PDA

View Full Version : Things that make you go NOPE in a game?



Pages : [1] 2

xyz
2016-05-26, 12:46 PM
What are things that turn an otherwise ordinary and possibly even fun experience into a traumatic nightmare that you have to abandon on the spot?


Some examples:

DM gets pissy because you killed his boss monster in one charging attack crit before he had a chance to finish monologue, so now every encounter has stuff specifically targeting your character. Bonus points if he just tries rocks fall you die, and even more bonus points if he makes up some kind of "protective force" that stops everything you do and then causes it to hit you instead because it's "karmatic" or something like that.

A guy shows up at the table with more books than the DM and hands him a character sheet, offers his books as reference if the DM needs to consult them for his character.

When the DM gets this smug look on his face and says "the doors close behind you"

Elricaltovilla
2016-05-26, 12:51 PM
Not me, but one of my friends has a history of playing the kind of character that tries to befriend (or "befriend:smallwink:") every single monster in every single campaign he plays in. Except spiders. I don't know that he has any particular aversion to them in real life, but any mention of them in game immediately makes him and his character hit the nope button and nova like it's going out of style. It's odd.

For me, I've sworn off any "vampire" game. Usually in my circle of friends this means Vampire: The Masquerade, but after playing it 2 or 3 times I've lost any taste for the bloodsuckers even outside of my gaming. Which is too bad because I actually enjoyed the Underworld movies and a few others.

Âmesang
2016-05-26, 12:53 PM
A guy shows up at the table with more books than the DM and hands him a character sheet, offers his books as reference if the DM needs to consult them for his character.
That's me, at least with regards to one high-level character… minus the stack of books 'cause books are heavy and I have far to walk.[1] :smalltongue:

[1]Which is why I supplied a footnote to the character's online sheet referencing everything that wasn't Core/SRD and copied the important bits in the character's accompanying spreadsheet.

Honest Tiefling
2016-05-26, 12:57 PM
Elven teenagers of any gender described as 'nubile' or 'maidens'.

People who don't understand that making characters of opposing faiths or political enemies that have every reason to kill each other isn't a great idea. If you go with the argument that you aren't like the others, why...Are you a part of that setting based organization to begin with?

GRIMDARK HOODED LONEWOLF BAD***. This is less of a nope and more of me waiting to have an opportunity to ask the rest of the party why that strange, suspicious silent person has been following us all evening and suggest things like go getting the guards.

People who say that you have to do an action because 'that's the plot'. If the DM wanted me to go on a particular rail, they should talk to me beforehand or indicate such and help me make up a reason to do so. I really hate having to help genocidal maniacs because some player insisted it was the plot.

That person who nominate themselves as the party leader, but hasn't actually talked to anyone. Pardon me, stranger, but why are you yelling at me? And my name is not 'elf' or 'mage'.

xyz
2016-05-26, 01:04 PM
"Okay, your character background looks really cool! I like how you had a ton of interesting story and characters noted in here that could be used to help grow the game world. Alright, this is great! I'll see you next week at gamenight!" ... "Okay guys, you're all prisoners on a ship going to a remote prison desert island."

AMFV
2016-05-26, 01:46 PM
"Okay, your character background looks really cool! I like how you had a ton of interesting story and characters noted in here that could be used to help grow the game world. Alright, this is great! I'll see you next week at gamenight!" ... "Okay guys, you're all prisoners on a ship going to a remote prison desert island."

To be fair, your characters and contacts could still matter. After all maybe somebody at the prison knows your characters. Maybe your story advances from there.

Honest Tiefling
2016-05-26, 01:49 PM
What's worse is when the DM asks for the backstory...And then ignores it.

Admittedly, I did technically get a free flaw, so go me?

xyz
2016-05-26, 01:52 PM
To be fair, your characters and contacts could still matter. After all maybe somebody at the prison knows your characters. Maybe your story advances from there.

Game fell apart after two sessions. GG.

2D8HP
2016-05-26, 01:53 PM
I started RPG'ing with DnD in the late 1970's and stopped in the early 1990's, and didn't play again for over 20 years when the only RPG tables I could find were for "Cyberpunk" and "Vampire". When the setting is so close to real life I just don't see the point.
I can walk out of my front door for that!

AMFV
2016-05-26, 01:56 PM
I started RPG'ing with DnD in the late 1970's and stopped in the early 1990's, and didn't play again for over 20 years when the only RPG tables I could find were for "Cyberpunk" and "Vampire". When the setting is so close to real life I just don't see the point.
I can walk out of my front door for that!

You can't shoot people for annoying you in real life though, which is one drawback to outside.

xyz
2016-05-26, 01:58 PM
You can't shoot people for annoying you in real life though, which is one drawback to outside.

Actually, you can! There's nothing stopping you from doing it. YMMV on the aftermath though.

Honest Tiefling
2016-05-26, 02:01 PM
I can walk out of my front door for that!

I play games to avoid going outside! It's all bright and has bugs out there, no thank you.

Telonius
2016-05-26, 02:06 PM
"Oooh, natural 1. Let me get out my Fumbles table..."

"Multiclass penalties apply."

"You'll be starting out at level 1." (... and see that the rest of the party is lvl 10 or higher).

xyz
2016-05-26, 02:08 PM
"Alright guys, we're playing FATAL tonight."

and then the doors lock behind you.

Lacco
2016-05-26, 02:39 PM
As I never get to play, these are my "warning signs" (which don't make me leave the game usually, but if you trigger more than 2 or 3, expect me losing serious interest to play):

"Oh, I have this character I played in this other campaign..."

"Hey, great idea for a low-magic game. Can I play archmage?"

"Can I get [flaw]? Oh and assume there is [something that negates the flaw completely]!"

GM: "Everyone roll this". Only one player: "I'll take average."

"I want to play this [exotic race] without the [drawback which actually makes it interesting to play]." Proceeds to roleplay it as generic human.

Cernor
2016-05-26, 02:40 PM
"My alignment is Chaotic Neutral."

"My character's one of those people a jerk when you first meet them, but they have a heart of gold once you get to know them!" (N.B. 3 months into the game, said character was still a jerk to the party)

"I maxed out my Stealth score so nobody can see me! [Rolls] Look how high it is! [Rolls] I bet you couldn't notice me with that roll! [Rolls]..."

Final Hyena
2016-05-26, 04:18 PM
When after several months of play the DM looks at your character sheet and laughs because half of what you built doesn't apply in his setting.

When the DM designs/gives all the insanely cool gear to only a few members of the party.

When the DM/players don't tell anyone they can't play.

When the DMPC fixes the problems as you watch.

When the DM gives out a ring of wishes and then doesn't allow you to use it because it would mess up his plot.

When one guy randomly plays the banjo (in real bloody life) for 5 seconds every other minute.

When one guy can barely speak the language.

When the DM stops for an hour to design a set piece combat encounter.

When each round takes an hour.

"I've been doing it like this for 20 years!"

"I don't want to hear any complaints especially from you saying it makes no sense!"

When the DM decides what your character feels.

"My game is a mix between these two games."

"Here is my 30 page pdf of rule changes."

When the new guy can't speak because he's at work.

2D8HP
2016-05-26, 05:17 PM
You can't shoot people for annoying you in real life though, which is one drawback to outside.
The 7th floor of the building I mostly work at does have some who are "guest's" because they did feel that way. Also while I probably could have had fun with it in the 1970's, by the early 1990's when it seemed that everyone who RPG'd wanted to play "Cyberpunk", I had lived through a time in the mid 1980's when hardly a week would go by without my hearing the sound of gunfire and sirens, after which the appeal of any kind of "Dark Future" or "World of Darkness" was lost to me.

Darth Ultron
2016-05-26, 05:23 PM
GRIMDARK HOODED LONEWOLF BAD***. This is less of a nope and more of me waiting to have an opportunity to ask the rest of the party why that strange, suspicious silent person has been following us all evening and suggest things like go getting the guards.



This is a big nope from me as a DM. any player that tries the ''i want to be a lone wolf, but tag along with the group'' is not going to make it in my game. Worse might be the clever jerk player that lies and says they will act like a normal player, then goes all Lone Wolf. Though I'm quick to pounce on them: ''It has been ten minutes sense your character has done anything in the game, contribute and play along with the group in the next couple minutes or your character will just die and you can go home''.


"Okay, your character background looks really cool! I like how you had a ton of interesting story and characters noted in here that could be used to help grow the game world. Alright, this is great! I'll see you next week at gamenight!" ... "Okay guys, you're all prisoners on a ship going to a remote prison desert island."

