Tabletop Roleplaying Games (D&D, Pathfinder, CoC, ETC.)

[40 Year Old Boomer]

I had a player autistically ragequit tonight and it was fucking hilarious.

So in my group I'm the one with the best grasp and knowledge of the rules. I don't have everything memorized because I'm a mere mortal, but anything I don't remember I can usually find quickly for when weird situations come up. And in this campaign I'm running, I've been using cover rules for firing into melee combat. Now, the base cover rules are pretty strict in that you measure four lines from the corners of your square to the target and if one or two of those lines hits a creature or object, the target has half cover (+2 AC) and if it's 3, it has 3/4 cover (+5 AC). That's too much hassle, so I've just been applying half cover if they are firing at a creature engaged in melee combat with an ally and aren't flanking/coming in from behind.

So this guy, who is a friend, has not been able to get a D&D game for a while and finally managed to get to where he can join us semi-regularly. I had little faith because he has a habit of flaking, but whatever. He makes a character, I rubber stamp the okay on it because idgaf about power gaming (kobold sorc/warlock). And then he sperges out on the second encounter when his fire bolt missing on a 13 and I point out that it's in melee combat now with two allied creatures between him and it. Complete meltdown, packs up his shit and leaves, says I have no integrity, quits the groupchat. Rest of the night was +2 AC jokes and laughing at his expense because holy fuck that was dumb.

Pic related, rule for reference.
Edit: pic won't attach, fuck it.

 

[Ghostse]

I had a player autistically ragequit tonight and it was fucking hilarious.

So in my group I'm the one with the best grasp and knowledge of the rules. I don't have everything memorized because I'm a mere mortal, but anything I don't remember I can usually find quickly for when weird situations come up. And in this campaign I'm running, I've been using cover rules for firing into melee combat. Now, the base cover rules are pretty strict in that you measure four lines from the corners of your square to the target and if one or two of those lines hits a creature or object, the target has half cover (+2 AC) and if it's 3, it has 3/4 cover (+5 AC). That's too much hassle, so I've just been applying half cover if they are firing at a creature engaged in melee combat with an ally and aren't flanking/coming in from behind.

So this guy, who is a friend, has not been able to get a D&D game for a while and finally managed to get to where he can join us semi-regularly. I had little faith because he has a habit of flaking, but whatever. He makes a character, I rubber stamp the okay on it because idgaf about power gaming (kobold sorc/warlock). And then he sperges out on the second encounter when his fire bolt missing on a 13 and I point out that it's in melee combat now with two allied creatures between him and it. Complete meltdown, packs up his shit and leaves, says I have no integrity, quits the groupchat. Rest of the night was +2 AC jokes and laughing at his expense because holy fuck that was dumb.

Pic related, rule for reference.
Edit: pic won't attach, fuck it.

NO INTEGRITY. Lol.

Jesus. Only reason I'd get mad enough to flounce out of a session is if I felt I was being singled out, and even then I'd probably just autopilot till it was over and just say I was to busy to make it next week.

 

[40 Year Old Boomer]

NO INTEGRITY. Lol.

Technically, he's right. The skeleton should have had +5 AC instead of +2.

 

[Brain Problems]

Does the guy have a habit of autistically melting down in other games or was this a shock to everyone? If someone we knew pulled this in a game it'd be a social death sentence.

 

[DJ Grelle]

>be playing the curse of strahd campaign (I know, I know) with group of friends
>a bit of homebrew mixed in
>we're level 3, still in the starting village
>shady old woman going around selling meat pastries
>as a lawful good monk I find that suspicious and try to intervene
>it's actually a night hag
>me and another player are teleported to the night hag coven
>two other night hags
>ffffffffuuuuuuu
>with a bit of luck (and the DM okaying our inventive attempts at escape) we manage to get out

it were human flesh pastries, I was right in the end tho.

 

[Meat Target]

This weekend, it occurred to me that my character in our Mech/Scifi/Space GTA campaign is a lolcow, thanks to my retarded decisions and preternatural ability to roll critical fails in the clutch.

(For context, our party is a band of space outlaws).

