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

[RomanesEuntDomus]

What Anonymous said, but also long-time players have years of experience in catching "problem" players. Social justice just happens to be the newest wave of bullshit to look out for.

It will affect a lot of new players, though, and they will get browbeat into using it themselves, cause the problem-players will tell them that's the correct way how to do things.
Given that my GM came up with a Consent List recently, I almost regret not just trolling the shit out of him by going "Yeah, I don't want any gay people in my games. Also remember: this consent stuff is non-negotiable and I don't need to explain anything." or just go full asshat and declare literally anything halfway useful to the GM as off limits, such as darkness, rats, spiders, enemies, mean words, hostile attitudes and so on.

 

[Swiss46]

Given that my GM came up with a Consent List recently, I almost regret not just trolling the shit out of him by going "Yeah, I don't want any gay people in my games.

My answer to these people has always been "If you don't like it don't play."

 

[ZMOT]

It will affect a lot of new players, though, and they will get browbeat into using it themselves, cause the problem-players will tell them that's the correct way how to do things.

eh, at worst it filters people out that might become good players (and possible GMs), but that amount is minimal even in the best cases. most normies and noobs stay with DND for a reasons (if they even know what that is, and not "the thing CR plays"), anyone else who's in it for the rpg can most likely differentiate between people or the game being retarded, and will welcome a non-retarded group with open arms. pnp is simply to insular/independent for that outside the wotc corporate sphere.

Given that my GM came up with a Consent List recently, I almost regret not just trolling the shit out of him by going "Yeah, I don't want any gay people in my games. Also remember: this consent stuff is non-negotiable and I don't need to explain anything." or just go full asshat and declare literally anything halfway useful to the GM as off limits, such as darkness, rats, spiders, enemies, mean words, hostile attitudes and so on.

the nice thing about being offended is that there's not time limit for it. a time limit alone could be triggering and remind you of a failed test or something. depending how much you care about the game simply don't consent to consent lists unless you put your own on the table constantly as an extended X card "I didn't know that would bother me, but it clearly does now, and before I continue I need further information about this npc, like eye color, quality of teeth, length of finger nails, I had a bad dream about a blue eyed crackhead scratching me once".
added bonus when you can believably roleplay it starting to cry everytime you come across a dog or cat or anything similar that reminds you of one of your dead pets. depending how much you wanna get into it bring your own support animal like that super annoying bird constantly screeching or an untrained dog that shits everywhere.

 

[40 Year Old Boomer]

Given that my GM came up with a Consent List recently, I almost regret not just trolling the shit out of him by going "Yeah, I don't want any gay people in my games. Also remember: this consent stuff is non-negotiable and I don't need to explain anything." or just go full asshat and declare literally anything halfway useful to the GM as off limits, such as darkness, rats, spiders, enemies, mean words, hostile attitudes and so on.

Have you tried asking him to not be a massive fucking pussy? No game is better than a bad game.

 

[RomanesEuntDomus]

Have you tried asking him to not be a massive fucking pussy? No game is better than a bad game.

That's the thing though, dude runs a very solid game. Fun story, decent encounters (Well, one Boss battle was handled very poorly, but it seems like a one-off), decent characters.

It's just that this guy follows CR and thus ends up with some, let's say, peculiar ideas that he finds on social media in the vast following of weirdos and normies that enjoy CR.
He's genuinely well intentioned, but holy fucking shit, this is not the way to do things. Told him as much, and that I dislike this consent list bullshit for treating grown players like mollycuddled toddlers.

 

[40 Year Old Boomer]

It's just that this guy follows CR and thus ends up with some, let's say, peculiar ideas that he finds on social media in the vast following of weirdos and normies that enjoy CR.
He's genuinely well intentioned, but holy fucking shit, this is not the way to do things. Told him as much, and that I dislike this consent list bullshit for treating grown players like mollycuddled toddlers.

I've had to deal with this myself on a few occasions when I DMed. One of the DMs had a bad habit of railroading and trying to play out cut scenes with us as passive observers. When I confronted him on this, he said it was his story. I told him to write a damn book if he wants his own story and that in an RPG the DM is the narrator and creates the narrative, but the players are the characters. It's a story that belongs to the group, not just him. Vastly improved since then. He gave his own critiques to my style (more combat heavy) and I grew from that as well. But then we're also a bunch of assholes that don't get offended easily. X cards and nonsense like that would never fly at the table and would be thoroughly mocked, as it should be. Something like rape or overly enthusiastic magic-realming I can understand not flying, but fuck your arachnophobia. Adventures are supposed to be scary, otherwise it's just a tabletop theme park ride ala WoW.

