So, let me get this straight: a goodish portion of you imagine that DM/GM should be some sort of improv genius?
Sure. You could let murderhobos run around if they're so inclined, but to maintain an organic world with any tension or verisimilitude you'd need to have the BBEG still continue with his plot, routinelly interrupting they players actions with it's developments (i.e. crop rotation doesn't help because the warlock cast some spell of withering)
This sounds nice, but a lot of you shouted 'railroading' while discussing the lich/gay rights pasta and how the undead apocalypse shouldn't have happened because the king would have sent an army or another group of adventurers to stop it.
Going this route, the DM can do nothing else but know the setting and try to build interesting characters and cities on the spot?
/tg/ is that-guy central.
>>47105006
>Going this route, the DM can do nothing else but know the setting and try to build interesting characters and cities on the spot?
If they're decent GMs, yeah. Story in the OP was fictional, anyway.
>>47105006
>every idea on /tg/ is supplied by one person
Just do whatever you want and what works for your group. If your group wants to be led by the nose, railroad them hard and they will have a good time. If the group is content with making their own adventures, let them frolic in your setting.
It's a fictional story poking fun at how SJW's are obsessed with First World problems rather than actually working towards important issues.
Don't get so buttflustered about it.
/tg/ stands for That Guy. It's no coincidence.
>>47105006
The players had choice and were confronted with the consequences of their actions. That's good. Then the BBEG teleported in and everyone died. The story suggests there was no opportunity to escape or fight back or even start the game up 20 years later on the far end of the continent with new characters. That's bad.
The bigger problem with "open world, do what you want" games is often the players don't take advantage of it and stagnate until the GM forces them on some path.
>>47105408
This.
It's pretty much how games master should handle the situation. But I would add hints, that something is up (start small, leading to a stick upside the head.) So they know I'm up to something
The world doesn't stop for no man.
hey look it's this thread again, you really need to get a life OP
>>47105006
Look, if you're not smart or creative enough to run a campaign better than a four year old, than maybe you should look into other less cerebral hobbies like call of duty or 40k.
>>47105169
>>47107312
You can tell what kind of player /tg/ is by looking at that guy threads and paying attention to what kinds of problem player are constantly featured there and which ones never, ever show up. Teej is that guy who thinks RPGs are a competition and he wins by taking the game more seriously than you do, even though every character he plays is a token variation on the same three 20-something white guys, who impressively still sound like 20-something white guys even when they're a 6 year old thri kreen. Yes, no shit /tg/ isn't one person, but in the aggregate? I stand by this assessment.
>>47107539
Exactly. The key to good GMing is incentivization. The players in that story were fucking terrible, don't get me wrong. The GM was extremely clear about what was going on, and they ignored him to go off and do trying-too-hard, not even remotely clever lolrandom nonsense. The players should have had some faith that if they went along with the plot, the GM would lead them somewhere fun. If they knew there was no possible way they'd enjoy the campaign, they should have brought it up with him instead of being passive aggressive little shits.
THAT SAID, that guy failed horribly at his job. The idea that it's the GM's job to simply create a world for everything to happen in is wrong. If that's all you do the party is just going to wander around doing nothing and going nowhere. A good GM knows how to make the players want to do what he wants them to. There was a great story here awhile back where the GM didn't really introduce the main villain as the main villain until like halfway through the campaign. He was just some smarmy asshole who was constantly ruining their fun adventures, over and over and over again. By the time any kind of master plan came into it, the players already would have crawled naked through broken glass just to spit in his food. That is how you GM properly.
>>47107795
If this were another Spoony or elf slave thread I'd agree but I haven't seen this one yet. You know that goes both ways, right? If you can remember threads with pinpoint accuracy no matter the passage of time it's not a good sign.
It wouldn't be railroading unless the party got coup de graced by the undead army.
>>47105006
Accepting, for the sake of argument, that the greentext there actually happened, you have to read between the lines to really have an opinion on it, because there's much it doesn't explicitly tell you about the way things unfolded, how the interpersonal dynamic of the group affected expectations, the demeanor of the people involved and so forth. I tend to take a negative stance on the GM's behavior, because it seems like he gets off on "teaching those SJWs a lesson" to the point of reveling in their unhappiness, which is terrible GMing, even if your players are fucktards.
Furthermore, the players might have had a reasonable expectation that the reality of the world would be shaped around what they were looking for from the game. Without knowing their history, it's impossible to say, but a lot of GMs do this, and it's actually a good thing, as long as it doesn't go to far (pandering to every fleeting desire of the players is a surefire way to remove any integrity from your campaign and ultimately ruin everybody's fun, even the ones who think they want you to do the pandering).
Every campaign, story genre, etc. takes certain aspects of reality more seriously than others. If you're running a lighthearted campaign, for instance, you probably aren't going to be giving the ravaging effects of diseases when two long isolated cultures come into contact, for instance. In this light, the idea that the ongoing, behind-the-scenes plot with the liches was sacrosanct is rubbish. The GM could've stressed other aspects of reality or come up with any number of ways to defuse the threat in order to focus on things that the players wanted to focus on. Not, mind you, that he was obligated to toss aside the kind of campaign he wanted to run, but he could've had a discussion with the players about it, or at least explicitly spelled out the dangers to them...
>>47111121
no. DM was right.
Ignore big issues in world, get ravaged
>>47107974
I'm going to latch onto this bait because I'm bored. If you actually take a look at that guy threads, you'll find three main problems that are complained about.
1.ROLLplaying instead of roleplaying
2.People being clueless/socially inept.
3.Women
>>47111121
>Not, mind you, that he was obligated to toss aside the kind of campaign he wanted to run, but he could've had a discussion with the players about it, or at least explicitly spelled out the dangers to them...
...there's no indication in the text that the liches were played up to be a greater of threat than any of dozens of other bad guys the party no doubt faced. I get the feeling that this same sort of thing would've happened with whatever the current BBEG was, if the players ever decided to do their own thing. And at that point, it really does start to look like a railroad. Granted, it can be a tricky needle to thread, as you want the plots you set up to have some integrity, and the players' actions to have repercussions (and not just have everything turn out absolutely smashing regardless of what they do), but the "gotcha!" feel of the end of this greentext makes me feel like the GM didn't consider his players' feelings and interests at all, and he just punished them for not riding his train.
>>47111171
What does 3 do?
>>47107974
I know the pasta you'e talking about. It's a great story!.
>>47111204
3 doesn't have sex with the anon, so they get pissy.
>>47111121
>>47111181
Mind you, I'm not saying that the players come off as having behaved intelligently, but A) they're being characterized by the guy on the other side of this argument, so we can expect them to be portrayed negatively as a result, B) the GM has a greater responsibility to be considerate and act responsibly precisely because he has more authority within the game, and C) just because your players are fucktards doesn't mean that you're not also one. If this thing were written from the players' perspective and giving a similar account of the story, and prevailing opinion were on their side, I'd be taking them down a few pegs too.
Anyone who disagrees with the greentext DM's actions is naive.
DM even told PCs to stop the lich but they decided to go do their own thing in the DM's world. The world continues to move, regardless of what any one person in the world wants. They succeeded in their own personal goals but ultimately chose, as a group, not to pursue in to a world event.
Lich went uncontested.
could DM have "sent other PCs or and army", yeah. He could have. But where would be the fun in that? Actions have consequences. This was their consequence of ignoring a looming threat.
GOOD END.
The thing about the op's pic is that the campaign was over. The players won, they got their political revolution game. But instead of a happy epilouge, they got world ending darkness. They didn't take the GM's world seriously and that was what they agreed to play in the beginning. You have to respect the GM for tolerating and supporting their off the rails campaign, since most GMs would just through a fit and start railroading, and you have to respect his conviction to maintain the world as a believable setting.
>>47111232
I really don't see that in That Guy threads. If it's a girl it's usually just them being shit players like the guys and the closest it gets to stuff outside of one's ability to play is if it involves someone like the GM's girlfriend rather than a girl they want to fug.
>>47111249
Yes, because it's so much better to gloat about how you taught your players a lesson and made them unhappy than it is to put the game on hold and come to some kind of understanding about the type of game that's being played.
>>47111232
>Thinking vagina's matter that much
Maybe in high school D&D, but grown men
usually don't give a shit about a cunt. These
whore's just assume "He's being mean to me
He mus be mad I won't sleep with him," even
when the male has given no indication he actually wants to fuck the slag.
3 is the worst.
>>47105006
ForeverDM here
As long as I'm dealing with a world I'm intimately familiar with in a well-mapped area (of which there are about three for me) I can improv All damn day and have it be organic AND make sense in the world with consequences.
Protip, even if you're not familiar or experienced enough to do this, keep a timeline that tracks days and what the players did each day. Nothing too detailed, just a synopsis. This helps you to remember what players pissed off who and allows you to realistically keep deadlines.
>>47111292
I tried to do that, and they photo shopped a train conductors hat onto one of my facebook pictures.
Let them roam around like idiots if they want, and suffer the consequences.