>tries to pin a guy to the ground
>gets head bashed into a car door, thrown in the trunk, wakes up puking from a concussion

>have a mini helicopter drone equipped with a claw
>steals gun from enemy
>try to strangle enemy
>only manage to grab his shoulder and bother him

>tries to fix ship's life support system
>accidentally grabs live wire, gets goose cooked

>goes to his mech to fix ship's engine, because it has a repair drone
>repair drone goes haywire, welds him inside the mech's cockpit

>has a roomba with a claymore mine attached
>tries to sneakily deploy it into a bar where we've been instructed to kill a bunch of shitheads
>roomba gets stuck on the door threshold, only manages to blow up one person.

 

[40 Year Old Boomer]

Does the guy have a habit of autistically melting down in other games or was this a shock to everyone? If someone we knew pulled this in a game it'd be a social death sentence.

He's got spergers and almost everyone in the group has a bit of the 'tism. It was agreed that this instance was particularly childish and he's never going to hear the end of it.

 

[Wallace]

So this guy, who is a friend, has not been able to get a D&D game for a while and finally managed to get to where he can join us semi-regularly. I had little faith because he has a habit of flaking, but whatever. He makes a character, I rubber stamp the okay on it because idgaf about power gaming (kobold sorc/warlock). And then he sperges out on the second encounter when his fire bolt missing on a 13 and I point out that it's in melee combat now with two allied creatures between him and it. Complete meltdown, packs up his shit and leaves, says I have no integrity, quits the groupchat. Rest of the night was +2 AC jokes and laughing at his expense because holy fuck that was dumb.

Pic related, rule for reference.
Edit: pic won't attach, fuck it.

This is why I don't play anymore. I don't have the patience for the flaking and autistic tantrums.

 

[Snekposter]

I used Heroes specifically because they already exist within in the setting and can be reworked for the purpose relatively easily. One need not bring anything in from Beast other than the Heroes, or one can simply call them something else.

One autistic idea I've had would be to mix in Deviant instead of Beast. Some sort of mutant/cyborg monster hunter liable to go bugfuck or get waxed by his own guys out of a fear he'll go bugfuck.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

One autistic idea I've had would be to mix in Deviant instead of Beast. Some sort of mutant/cyborg monster hunter liable to go bugfuck or get waxed by his own guys out of a fear he'll go bugfuck.

Well, I can say that's definitely thinking outside the box! More than anyone else actually working on WoD over the past 10 years has done.

 

[Snekposter]

Well, I can say that's definitely thinking outside the box! More than anyone else actually working on WoD over the past 10 years has done.

Not that outside. Deviant includes rules for playing a Company Man, after all. Its just instead of hunting down rogue assets you're going after nasty creatures.

 

[Ōtakemaru]

My friend told their Dm it would be fun to do a villian Campaign and the DM sperged out how it's a rule that only DM's get to be evil or play villians but boiled down to "Waaah! I don't wanna tell a story about a group of mean people " then proceed to block my friend and I'm just dying laughing.

 

[Ghostse]

My friend told their Dm it would be fun to do a villian Campaign and the DM sperged out how it's a rule that only DM's get to be evil or play villians but boiled down to "Waaah! I don't wanna tell a story about a group of mean people " then proceed to block my friend and I'm just dying laughing.

I wouldn't want to run a Villain campaign. A realistic villain campaign isn't really fun.
(which I think of different as an Evil campaign; something like POE where you are a underling in an evil organization and have the option of casting off shackles)

And in a very real sense, I wouldn't want to run a story about a group of professed sociopaths. The average party is ostensibly good or neutral aligned and they're already murderhobos. I don't need to give them further excuse to treat everyone around them like coin machines. The other thing is for your average RPG its hard to add in appropriate costs for your deals with the devil since none of is real and stops when the session ends - the consequences of eternal punishment don't really fly when you just roll a new character. The average evil player is evil for powergaming reasons, and if players are going to be Villians they need to have the Bond Villain flair and not just smoke the good guys at lvl 1 with a squadron of Dracoliches.

But jesus christ, just say no and move on.
Unless your friend kept pushing the point and cajole the DM into doing something they said no to; then your friend is the sperg needing to be laughed at.