 

[Francis York Morgan]

It will affect a lot of new players, though, and they will get browbeat into using it themselves, cause the problem-players will tell them that's the correct way how to do things.

That actually is one of my concerns with this crap finding its way into official books. It gives idiots ammo to bully the GM or whole groups into catering catering specifically to them and their particular brand of moralfaggotry. When finding good, consistent groups is already a little difficult, this just adds another obstacle. And yeah, it really sucks for new players coming in who do have a genuine interest in the game.

But D&D has had toxic players and shitty GMs forever. The new players who come in and want a real D&D experience will seek it out. Especially in this period where it's never been easier to find groups for play.

 

[BlazikenLover]

I've had to deal with this myself on a few occasions when I DMed. One of the DMs had a bad habit of railroading and trying to play out cut scenes with us as passive observers. When I confronted him on this, he said it was his story. I told him to write a damn book if he wants his own story and that in an RPG the DM is the narrator and creates the narrative, but the players are the characters. It's a story that belongs to the group, not just him. Vastly improved since then. He gave his own critiques to my style (more combat heavy) and I grew from that as well.

I tried that with one of my first DMs and he just got offended anytime I gave him criticism, it became a derangement over time. He did improve on the railroad department but just barely: thinking outside the box for his encounters or puzzles was met with him pulling you aside "it doesn't work, sorry I don't want the encounter I worked so hard for destroyed" and that made me feel like shit, he squashed any creativity, and it wasnt like I was trying to godmode wizard or anything: my character was more of an investigator, he had several spells to help with mind reading and sending messages so he was meant to be good at that sort of thing.
Then the "D&D is bad!!!!" Bug bit him but for all the wrong reasons, the little retard whined about the system being bad at having balanced encounters (seriously, once he threw a death knight at a level 7 party) while never bothering to read the section of the DMG on encounter building and ignoring all of my advice and resources. They moved onto a system which used wounds instead of HP and months later he was trying his hardest to hack in hit points into said system, anytime me or someone else suggested to use a system that better suit their needs we got the
"I don't wanna learn another system"
"I like this system!"
So learning another system is too much work for you but coming up, testing and ironing out house rules that change a core mechanic of an existing system isn't? Piss off
Lastly his NPCs were obnoxious, he made so many of them and each had their own storyline we could hardly influence, unless said npc was your "designated" waifu or friend. He decided very early on who would bond with each NPC and if overtime your character bonded with one that wasn't your designated one? Well tough shit, designated waifu/friend was more important and left you on a second spot any time.
Lastly the guy was petty like you would't believe, he tried to get back at me and irritate me after I gave him advice or did something on my own games that upsetted him:
- We used roll20 and I decided to make all enemy spellcard and rolls private, he took a big issue with this and next time we played his game he did the same thing but was overly antagonistic about it, specially towards me.

- He would start complaining anytime enemies focused on his character and accused me of hating him (he also did this to other DMs to a lesser degree)

Overall he was annoying as both a player and a DM, and sadly he kept getting players since he was the only one to DM so often, a campaign would end and he would start another almost immediately, leaving others with no time to organize their own stuff and get players from that group. He was also a HUGE suckup, always trying to play in campaigns his friends played on, even if he disliked the theme or the DM.

Bonus: He would get really into a piece of media (movie, videogame, anime, series) and make characters who were very obvious references to said media to the point of being super obnoxious or on extreme cases add the character as is. Don't get me wrong I love being cheeky and adding a small joke or reference here and there like Jose Jostar but what he did made more than one person groan.

 

[Spergetti]

I tried that with one of my first DMs and he just got offended anytime I gave him criticism, it became a derangement over time. He did improve on the railroad department but just barely: thinking outside the box for his encounters or puzzles was met with him pulling you aside "it doesn't work, sorry I don't want the encounter I worked so hard for destroyed" and that made me feel like shit, he squashed any creativity, and it wasnt like I was trying to godmode wizard or anything: my character was more of an investigator, he had several spells to help with mind reading and sending messages so he was meant to be good at that sort of thing.
Then the "D&D is bad!!!!" Bug bit him but for all the wrong reasons, the little retard whined about the system being bad at having balanced encounters (seriously, once he threw a death knight at a level 7 party) while never bothering to read the section of the DMG on encounter building and ignoring all of my advice and resources. They moved onto a system which used wounds instead of HP and months later he was trying his hardest to hack in hit points into said system, anytime me or someone else suggested to use a system that better suit their needs we got the
"I don't wanna learn another system"
"I like this system!"
So learning another system is too much work for you but coming up, testing and ironing out house rules that change a core mechanic of an existing system isn't? Piss off
Lastly his NPCs were obnoxious, he made so many of them and each had their own storyline we could hardly influence, unless said npc was your "designated" waifu or friend. He decided very early on who would bond with each NPC and if overtime your character bonded with one that wasn't your designated one? Well tough shit, designated waifu/friend was more important and left you on a second spot any time.
Lastly the guy was petty like you would't believe, he tried to get back at me and irritate me after I gave him advice or did something on my own games that upsetted him:
- We used roll20 and I decided to make all enemy spellcard and rolls private, he took a big issue with this and next time we played his game he did the same thing but was overly antagonistic about it, specially towards me.