>>47111352
>they photo shopped a train conductors hat onto one of my facebook pictures
>Be a female half elf bard
>Make living as an actress for the party
>Try to imagine MLP Rarity about 3 years before FiM ever existed
>between quests, with barbarian, wizard, rogue acting as circus troupe and stage hands
>As the only one with appraisal, I start scalping loot and keeping a tidy profit from the rest of the team
>Eventually the rogue figures this out
>Group goes to the north to kill a necromancer
>Need to borrow a longship off of a thane
>Offers to swap the longship for the hand of my bard in marriage
>she declines, but the group explains they need the boat, and they'll rescue her that evening
>marriage happens
>feast happens
>group sails off in boat
>thane takes wife to bed
>rescue any minute now....
>any minute now...
>any.... "you guys aren't coming, are you?"
>"Nope"
>three years late we play another game, set a few years in the future. Go to the same village. Irate half elf wife of thane with 5 kids keeps trying to bore us with tales of how she was a famous actress. Dumb thane thinks she's happy and brags she'll be having a 6th child before the winter hits. Praise the god of fertility.
>Pretend to be frustrated but secretly enjoyed being whored off for a longboat
>>47111483
boner, stop.
>>47111483
>secretly enjoyed being whored off for a longboat
hot
>>47111333
Thank you for illustrating the point so thoroughly.
>>47111204
They complain about three because interacting with the opposite sex is difficult.
>>47111204
Either they're bleeding cunts who convert thirsty virgins into white knights who believe that violently defended muh lady's honor will get them closer to cashing in their V-Card or you end up with relationship drama where she dates one guy and ends up dating some different guy later on and the two end up with some bad blood between them because of it.
>>47111232
>>47111649
These guys are either trolls or people who have never had to deal with that shit but I've seen situations where two blokes who were the best of pals turned on one another because one guy took shit personally and the other guy just didn't care to salvage the relationship due to the other guy turning completely mental.
It sucks even more because the girl wasn't even trying to start anything. I dunno, it was just a shit situation for everyone involved.
>>47111483
Reminds me a bit of this gem (on account of ships and women being taken advantage of).
>>47111352
Why didn't you drop them?
I don't know about you, but I'd be buggered if I were to spend time and energy coming up with content to fill 2-4 hours of game time just to have disrespectful little shits tell me that I'm being railroad-y by trying to solve it diplomatically.
>>47111706
You're objectively wrong /pol/itcal/k/omrade. Most women are in the game to, you know, play the game. It's men being the typical brutish dolts only thinking with their dicks that causes problems. Most of the time.
>>47111783
That's true, but said men tend to be reasonable when women aren't involved. It's sort of like 3 people vs one person with a magical aura of stupidity that turns your friends into retards. It's not really their fault, with the aura being stuck on them, but if they left you have 3 reasonable people again.
>>47105006
Protip for improv: you do not have to invent deep characters on the fly. It's 100% okay to present players with 1-dimensional cardboard cutouts, especially if the character is unlikely to appear again, because that's how most people interact IRL. When we meet a new person, we don't immediately understand everything about their personality and values. Instead, we just get a shallow first impression, which gets filled in the more we interact with them.
So if your players walk up to a random villager or watchman, there's nothing wrong with giving them a very broad, simple personality. In fact, it can actually be useful to do that, as it then gives you a base upon which to expand their personality, should the players end up interacting with them later. If a villager is happy and amiable, for instance, you could go further and say that, even though their wife died a few years ago, they still remain resolutely optimistic and cheerful. Or you could go in the opposite direction, and say that they're just a con artist with a winning smile. Either way could work, depending on what your campaign needed, but you need to get some raw material in play first.
The same goes for any part of worldbuilding, really. Rather than spending ages building up a city, detailing the ins and outs of its politics, economy and culture, you could just start with a very broad overview and fill in the blanks as needed. You know how worldbuilders idolize realism, and learning how to get their worlds "right"? This is actually where all that knowledge comes in handy - not for creating an elaborate backdrop beforehand, but rather for knowing how to fill in the blanks of your backdrop in the moment, in a way that feels real and natural.
>>47111483
>>Pretend to be frustrated but secretly enjoyed being whored off for a longboat
So thane is kind of right.
Ah, this discussion again. Once again,
>>47111249
>The thing about the op's pic is that the campaign was over. The players won, they got their political revolution game.
This.
Although, I find it interesting that when I first saw these, the specific nature of sidetracking issue was barely discussed.
Whereas in the current /tg/ climate, some anons always insist that the storyteller was “clearly commenting on sjw” instead of players that ignore the game world in favor of their contrived BS.
On to OP’s nonsense:
>>47105006
>a lot of you shouted the king would have sent an army or another group of adventurers to stop it.
>Going this route, the DM can do nothing else but know the setting and try to build interesting characters and cities on the spot?
Going that route is fine if the players are consistently on the same level.
They can’t have their coup and in the same breath claim that the fate of the kingdom isn’t their responsibility.
More to follow as I am a wordy bitch…
>>47111733
I smell magical realm bullshit here. WHy would the crew carry around a collar that shuts down mage's spells? The chances of catching one is slim to none on the open seas and the amount of money one can get for something that powerful, as it would be a local anit-magic field, would set them all for life.
Honesty it sounds like the DM had a bone to pick with the player and wanted to mess with his/her character. Capturing the player is one thing but going over the details of being raped for a month is a bit much.
God damn it let me post.
>>47111244
>But where would be the fun in that?
Where's the fun in the DM equivalent of a table flip? He killed the game dead and made the whole thing an irrelevant waste of time for everyone involved.
>Actions have consequences.
Character actions should have character consequences. The DM dropping rocks on all the characters and ending the game is just punishing the players for not playing how he wanted.
>>47111877
Ideally, the players and GM should establish before playing whether the PCs are pivotal characters in the story of the world.
If the players *want* to play negligible mooks that the world can get along fine without, then the GM should run that game or find other players.
There is nothing wrong with that game.
I think running a game of beleaguered henchmen, struggling merchants, or fantasyland peasants coping with life in the background of Big Damn Heroes fighting epic battles would be an awesome and fun campaign.
(Pretty sure this is an established trope, but I’ll be damned if I’ll learn the names)
And if the players want to be epic world changers, then having the King call in another team to get it done because they took too long getting equipment is kind of a dick move.
(Only if this is done to negate or invalidate their efforts, not if it is just introducing rivals.)
In either event, the GM can prepare as much as they choose.
If the PCs are important and involved with events at that level, then them ignoring events, whether the GM planned them or if they were improvised as the Players sandboxed, then ignoring those events should have consequences, in any setting with a semblance of consistency.
When I run a game, ignored looming dangers don’t get resolved by other npc good guys, they get resolved by other npc bad guys, giving the next evil menace even more power.
At any rate, the PCs in the game in question overthrew a kingdom.
They were clearly on the level of being involved with national threats.
But they didn’t deal with the threat, they waged war on the army that those you pointed out theorized could have handled it without them.
They didn’t just ignore the threat to the kingdom, they paved the way for it with a civil war.
Also, if OP's DM had any kind of integrity or competence and wasn't just looking for a chance to fuck over his players, he'd have built up the threat of the impending undead invasion throughout the campaign instead of mentioning it once in the first session and then announcing zombies come out of nowhere and kill everyone in the last session.
Good DMing isn't about proving to your players what a smartass you are.
>>47105006
>being so skull-fucked stupid that you can't both hand-craft a world as well as improv things on the spot
Pulling them back on course is really not that fucking hard, dude.
>>47111942
Off the top of my head;
Some evil anti-democracy noble turns out to also be working for the evil Lich.
Boom, done.
>>47111244
>Actions have consequences
And on the meta-level, the GM was facing consequences for the action of coming up with a cliche and boring plot of "kill the evil lich". When the consequence of that (players go find something interesting to do) reared its head, he responded immaturely.
If he had his heart set on a lich villain, and the players had their hearts set on a social revolution game, it's not at all hard to think of ways to make the penises kiss there. The lich is aristocracy elevated to immortality, the staunch order they seek to fight against. Or perhaps the lich is a counter-revolutionary who uses his vast sums of lich-money to run a Tea Party esque movement against them.
The players shouldnt have ignored a looming threat, sure, but the DM shouldn't have acted like a petulant child because everyone was playing the game THEY wanted instead of the game HE wanted. Maybe he should have been happy his friends were having fun with the game and found ways to also enjoy it?
Assuming any of this is real, which it definitely isn't.
>>47105006
Op, you're baiting on a 4 year old thread.
>>47112001
>If he had his heart set on a lich villain, and the players had their hearts set on a social revolution game, the players shouldn't have signed up for a traditional fantasy game
FTFY.
>>47111831
You must be 18 or older to post here
Why is no one pointing out that the whole idea of "let's quickly convert feudal fantasy society into modern, pro-gay democracy" is beyond retarded?
>suspension of disbelief?
>nope.png
>>47111969
>anti-democratic lich henchman
>facepalm
"Dear Mr. Lich-King, could I have an interview regarding your stance towards gay marriage and civil rights?"
>>47112048
Because it isn't worth mentioning.
>>47112083
It's the premise of the campaign. But, yeah, as a campaign idea, it's not worth mentioning. Too bad for the GM that the players did.
>>47112001
Mmm, nah.