The other side here are the crazy spotlight hog players that get all upset as their backstory characters are not everywhere in the game world.

It's the same when the whiny player cries that their personal spotlight backstory has not come up in the game.

And maybe worst of all, are the down right cheaters who try and use their backstory and backstory characters to rule the world.

daremetoidareyo
2016-05-26, 05:31 PM
A wild girl appears: Do you ______

A) Do you insist on her being a healer of some sort?
B) Sexually harass her character, first as a joke, then just keep it up until it makes everyone uncomfortable?
C) Give her sweet gear to show her what a kind and totally bangable DM you are?
D) Begin putting down every other person at the table?

Themrys
2016-05-26, 05:35 PM
When a player insists on playing a character for whom it is "in character" that he do stupid things that endanger the group. Without ever toning it down when the situation calls for it, because "roleplay!"

When the GM changes the background story of your character to fit his real life political views

When the GM changes the setting to fit his real life political view.

When the GM sneakily introduces exactly the attitudes actions and settings you vetoed before any playing even started through the backdoor because he thinks you are wrong ... but is too cowardly to tell you so openly.



... that was all just one GM.


Elven teenagers of any gender described as 'nubile' or 'maidens'.


You have witnessed someone describing a male elven teenager as nubile maiden? I would have liked to see everyone's face. :smallbiggrin:

Honest Tiefling
2016-05-26, 05:52 PM
You have witnessed someone describing a male elven teenager as nubile maiden? I would have liked to see everyone's face. :smallbiggrin:

Pretty sure I've seen a young elven dude character described as girlish a few times, does that count?

I think I need to make some sort of RPG character fetish bingo card

Themrys
2016-05-26, 06:01 PM
Pretty sure I've seen a young elven dude character described as girlish a few times, does that count?

I think I need to make some sort of RPG character fetish bingo card

Not sure. "Nubile maiden" would be a lot funnier. :smallbiggrin: (I might feel tempted to do this as GM if I had a fetishist player in the group, for the sole purpose of revealing a moment later "Oh, wait -. after you have started to stare at the nubile maiden, and drool is dripping out of your mouth, you realize that what you thought was a maiden is actually a male elf." ... I am an evil person, sometimes. But then, I'd probably kick that kind of player out right at the beginning so would never have opportunity to do this.)

2D8HP
2016-05-26, 06:30 PM
Not sure. "Nubile maiden" would be a lot funnier. :smallbiggrin: (I might feel tempted to do this as GM if I had a fetishist player in the group, for the sole purpose of revealing a moment later "Oh, wait -. after you have started to stare at the nubile maiden, and drool is dripping out of your mouth, you realize that what you thought was a maiden is actually a male elf." ... I am an evil person, sometimes. But then, I'd probably kick that kind of player out right at the beginning so would never have opportunity to do this.)
I immediately thought of "DM of the Rings" :smallbiggrin:
http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1044

Mutazoia
2016-05-26, 11:00 PM
Dragon Infused, Dire Tarrasque with a surprise round.

goto124
2016-05-26, 11:28 PM
'Dragon infused' sounds like a rather delicious dish.

Mutazoia
2016-05-27, 12:26 AM
'Dragon infused' sounds like a rather delicious dish.

Are you sure you don't have a little dragon in you? Would you like to?

Templarkommando
2016-05-27, 02:23 AM
I generally avoid playing classes that can achieve some kind of fallen status, but if it becomes apparent that my DM or players relish in arguing about the minute details of alignment and Paladin codes... that's a big turn off to me. There needs to be some leeway so that a paladin or <insert alignment here> isn't always a cookie cutter.

I can take a good deal of randomness in how a game pans out, but if players just start doing random murder-hobo crap.

Players that clearly have no intent in cooperating with me in telling a story either with the DM or with me as DM.

Players that don't treat the setting with respect and then get angry when society shuns or turns on them.

I can deal with a certain amount of Mary Sue-ism, but when a DM or player turns it up to 11, that I have a problem with. It's okay to be a little snow flakey, but don't make it over the top.

When the DM just murders the character with no save for no reason. I have actually never seen this happen but I would walk away from that table.

SethoMarkus
2016-05-27, 02:47 AM
When members if the table neglect to cooperate or synergize with one another. If the table cannot agree on a game to play together or fails to follow through with that cooperation, I just cannot enjoy the game.

somethingrandom
2016-05-27, 05:40 AM
A player who with every character they play ends up betraying the party.

In pbp a GM who kicks a player out the game because they had not kept up with his posting rate minimum (1/day). Dispite the fact that given the situation their character was in there was little of interest they could post and their lack of posting did not hold up the game. If remember correctly I quit that game immedaity after that happen on principle.

JAL_1138
2016-05-27, 06:27 AM
This is more of an in-game NOPE that I'll try to work around if possible, rather than a "leave the table" thing most of the time, but still something I will NOPE about and do everything I can to avoid, or if I can't avoid it, will be prepared for things to get bad.

Water. Need to travel down a river, cross a lake, sail the seas? NOPE. I'll walk, thank you, until I can find someone to cast a spell to let me fly instead or just teleport me to the destination. If that means the world ends because I took too long walking around a lake instead of crossing it on a boat to stop the BBEG, well, if the world wanted saved so badly it shouldn't have put a lake there.

There's always a horrible monster that can kill you easily, or a lot of monsters that wouldn't be quite as horrible if not for having to fight them in (or at least much too near) water, or you sink, or you drown, or your gear and spellbooks get lost or ruined, or you'd be okay but you can't cast certain spells while swimming, or you can't use certain weapons while swimming or otherwise underwater, or your ship sinks or runs aground and nobody can cast teleport or flight spells with the range you need so you're stranded...oy.

Nothing good will ever come of it. WATER = BAD.

(And no, I'm not afraid of water IRL.)

PersonMan
2016-05-27, 07:00 AM
Though I'm quick to pounce on them: ''It has been ten minutes sense your character has done anything in the game, contribute and play along with the group in the next couple minutes or your character will just die and you can go home''.

If you're that strict, you may end up catching people who are just quiet in that net - it can be fun to quietly go along with the party, especially if you have 1-2 really active players who are leading the way.

---

For me, playing mostly PbP, poor presentation is a big one. If it's a text-based medium, and the DM's pitch is riddled with mistakes of spelling and grammar, I immediately look somewhere else.

A setting that's just the modern world, with swords, magic, castles and kings taped over it. Obviously not everyone is going to want to do in-depth research on history to run a fantasy game, but the more basically modern things I find in a setting the more it grates on me.

goto124
2016-05-27, 07:08 AM
A setting that's just the modern world, with swords, magic, castles and kings taped over it. Obviously not everyone is going to want to do in-depth research on history to run a fantasy game, but the more basically modern things I find in a setting the more it grates on me.

I would love to hear examples!

DigoDragon
2016-05-27, 07:15 AM
I had a GM who loved to insert a specific Star Trek OC of his into any of his campaigns, no matter what the setting was. At least it didn't turn DMPC by traveling with us, but just seeing this character cameo for exposition dumping always made me and one other player just go "Nope" and come up with a plan to ignore that OC's walk-on bit until they leave.

If you're wondering, the OC was a T-1000 fleet admiral for Starfleet trained in a Jedi lightsaber (with access to time/dimensional travel in order to pop into different campaign settings). So yeah, all the Nope.

JAL_1138
2016-05-27, 07:39 AM
the OC was a T-1000 fleet admiral for Starfleet trained in a Jedi lightsaber (with access to time/dimensional travel in order to pop into different campaign settings). So yeah, all the Nope.

Aaaaaagh. Reading that physically hurt. I winced so hard I gave myself a headache.

IntelectPaladin
2016-05-27, 07:48 AM
Things that go NOPE in the night, eh?
Let me think...

Well, the PC my username is based on was rather advanced,
and the D.M. took notice after i'd managed to fairly collect over 8 magical items on my person, including my armor and 2-3 swords.

I still consider one of the reactions a touch stressed. I talked with them after the session,
and they apologized. for what?

Two little words, one of which usually being so innocent.

Multible. tarrasques.

And yet, I still managed to survive fairly. How about that.

Lord Torath
2016-05-27, 08:24 AM
This is more of an in-game NOPE that I'll try to work around if possible, rather than a "leave the table" thing most of the time, but still something I will NOPE about and do everything I can to avoid, or if I can't avoid it, will be prepared for things to get bad.