 

[Ōtakemaru]

I wouldn't want to run a Villain campaign. A realistic villain campaign isn't really fun.
(which I think of different as an Evil campaign; something like POE where you are a underling in an evil organization and have the option of casting off shackles)

And in a very real sense, I wouldn't want to run a story about a group of professed sociopaths. The average party is ostensibly good or neutral aligned and they're already murderhobos. I don't need to give them further excuse to treat NPCs like coin machines. The other thing is for your average RPG its hard to add in appropriate costs for your deals with the devil since none of is real and stops when the session ends - the consequences of eternal punishment don't really fly when you just roll a new character. The average evil player is evil for powergaming reasons, and if players are going to be Villians they need to have the Bond Villain flair and not just smoke the good guys at lvl 1 with a squadron of Dracoliches.

But jesus christ, just say no and move on.
Unless your friend kept pushing the point and cajole the DM into doing something they said no to; then your friend is the sperg needing to be laughed at.

Honestly my friend just wanted a group of dumbass villians wanting to make a overly complicated plan to just get revenge on someone or something. So realistic villainy isn't something they wanted, I think.

In terms of the convo since they don't want me to leak the dm's it goes with them asking about doing it but instead of saying "No" straight up they just beat around the bush of the idea until the end where they just end it with "Ok. But your wrong" doesn't explain why a villian campaign doesn't work just block. Which is weird because midway of beating around the bush they do just admit to "Waaah! I don't wanna tell a story about a group of mean people" and when my friend asks why they beat further around the bush. Honestly taking your response the entire way the DM responded is weird.

 

[Adamska]

One autistic idea I've had would be to mix in Deviant instead of Beast. Some sort of mutant/cyborg monster hunter liable to go bugfuck or get waxed by his own guys out of a fear he'll go bugfuck.

Well, I can say that's definitely thinking outside the box! More than anyone else actually working on WoD over the past 10 years has done.

Not that outside. Deviant includes rules for playing a Company Man, after all. Its just instead of hunting down rogue assets you're going after nasty creatures.

Honestly? Vigil will almost certainly get a splat that does all of these things, even if Deviants does kind of shit. The reason there's so many Hunter Organizations is because of new splats or series that merit it. Cheiron Group for example probably would get pretty hard into them for example since it's literally what they do. Find monsters and mangle them for profit via the research.

My friend told their Dm it would be fun to do a villian Campaign and the DM sperged out how it's a rule that only DM's get to be evil or play villians but boiled down to "Waaah! I don't wanna tell a story about a group of mean people " then proceed to block my friend and I'm just dying laughing.

I very much am reminded of the time I played in an all evil game and the campaign ended effectively because we killed a merchant a few sessions in. My memory of it is shaky, but what I do recall is that the DM expected us to let him live. I believe he had an item we were required to grab; there was some reason that was above "lolrandom" we attacked him. I don't remember the event since it was minor, but it was us just casually disposing of him that made him realize he didn't want to run an evil game.

I mean, fair enough on that remark. Was a bit of a letdown though since I barely got to use my thief mugger. One of these days I should probably knuckle down and play Rogue or Bard again when we get back into the DnD or Pathfinder 1.0; I always have fun with those.

I wouldn't want to run a Villain campaign. A realistic villain campaign isn't really fun.
(which I think of different as an Evil campaign; something like POE where you are a underling in an evil organization and have the option of casting off shackles)

And in a very real sense, I wouldn't want to run a story about a group of professed sociopaths. The average party is ostensibly good or neutral aligned and they're already murderhobos. I don't need to give them further excuse to treat everyone around them like coin machines. The other thing is for your average RPG its hard to add in appropriate costs for your deals with the devil since none of is real and stops when the session ends - the consequences of eternal punishment don't really fly when you just roll a new character. The average evil player is evil for powergaming reasons, and if players are going to be Villians they need to have the Bond Villain flair and not just smoke the good guys at lvl 1 with a squadron of Dracoliches.

But jesus christ, just say no and move on.
Unless your friend kept pushing the point and cajole the DM into doing something they said no to; then your friend is the sperg needing to be laughed at.