Players decided to do something else, plot didn't pause for their enjoyment.
>>47105006
Meh, here's my 2 cents.
First off - how could the king or army deal with it? Kinda preoccupied with rebels.
Second off - as leader of the nation why was it not a priority threat as soon as she was inaugurated?
I feel like a lot of info is missing.
>>47112108
People can have campaigns about whatever the fuck they want, don't you believe in truth freedom and the American way you filthy commie?
It isn't worth mentioning that it is a retarded campaign idea because the campaign idea itself wasn't even framed as the subject of discussion. Please read the OP again, specifically the final two sentences. That is what everyone has been talking about in this thread.
>>47112048
Whereas the magical skeleton wizard is definitely realistic and requires zero suspension of disbelief.
>>47112121
Plot in an RPG in a collaboration between the GM and the players, not a one-sided relationship. A GM mandating plot and disregarding player input, player wishes etc is just as bad as a player who, say, sabotages another player for the sake of lulz, or decides to stab the king to be so random, or who decides "my character wouldnt do that" etc etc.
I feel a good compromise is to start off with a module, the GM and the players get a feel for each other and their characters, which the GM can then start bringing in their own story.
Then again, my groups tend to be undisruptive and fairly happy to go along with the plot as it were. We've never gone "fuck you, i kill vital NPC"
>>47111733
Great. Now I'm aroused: take responsibility anon.
>>47112176
>A GM mandating plot and disregarding player input, player wishes etc is just as bad as a player who, say, sabotages another player for the sake of lulz, or decides to stab the king to be so random, or who decides "my character wouldnt do that" etc etc.
But that's effectively what the party collectively decided to do. And the GM in question did not, in fact, disregard the player input or mandate the plot - he let the players do exactly what they wanted, even if they didn't get desired results in the end.
>join my MTG group's game
>was already warned that they can be fucking annoying with unnecessary and lengthy rules discussions
>can't ever decide on a plan of action in under 15 minutes
>group takes so long with deciding on a plan that the DM gets pissed and triggers a Kill-encounter
>get thrown in as aliterally naked necromancer that just joined into a challenge rating 7 encounter with 6 players
>get knocked unconscious twice and fail 2 saving throws each time
That fight took well over 2 hours and they took another 15 minutes on the next relevant decision, even though half the group already agreed on a plan, requiring the DM to bait the group into doing ANYTHING by having the orc boss walk past the window we were hiding behind. This group has a single "that guy" causing all of that shit, that they wanted me to replace, but they have yet to find a way to get him out of the group.
>>47112176
>Whereas the magical skeleton wizard is definitely realistic and requires zero suspension of disbelief.
Internal consistency of the setting pal, look it up.
>>47112238
Forgot to add: the DM is absolutely great at having to deal with that shit and has my utmost respect. Even some of the players in the group said that he should just stop giving open scenarios with options since that shit takes way too long with the group.
>>47112207
No, he mandated skeleton man. The entire point of the story is that the lich was "the real story" and the GM is punishing his players for not following "the real story".
>>47112168
Not American, but why sure, sir! I also believe in the liberty of the GM, replying "Not in my game, punks. I have offered to run a fantasy game and not your SJW bullshit. If that's what you want, more power to you but I am not going to sit here and bore myself with this BS just to please you."
And you can't seperate the campign premise from the discussion. The campaign end only happened like this because the GM rolled with the players retarded idea instead of saying: "Guys, really? Com'on, let's be serious about it. This is BS."
GM should have manned up to begin with instead of backstabbing his retarded players in the end.
>>47112176
>what is the classical fantasy genre?
>>47112277
>may may I want gm to let me power fantasy everyhing I want
>>47112277
A single element of the setting is not "plot." Especially when it was pre-established before the players decided they'd rather do something else.
>>47112279
You really are desperate to have this conversation aren't you.
>>47111783
> You're objectively wrong /pol/itcal/k/omrade. Most women are in the game to, you know, play the game. It's men being the typical brutish dolts only thinking with their dicks that causes problems. Most of the time.
I have seen the case develop over the last few months and shatter one of my two groups. A group that was running fine with a girl already in it.
>Guy A and Guy B share a 1 1/2 apartment. Total bromance.
> Guy A has a crush on Girl.
> Guy A gets friendzoned by Girl.
> Girl is a bit of a bitch but Guy A is beta.
> Guy B has a fling with Girl. Mostly to show Girl not worthy of pedestal.
> Guy B and Girl start cold war.
> Girl get kicked out of wherever she lived.
> Guy A invite Girl into Apartment.
> Girl invites her new boyfriend (call him Guy C) into apartment.
> Girl dumped by C.
> Girl finally accepts to "date down". Curiously around the time Guy A gets a nice contract.
> Guy A officially sided with Girl in Cold War.
> Guy A decide to move to be closer to short-duration contract.
She infiltrated the group and sabotaged it from the inside. The problem is it's typical female behavior in society, but fringe behavior inside our hobby. Most girls that play with us are the exceptions.
And we're aware of that.
>>47111903
>He killed the game dead and made the whole thing an irrelevant waste of time for everyone involved.
So...The game that turned into a liberal politics simulator played out like liberal politics?
Sounds right to me.
>>47112371
I dunno, it seems like Guy A is the one causing problems in this case.
>>47112357
You think? Nice bit of psychologizing but I am just the analytical type.
>>47112065
Are you retarded?
>>47111882
Er, because some stupid mage chick decided to hand them a fat pile of gold to take her off alone someplace? Presumably they picked up a cursed item from an appropriately sinister magic item shop. It wouldn't need to be something spectacularly powerful like an AMF; there are lots of curses that could shut down a caster (large penalty to INT, increased arcane spell failure, disrupted sleep or magically-imposed illiteracy to prevent spell preparation, etc...)
That said, I personally would've gone with something a little easier and just had them bind and gag her. Very few casters take both Still and Silent spell, so any mage that can't talk or gesture is a non-threat.
>>47105006
> So, let me get this straight: a goodish portion of you imagine that DM/GM should be some sort of improv genius?
Or striving to become such. Yes.
> Sure. You could let murderhobos run around if they're so inclined, but to maintain an organic world with any tension or verisimilitude you'd need to have the BBEG still continue with his plot, routinelly interrupting they players actions with it's developments (i.e. crop rotation doesn't help because the warlock cast some spell of withering)
Heh, usually, PCs open opportunities for the BBEG. They find rare NPCs they have spent weeks looking for and only have to follow the trail, for example.
> This sounds nice, but a lot of you shouted 'railroading' while discussing the lich/gay rights pasta and how the undead apocalypse shouldn't have happened because the king would have sent an army or another group of adventurers to stop it.
4chan is not One Person. Vocal people are not necessarily right. Infinite resources (e.g. Adventurers) is a retarded concept only the /r people will believe in. The same people that are SJW. The same people that disrupts instead of contribute. The same kind of people that argued against pic.
> Going this route, the DM can do nothing else but know the setting and try to build interesting characters and cities on the spot?
Retarded slippery slope. If the DM has to plan for and send adventurers at ignored plothooks, it can't only be doing that.
Maybe the picture didn't mention rumors of adventurers dying to the lich, or that came back "changed". Those could have very well been ignored by the PCs.
Either way, look at "The end of the World" game series by FFG. Pick any scenario, with a timeline. Then imagine the players go "Fuck the president being assassinate and turning into a giant lizard, we bring Democracy to China".
You have this retarded / yet awesome campaign in the OP's pic.
It amazes me how much of an argument a 14 line greentext story starts. Especially given that it barely goes into detail about any one thing it mentions.
We don't know anything about a lot of important context for this story. Especially as it's presented humorously by the GM.
Personally I don't see how it's railroading. To me railroading is when a group is constantly pushed back onto the rails over and over. GM didn't kidnap the players and teleport them over with a map to liches. We don't see any indication of that. Instead we see consequences when the NPC plot succeeds.
We also don't know how the GM warned the party. Where there reports of an undead army? Fleeing peasants? Odd losses of communication to the frontier?
I also want to outright say that /tg/ is way too fucking sensitive about railroading. Sometimes you guys call railroading super easily and get so upset about the merest hint that players special snowflake bubble is under threat. If railroading is a major GM crime shouldn't the standards for what constitutes it be a little higher?
Also just to remark on the SJW thing. Holy shit did we really? Did we really make the gay marriage angle the important part of judging this story? Not the whole "usurping a rightful throne that you have no claim on" bit? I mean we can have an entirely _separate_ debate on whether it's good to adjust fantasy worlds that are based on historical time periods for modern day sensibilities. But even if we did that I hope we can accept that it's super weird to have a party arbitrarily decide they are going to totally dick over a friendly kingdom because of one players out of character axe to grind.
>>47112467
What about introducing modern elements into a classical fantasy setting don't you get?
>>47112615
What the fuck has that got to do with a nobleman who serves a Lich opposing a democratic uprising?
>PCs try to lead democratic revolution in medieval fantasy kingdom
>evil nobleman opposes this because fucking obviously, he's an evil nobleman
>evil nobleman also happens to be plotting Lich invasion
Neither the Lich nor the nobleman even need to have a fucking opinion on gay marriage for this to work, retard.