Water. Need to travel down a river, cross a lake, sail the seas? NOPE. I'll walk, thank you, until I can find someone to cast a spell to let me fly instead or just teleport me to the destination. If that means the world ends because I took too long walking around a lake instead of crossing it on a boat to stop the BBEG, well, if the world wanted saved so badly it shouldn't have put a lake there.

There's always a horrible monster that can kill you easily, or a lot of monsters that wouldn't be quite as horrible if not for having to fight them in (or at least much too near) water, or you sink, or you drown, or your gear and spellbooks get lost or ruined, or you'd be okay but you can't cast certain spells while swimming, or you can't use certain weapons while swimming or otherwise underwater, or your ship sinks or runs aground and nobody can cast teleport or flight spells with the range you need so you're stranded...oy.

Nothing good will ever come of it. WATER = BAD.

(And no, I'm not afraid of water IRL.)You seriously need to buy a Ring of Water Walk for each of your characters. And probably a ring of Water Breathing, just to be safe.

Segev
2016-05-27, 08:54 AM
The OC was a T-1000 fleet admiral for Starfleet trained in a Jedi lightsaber (with access to time/dimensional travel in order to pop into different campaign settings). So yeah, all the Nope.

http://cdn1.bigcommerce.com/server3400/v4eyu8t/products/2187/images/3603/Loved_Him_Ladies_V-Neck_Close_UP__58268.1463517860.250.250.jpg?c=2

JAL_1138
2016-05-27, 12:13 PM
You seriously need to buy a Ring of Water Walk for each of your characters. And probably a ring of Water Breathing, just to be safe.

In the editions I play, 2e and 5e, magic items are not typically for sale (the default in the rules for both editions is no, subject solely to DM discretion). And if crafting non-consumable items is even allowed, the crafting rules (or "some suggestions for the DM to consider when inventing crafting rules," in 2e's case) heavily discourage it anyway.

Also, even if I did acquire such items, there's still the horrible monsters to consider.

EDIT: To give an idea of what I mean by "heavily discourage," here's an example of a crafting recipe from the 2e DMG. For a simple Rope of Climbing, the ingredients you'd need to collect before you could even begin to figure out how to make it would be a skein of yarn made of un-spun wool (nearly a tautological impossibility), the voice of a spider, and the daring of a thief. Seriously.

Fable Wright
2016-05-27, 12:37 PM
Nothing good will ever come of it. WATER = BAD.

(And no, I'm not afraid of water IRL.)

I dunno. Water can be really useful in more modern-era games like Shadowrun or Unknown Armies. Good for messing with bullets, hiding bodies, or being public places to discourage firefights.

It's definitely an ogodno in most D&D editions, though.


but just seeing this character cameo for exposition dumping always made me and one other player just go "Nope" and come up with a plan to ignore that OC's walk-on bit until they leave.

...My first instinct would be to kill it with fire, but that doesn't work out so well in actual gameplay. Seriously, though. Why.


EDIT: To give an idea of what I mean by "heavily discourage," here's an example of a crafting recipe from the 2e DMG. For a simple Rope of Climbing, the ingredients you'd need to collect before you could even begin to figure out how to make it would be a skein of yarn made of un-spun wool (nearly a tautological impossibility), the voice of a spider, and the daring of a thief. Seriously.

That's not so bad. It's pretty easy to buy skeins of unspun wool online, indicating that it most certainly can be done by people; the voice of a spider just needs a bit of Speak with Animals to figure out which thing you need to remove for them to lose the ability to speak; and the daring of a thief is easy to get in a good high-proof bottle.

...The daring of a thief would also explain a lot of 2e's items, actually. Huh.

The Glyphstone
2016-05-27, 12:41 PM
"Can I play an Evil character?" is my DMing NOPE.

Sure, it can theoretically be done well. I've just never seen it done in actual play, ever.

Lord Torath
2016-05-27, 12:45 PM
Yes, I remember those. There's also a suggestion of the roar of an ant.

I recently sent my PCs to the Isle of Dread. There were some encounters that attacked their ship, but most of them (sharks, orcas, and dolphins) ignored their it. The giant octopus retreated after losing a couple of tentacles, though, and the roc decided the sails were too loud, and instead went after a shark a half-mile off. The flying fish were cool, though!

Anyone who dresses their female characters like [rl=http://www.goblinscomic.org/07112005/]This[/url] get's a Nope! in my game (running or playing).

DigoDragon
2016-05-27, 12:55 PM
Aaaaaagh. Reading that physically hurt. I winced so hard I gave myself a headache.

http://cdn1.bigcommerce.com/server3400/v4eyu8t/products/2187/images/3603/Loved_Him_Ladies_V-Neck_Close_UP__58268.1463517860.250.250.jpg?c=2

Yeah, my friend and I tended to have equal parts pain and sarcasm whenever we met "That" character.


EDIT: To give an idea of what I mean by "heavily discourage," here's an example of a crafting recipe from the 2e DMG. For a simple Rope of Climbing, the ingredients you'd need to collect before you could even begin to figure out how to make it would be a skein of yarn made of un-spun wool (nearly a tautological impossibility), the voice of a spider, and the daring of a thief. Seriously.

Well that's unnecessarily frustrating. I can maybe see some of those descriptions for a Macguffin plot item, but a rope of climbing is hardly some epic artifact in D&D. :smalltongue:


...My first instinct would be to kill it with fire, but that doesn't work out so well in actual gameplay. Seriously, though. Why.

Because he can.

And yeah, we wouldn't fight that NPC directly. It's best to just ignore it and wait for the scene the change. Usually works.


That's not so bad. It's pretty easy to buy skeins of unspun wool online, indicating that it most certainly can be done by people

Ah, but the recipe calls for unspun yarn, not wool. Substitutions will not do. :smalltongue:

JAL_1138
2016-05-27, 12:59 PM
I dunno. Water can be really useful in more modern-era games like Shadowrun or Unknown Armies. Good for messing with bullets, hiding bodies, or being public places to discourage firefights.

It's definitely an ogodno in most D&D editions, though.



...My first instinct would be to kill it with fire, but that doesn't work out so well in actual gameplay. Seriously, though. Why.



That's not so bad. It's pretty easy to buy skeins of unspun wool online, indicating that it most certainly can be done by people; the voice of a spider just needs a bit of Speak with Animals to figure out which thing you need to remove for them to lose the ability to speak; and the daring of a thief is easy to get in a good high-proof bottle.

...The daring of a thief would also explain a lot of 2e's items, actually. Huh.

I've phrased the requirement inaccurately, then. Unspun wool is easy to get; all you need is a sheep and some scissors. Yarn which has been made without being spun whatsoever is another matter; that's how yarn (made of wool, anyway) is made. It's like asking for brass that hasn't been made by alloying copper and zinc, or a carved stone idol that was made without carving.

The Glyphstone
2016-05-27, 01:04 PM
Strictly speaking you could get that with a Wish, since the yarn/brass/statue would spontaneously come into being fully complete and spun without ever having undergone the physical process of spinning. This is, however, not an advisable method of gathering ingredients for magic item construction.

Toilet Cobra
2016-05-27, 01:12 PM
DM here, I put up with a lot of nonsense for the sake of the game, and I try not to complain or get all confrontational unless it's absolutely necessary. But when I get this


Hey man can't make it 2nite bro have jagoff2 play me

they get one warning. Second time it happens somebody is getting NOPEd right out of my house/game/life.

AMFV
2016-05-27, 01:17 PM
DM here, I put up with a lot of nonsense for the sake of the game, and I try not to complain or get all confrontational unless it's absolutely necessary. But when I get this



they get one warning. Second time it happens somebody is getting NOPEd right out of my house/game/life.

Hey its the pens though, so that's probably special circumstances.

Max_Killjoy
2016-05-27, 01:18 PM
This is more of an in-game NOPE that I'll try to work around if possible, rather than a "leave the table" thing most of the time, but still something I will NOPE about and do everything I can to avoid, or if I can't avoid it, will be prepared for things to get bad.

Water. Need to travel down a river, cross a lake, sail the seas? NOPE. I'll walk, thank you, until I can find someone to cast a spell to let me fly instead or just teleport me to the destination. If that means the world ends because I took too long walking around a lake instead of crossing it on a boat to stop the BBEG, well, if the world wanted saved so badly it shouldn't have put a lake there.