- He would start complaining anytime enemies focused on his character and accused me of hating him (he also did this to other DMs to a lesser degree)

Overall he was annoying as both a player and a DM, and sadly he kept getting players since he was the only one to DM so often, a campaign would end and he would start another almost immediately, leaving others with no time to organize their own stuff and get players from that group. He was also a HUGE suckup, always trying to play in campaigns his friends played on, even if he disliked the theme or the DM.

Bonus: He would get really into a piece of media (movie, videogame, anime, series) and make characters who were very obvious references to said media to the point of being super obnoxious or on extreme cases add the character as is. Don't get me wrong I love being cheeky and adding a small joke or reference here and there like Jose Jostar but what he did made more than one person groan.

That guy: the DM.

 

[Road Work Ahead]

- We used roll20 and I decided to make all enemy spellcard and rolls private...

This is unusual? I don't think I've ever played a game, online or not, where the DM doesn't roll in secret.

 

[Shaka Brah]

This is unusual? I don't think I've ever played a game, online or not, where the DM doesn't roll in secret.

It depends on how your group is. Most DMs I've had rolled in the open most of the time.

 

[Francis York Morgan]

As a DM, I always roll in secret. Helps create suspense for the players, keeps them from catching on to certain things like potential encounters/ambushes, and it allows me to do "fudging" when I notice that players are getting too overwhelmed or are disengaging because I'm not rolling shit for encounters.

 

[BlazikenLover]

This is unusual? I don't think I've ever played a game, online or not, where the DM doesn't roll in secret.

It depends on how your group is. Most DMs I've had rolled in the open most of the time.

As a DM, I always roll in secret. Helps create suspense for the players, keeps them from catching on to certain things like potential encounters/ambushes, and it allows me to do "fudging" when I notice that players are getting too overwhelmed or are disengaging because I'm not rolling shit for encounters.

Yep, Most sheets I have used, 5e and not, defaulted to public rolls and since we started playing online that was the norm for us. Personally I went back to hiding the rolls, it's kind of a pain at times and it sucks not being able to select what to show and what not to (for example I would love to show only the DC save they need to roll) but overall I find it better since it avoids metagaming and avoids players knowing how mechanics work. For example, once I pit them against an enemy with some passive gaze effect, if the monster was close enough and looked into your eyes you had to roll a save or drop to 0 HP. Averting your gaze worked (but then you would be considered to be blinded), that last bit was on the ability card so after the first time that's what they all did, you could say that even without that info they would have still closed their eyes or averted their gaze, but had I hidden the card and described it with my own words things would have turned different and maybe they would have come up with other tactics.
When I tried in that campaign I had complaints about it, since they didn't know if they were counterspelling a cantrip or a finger of death and it wasn't fair for them. My current group got used to it, they may disagree but they don't complain and if they know the spell/saw it being used often enough before and the caster speaks the same language, the characters may be able to identify the spell: to me it makes sense that if you saw casters throwing fireballs at least ten times this past week the next time you will recognize the incantation.
Otherwise I believe that having that much control over already strong spells tips the balance in favour of the players too much. Likewise I struggle to make monsters play smart or dumb, since I'm the DM and I know what the players are casting so I often ask myself "should this monster use their legendary actions right away or save them? Will this caster counterspell selectively?"

 

[Waifuwars]