>>47111783
I understand that, as someone who has played and run games with female players in them.
It's just that when you introduce a somewhat attractive female to a group that's comprised of virgins whose thirst could dry out an ocean, you tend to have a situation where everyone involved is acting like morons just to get the attention of the woman in question.
It's even worse when she tells them that she's only there for game and/or already has a significant other, because now everything's awkward and it results in the game falling apart anyways.
Then you have the cunts who know that they're distracting and go out of their way to be distracting just to get the attention of virgins who she knows have less than a 0% chance of scoring with her.
>>47112043
Woman are like booze.
You can trust some people to keep their wits and handle themselves responsibly but once someone takes shit too far, then shit gets fucked and shit's ruined for the rest of people that could conduct themselves reasonably.
>>47112722
IMHO, there are reasons why a setting with hyper-powerful individuals don't turn to democracies, and the way the campaign has been portrayed, causing civil war on the verge of the apocalypse for rights that don't make any sense in the time period is evil.
PCs were the guys who weakened the kingdom which literally faced a greater evil.
>>47112176
>Plot in an RPG is collaborative.
Yeah, Nah, you're *half* right, three-eighths really.
The player's contributions to the plot is their own actions, and interactions. So, 3-6 people in a world.
The GM's contributions are the scenery, background, and every force: antagonistic, beneficial, or benign. They also control the flow of information to the PC's, *but* only relative to what the PC's themselves seek out, within reason.
To paraphrase a rule of great gamemasters, "if the party don't look for or find the note on the body, move it to the chest.". Give players a chance to find plot relevant clues. Don't be rigid in their location or means of delivery. As long as the party was *informed* of the evil skeleton wizard being up to no good, what followed was fair play. The party never followed up on bone spell slinger, they blinded themselves by not looking into it.
>>47105267
This. I used to play with a group that wanted to do nothing but go out into the world and do what they wanted. It was fun as shit but our DM got exhausted pretty quick. Now I'm DMing and my group pretty much WANTS to be railroaded. I won't stand for handholding though, so I craft my world and encounters around vital plot points and well-defined objectives but craft them so that the group can solve them in whatever way they wish. I think its a pretty good compromise but I'm pretty sure I was blessed with the world's most cooperative party. Its all good though. Just gunna be sad when its done.
>>47112902
>Woman are like booze.
As a connoisseur of analogies, I like this,
>>47105006
That's bad DMing because
A: It ignores the players actions and removes their agency
B: It pisses off the people you are playing with
>>47105006
If this was real, it didn't have to be the end of the campaign. It would be pretty cool to play in a fantasy universe where evil has already won and the good guys are just trying to survive. You could take that in any number of directions and make the PCs face the question of whether it was all worth it, because maybe to them it still was.
>>47105006
Basically this >>47107539 Player's actions having no consequences is bad. Rocks fall everyone dies is worst. There's no reason to say more as it should be basic.
>>47116313
>a setting where evil has already one and the good guys are trying to survive.
Midnight is actually pretty good for that.too bad it's OGL.
>>47111733
I hate it when DMs justify their bullshit with the "consequences" excuse. There should always be consequences, but those consequences should be related with the decisions. Apparently the tiefling got the jewel despite the fact that she was suposed to be too weak. Where are the consequences here? But instead there's a consequence for her coming up with ideas to solve an obstacle (in this case the sea), she gets gangraped by pirates that somehow have magic artifacts. It's all just plain stupid.
>>47116313
Or they could just have roleplayed the war against the lich. It makes sense for the weakened forces of the kingdom/republic to be defeated out of scene by the countless hordes of undead, but we're talking about PCs here. They are probably pretty powerful if they played a whole campaign, they should be able to do something. It wouldn't be the first time that fantasy characters win a war against a more powerful enemy.
>>47112867
I think the primary issue there is the Virgin part, My longest running game had a woman in it, but most of us were married and starting family when this game was happening, so one playing being a "Purdy girl" had zero impact on the game.
Turns out when your not desperately trying to as a group fuck the single female in the group, you tend to have less drama.
>>47117060
>>47112867
Wow okay, no more typing on my phone. TLDR, neck-beards can show a little restraint and not cause drama by trying to fuck every girl who knows what a d20 is.
I have to say, as a player, if I was doing something silly like enacting a revolution for gay marriage, an epilogue where we all get killed by liches would be hilarious. If you can't find that ending funny, you have no sense of humor and take your fictional fight for gay marriage way too seriously
>>47105006
>>47105006
>>47105006
Alright, I lurked a bit in this thread but since it's still alive nearly a day later.
The proper play for the GM was to say:
"We agreed we were interested in this type of game, and I feel that this is necessary for the setting I'm making. Can we agree that this sidequest isn't necessary and go on with the game?"
If they couldn't get that agreement, they could in turn simply retcon their setting to include modern morals, or they could simply run a different game (or not run at all).
What people take offense to is the seemingly childish ending to the game, which seems spiteful, as well as the glee he seems to take from that. Those things seem at odds with an adult method of talking it out and ensuring a mutual enjoyable game.
Remember, if you're put in a position in which you're not going to enjoy the game, or are going to ruin someone else's enjoyment, you should probably discuss it as opposed to ensuring that the group isn't all having a pleasant experience.
To those commenting on how the GM ruined the game, prevented the players from reacting to the lich, or think it would have been better if the game had progressed after the lich attacked, there is something you are forgetting.
The game was already over.
The players had reset the win condition of the game to legalizing gay marriage, not saving the kingdom.
The thing I love about the story is that the GM didn't veto their decision or prevent them from playing the game their way.
They played their game and won.
The GM gave them the challenges and victory they wanted.
It was over, they had won.
And then he showed them exactly how stupid their decision was, given the setting and scenario in a hilariously bitchy manner.
If your players are dead set on winning a random battle even if they lose the war, let them have that victory.
But the rest of the war won't just magically go away.
>>47117508
While I agree with your suggested resolution and I certainly would have respond in almost the same way, there is a point for the way the OOP handled it.
They all seemed to have fun, at least right up to the very end, where it ends in a "Wtf?" which we don't know how badly the players took it.
Sometimes it's worth it to try a campaign full of stunningly stupid things like diamond rubies or yellow dragons.
Obviously the greentext in the OP is bullshit, but barring that everyone was in the right to do what they did.
Was what the GM did childish and petty? Kinda, yeah, but so was sidetracking the entire game to legalize gay fucking marriage.
Obviously they should have talked it out like reasonable adults, but humans and greentext stories are both infamous for throwing logic and maturity out the window. Either way, the party played the game they wanted, the story progressed the way the GM wanted. Everyone won. Welcome to compromise.
>>47117749
Unfortunately, we don't know enough about the campaign or the player reactions to tell if this was the intended end point of the campaign, or just the GM saying "fuck it I quit" in the worst possible way... nor if such a comedic ending is normally okay in the group.
>>47105006
I've never understood this greentext.
>spend the hole campaign fighting battles, intrigue, actually not a bad campaign.
Oh, so you had fun doing going along with the random shenanigangs of the players and you all enjoyed the campaign? Sounds like a fun filled romp, intrigue, warfare, fighting, rebels, gay, democracy, tradition versus liberalism, anachrononism, social movements, sounds fun, I'm down.
>As she's signing the law, the clouds gather and the entire town is massacred by an army of undead soldiers
... why? You just said you it was "Not a bad campaign". That was literally written right there. Apparently it was so much of a "Not bad" campaign you went along with it for the days / weeks / months / playschedule depdending to get to this point all so you could... eventually somehow auto-kill the entire town on a whim? For no reason? The fuck was the point of that?
This is literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Imagine the rest of that conversation
>GOOD END, in my book
>Five people sit around a table
>Staring
>One of them is wearing this giant smug grin
>Apparently, you thought gay marriage was more important than not getting killed by an army of zombies and skeletons!"
>Players stare
>"So yeah, the Lich raises all the dead villagers and the campaign is over, GOOD END"
>The players stare
>One of them gets up and just walks out
>"What the fuck, Steve?"
>The girl playing the annoying bard looks confused and keeps starting a sentence then stopping
>"So is the campaign, er, over?"
>"YEAH! You dead because the Lich killed you, ha ha"
>"Huh."
>"So what happened to that Baron we promised control over the northern reaches in exchange for their support?"
>"Dead! He's a skeleton now hahaha"
>"I kinda liked him, that was a fun four sessions sorting out that diplomacy"
>Another player joins in
>"Yeah, that was cool - that was a nice intrigue, can't believe we had to forge that document"
>"BUT YOU LOST"
>"?"
>>47118128
>"I KILLED YOU YOU'RE DEAD BECAUSE GAY MARRIAGE ISN'T AS IMPORTANT AS LICHES! HAH"
>"Dude, it's been four fucking months"
>"Who cares?"
>Annoying bard is still completely tongue tied, looks like they're about to cry
>"CONSEQUENCES HAHAHA"
>"But I thought you liked the campaign? You kept wanting us to come back and continue playing, you said it wasn't a bad campaign - we spent six sessions in a dungeon trying to find the daughter of that one duke so we could get his armies to help us overthrow the King, that was amazing."