There's always a horrible monster that can kill you easily, or a lot of monsters that wouldn't be quite as horrible if not for having to fight them in (or at least much too near) water, or you sink, or you drown, or your gear and spellbooks get lost or ruined, or you'd be okay but you can't cast certain spells while swimming, or you can't use certain weapons while swimming or otherwise underwater, or your ship sinks or runs aground and nobody can cast teleport or flight spells with the range you need so you're stranded...oy.

Nothing good will ever come of it. WATER = BAD.

(And no, I'm not afraid of water IRL.)


It would help if certain subsets of the genre in both gaming and fiction didn't look at as "Chekhov's water"...

ATHATH
2016-05-27, 01:23 PM
I had a GM who loved to insert a specific Star Trek OC of his into any of his campaigns, no matter what the setting was. At least it didn't turn DMPC by traveling with us, but just seeing this character cameo for exposition dumping always made me and one other player just go "Nope" and come up with a plan to ignore that OC's walk-on bit until they leave.

If you're wondering, the OC was a T-1000 fleet admiral for Starfleet trained in a Jedi lightsaber (with access to time/dimensional travel in order to pop into different campaign settings). So yeah, all the Nope.
Did the DM eventually make it a running gag?

JAL_1138
2016-05-27, 01:34 PM
Strictly speaking you could get that with a Wish, since the yarn/brass/statue would spontaneously come into being fully complete and spun without ever having undergone the physical process of spinning. This is, however, not an advisable method of gathering ingredients for magic item construction.

You could probably get it from Fabricate, which is a bit lower level and much safer (2e Wish did not have a list of safe uses...it was a desperation spell if it was even acquired and used at all), but that's still pretty high level magic for a Rope of Climbing.

DigoDragon
2016-05-27, 01:37 PM
Did the DM eventually make it a running gag?

No, he always played it straight.
We the players did make a drinking game out of it once. I don't remember the details, so I'd guess that it was a good game. :smalltongue:

Edit-- oh, that reminds me of another 'NOPE'-able thing. I don't mind gaming with players who bring food. Hey, if they bring enough to share, great! But when they start using my gaming books as food trays and napkins... nope!

Max_Killjoy
2016-05-27, 01:44 PM
No, he always played it straight.
We the players did make a drinking game out of it once. I don't remember the details, so I'd guess that it was a good game. :smalltongue:

Edit-- oh, that reminds me of another 'NOPE'-able thing. I don't mind gaming with players who bring food. Hey, if they bring enough to share, great! But when they start using my gaming books as food trays and napkins... nope!

I once had another gamer tell me that "it's not a real gaming book until it has a pizza stain".

He was never allowed near my books again... as in, I would physically put them on the shelf behind me, and he wasn't allowed to touch them.

With what books cost now... someone using a book I spent $60 on as a plate or coaster would probably result in physical violence.

King of Casuals
2016-05-27, 01:48 PM
When one of the party members tells me to hold the door. Hold the door...Hold da door...Hood da door...Hoodddoor...Hodor...Still cry every time :smallfrown:

YossarianLives
2016-05-27, 02:13 PM
Any GM who starts the game by laying down their long list rules and restrictions, any of which will result in being kicked from the group or your character being struck by lightning. This game is supposed to be fun.

Thrudd
2016-05-27, 02:22 PM
"Free Form" = Nope
"systemless/system agnostic (basically the same as free form)" = Nope
"Basically D&D (or any other system) but very loose with the rules " (almost free form) = Nope
"Inspired by Twilight/True Blood" = Nope
"Inter-PC romance" = Nope
"We often spend entire sessions without rolling any dice" = Nope
"We're playing TOON or BESM" = Nope

Mordar
2016-05-27, 02:24 PM
Any GM who starts the game by laying down their long list rules and restrictions, any of which will result in being kicked from the group or your character being struck by lightning. This game is supposed to be fun.

What would be some examples of the ones that you disagreed with/actually pushed you to NOPE out?

Honest Tiefling
2016-05-27, 05:16 PM
Any GM who starts the game by laying down their long list rules and restrictions, any of which will result in being kicked from the group or your character being struck by lightning. This game is supposed to be fun.

I don't know if this is a NOPE for me. If we were doing a human only campaign, that's a lot of racial restrictions for most games. Also, I've had a lot of DMs murder characters at character creation because booze wasn't allowed in the game store. (Examples included trying to make Wolverine in a vampire game after being told repeatedly not to, Asian stereotypes that I shouldn't describe, and lesbian stripper ninjas.)

Pex
2016-05-27, 05:40 PM
The player who doesn't tell the rest of the party need to know information.

The player who steals from the party.

The player who only cares about his character getting stuff and accomplishing things and acts smug when something bad happens to another player's character.

The DM who boasts of his PC death count.

The DM who limits healing.

The DM who forbids magic items and/or house rule spellcasters suffer penalties for casting spells including spellcasters are hated by the NPC populace.

YossarianLives
2016-05-27, 06:16 PM
What would be some examples of the ones that you disagreed with/actually pushed you to NOPE out?
I usually have no problem with houserules; mostly GMs who use their power to bully the players or punish people for building characters that are powerful or not completely serious. (and when I say 'silly' I'm not referring to things like the dreaded lesbian stripper ninjas, just characters that have a light-hearted tone.

I don't know if this is a NOPE for me. If we were doing a human only campaign, that's a lot of racial restrictions for most games. Also, I've had a lot of DMs murder characters at character creation because booze wasn't allowed in the game store. (Examples included trying to make Wolverine in a vampire game after being told repeatedly not to, Asian stereotypes that I shouldn't describe, and lesbian stripper ninjas.)
Eh. The only real experience I have playing RPGs is either with terrible people who have massive superiority complexes and treat their players like dirt, or with good friends who are all on the same page.

The Fury
2016-05-27, 06:35 PM
I would love to hear examples!

I gave my players a station wagon in a Pathfinder game that was mostly being played straight. Mainly because it seemed mildly funny and not too game-breaking.

Traab
2016-05-27, 07:18 PM
What would be some examples of the ones that you disagreed with/actually pushed you to NOPE out?

I bet its less specific rules and more the sheer multitude of them. If he basically redesigns the game to fit his preconceived notion of how everything works? Nope. Its fine if he wants to disallow a specific class or alignment due to long term issues, "No you CANT play a chaotic neutral kender rogue with maximized bluff!"

Honest Tiefling
2016-05-27, 07:21 PM
Actually, I think a DM who doesn't ban Kenders or see any problem with the race would be a giant NOPE from me.

cobaltstarfire
2016-05-27, 07:27 PM
What would be some examples of the ones that you disagreed with/actually pushed you to NOPE out?

I noped out of a starwars D20 game because the DM wouldn't let me play a particular race (because of a particular well hated character, which I hate because the race is cool even if the character is stupid). He wouldn't let me make my case or anything, simply cut me off with a big no, no no, this is stupid ect ect ect.

It isn't necessarily that he wouldn't let me play the race, it's more the way he spoke to and over me. I couldn't see him being a good DM if he couldn't even handle something as basic as discussing character creation without flipping his lid.


After dealing with the kinds of people who sometimes hang around at game/comic stores, it feels like I'll never be able to walk into a game store and find a good pickup game. So many gamers are just...supremely rude in one way or another, often times without realizing how terrible they're being (sometimes managing to not understand even after having it explained to them that their conduct is rude or otherwise unwelcome)

Though I do get some kind of sick enjoyment out of besting those kinds of people at their own game of choice (smash bros, D&D, whatever...). Lots of them don't actually know what they're talking about, or misjudge my ability for whatever reason. It's kind of sad, because for how competitively I like to play things, I'm not especially good, I just really enjoy fun, good natured competition.

Another "nope" for me is players who try to tell me how to make/play my character. I don't mind help or advice, but being told what to do usually doesn't sit well with me. If it doesn't nope me out, I'm a little ashamed to say that it turn me rather mean and aggressive, at which point I'll probably start to feel guilty and eventually nope out anyway.

TheIronGolem
2016-05-27, 08:06 PM
Though I do get some kind of sick enjoyment out of besting those kinds of people at their own game of choice (smash bros, D&D, whatever...). Lots of them don't actually know what they're talking about, or misjudge my ability for whatever reason.

http://i.imgur.com/h5lOQPA.png
Pictured: The reason.

cobaltstarfire
2016-05-27, 08:10 PM
I really dislike assuming that my gender is the reason, and if I get and inkling that it is, it causes such a huge backlash/defensiveness in my observation that I'm not willing to pull the "stop being sexist" card out.

edit: To add, it's also just much easier (and more fun) to just best them at stuff...and be a good sport about it afterwords. Actions speak louder than words, and I don't really want to have to talk to these people longer than I have to in most cases.

sengmeng
2016-05-27, 11:00 PM
Railroad plots. I played one game where my genre savvy character and his twin brother (a friend's character) decided to search the monastery we were staying at from top to bottom, just as a matter of sensible precaution. We found nothing. Later we found a reference to hidden catacombs in the monastery. We search again. We find the secret door, once the plot was ready. I just about flipped out.