Yep, Most sheets I have used, 5e and not, defaulted to public rolls and since we started playing online that was the norm for us. Personally I went back to hiding the rolls, it's kind of a pain at times and it sucks not being able to select what to show and what not to (for example I would love to show only the DC save they need to roll) but overall I find it better since it avoids metagaming and avoids players knowing how mechanics work. For example, once I pit them against an enemy with some passive gaze effect, if the monster was close enough and looked into your eyes you had to roll a save or drop to 0 HP. Averting your gaze worked (but then you would be considered to be blinded), that last bit was on the ability card so after the first time that's what they all did, you could say that even without that info they would have still closed their eyes or averted their gaze, but had I hidden the card and described it with my own words things would have turned different and maybe they would have come up with other tactics.
When I tried in that campaign I had complaints about it, since they didn't know if they were counterspelling a cantrip or a finger of death and it wasn't fair for them. My current group got used to it, they may disagree but they don't complain and if they know the spell/saw it being used often enough before and the caster speaks the same language, the characters may be able to identify the spell: to me it makes sense that if you saw casters throwing fireballs at least ten times this past week the next time you will recognize the incantation.
Otherwise I believe that having that much control over already strong spells tips the balance in favour of the players too much. Likewise I struggle to make monsters play smart or dumb, since I'm the DM and I know what the players are casting so I often ask myself "should this monster use their legendary actions right away or save them? Will this caster counterspell selectively?"

As a GM if you give them all the hints necessary to recognize something (fire bursting from the fingertips, the same incantations like you said before) and act accordingly, it's on them to actually use their head. I find that RP tends to falter during combat because players are too focused on doing damage to remember that this isn't a video game this is a tabletop game. You have so much more freedom and the GM is more than willing to work with you but a lot of brainlets zone in on builds and fighting, part of which I blame on D&D and similar systems since it's designed to award murder hoboing. I guess the point is to hammer home READ NIGGA READ and talk to the other players because maybe their character picked up on something they didn't. It helps build comradery and basic reading comprehension. I am definitely in favor of hiding rolls though because of this.

 

[RomanesEuntDomus]

Likewise I struggle to make monsters play smart or dumb, since I'm the DM and I know what the players are casting so I often ask myself "should this monster use their legendary actions right away or save them? Will this caster counterspell selectively?"

Depending on the situation, you might just throw dice to check for the monsters intelligence and maybe give it a bonus (or a malus) to reflect how familiar they are with what is going on.

That way, you don't have to deliberately go "Yeah, the monster will now be stupid for this combat round and waste its awesome ability on something benign".

 

[BlazikenLover]

Depending on the situation, you might just throw dice to check for the monsters intelligence and maybe give it a bonus (or a malus) to reflect how familiar they are with what is going on.

That way, you don't have to deliberately go "Yeah, the monster will now be stupid for this combat round and waste its awesome ability on something benign".

I'll keep that one in mind.
I just remembered this one blog called "the monster knows" which analyzed material from past editions and dragon magazine and told you how each species if monster would act, which tactics they could employ, etc. Volos guide to monsters had some bits about tactics. Still, those are things that I rarely read and when I do it is more out of curiosity or boredom, I don't plan my encounters in detail or super ahead and sometimes I come up with shit on the spot. I guess it is not a bad idea to read on lore and or tactics if you DO know that for the next couple sessions they will be fighting goblins since they need to go through ruins full of them.
And don't get me wrong, I love monster lore, I'm subscribed to a couple channels that talk about that.

 

[Corn Flakes]

I'll keep that one in mind.
I just remembered this one blog called "the monster knows" which analyzed material from past editions and dragon magazine and told you how each species if monster would act, which tactics they could employ, etc. Volos guide to monsters had some bits about tactics. Still, those are things that I rarely read and when I do it is more out of curiosity or boredom, I don't plan my encounters in detail or super ahead and sometimes I come up with shit on the spot. I guess it is not a bad idea to read on lore and or tactics if you DO know that for the next couple sessions they will be fighting goblins since they need to go through ruins full of them.
And don't get me wrong, I love monster lore, I'm subscribed to a couple channels that talk about that.

I asked my GM about it. His method is to note down the monster's standard tactics plus a few exceptions based on its intelligence. Simple stuff, "if not carrying out any action related to the encounter (pulling a lever, serving as bait, etc), move towards closest enemy and attack. If being attacked from range, prioritize ranged attacker. If below 50% health, try to run away," things like that. Just a couple of lines under the abbreviated statblock he uses for his monsters. It's only when he rolls out more intelligent monsters (INT 14+) that he stops to figure out their reactions on the fly.

 

[MAPK phosphatase]

I recently fell into a great gaming group. It's very small, but every session so far has been a blast. Somehow everyone is still alive even though there's no dedicated healer.

 

[Adamska]

Speaking of bad company marketing and design, the final episode of Confessions is finally finished:

At several points even at the end of this book, you can smell the contempt they have for you the player, with the winning moment being that the writer refuses to admit they have a workfriend that plays DnD (she admittedly gives another and better reason, but still).

Also an entire section on how to find a man using the game as a prop.

Reminder this was 2008.

 

[BlackDragoons]

I've been getting a campaign setup for ShadowRun where there is a drug war going on between a cthulu cult and a zombie cult. Getting some fine details works down though.