing and punch yourself in the face because you're, we as DMs are, meant to be telling a collobarative story with the players not hefting your prodigious fat bulk and leaving its repugnant stain over everything.

>>52956684
The GM should be able to make the distinction between speaking to the player character and the player. Speaking to the GM in character, and especially saying something so obviously false out of character like in the op, keeps the game rolling and should present no problems in a group of normal individuals who are able to make the distinction between out of character and in character chatter. If the GM is asking a serious question, he can specifically ask for an out of character response. The OP was unable to make the distinction and then harhsly punished his players without even asking. I am not seeing where this conflicts with the GM having the final say over canon.

>>52955681
Just use an Int or Wis check?
If this is 5e, also maybe throw in a proficiency bonus?
Alternatively toss in the Martial Adept feat and let the player use those as his/her "tactical knowledge" with maneuvers.

>>52956837
The GM was talking to the player, not the character. That already happened. He'd already stopped the game. The player was being argumentative and flip. His silly voice doesn't give him free reign. The OP mentions this was a long running problem and he was trying to address it. There's nothing wrong with putting your foot down and saying my way or the highway, he never punished anyone by doing this.

>>52956942
There's no use trying to dig yourself out of your hole, you autistic screeching control freak.

>>52956942
This was never the player's fault but entirely the piece of shit DM's, who acted like an entitled manchild. Stop being a shitfister. Don't be a screeching autistic controlfreak.

>>52956942
Saying something as innocuous as "that battle never happened" does not immediately imply that the player will be kicked out of the house if he does not adjust and does not sound like something so serious that players would instantly break character to address it. The player responding in character is essentially a tacit acknowledgement that he agrees, if he wanted to actually debate the battle happening he would respond out of character. The OP never says the player was being argumentative or a flip, just that it annoyed him that he believed he had to plan out every battle this guy was referencing. From what is presented, the player did nothing wrong except invoke the ire of the GM by making an innocuous lie in character.

>>52949253
Wow, a That Guy thread started by That guy, and saged by me.

>>52956942
>>52957059
The DM should check himself before he wrecks himself. I'm surprised the op and >>52956942 and others like them have any actual friends.

>>52949253
ITT, OP gets BTFO comprehensively by a hundred people but his autism tells him he's the only one in the right.

>>52956942
>>52957059
Adding to this, I'm not saying the GM didn't have the right to kick the player out of his house for any reason and the GM does not have the final say in how the game is run. Just because he is granted the power does not mean he is incapable of misusing it.

>>52951783
You give terrible advice.

>>52952586
Even if the Bard is inserting battles that never happened in the game, OP sperging out and ruining the rest of the session for his players automatically puts him into the wrong, especially when it's a relatively minor issue that didn't actually cause any issues in the campaign proper.

Using houserules is a much different beast than saying "oh, I'll use this famous strategy from the battle of X from the year Y," one has clear mechanical effects that may or may not affect the other rules in the game while the other is just fluff that may or may not even be important beyond this specific battle.

>>52956560
>low energy trolling

You're pretty sad if you think that the game that serves as the essential backbone of 50%+ of all games played is truly disliked by anyone except bitter contrarians.

>>52956942
If the DM didn't stop game and throw a shitfit over a minor insignificant detail, none of what happened would've happened. The fact that he responded in character should've already been a clue as to the fact that they weren't being serious about the whole thing but I guess modern /tg/ is so up it's own ass that they can only expect shit, even when it really isn't.

>>52957425
>the game that serves as the essential backbone of 50%+ of all games played
I said nothing bad about 5e though, just 3.PF.

File: deathkiss.jpg (77KB, 291x469px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 291x469px

>>52949253
https://warosu.org/tg/?task=search&ghost=yes&search_text=%3Eone+day+they+are+hard+pressed+to+fight+some+high-level+ogres

You could at least use a different picture with the pasta, man.

>>52949253
Wow. You're a fucking faggot.

>>52957600
At least he added a picture the second time. But yeah, this pasta is stale. Autismo got his 10 hours of attention his family isn't giving him.

>>52957672
I like that he edited one line for the one in the 5e thread.

>>52956473
You're saying you want to keep wallowing in shit.

Someone make a new thread about anything so this one can get purged already, it's shit.