DigoDragon
2016-05-27, 11:23 PM
With what books cost now... someone using a book I spent $60 on as a plate or coaster would probably result in physical violence.

Right? I'll buy a package of paper plates if people really need one. Put that pizza stain on a $1 plate and leave my expensive book out of it. :smalltongue:

raygun goth
2016-05-27, 11:36 PM
Character woke up naked (well, okay, with jewelry and manacles on) in a room with two other PCs.

Planar creature walks in, informs us we're to be sold as sex slaves, if we don't comply, magic will be used.

Tried to use familiar to escape, familiar instantly captured. Attempts to use magic or skills of any kind, useless. Escape Artist checks in the 40s do nothing.

Planar creature shows back up with rings that turn the non-female party members into female members of their respective species. He starts dropping charm person on everyone. GM asks why we're not trying to escape harder.

NEWP.

Segev
2016-05-27, 11:40 PM
I really dislike assuming that my gender is the reason, and if I get and inkling that it is, it causes such a huge backlash/defensiveness in my observation that I'm not willing to pull the "stop being sexist" card out.

edit: To add, it's also just much easier (and more fun) to just best them at stuff...and be a good sport about it afterwords. Actions speak louder than words, and I don't really want to have to talk to these people longer than I have to in most cases.

Good for you! It's always more satisfying to simply show somebody up than to say you could. It's the difference between the stereotype of the whiny noble brat who insists that (s)he's better than everyone just 'cause, and the heroic champion who simply demonstrates how awesome (s)he is.

TeChameleon
2016-05-28, 12:33 AM
Heh.

At least mine are a bit less obnoxious than most of the examples here- one is kind of a whole-group nope; if the party encounters a bearskin rug anywhere, nobody wants to be the first one to touch it, because it is always trapped. Granted, the reason for that is relatively simple- that particular terrain tile has the bearskin rug on one side, and a pit on the other :smalltongue:

The second nope is a more personal one, and may be a bit odd, given that I am also a bit odd, but anyhow... if there is an attempt to have my character be the 'prophesied one' in any fashion, Imma 'NOPE!' right on out of there. Reason being, my character was the focus of a prophecy in an earlier campaign, and I wound up feeling like I had become a completely involuntary (thankfully relatively minor, but still noticeable) Black-Hole Sue (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlackHoleSue) (warning: TVTropes link). Given that said character is a grouchy, misanthropic pyromaniac, it was... kind of a weird experience :smallamused:

The Fury
2016-05-28, 12:52 AM
Character woke up naked (well, okay, with jewelry and manacles on) in a room with two other PCs.

Planar creature walks in, informs us we're to be sold as sex slaves, if we don't comply, magic will be used.

Tried to use familiar to escape, familiar instantly captured. Attempts to use magic or skills of any kind, useless. Escape Artist checks in the 40s do nothing.

Planar creature shows back up with rings that turn the non-female party members into female members of their respective species. He starts dropping charm person on everyone. GM asks why we're not trying to escape harder.

NEWP.

Maybe your characters were supposed to gnaw their hands off to get out of the manacles? By the way, any problem that has gnawing off one's own body parts as the most viable solution is a definite "nope."

Templarkommando
2016-05-28, 01:40 AM
Character woke up naked (well, okay, with jewelry and manacles on) in a room with two other PCs.

Planar creature walks in, informs us we're to be sold as sex slaves, if we don't comply, magic will be used.

Tried to use familiar to escape, familiar instantly captured. Attempts to use magic or skills of any kind, useless. Escape Artist checks in the 40s do nothing.

Planar creature shows back up with rings that turn the non-female party members into female members of their respective species. He starts dropping charm person on everyone. GM asks why we're not trying to escape harder.

NEWP.

Wow... that's really bad....


NOOOOOOOPE!

Khedrac
2016-05-28, 01:51 AM
The DM who forbids magic items and/or house rule spellcasters suffer penalties for casting spells including spellcasters are hated by the NPC populace.
I actually ran a 3.5 campaign where it was set after a magical apocalypse. Taking a single level of a spellcasting class (including ranger etc.) was a death sentence for a character (as they literally fell apart). Everyone seemed to enjoy it, though they were worried about healing at the start (so was I which is why I specifically added some herbal items at game start and stated that I would be keeping an eye on it as I did not want it to be a problem).

The reason why I did this was to get people to try playing something different for a change - the group had its first incarnate and warblade (there had been a couple of crusader levels added to a high-level PC on a rebuild before, so the party 'slot machine' wasn't the first crusader) and one player played a warlock - the closest he had then come to a wizard (now he is playing a warmage in Ravenloft). Sadly I did not manage to get anyone to play a binder...

I don't actually have a problem with your "NO" if the DM doesn't have a good reason for it or isn't going to balance for the party not having them, but as a straight "no, I am not going to play anything other than a full caster" makes me worried that you might try to twist the system to make your character as powerful as possible regardless of how sensibly things fit together...

Steampunkette
2016-05-28, 03:09 AM
Other players hitting on me out of character.
Other players trying to peek down my shirt.
Players and DMs who think some sexual assault or rape will give my character more depth.
Players who are good aligned but have no qualms sexually assaulting NPCs and the DMs who roll with it.

The above will get me right the hell out of the game, immediately. Stuff that will get me out of the game if it happens twice:

Player who is clearly way too into their character's race/appearance/style to the point where it's probably an ERP character they've adapted to the setting/game *side-eyes Dragonborn in particular*

WoW characters in a fresh coat of D&D paint.

Child Adventurers.

The redeemed and tortured (demon, tiefling, drow, fallen angel, vampire, etc etc etc). Exception for Vampiric Characters who were redeemed and aren't whiny nits about how they used to be.

Tranny Jokes and/or handing out Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity just to watch the dudebro flail and whine about having to deal with boobs and/or immediately start trying to have sex with everyone around him because "The Female version of my character is banging hot!" while they go full Ace Ventura.

goto124
2016-05-28, 03:22 AM
Some of the sexual stuff makes me wonder "where do you live and why are there so many of THAT kind of people there?"


immediately start trying to have sex with everyone around him because "The Female version of my character is banging hot!"

What, he wasn't already trying to do that prior to the Girdle? :smalltongue:

Has anyone EVER turned a female into a male?

Steampunkette
2016-05-28, 03:47 AM
Because I live in the middle of nowhere in Wisconsin my gaming options are -very- limited.

Mostly I try to use r20, but because I work night shifts I can mostly only play every other weekend after 10pm so... yeah. I wind up getting sucked into games mostly populated by teenagers and ERPers using roll20 as their porny playground (SO many furries...)

In person I live in the middle of nowhere in Wisconsin... I run an alternating Sunday Curse of Strahd which is primarily a group of 13-16 year old boys, hence the top-peeking.

Though for what it's worth, before I left Georgia (In a town with over 100k people) I ran into the same kinds of problems in person. Particularly the sexual assault stuff with heaping doses of OOC sexism, 'cause whether we like it or not there's a heck of a lot of gamers who have very poor opinions of women.

Cluedrew
2016-05-28, 08:57 AM
Has anyone EVER turned a female into a male?I have. Not with the girdle but in a setting I wrote the war god was a female->male. I forget why, but I think it was part of the whole theme of playing with the idea of what a warrior was that ran with that character. Actually I think that is the only true gender change character I've ever written.

Maybe that is not what you meant, but it just popped into my head.

I don't have any particular NOPE worthy things on my list, the ones given previously would defiantly cause issues if they came up. At a lower level I don't like dark games personally and will politely decline a game it is supposed to be dark. However I appreciate that other people enjoy it and it is not (very) evil so it is more No thanks then NOPE.

cobaltstarfire
2016-05-28, 11:26 AM
Has anyone EVER turned a female into a male?

I had a rolemaster game where all characters were temporarily gender swapped during a rather short dream visit. The npc who dream visited us always did weird things to us, it was something different every time, and how we knew we were being visited.