>"That Duke is also dead! The lich is wearing his skin as a suit"
>Annoying bard just quietly starts weeping
>"So... are we ever gonna find out what happened to those orphans we found that one time?"
>DEAD
>"My character and that other ones kinda had an antagonist relationship I was hoping would go somewhere since you kept hinting we were long lost siblings, that was neat... How is that going to end now?"
>WHO CARES YOU'RE DEAD, GOOD END
>"Did the taxation scheme we spent two sessions working out have any effect on peasant standing and land ownership? That was a lot of work; you said you really liked it and gave everyone bonus XP"
>"All the peasants are deeaaaaaad"
>"Okay. Fuck you Steve."
>The players leave
>"DEAD. GOOD END. GAY MARRIAGE. LICHES"
>Only the DM remains
>Grinning
>Smugly repeating GOOD END over and over
>Forever
>In the darkness
>His prize? Wasting everyones time.
I mean, I know it's just shitty copy-pasta intended to bait peope into idiotic DM style arguments (evidence: this entire thread) but I'm genuinely puzzled by the responses here.
What the fuck do people think happened afterwards? Did they come back next week to continue playing a different campaign? Roll new characters?
Why would you ever talk to this asswipe of a DM ever again if this was a thing they pulled? I fucking wouldn't.
>>47118246
>>47118128
Because it's funny. I think you're taking your games of make pretend too seriously there champ.
>>47118128
>>47118246
Holy fuck, you're one butthurt faggot.
>>47105408
>>47118031
>if this was the intended end point of the campaign
This, at least, we can discern.
see
>>47117592
>The players had reset the win condition of the game to legalizing gay marriage, not saving the kingdom.
Solid points otherwise.
>>47118246
Don't try to interact with the salty trolls, anon.
They just want to ruin games in ways that look funny on greentext, and care not for the actual situation that must have logically occurred afterwards.
>>47118246
>Wasting everyone's time.
Because all those months of fun are now retroactively not-fun?
I never understood that attitude.
At worst, the GM prevented future fun.
Funny posts, and a decent point though.
>>47118128
>>47118246
>imagine the rest of that conversation
You have a pretty faggy imagination, which is unsurprising because you actually think gay marriage is a good idea, let alone a good idea to make a campaign about.
Get wrecked.
>>47118268
Is it, though? I mean, sure, it's a laugh - I chuckle whenever I see it. It's a good joke. As an epilogue "... And then you all died because of liches" works just fine. I remember one time a game ended with "And then the meteor impacted the planet, rendering the ultimate victors of the civil war mostly a moot point".
But still.
There's a difference between "as a joke, I make the epilogue that everyone died" and "I spent several sessions setting up an elaborate got'cha in a game of make-believe". One is funny and reasonable.
This is just weird, and, as I said, I don't understand it.
>>47118366
Sorry, that was unclear. That was why was it confusing to me. Assume this all happened (which it didn't), they've clearly had days or weeks or months of fun in a not bad campaign full of intrigue! and mystery! and fighting! and rebels! and all that! and expression marks!
It just seems weird to throw all that away for a "And suddenly, liches, because ha ha, gay marriage". Or something.
People were having fun, right? That's why they kept playing. That's like the point of playing.
>>47118289
You can't read.
>>47118268
If you don't pretend in the most serious of ways, you're not pretending to be a real person hard enough.
>>47118377
What's it like insulting anonymous people online by hinting they like sticking stuff up their bum?
I mean, is it /more/ or /less/ faggy than actual faggotry?
Also gay marriage can totally be a cool campaign hook.
"In a bid to legalize same-sex marriage, a neighbouring kingdom got dragged into civil war - some displaced nobility is now in exile in this country. The civil war was cut short by the arrival of a lich, who now commands an army of (gay) skeletons. Some upstart peasants are starting to clamor for social reform of marriage rules in your country.
How are you going to balance defending the kingdom versus the lich, keeping social freedom alive and dealing with the angry masses and displaced nobles in your kingdom?"
>>47118508
>being this much of a dumb upset faggot
You are the reason people curbstomp fags.
>>47118536
Am I?
Shit, I have the lamest superpower. How is this going to help me fight crime?
>>47118508
It depends on how you choose to interpret the ultimate intention of the GM according to your own biases and experiences.
If he hadn't set up the lich plot at all and was just being lolrandumb would it be better and less "weird" as you put it?
Honestly, if a GM had set up a looming threat in the first session that we totally ignored for our own stupid bullshit and managed to tie it in at the last second in the final session of a campaign I would be delighted at the well-connected narrative thread.
See, you're the type of person that would bitch that the knights at the end of Monty Python and the Holy Grail got arrested by modern day police officers.
>>47111218
That's the one with that NPC who just ran away whenever the party turned up, right? What was the name of that again? It's been a while and I want to reread.
>>47118128
>>47118246
>>47118508
I know you think you've got something interesting to say, but it might be time to just never post again.
>>47117409
This. People need to get a fucking sense of humor.
>>47105006
All I'm seeing is a group that didn't bother to make it clear what they wanted out of their game, and a GM who acted like a passive-aggressive crybaby when it turned out the players wanted to do something other than their intended plot, instead of just asking them what they wanted in the first place.
They're both terrible, and frankly they deserve each other.
>>47118625
Or maybe I'm drunk and like writing on random tg threads.
Or maybe I like pretending to have a different opinion than I do.
Or maybe I like baiting people.
Or maybe I wanted to write some greentext dialogue to pass thirty seconds.
I know you think you're good at reading people, but it might just be the time to never try playing mentalist on an anonymous message board again, anon.
>>47118586
Eh, fair enough. Differences of opinion I guess. To me it doesn't so much seem like a well connected narrative than a random got'cha. A well connected narrative would be messengers bringing news than the lich is marching, and oh shit, we've spent supplies and soldiers fighting a civil war, now what will we do and how will the neighbouring kingdoms we entreat for aid deal with us given our decidely different leadership and laws? Or something.
>>47118676
Or this. This works.
I don't understand. What is wrong with bad or tragic endings?
In Das fucking Boot the submariners make it through everything thrown against them only to get fucking bombed by the allies at the tail end of the film, killing a good chunk of the main characters.
Is that railroading?
Is the filmmaker being a passive aggressive crybaby ruining the fun of those poor submariners having their fun underwater adventure?
No. Sometimes thing end shitty for all parties involved.
>>47118722
But it was the end of the campaign. Your version of a "well-connected narrative" results in either a shitty cliffhanger or more campaign both of which are not what the GM wanted.
the only endings available for what the GM wanted were
>Standard happy, gay marriage ending
>Funny you all get killed by Liches ending
The second one, in my honest opinion, is oodles more entertaining than the first.
>>47112398
You're right, in a "women can't be held responsible for their actions" kind of way.
Which I don't agree with, but hey.
>>47112371
Honestly, I kinda feel Guy B is also at fault, though. He escalated things to try and prove a point, and while it's tempting, it's also kind of a douche move. But then, I don't know the finer points of this whole mess, so I could be wrong.
I dunno, it just looks like a shitty situation overall.
>>47118722
Pretending to be retarded is passe, anon.
>>47118853
Pretending?
>>47112569
>It amazes me how much of an argument a 14 line greentext story starts. Especially given that it barely goes into detail about any one thing it mentions.
But isn't that precisely why it generates so much argument? The lack of detail means people read different things into the story.
>Also just to remark on the SJW thing. Holy shit did we really? Did we really make the gay marriage angle the important part of judging this story?
Because when you combine the folks who think gayness is morally reprehensible with the folks who just plain hate / feel beset by SJWs, that's a huge portion of the board. And then you get the folks on the other side, who are tired of hearing about how tired of hearing SJWs the first group is (along with the folks who feel as compelled to defend the "gay agenda" as the first group feels to oppose it). And let's face it, no matter how hard you try to make it about something else, the tone of the greentext clearly conveys the message of SJWs getting their comeuppance. It's not "the players fucked around and this unfortunately lead to them to be overwhelmed by events", but rather "ha, ha, ha! Stupid SJWs got what they deserved!" Given that, it's not surprising
>>47117749
>They all seemed to have fun, at least right up to the very end, where it ends in a "Wtf?" which we don't know how badly the players took it.
No, but the GM seems awfully gloaty.
>>47118881
>It's not "the players fucked around and this unfortunately lead to them to be overwhelmed by events"
But it is. It literally is that thing.
>but rather "ha, ha, ha! Stupid SJWs got what they deserved!"
No. this is you reading into things. This greentexts is older than when SJW even became a popular term.
You even said people read different things into the story and yet think the way you view the story is the objective way to view it. You're hilariously hypocritical.
>>47118691
I'm not him, but if being liberal invalidates any criticism of the GM, then being conservative invalidates any support of him. And if this greentext is solely about political orientation, that kind of invalidates it too.
>>47118920
The one thing in the text that's the clearest indication of GM sentiment is "GOOD END, in my book." That is, the GM is emphatically happy with the results, which the players are clearly upset with, given their exclamation of "What the fuck, DM!" Now, the details of what lead up to that are sketchy--we don't know much about anybody's demeanor, past history, or how explicit any warnings or cautionary signs may have been.