Conversely, I tend to either run or play in games where morality's not high on priority as of late and I have no issue with either running or playing that. It's mainly because the group I'm in is fairly restrained on murderhobory. I don't really have much of an issue and it's honestly not a powergaming move to be evil IMO.

TBH you'd probably enjoy Black Crusade, or Warhams Fantasy Roleplay's take with Tome of Corruption. That does genuinely punish you potentially for being bugfuck evil.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

The average party is ostensibly good or neutral aligned and they're already murderhobos.

Exactly. Actually calling them villains wouldn't be all that different to what most player groups already do as basic modus operandi, so why worry about it. Also, pretty sure we've discussed playing villain campaigns before, and those sounded like they were downright fun.

 

[Ghostse]

Honestly my friend just wanted a group of dumbass villians wanting to make a overly complicated plan to just get revenge on someone or something. So realistic villainy isn't something they wanted, I think.

I haven't found a good system for heroes, but I could see Mutants & Masterminds where the players are the diabolical villains. Again, that'd be down to the players wanting to properly twirl mustaches and play Dungeon Keeper, not just be UltraViolent thrill kill cultists.

But yeah, if you don't want to run something just tell them "Nope".

I very much am reminded of the time I played in an all evil game and the campaign ended effectively because we killed a merchant a few sessions in. My memory of it is shaky, but what I do recall is that the DM expected us to let him live. I believe he had an item we were required to grab; there was some reason that was above "lolrandom" we attacked him. I don't remember the event since it was minor, but it was us just casually disposing of him that made him realize he didn't want to run an evil game.

I mean, fair enough on that remark. Was a bit of a letdown though since I barely got to use my thief mugger. One of these days I should probably knuckle down and play Rogue or Bard again when we get back into the DnD or Pathfinder 1.0; I always have fun with those.

I never really played Shadow Run, but I can see an evil game working there, where you might want to go on a full id-unleashing killing spree, but you wouldn't get very far before you and the whole group is gunned down corporate heavy hitters. You need a powerful but not omnipotent force of order to reign in the murderous criminal impulses and I can understand 'they didn't just intimidate the shopkeep, they straight up disappeared him, I don't want to build this world anymore'.

I could see homebrewing a fun Victorian London street-gang simulator, where you commit crimes but each time you commit a crime it raises your profile and has a chance to get the police on your tail. You could do it for D&D but you'd have so much bolted on at that point its practically another system.

Conversely, I tend to either run or play in games where morality's not high on priority as of late and I have no issue with either running or playing that. It's mainly because the group I'm in is fairly restrained on murderhobory. I don't really have much of an issue and it's honestly not a powergaming move to be evil IMO.

I mean I have no issues with my players pulling dirty tricks and "ends justify the means". Its that the usual good aligned party gets up to some fairly evil shit, I just don't want them to pull the I'm just playing my character excuse.

I mean I'm giving one of my players (a high-elf) the option to assassinate the Drow ambassador and claim self defense, via a plan concocted by a wood elf at least as far as they know its a wood elf. Which would be premediated murder, and unless they are retarded they'll get away with it. And that's completely fine.

And I guess every time I've had someone want to be evil aligned it was either for spells, gear, or abilities/classes.

I think its also one of those things where if you trust your group to have fun but also play it straight - like actually wanting to not get caught, and also to not just go full wackyzany guro simulator. And I think I would trust a quarter, maybe a half, of my current group with that.

 

[Adamska]

I haven't found a good system for heroes, but I could see Mutants & Masterminds where the players are the diabolical villains. Again, that'd be down to the players wanting to properly twirl mustaches and play Dungeon Keeper, not just be UltraViolent thrill kill cultists.


I never really played Shadow Run, but I can see an evil game working there, where you might want to go on a full id-unleashing killing spree, but you wouldn't get very far before you and the whole group is gunned down corporate heavy hitters. You need a powerful but not omnipotent force of order to reign in the murderous criminal impulses and I can understand 'they didn't just intimidate the shopkeep, they straight up disappeared him, I don't want to build this world anymore'.

I could see homebrewing a fun Victorian London street-gang simulator, where you commit crimes but each time you commit a crime it raises your profile and has a chance to get the police on your tail.