It was handled pretty well, but the group also wasn't a pickup group, and composed mainly of women, save for the GM's husband.

Leewei
2016-05-28, 11:27 AM
My own NOPEs:

-Games where PCs ever willingly harm innocents, or where villainous NPCs routinely do the same.
-Games where PCs are magically compelled to do something.
-Players who gender-swap poorly (most gender-swappers).
-GM Paladin abuse.
-GMs who can't be bothered to learn the rules of the game system, or how to put together a balanced encounter.
-(Somewhat the flip side of the above.) Habitually disruptive, argumentative players.

PersonMan
2016-05-28, 11:37 AM
I would love to hear examples!

Modern bureaucracy - departments, public servants for all sorts of things, etc.

A modern justice system.

A standing army, in most cases.

A modern military, with officer corps, strict ranks, etc.

A city watch that is the police, but with swords.

A fully centralized state, with everyone doing exactly what public policy is all the time everywhere.

A state-based rather than person-based diplomacy - rather than individuals who could potentially ascend multiple thrones and gain massive influence, you have states that act in their interests.

Modern stores, with goods lining the shelves even if it's a single guy (and his apprentice) making things.

A modern relationship between people, violence and the state i.e. the state has the monopoly on power/weapons/etc. and the people are all unarmed civilians apart from the armed militia/city guard.

---

I don't mind a few, especially since some of these are things that even I used until recently (I wasn't aware of how bare-bones, rely-on-your-heavily-armed-populace the policing of cities was for most of my gaming time until now), but as a whole the more there are the less I feel the setting makes sense.

Then there's the aspect of things just being cooler - to me, a world where every city is inhabited almost solely by people who are required by law to possess the arms and armor needed to fight to defend it is more interesting (and more correctly reflects the level of violent conflict you'd need for races like humans, elves, etc. to survive against things like ogres) than a city surrounded by walls manned by the police city guard.

Pex
2016-05-28, 12:37 PM
I actually ran a 3.5 campaign where it was set after a magical apocalypse. Taking a single level of a spellcasting class (including ranger etc.) was a death sentence for a character (as they literally fell apart). Everyone seemed to enjoy it, though they were worried about healing at the start (so was I which is why I specifically added some herbal items at game start and stated that I would be keeping an eye on it as I did not want it to be a problem).

The reason why I did this was to get people to try playing something different for a change - the group had its first incarnate and warblade (there had been a couple of crusader levels added to a high-level PC on a rebuild before, so the party 'slot machine' wasn't the first crusader) and one player played a warlock - the closest he had then come to a wizard (now he is playing a warmage in Ravenloft). Sadly I did not manage to get anyone to play a binder...

I don't actually have a problem with your "NO" if the DM doesn't have a good reason for it or isn't going to balance for the party not having them, but as a straight "no, I am not going to play anything other than a full caster" makes me worried that you might try to twist the system to make your character as powerful as possible regardless of how sensibly things fit together...

It's not about me wanting to play a full caster. It's about my perspective of when I hear a DM saying, especially boasting, he does not use magic items or spellcasters get penalties for casting spells, the DM is one whom I facetiously say "hates his players", meaning he can't stand it that player characters are "powerful" and can do stuff other than attacking with a weapon for 1d8 + 2 damage or there about and defend themselves by saying they prefer "roleplaying not rollplaying" (Stormwind Fallacy). I've been correct in my assessment a lot more often than not.

Khedrac
2016-05-28, 01:24 PM
It's not about me wanting to play a full caster. It's about my perspective of when I hear a DM saying, especially boasting, he does not use magic items or spellcasters get penalties for casting spells, the DM is one whom I facetiously say "hates his players", meaning he can't stand it that player characters are "powerful" and can do stuff other than attacking with a weapon for 1d8 + 2 damage or there about and defend themselves by saying they prefer "roleplaying not rollplaying" (Stormwind Fallacy). I've been correct in my assessment a lot more often than not.That would be the "no good reason then" - not so much the "no casters" but the specific DM

I now see why you have the signature you do ("If you can't trust your players not to ruin the game when given power, why are you playing with them?")

All I can say is good luck for the future and I feel for you.

raygun goth
2016-05-28, 02:58 PM
A modern relationship between people, violence and the state i.e. the state has the monopoly on power/weapons/etc. and the people are all unarmed civilians apart from the armed militia/city guard.

Citation needed, considering how that's basically how a feudal system works, i.e. the land owners have such an enormous monopoly on force they can basically decide who's allowed to live there and if you don't like it they have a wide variety of creative ways to handle you.


I don't mind a few, especially since some of these are things that even I used until recently (I wasn't aware of how bare-bones, rely-on-your-heavily-armed-populace the policing of cities was for most of my gaming time until now), but as a whole the more there are the less I feel the setting makes sense.

Then there's the aspect of things just being cooler - to me, a world where every city is inhabited almost solely by people who are required by law to possess the arms and armor needed to fight to defend it is more interesting (and more correctly reflects the level of violent conflict you'd need for races like humans, elves, etc. to survive against things like ogres) than a city surrounded by walls manned by the police city guard.

That is not how it worked, though. Some towns were left so high and dry by their landowners that they'd draft a few locals into walking the streets with clubs and maybe pikes, if the local landowners let them have something that looked like a weapon - and these groups were little more than armed gangs themselves, sometimes getting involved, sometimes not. Most large cities were wealthy enough to have an appointed constable, but the prices of weapons and armor kept them out of the hands of almost every citizen, considering the way payment worked - musters would typically provide a helm and a pike, and that's about it. If you wanted armor, you had to buy it. In later periods, closer to the Renaissance, you started having standing forces.

What we call "police" actually occur relatively early in the middle ages - as early as the 1200s (https://books.google.com/books?id=660XAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q&f=false). That's before Europe even has potatoes and tomatoes.

In a D&D context, there's a large incentive to organize your guard/conscripts very early on in cultural development. Screw belfries full of dudes rollin' up to your castle walls, you have to worry about giant monsters that can dig faster than someone can walk popping up in the middle of town for no reason. You have to worry about the local lions being able to fly and having eagle parts sewn on to them. You have to worry about untamed, uncivilized wild men who can practically turn invisible and who think your peasants are good in a stew. There are literal damned souls out there who will eat your populace inside-out and you have to get them ready for that and be able to rapidly respond to any section of your kingdom. That's not even counting the guys who can just decide that part of your town is one fire because Odin's Day.

There's actually a great thread over here (https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?623328-Medieval-Law-Enforcement).

Saintsqc
2016-05-28, 03:29 PM
In person I live in the middle of nowhere in Wisconsin... I run an alternating Sunday Curse of Strahd which is primarily a group of 13-16 year old boys, hence the top-peeking.

Then why dont you wear a t shirt, or a scarf or change the web cam angle or something ?

Regitnui
2016-05-28, 03:33 PM
Player Character Drow. They're either drizzt or unhelpful. It's another reason I like Eberron; "what, you want to play a drow ranger? Ok, give me a backstory why your scarred, barbaric, tribal foreigner ended up as on a different continent and in the middle of a society that'll treat him like Europe treated Africans during colonialism and I'll consider it."

Though a friend of mine proposed a half-drow with a decent backstory, and that got past my instinctual banhammer, so they aren't bad as a race.

Honest Tiefling
2016-05-28, 03:54 PM
Then why dont you wear a t shirt, or a scarf or change the web cam angle or something ?

Clearly, she needs to get a hold of one of those creepy-*** horse masks and wear that the entire time. That, or put disturbing pictures where your cleavage is. Double points if one of the group is afraid of spiders and you put a picture of a spider catching prey there...

Steampunkette
2016-05-28, 05:12 PM
Then why dont you wear a t shirt, or a scarf or change the web cam angle or something ?

Because I'm not the one behaving inappropriately. Instead I'll call out the bad behavior as it happens.


Clearly, she needs to get a hold of one of those creepy-*** horse masks and wear that the entire time. That, or put disturbing pictures where your cleavage is. Double points if one of the group is afraid of spiders and you put a picture of a spider catching prey there...

At least this suggestion is freaking hilarious!

But yeah, asking the person being treated badly to change their perfectly acceptable actions so that other people who are behaving badly are given a pass is a poor solution at best.

M@XWeru
2016-05-28, 05:35 PM
I noped out of a starwars D20 game because the DM wouldn't let me play a particular race
It was a Gungan, wasn't it?