>But it is. It literally is that thing.
It's most definitely not. If the message were that it was an unfortunate turn of events, the DM wouldn't be celebrating the players loss and wouldn't have called it a GOOD END. Because in life, you don't often say "something I think is unfortunate happened: good."
This thread is literally the imageboard equivalent of an asset flip. You took an old thread from 2014~ that had <50 replies, freshened it up a little, used a more relevant picture (the pasta in question), and released it into the wild. And now you're at 100+ posts and have people...
>>47118128
>>47118246
...putting more effort into it than you did for the entire thread. Congrats OP.
>>47118987
Luckily, I'm neither conservative nor liberal, and can be partially defined as apolitical.
From that wonderful vantage point, I can see when people have their perspectives clouded and influenced by their political allegiances.
It's a joke story. The people who are upset about it and don't really get it all have been liberals.
I don't think that's a coincidence.
>>47119066
Did the players fuck around?
Yes, they did.
Did this lead to them being overwhelmed by events?
Yes, it did.
Is this unfortunate?
To the game world, the characters, the players? Probably.
Thus, yes, it is that thing.
The fact that the GM is saying GOOD END is because it is a GOOD END in the fact that it's pretty fucking hilarious, it makes sense, it ties the narrative together in a nice tragic bow and yes, on some level, I'm sure the GM is a little giddy that he essentially pulled one huge prank on his friends who decided to fuck around.
Any commentary on SJWs is purely speculation on part of the reader.
>>47119140
>The people who are upset about it and don't really get it all have been liberals.
When it gets held up as an example of good GMing, I sometimes provide my counterpoint to this. I don't scream and gnash my teeth about how the GM is oppressing people or taking away their rights or anything. I simply point out what I feel the GM did wrong. I'm invariable referred to as a butt-hurt liberal who "doesn't get it". Meanwhile, when there are folks who inform us that the rest of the world sees being gay as an abomination and ask why we don't, that tends to get overlooked, for some reason. Also, note that even when somebody condemns both the GM and the players (as in the post that prompted "Are you liberal?" to be asked), he's still branded a butt-hurt liberal, which makes the "I'm apolitical" claim look rather transparent.
>>47119140
>Citation required
>>47119189
>I'm sure the GM is a little giddy that he essentially pulled one huge prank on his friends who decided to fuck around.
Why is precisely why it conforms to "ha, ha, ha! Stupid SJWs got what they deserved! rather than "the players fucked around and this unfortunately lead to them to be overwhelmed by events". I understand that a certain passage can be read in multiple different ways, but when two passages are presented as being alternative interpretations, that makes their intention pretty clear. Context, motherfucker. Do you understand it?
>>47119375
Who says the players are SJWs?
It's "ha ha ha! Stupid players got what they deserved!"
Literally only one player of the group could be construed as a social justice warrior and we have no idea about how self aware she was. The rest of the group just wanted an excuse to do intrigue shit.
They were fucking around.
Also, schadenfreude is a fucking thing there buddy. You can completely register something as unfortunate and still find it fucking hilarious and enjoy it.
Not to mention you can not tell me how lighthearted or ironic the poster of the original greentext was, especially at the time of the event in question.
>>47119375
Not anon you are bantering with, but this post lacks logic.
>>47119189
This post summed it up well.
I commented earlier how in years past, the gay marriage angle of the story was barely mentioned in the shitstorms.
>>47119312
It was a question to determine why the person was unable to see anything in the story beyond how upset it made them.
He's clearly butthurt, so it's important to determine if he actually has a reason behind his rant, or if it's all just because he's a liberal.
>When it gets held up as an example of good GMing,
It certainly is good GMing. If an imaginary group, regardless of what side of the political spectrum they pledge their allegiance to, decides to derail a campaign to focus on acting out their petty political fantasies, than the imaginary GM should at the very least mock them and deliver a Game Over for their misguided efforts.
>>47118594
Shane the Shy
>>47119478
The fact that the rest of the group didn't lynch the one player paints the entire group as SJW's.
>>47118508
>People were having fun, right? That's why they kept playing.
Agreed. But all campaigns must end, and I for one think this one ended hilariously, dickishly, appropriately well.
>>47111783
>It's men being the typical brutish dolts only thinking with their dicks that causes problems.
Obligatory white knight "women are great, men are evil" response. Actually, people suck in general.
Your experience may be that it's usually the men perhaps because you have usually played with men, but my experience is that women, when they are being uncooperative, have been the most disruptive. They either get just as magical realm as you'd expect a man to or are depressingly incapable of letting go of their personal values for the sake of a game. Regardless of the setting's context or atmosphere, these girls feel entitled to be pandered to.
There are, of course, also girls of a different mentality who are perfectly fine, if not excellent roleplayers. Bad players -should- be atypical. Just as it's not "typical" for men to be brutish dolts.
>>47111882
>WHy would the crew carry around a collar that shuts down mage's spells?
Why wouldn't they? That sounds like a fucking dream come true for transporting magically-inclined prisoners. This should be some standard issue shit for dealing with casters, because otherwise they're going to fucking murder you all.
>>47105006
Yes you should. If you are completely unable to improvise (or at the very very least have the balls to say "I didn't expect this guys, let's do something else tonight so I can prepare some stuff for next time"), then you are a bad DM.
>to have any tension
Don't be stupid. Tension can easily be created in whatever story you improvise.
>or verisimilitude
The only thing that matters is if the players (and you, of course) are having fun. Verisimilitude only matters in so far as it contributes to that. I've gamed with people who love reading dissertations about the GM's imaginary world and playing in a consistent universe, and I've games with people who do not give a single solitary shit. I remember games where the players were fucking MISERABLE because they wanted to have fun light hearted adventures and the GM wanted to run a complex ecological and logistical simulation. The GM had to put up with a bunch of players who were completely uninvested and the players were bored as fuck
>what can the DM do
Prepare plots and characters who can be slotted in when an appropriate opportunity arises. Don't get bent out of shape if your players go elsewhere, just make a note of what didn't interest them and tweak those things. If it's unsalvageable save the good bits for other adventures and discard the rest. Know the setting, but also know your players and their characters, and how those three are likely to interact. Gauge your players' interest levels in various things ahead of time, and devote your energies accordingly. Don't waste time on something you know they don't want.
>>47119885
Why even be pirates at that point when an item like that would make such a dangerous and illegal lifestyle unnecessary?
Why wouldn't the wizard be able to detect they had it before purchasing passage?
There are dozens of well-founded reasons why they wouldn't have that collar and just as many believable excuses that justify why they would.
So it really comes down to just a narrative question: Would it be thematically appropriate for this character to be enslaved and raped?
And the answer to that question is usually a resounding no.
>>47119989
Well in this case it was a tiefling
>>47119532
No, if the GM dislikes the way his players are taking the campaign (or vice versa), they should talk it out like mature adults. You should never try to make that sort of point through in game actions, it's childish and passive aggressive.
>>47120305
That's assuming they are mature adults and are capable of such a resolution.
It's clear that these fictional characters are not.
>>47120340
Fictional stupidity need not apply when discussing what good GMing is.
>>47112065
It doesn't hurt to ask. What are you implying here? That it would be odd for a lich to be proud of his traditional values? Just because you're innately evil doesn't mean you support degeneracy. Some undead just want to make the kingdom great again.
>>47119500
I noticed that too, people didn't give much of a shit when the story was writen, in fact it was just a story of 'that girl' doing 'that girl ' things, and the party following along.
Now, people getting upset that DM punished them for not following the railroad, which is also a legitimate claim, but it more about the "politics of dm vs player".
It's a dumb story, just like most that guy stories, no need to be upset about it.
>>47120378
It does when the situation assumes a certain level of stupidity.
>>47120475
>undead conservatives in pic
I'm sure they just seen so much shit going on that they just want to avoid it happening again.
>>47120541
Have you read the post I was responding to?
>If an imaginary group, regardless of what side of the political spectrum they pledge their allegiance to, decides to derail a campaign to focus on acting out their petty political fantasies, than the imaginary GM should at the very least mock them and deliver a Game Over for their misguided efforts.
This post clearly states that it is good GMing for any GM to ever make passive aggressive consequences in game for his players. This is incorrect, no matter what the hypothetical situation.
>>47105006
Improv genius? No, but it isn't exactly hard to make sure whatever plot thread the players follow leads them where you want.
And I say this as a DM
>>47118128
>>As she's signing the law, the clouds gather and the entire town is massacred by an army of undead soldiers
>... why?
because its an alternate universe, not an book, movie, graphic novel....
>>47105006
The GM should run a game his players want. If the GM wants a fairly standard go and a kill a lich campaign and the players want to play as murderhobos wandering around getting money and followers until they carve out their own kingdom either someone will have to compromise or nobody is going to have fun. If the players want to do their stupid murderhobo thing either tell them "we aren't doing murderhobos, if you want that campaign you can find another game" or run their game as a game of murderhobos.
Don't just randomly say "your plan fails because there is a lich, maybe you should stop having fun and do what I want."
>all that [Deleted]
Wew.
>>47118128
>>47118246
The salt is real. Were you the girl in that story? Which is why you have uncanny insight as to what happened after the end?