I think we had a good reason to disappear them; It involved some form of secrecy and we figured it'd have been less obvious if he was just murked in a robbery than if he was shooken up and could tell what specific item went missing. Basically retrieve the item sort of stuff and not have a rival figure it out. We had some form of logic when we did it, and it was more than just "kill because evil".

I mean I have no issues with my players pulling dirty tricks and "ends justify the means". Its that the usual good aligned party gets up to some fairly evil shit, I just don't want them to pull the I'm just playing my character excuse.

Only had one person try this excuse in the group; they do not game at the table anymore for other reasons besides this.

I mean I'm giving one of my players (a high-elf) the option to assassinate the Drow ambassador and claim self defense, via a plan concocted by a wood elf at least as far as they know its a wood elf. Which would be premediated murder, and unless they are retarded they'll get away with it.

And I guess every time I've had someone want to be evil aligned it was either for spell, gear, or abilities/classes.

I feel like it's a stigma tbh. It's similar to how some people get pissy and scared if you rock in with a Paladin, despite IMO Rogues, Sorcerers, and Barbarians are the true douche bait IMO.

And honestly? Evil doesn't really get you that cool of shit compared to Exalted. Hell, healing's so much worse in 3.5 for evil unless you houserule it out, since they burn slots for inflict rather than cure spells.

I think its also one of those things where if you trust your group to have fun but also play it straight - like actually wanting to not get caught, and also to not just go full wackyzany guro simulator. And I think I would trust a quarter, maybe a half, of my current group with that.

And I have a group that does it fine. Hell, I have a big stigma for Chaotic Evil, and one of my favorite characters a player rocked up with was that alignment. Mainly because they did not play absolute fucking goblin.

 

[Corn Flakes]

I think people underestimate how hard it is to do villainy in a setting with open and easily available magic.

That's what made my GM's evil campaign (back in 3.5e) so much fun. He outright told us: "you have to be above any suspicion, because the moment a wizard order, a temple, or just someone with a lot of money takes an interest in you, you're going to get scryed and you'll get adventurer and bounty hunting parties chasing you around. And I'm going to be playing them as I would play PCs".

Playing the kingdom's great heroes in public and running a shitton of criminal operations and political plots under the table was just plain fun. Every murder was meticulously planned, and we had to homebrew a whole new system for poisons. It was great. It helped that no one wanted to go murderhobo, whenever we felt like rolling dice we just went to one of the city's many ancient underground passageways and found something to fight there. Otherwise, everybody was in on the good guy act.

 

[Ghostse]

And I have a group that does it fine. Hell, I have a big stigma for Chaotic Evil, and one of my favorite characters a player rocked up with was that alignment. Mainly because they did not play absolute fucking goblin.

For me its one of those "If anyone acted this obnoxious their whole life, especially where there are tons of forests to dispear a body and say 'oh no owlbears got them oh no how terrible', they wouldn't have survived childhood". Even in a fantasy world, even being evil, you've got to know how to play ball just enough.

Its also got... the Intra-party conflict problem. Intra-party conflict can be lots of fun, hidden traitors, trading barbs, setting each other up, dicking each other over just because, etc. If you have the right people doing it, its great.
But all it takes is one person taking the wrong thing the wrong way, and now in-game conflict is real-world slap fights and arguments and the party collapsing. So its just not worth the risk or the head ache.

I think people underestimate how hard it is to do villainy in a setting with open and easily available magic.

That's what made my GM's evil campaign (back in 3.5e) so much fun. He outright told us: "you have to be above any suspicion, because the moment a wizard order, a temple, or just someone with a lot of money takes an interest in you, you're going to get scryed and you'll get adventurer and bounty hunting parties chasing you around. And I'm going to be playing them as I would play PCs".

Playing the kingdom's great heroes in public and running a shitton of criminal operations and political plots under the table was just plain fun. Every murder was meticulously planned, and we had to homebrew a whole new system for poisons. It was great. It helped that no one wanted to go murderhobo, whenever we felt like rolling dice we just went to one of the city's many ancient underground passageways and found something to fight there. Otherwise, everybody was in on the good guy act.

Shit like that I'd be ok with.

Only real issue is in every group there's at least one monkey cheeser who would be bored and fuck it up for everyone.