Malimar
2016-05-28, 05:40 PM
Very little will make me nope out of a game I've already joined, but there are plenty of things that make me not sign up for a recruitment thread. High-powered games (such as "epic-level tristalt" -- why would anyone do such a thing), copious homebrew permitted... basically just those two, I guess.

I do hate when people try to adapt their characters from their original fiction to TTRPGs. They never fit as well as a character native to the setting would. Won't actually make me nope out of a game, but I strongly discourage it when I'm DMing.


Has anyone EVER turned a female into a male?

Happened in one of my games. Cursed fountain of gender-changing water. A male character drank from it, not knowing what it was, and got turned into a female. Then another PC tricked the female paladin into drinking it, and she got turned male.

Happened again in another one of my games. Cursed gender-changing potion of cure disease. The character wound up fixing it with the water from the same fountain from the previous instance.


Other players hitting on me out of character.
Other players trying to peek down my shirt.
Players and DMs who think some sexual assault or rape will give my character more depth.
Players who are good aligned but have no qualms sexually assaulting NPCs and the DMs who roll with it.

I'm surprised it took three pages for sexual harassment to come up. That's usually, like, the #1 nope-inducer for most people. (I mean, not for me -- the one game I played where a character got raped by an NPC, I was uncomfortable for the player but didn't actually care enough to say anything and didn't leave the game.)

Saintsqc
2016-05-28, 05:51 PM
Because I'm not the one behaving inappropriately. Instead I'll call out the bad behavior as it happens.


Get mad when teens are top peeking
Does nothing to prevent it

Strong logic lol

You are playing with teenage boys, what are you expecting? Youre right, You are not the one behaving inappropriatly. But the thing is, you can prevent a behavior that you dislike and you do nothing for it.

cobaltstarfire
2016-05-28, 06:31 PM
It was a Gungan, wasn't it?


I'll leave it up to your imagination. :smalltongue:

It doesn't really matter what the race was, the GM's reaction was the problem, you'd think I physically spat in his face for how worked up he got.

I like my GM's patient, and willing to negotiate.

comk59
2016-05-28, 06:53 PM
My own NOPEs:

-Games where PCs ever willingly harm innocents, or where villainous NPCs routinely do the same.

I'm sorry, your nope is villains causing harm to innocents? That's kinda their whole thing...

Steampunkette
2016-05-28, 10:14 PM
Get mad when teens are top peeking
Does nothing to prevent it

Strong logic lol

You are playing with teenage boys, what are you expecting? Youre right, You are not the one behaving inappropriatly. But the thing is, you can prevent a behavior that you dislike and you do nothing for it.

Calling it out is doing nothing in your book?

Also worth noting, I grew up with teenage boys. I had the experience of being around them when they thought no girls were around. I know exactly how we let them get with the Boys will be Boys attitude. That needs to stop. And shaming me isn't at all helping.

Steampunkette
2016-05-28, 10:18 PM
Also, how the fudge do you think wearing Tshirt would help? I've been around teen boys. A Burqa wouldn't stop that kind of treatment, passively, in America. Confrontation the only option that means a damn thing.

Segev
2016-05-28, 10:31 PM
Some of the sexual stuff makes me wonder "where do you live and why are there so many of THAT kind of people there?"



What, he wasn't already trying to do that prior to the Girdle? :smalltongue:

Has anyone EVER turned a female into a male?I don't know if this counts, since I did it to my own character, but in a Magical Girls game I played a magical boy who only ever interacted with the rest of the party (at least for a longish while) transformed. This is because he was horrifically embarrassed by his magical state, but couldn't not share that with the party...so kept his nonmagical state secret so at least they wouldn't know of what he considered his shame. That the girls kept swooning over his bishonen-ness didn't help.

See, he was from an extremely traditional Japanese family...and was their only DAUGHTER, in her untransformed state. She had no interest in being a boy; she wanted to be a Yamato Nadeshiko. Being a boy - no matter how dashing, handsome, or capable - was highly embarrassing, and ACTING like a boy - though he was very good at it, knowing what he felt boys should act like - was uncomfortable.

That a number of girls thought he would obviously be flirting with them for simply being polite, and that all boys need is to be shown some illicit skin on the female form to make them blush or they're perverts, only heightened the irritation levels, given how many thought a maho-(bi)shonen was a great catch to be had.


Also, how the fudge do you think wearing Tshirt would help? I've been around teen boys. A Burqa wouldn't stop that kind of treatment, passively, in America. Confrontation the only option that means a damn thing.To be fair, one of your specific complaints was looking down your shirt. If the shirt literally cannot be looked down, that is a solution to that specific problem.

Note that I am not justifying the behavior nor saying you should have to solve it in that fashion. But it is an option to do so. Just as one should not have to solve the problem of pickpockets by not carrying valuables, or carrying them in inconvenient and hard-to-access places, but the options exist to do so. If all you have to do to resolve it is call out the problem-makers, though, that's great, and I'm glad you have success with that. Because they do deserve to be called out on it.

Steampunkette
2016-05-28, 10:40 PM
So far it has.

Though I'd also like to note that I almost always wear Tshirts to game day. They're just not Crew Neck, which is what I figure you both mean.

Segev
2016-05-28, 10:50 PM
So far it has.

Though I'd also like to note that I almost always wear Tshirts to game day. They're just not Crew Neck, which is what I figure you both mean.

Fair enough. The only v-neck shirts I wear are undershirts, because frankly, nobody wants to see my flabby torso. :smalltongue: And I sure don't want to show it off. But I'm a guy, too, so fashion is different.



Tangent: isn't it interesting that, despite female breasts being considered indecent to expose past a certain point (not really wanting to get into a debate over where that point is or whether this is right or not), and it being not indecent for guys to be shirtless, male fashion typically covers the chest entirely, while female fashion typically exposes decolletage and/or midriff?

(Again, this is not a judgment, but just a note of the irony. Guys are theoretically "decent" in less clothing than are girls, but girls' clothing typically exposes more flesh, particularly in the areas where guys could go without entirely.)

cobaltstarfire
2016-05-29, 12:19 AM
Tangent: isn't it interesting that, despite female breasts being considered indecent to expose past a certain point (not really wanting to get into a debate over where that point is or whether this is right or not), and it being not indecent for guys to be shirtless, male fashion typically covers the chest entirely, while female fashion typically exposes decolletage and/or midriff?



I was soooooo confused by certain aspects of this when I was little.

Boys allowed to wear tank tops or no tops at all, but I'm not? There's no difference as far as 5 y/o me could tell. It didn't help that the best explanation was either "Because I said so" or "because you're a girl".

I just consider it societal weirdness now, now I "understand" within the context of our culture, but I still feel like it doesn't really make very much sense.


But as far as making changes to how one dresses to help stave off people being peekers...well depending on how cursed/blessed you are with boobs, it's almost impossible to really "cover it up" without doing something really outlandish, and probably uncomfortable in any weather that is even somewhat warm. So I tend to put all the burden on the people who are actively being rude and trying to sneak a peek without permission, or ogling in general. I mean I was taught that it's rude to stare at anyone for any reason, so maybe that's just me...

That reminded me of another "nope", again associated with comic/game stores. Guys that follow me around the store very closely...it's just...really really creepy? Talk about bad mojo....I'm a small not very strong person, so I feel very little incentive to return cause...creepy.

Regitnui
2016-05-29, 01:12 AM
That reminded me of another "nope", again associated with comic/game stores. Guys that follow me around the store very closely...it's just...really really creepy? Talk about bad mojo....I'm a small not very strong person, so I feel very little incentive to return cause...creepy.

Leaving aside gender politics (which is a reason I enjoy changelings and succubi; they can change their gender at will), I'm on the other end of this. I'm naturally tall, but have the sort of retiring personality that is happiest with a nice metre of distance or physical object between me and a random stranger. There aren't any gaming stores where I live, and I'm a guy, so I won't pretend I've got it any worse than the girls here. People getting close to me still creeps me out, though.

M@XWeru
2016-05-29, 01:16 AM
the GM's reaction was the problem
I dunno. If you were gonna do the accent, I'd say you were lucky to get out of there alive.

Segev
2016-05-29, 01:21 AM
Honestly, little kids probably can get away with it, just because nobody can TELL if they're not wearing clothes that serve as "tertiary sexual characteristics."

My comment was more about how strange it is that the "decency" level for men requires far fewer clothes than it does for women, but guys who wore as little fabric as girls commonly do (without any real comment or complaint from society at large) would be looked at oddly, at best.