>>47121075
Are you new to /tg/?
>>47121197
Rhetorical questions, anon.
>>47121273
In 8 years of /tg/ I can't remember ever seeing a response to one of those so autistic as "but how do you know your amusing fictionalization of this situation is REAL?"
>>47111783
>Maidens whose reputation I have saved on the internet: 9001
>Maidens that have rewarded me with sex for my chivalrous deeds: 0
>>47121688
>my bait thread hasn't gotten a response in 20 minutes, better bump it
>>47121738
>being so thinskinned you think OP is bait
>>47121373
>"but how do you know your amusing fictionalization of this situation is REAL?"
Maybe because his *cringey fictionalization is a result of him sperging out at an amusing fictionalization like it was real?
That aside, I'm poking fun at his obvious and disproportionate amount of butthurt. The questions aren't sincere or meant to be answered hence rhetorical. If you need this explained maybe you shouldn't call others autistic.
>>47121877
It's strange that you interpret fictionalized amusement and someone wondering why this is a thing as incredible salt and burthurtness.
I think maybe this is one is on you.
Anon. Sometimes? Sometimes people do this thing called "joking around".
>>47105006
I'd just like to point out that, in most settings, it's unrealistic to have the PCs be the only ones able to take on the BBEG. Maybe some other group of adventurers stops him and gets a ton loot and praise, maybe various kingdoms ally themselves together and march their armies against the BBEG's and win, maybe a dragon flies down and incinerates the BBEG and his army because it likes the cattle grown in that town that's about to be invaded.
Any number of things can happen, and it's the DM's job to make sure that a relatively realistic combination of them happen in order to help everyone have fun.
If the DM and the group want different kinds of fun, then they either need to switch to something they can both enjoy or part ways.
>>47118289
>>47118366
>>47118377
>>47118625
>>47121075
Look at all these buttflustered newfags crying salty tears because their "board culture" meme got napalmed.
>>47123198
All these years and I still haven't bothered to find out who this semen demon is.
I don't like the lich pasta either it's just this guy's greentext read REALLY faggy.
>>47105006
>is sounds nice, but a lot of you shouted 'railroading' while discussing the lich/gay rights pasta and how the undead apocalypse shouldn't have happened because the king would have sent an army or another group of adventurers to stop it.
You understand that this greentext is just a joke and probably never happened, right?
>>47123438
People still debated who was hypothetically in the wrong or whether it was railroading if it really did happen.
>>47112398
Not completely untrue. Still, the infiltration was real.
>>47118801
A lot of the finer points are... barely believable. So here's details:
> Guy B has always been considered a bit of an asshole. The kind of "natural Alpha". And by natural, I mean coerced into that shape by a sicko of a father while growing up.
> Guy A and Guy B always acted as a form of Ying and Yang. Stellar opposites, rearing each other. Flaberghasted a few of us.
> Guy A was thus a complete Mangina. Even when out of a job, he helped his 40 y.o. single mother monetarily so she could finish her Masters in History. Because there's no better way to make a living for the rest of your life, when you're already 40, than history. I guess.
> Less than a month after Guy A and Girl started going out, Guy A found a short-tern but rather well paid contract, and they announced they planned for a baby.
> Girl is outright dismissive about Guy A, mocking jockingly about his penis size in public.
So it's agreed. Guy A, although a total bro, is also a total mangina and lets Girl walk all over him. Guy B, the player, due to hormonal warfare, kinda alienated to the rest of the group except me, a lvl 3 MGTOW. Girl and Guy A moved for the short-term (3 months, I think) contract in another city and are trying for a baby after less than 6 months together. Missing 3 players outta 5 (6 with the infiltrator), the group shattered.
I also know for a fact as soon a baby is on the way, Guy A's life will turn to hell. I try to warn him, but if I try to much he will resent me for it. Can't reason with an addict. Hence this post:
>>47113026
>>47116715
They weren't there for the war, though. They skipped it.
>>47120475
What gayme?
>>47119532
>Greentext post
>The players may have been idiots, but the GM was definitely a That Guy.
>OMG! Only liberals are so butthurt they'd find fault with both sides. If they were open-minded conservatives like me, they'd blame everything on one side and try to invalidate any dissenting opinion on political grounds. Quit spazzing out, liberal!
Okay, sure.
>>47124842
Dragon Commander
>>47123198
I am >>47118366
Could you, in a clear and concise manner, explain how my post is remotely described by your post:
>Look at all these buttflustered newfags crying salty tears because their "board culture" meme got napalmed
Let’s break down my post:
>>Wasting everyone's time,
Me quoting the phrase I took issue with.
>Because all those months of fun are now retroactively not-fun?
Me pointing out why I have an issue with that phrase using a touch of sarcasm.
>I never understood that attitude.
Me expressing that I’ve seen the attitude expressed by that phrase before and have taken issue with it then, thus clarifying that my issue is not limited to the anon I was responding to.
>At worst, the GM prevented future fun.
Me acknowledging that the GM’s action may have had some negative repercussions, but none as severe as indicated by the phrase I took issue with.
>Funny posts, and a decent point though.
Me praising the posts that you suggested I was “buttflustered” and crying over.
You are a fool.
You are either illiterate or exceedingly sloppy when replying to posts.
Either way, it is time to sop posting.
>>47111903
>Players ignore global level threat
>comes to bite them in the ass
>somehow the DM is at fault.
They chose to ignore the Lich threat, knowing the consequences that would happen if the Lich completed the ritual, in favor of politics.
The Lich winning is the consequence of their actions.
This isn't FF7 where meteor stops in place waiting for you to do your shit at your leisure.
Although, me being in that DM's place, I wouldn't end it like that.
>hooray, gay marriage is legal now!
>Now, what are you going to do about that Lich that has been taking over?
>their city is now one of the few places not under the Lich's grip
>now they have to prepare for the immient invasion
Mind you, I would have dropped hints and news that the Lich has aquired power, taken over such and such place, etc. To give them a chance to actually intervene, if they kept on their political game then so be it.
>>47105006
>DM/GM should be some sort of improv genius?
Not a genius but improv is part of a DM's job. We build the world and react to the players actions.
You may spend months on that campaign, story, maps, etc, but players will always be that
wild card that can twist your world into interesting, wondrous or even nightmarish ways. It's my favorite part of the job, just to see what players do with your world.
I feel like bitching and it's not worth its own thread, and fairly related to what you're talking about so here goes:
>GM
>In a system I really fucking hate but the players are too invested to ever switch
>In two other games as a player, one of which alternates every other week with the one I run.
>Love the system for those two games
>Every game I'm not running falls apart in the same week.
>It's not the week I'm supposed to run a game
>Oh hey anon, why don't you just run your game this week instead.
>Uhhh guys I'm not really prepared
>You have a day you'll be fine
Kill me now
Bonus round
>Oh hey since that other game we did got dropped, let's do a different one
>Shit system
>Less convenient time to meet
>Seems like a clusterfuck already
Everything I love dies. Everything I hate grows stronger.
Why continue existing?
>>47111204
In my experience, usually nothing intentional. Women at the gaming table simply become a distraction due to the male-female social divide rather than actual disruptive activities.
In a big generalization here, women tend to enjoy the social aspect rather than the story aspect of tabletop compared to men. Because of this, they have different expectations and goals of the game. It's no different when half of your group is made of guys who want to take things very seriously and play detailed characters that stay in character for most of the game, and the other half is made of people who want something lighthearted and easy to have fun with, simply using the character as an avatar of themselves in the world without a lot of development. A mix of these kinds of players never works well, the first will always feel like nothing matters because other players aren't acting serious and in character, the second will always feel like he's not getting any response or reaction from the world, causing him to amp up the silliness. In the case of many women who join in for tabletop sessions, they often don't seem to put much weight behind their character, usually playing something as a blank slate or very bland and letting the GM/rest of party lead them along, or immediately striking out on their own path and derailing a game with their antics for cheap laughs. This doesn't apply to every woman because as seen, some actually do great on tabletop, but it seems like more women than men enter in to tabletop games due to social pressure or interest rather than a gamist or storytelling reason.
This is on top of the natural inclination of men to act differently in the presence of women (Of which, they do the same, and no one's really at fault for this since it's just simple biology), which can cause tension at the table and difficulty in committing fully to the game.
>>47123721
Late reply but props for making the situation clearer. And yeah, the girl is a total bitch infiltrating your group like that, but Guy A is still guilty of making unwise decisions. I mean it's not like he didn't get the chance to observe her character. You might say he was smitten with her but being drunk does not absolve you of the crimes you commit.
>I also know for a fact as soon a baby is on the way, Guy A's life will turn to hell.
Funny thing is, he might not have a problem with that, considering his upbringing. He's totally going to get cucked though.
>>47111882
Here is the thing anon, I agree it's a bit much and it didn't have to go there, but them having anti magic gear makes sense. In a world with magic if you want to be a pirate or bandit and succeed, assuming your not retarded you get your own magic guy, or you have anti magic guy contingencies ready. This is because if magic is a thing, magic is powerful. So if you know it's a thing and you are doing this professionaly( not just a one time thing) and aren't just a cardboard cut out Mook there to die for exp, you have a plan to deal with magic users. I say if your bandits dont have anti magic user plans you haven't put enough thought into your bandits. Npcs dont have to be retards, make them think, make them plan, and then even otherwise lackluster opponents can be a fun challenge for your party.
>>47128113
There is a WORLD of difference between "Having a plan" and "Having a rare, massively expensive magical item on hand 'just in case'" you fucking retard.
>>47129528
>a rare, massively expensive magical item
>assumptions
>>47129742
>Item that totally shuts down someone's power
If that shit isn't expensive, there's something wrong with the setting.
But no, furiously jerk off to the idea a little bit more, you pathetic cunt.
>>47126647
>>Now, what are you going to do about that Lich that has been taking over?
>>their city is now one of the few places not under the Lich's grip
>>now they have to prepare for the immient invasion
Exactly! If the GM had wanted to actually get on with the story, it would have been easy to just go 'okay, you've overthrown the kingdom. Now you have to defend it from the Lich from earlier, whilst the kingdom's forces are still recovering from the civil war'. Having the lich come in and wipe them out states pretty clearly the GM wasn't interested and just wanted to punish them.
>>47129838
u mad?
>>47129992
4 people vs an army only works in D&D type games. You try that in Rolemaster, you will die to a TPK pretty quickly.
>>47124886
Are you a liberal?
>>47130191
>4 people vs an army only works in D&D type games.
What about 7?
>>47127990
> Late reply but props for making the situation clearer.
Work the night shift, post when I am about to go to work and when I'm just back. Like now.
> Funny thing is, he might not have a problem with that, considering his upbringing. He's totally going to get cucked though.
I don't think it's funny, and I know he won't. Until he is kicked out of his children's life. Then I fear a suicide attempt. This is why I try to teach him red pill concepts indirectly.
IF something goes wrong, I want him to know at least one of his friend will tell him: "Welcome back, you magnificient moron. Let me help you back up."
I discovered long ago that "I told you so" is incredibly unsatisfactory to say when it deals with one's physical, mental and social health.
>>47118246
>This fucking kike asshurt at an allegorical story for single-issue politics
I actually wish it HAD happened so that I could imagine you having been in it.
>PnP RPG's require "a BBEG", created intentionally to be the primary antagonist, like a saturday morning cartoon
>every game must have starting conditions where the fate of the world is at stake
>>47130587
get the fuck out, /pol/. no one loves you. no one will love you.
>>47130932
I want to know if there's anyone who is not a liberal but is actually upset about the story.
I'm not curious as to whether a moderate or conservative COULD be upset, I want to know if there's anyone other than liberals who are.
>>47130968
I am libertarian and find this story amusing as hell. I just wish we had more details. Like if the players ignored subtle, and not-so-subtle hints about what's going on.
Reports of undead rising, rumors about lost patrols, that kind of thing.
I would also gladly play in the post-apocalyptic world it left, where the state and economy completely collapsed. I'd see a currency based on food, healing potions, tools and holy water.
>>47105006
It doesn't take being a genius to improv to the level of a competent GM. It just takes being more than a lazy asspull who puts no effort into GMing.
>>47131039
I've no doubt there's liberals who don't get upset.
It just seems like the particular brand of liberal that wants to paint the GM as some sort of villain (rather than a man worthy of applause) just can't handle their emotions.
>>47130932
>Asked a simple, factual question
>Respond with barely articulate rage and impassioned vitriol
You could have just said yes.
>>47131081
> I've no doubt there's liberals who don't get upset.
Those that do not get emotional on Social Justice matters make for poor liberals. But I guess a few of them can see this game as being "just a game" and not bothered.
On the other hand, a lot of the books (Especially Pathfinder) are all written with "she" and "her" while the vast majority of their audience is male. I wonder why.
>>47105006
I've got experiences with both situation to be honest.
For instance we had a campaign, where the DM had essentially 4 *leaders* and each had a party. With the plan to sprinkle problems at the leaders and they each have enough time and resources to finish them and find the end baddy that's behind it all.
Suffice to say - one leader was totally inept, one disappeared, another was so inept he had to be assassinated by the players.
Instead of slowing down a bit and letting the much smaller cast of players who completely lacked the resources for anything to solve the issue, the problems just kept mounting.
Pretty much everyone got pissed off by the campaign.
>>47130968
Mmm, i'm a social liberal but a fiscal conservative, will that do?
Like, i'm pro-legalization, pro-equal rights, but generally opposed to government mandated medical coverage?
And i'm not offended, it's too funny for me to be offended..
>>47131081
I don't think I've seen anybody here applaud the players. As per >>47124886, it looks like the folks questioning the GM's awesomeness aren't exactly jumping to the players' defense, which it seems like they would if this was really a matter that revolved around political issues like gay marriage. On the other hand, it seems like the folks questioning the liberals are quick to read butt-hurt from nuanced assessments of why the GM's approach was flawed. So apparently if you don't fall in line with the viewpoint of the conservatives (or, if you prefer, anti-liberals) on this board and see this as a completely one-sided issue (and support their side), that means that not only are you agitated (no matter how calm and reasoned your argument) but your viewpoint is invalidated by your politics. And yet, it's the conservatives (or, if you prefer, anti-liberals) who are bringing politics into this and who, if anyone, seem to be emotionally invested in this to the point of butt-hurt. I'm sorry you're butt-hurt that I didn't think the GM, who you obviously look up to, did a very good job.
>>47118128
>>47118246
I've never seen such a mad liberal on /tg/ before.
>>47131368
That more or less libertarianism. Look into it.
>>47131535
yeah, but everytime i say i'm a libertarian, someone says "No you're really a liberal!" or "no, you're a conservative!" and tries to convince me to renounce all my beliefs relative to the side they dislike.
>>47131443
Before you get more upset, are you a liberal?
Really, as much as you want to dance around the issue, I think we just need to get that out of the way, because hoping to pretend that the emotions you feel have anything to do with how good or bad the GM might be is getting silly at this point.
It's a silly story, and no one really takes it seriously or as an example of anything except a derailing SJW getting a comeuppance. Hell, most people don't even care that it was an SJW, but that it was a player derailing a game for something ludicrous and petty.
If you're going to just get more and more upset, I'd like to know if you are a liberal, so I can tell if you're just getting emotional or if you have anything I might actually want to listen to. We already know you're upset, we don't need you to pretend otherwise in bad faith.
>>47111163
Did the group have fun? If so, DM was right.
If they didn't, there's room for improvement.
This is more or less a game with friends. I wanna unwind and tell a story with them, not browbeat them with smugness.
>>47130191
If I'd meant only the 4 people, I wouldn't have stated the condition of the nation.
>>47112032
>RPGs are Murder Hobo or Nothing
>>47118366
>Because all those months of fun are now retroactively not-fun?
Yes.
A shit ending can and will retroactively alter your entire perception of the story no matter how much you enjoyed it.
Fans of Mass Effect literally attempted to sue over the third game. That was the final straw that prompted the expanded endings. I am not making this up.
Shit endings often make the entire thing toxic.
>>47105006
I just don't make a world.
I treat the PCs as statblocks, ignore all their roleplaying, and throw enemy statblocks in them in encounters and let them interperet their own story.
So, let me get this straight: a goodish portion of you imagine that DM/GM should be some sort of culinary master?
Sure. You could prepare homemade seven layer dip if you're so inclined, but to maintain a healthy diet with any nutritional diversity or artisanal merit you'd need to have the food still cooking as players join, and routinely interrupt play as things develop (i.e. combat can wait because the has finished baking and needs to set.)
This sounds nice, but a lot of you shouted 'locally grown' while discussing the quiche/ghost pepper pasta and how the entire meal shouldn't have happened because the diners would have sensed a foul ingredient or some food critic would have stopped it.
Going this route, the GM can do nothing else but know his recipes and try to make interesting dishes and meals on the spot?
>>47105006
I make it up on the fucking spot and roll with the punches, I have about 200 maps from before that I re-use, and not a lot of tokens. I explain what they look like and they do it. If they split the party and get fucked, its on them.
The most important thing is that everyone is having fun. If the players don't want to do the DM's story then it's a good indication that they would have more fun doing some other quest where their decisions matter more..
>>47125977
>16 lines of text
Thanks for the loosh, bud.
>>47105006
So, let me get this straight: a goodish portion of you imagine that DM/GM should be some sort of autistic supercomputer with libraries filled with notebooks of notes on a simultaneously developing world?
Sure. You could let murderhobos run around if they're so inclined, but to maintain an organic world with any tension or verisimilitude you need to let the world, and BBEG's plans develop, completely independent of the players' actions if they don't catch the main plot. (i.e. the crops are dying because you didn't stop the necromancer's spell to turn the kingdom into a swamp you were supposed to find out about but didn't.)
That sounds nice, but a lot of you whine and complain when a campaign doesn't move forward or give you something new to do.
Going this route, the DM has to do hours and hours of prep, and if the players go outside his prep, can do nothing else but have to improv anyway.
>>47131094
>>47131476
>/pol/ shitposting on /tg/
Go back to your home with the hillaryposters.