Consider a typical walking-down-the-street outfit. For a guy, he could theoretically get away with just some shorts and sandals. (Of course, many places have a "no shirt, no service" rule, so he needs to wear one if he's shopping or eating out.) But it's unusual, for a number of reasons (beyond even the "no shirt" policies of commercial establishments). And, if he is wearing a shirt, it's rare for it to be an A-shirt; it's more than likely going to be a crew-neck T-shirt, or something button-down (and buttoned all the way down); in any event, very little torso will be shown. The shirt will either tuck in or extend sufficiently below the belt line of the pants to provide no midriff. Also, if he's wearing shorts, they'll probably extend to or below the knees.

For a girl, while she can certainly dress the same way, it is not at all unusual to wear much shorter shorts, for shirts to dip sufficiently low that the tops of her breasts are easily visible, and for it to crop such that it bares her midriff. She could not, under nearly any circumstances, walk down the street with no top on. A guy could, and just get looked at oddly or commented on. The girl would be charged with indecent exposure. Yet the girls' fashion encourages far less fabric and coverage than the guys' fashion, despite guys not having the REQUIREMENT to have as much covered.

It's just ironic. It also is a relatively recent phenomenon.

However, it probably is related, in some way, to how women's fashion - particularly dressing up - allows for more variety than men's. Men wear suits when dressing up. They can vary from "two-piece" to "three-piece" to "tux" to "white-tie," but those are all pretty well-defined styles, with very little difference in cut once you've selected one. They wear either ties or bow-ties, depending on the version and choice (bow ties technically work with all of them, though look odd with two-piece; regular ties don't work with tuxes or white-tie). Women's gowns get a TON of variety, in comparison. Color variations, cuts, trains, how much and what skin is exposed...it all varies quite a bit, and it's acceptable that it does so (though a lot of red carpet dresses from some entertainers have been called out as lacking in class, lately). Men's suits, as described, not only are only going to vary slightly in color (anything not "somber" winds up being called "garish" or is a definite statement meant to stand out as "weird"), but they're invariably going to expose exactly the same relative amount of skin: hands and head. If a guy shows up with exposed shoulders, or with his shirt open to reveal his chest, he's not indecent...but he's definitely "underdressed" for a suit-and-tie affair. The woman's dress has other criteria to determine if it's dressy enough.



I should note that this is not a complaint. I am actually rather glad that I don't have to worry too much about my dress fashion: I have all of one suit, and two ties. And I am glad I don't have to worry about getting more to be ready for nearly any formal occasion. I just find it interesting how men's fashion has "settled" into a limited set of well-worn "tracks," while women's fashion encourages innovation. It wasn't always so; look back to Versailles for some really outlandish - by our standards - costumes for men, and realize that they were every bit as varied as women's, if not moreso (as I believe women had basically the big froomphy bell-shaped dress as the standard at the time; variation was minor in cut for the bodice and arms, though colors were still varied and hair was...spectacular, for better or worse).

As a student of history and cultural trends, I have to wonder how men's fashion will shift. It's shifted constantly for decades, though the basic form hasn't changed much since the 50s. Brief introduction of disco and leisure suits with tweed patterns happened in the 70s and died hard in the 80s, and we're back to the basic white, collared shirt with tie and sedately-colored slacks and matching jacket. Maybe with pinstripes, though I think those are rather uncommon these days, too. Hats went out of style sometime around WWII; I think the advent of interior climate control played a role, there, though I'm not sure. And there remain hats up through the 90s, at least, for some guys. They didn't look WEIRD on Harry Anderson, for example, though it was a noteworthy fashion statement. These days, they're dated, however.

I'm not sure you could take casual clothes from the late 90s/early 2000s (male and unisex and to some degree female) and stand them next to modern ones and have them be told apart, and since 70s to 80s to 90s is an easily-identified shift, that's odd to me. Mid-90s was a weird exaggeration of 80s eye-catching design, but that died down in favor of the common print Ts and pop culture logos and references. The only thing that could help tell them apart would be if modern ones had references that weren't around in the early 2000s. The general style (either a primary print on the front, or a logo on the front left breast and the primary print on the back) hasn't shifted much, if at all, and if anything variety has faded some. You get less that doesn't fit that style now. It happens, but not so often.

...and this is all such a tangent I'm spoilering it. Sorry, all. Carry on.

I think the big thing that would make me NOPE from a table would be explicit descriptions of sex. I like my games no more than PG-13, though that's deceptive since you can get away with more in text than in print or film. Game of Thrones has pretty much all the sex that shows up early in the series in the novels, but despite being "explicitly on screen," it's not explicit in the same way. "And this happened" is more the tell-style; it doesn't spend time describing it in detail that is inherent to showing it live on screen (with Dany's first time being the one exception I can think of, and even that fades to black before it gets more erotic than sensual).

But go into graphic sex rather than fading to black, and I'm probably leaving the table. Even leaving morals aside, it's...unpleasant. Voyeurism has no allure for me.


The other things that can get me to leave are not "NOPE" items, I think, because they have to build up enough before I decide the game isn't worth them. And I consider "NOPE" to mean, "X happened; I'm out of here." Where X is a single instance of something, and it showing up is enough to have me making my apologies and packing my bags.

AMFV
2016-05-29, 01:27 AM
Calling it out is doing nothing in your book?

Also worth noting, I grew up with teenage boys. I had the experience of being around them when they thought no girls were around. I know exactly how we let them get with the Boys will be Boys attitude. That needs to stop. And shaming me isn't at all helping.


Also, how the fudge do you think wearing Tshirt would help? I've been around teen boys. A Burqa wouldn't stop that kind of treatment, passively, in America. Confrontation the only option that means a damn thing.

Well, I'm not sure, if you aren't in a position of authority, I doubt it will mean much. They're young and are still learning to control themselves with their hormones and such. They may not even realize that they are staring or peeking, it's probably worth mentioning, but it's also worth noting that young boys are not the best at self-control, particularly around the ages when they're first starting to experience those kind of feelings.

It's not so much a matter of "boys will be boys", as it is "we can't expect boys to behave like men", boys (girls as well), will make social mistakes, will not be able to deal with their hormones or the related emotional content that comes with that, and puberty is a difficult time for them, so it's better to be compassionate rather than accusatory in those cases, because they are yet learning to manage those feelings and attitudes.

Also, you might be wise to reconsider confrontation, if you aren't in a position of legitimate authority. That will feel unfair to them, and it may be inappropriate. The net result of that will be less helpful and will be more likely to push them to ignore similar advice when they are older. Which is not usually the thing that people who give that sort of confrontation are aiming for.

Slay33
2016-05-29, 01:56 AM
"Who cares what alignment your character is? Just ignore it for once so we do (insert generic dumbass party evil genocidal action)"

cobaltstarfire
2016-05-29, 02:46 AM
I dunno. If you were gonna do the accent, I'd say you were lucky to get out of there alive.

I don't recall the normal ones having accents, and I can't do accents anyway, it's hard enough to talk in character without getting bogged down by modes of speech.

But you seem to be deliberately missing the point of the DM cutting me off, not giving me a chance to speak, and yelling at me unorovoked.

I don't really appreciate you suggesting violence against me would have been justified.

HidesHisEyes
2016-05-29, 02:56 AM
Interminable discussions about "what would be best for the story". Just play your damn character and watch the story unfold, that's the whole point.

PersonMan
2016-05-29, 03:31 AM
They may not even realize that they are staring or peeking

The idea that someone can actively be trying to look down someone's shirt without noticing is...interesting, to say the least.

"What do you mean, I was staring? I, uh, didn't notice! I was just...uh...lost in thought?"

Why do you think they try to be subtle about it, if they don't know they're doing it or that it's not alright?


it's probably worth mentioning, but it's also worth noting that young boys are not the best at self-control, particularly around the ages when they're first starting to experience those kind of feelings.

Which is why you show them that self-control is a good thing to work on and that not having it makes people get annoyed at you. Yes, younger people make mistakes, but when they do you respond in a way that teaches them to stop making the mistake. If someone is rude, you tell them they're being rude, and in some situations how to change their behavior. "Don't bang your fork on the table" isn't going to scar someone and make them refuse to listen to advice on social etiquette, why would "stop staring at my chest"?

Florian
2016-05-29, 04:18 AM
On topic first:

As a player:

Playing in a campaign with a meta-plot set in stone and at the same time affecting the actual scenario.

"Rule of Cool", "Rule of Drama" or "Dramaturgic reasons in the story". If you want to tell me a story, cool, do, then I´ll grab me some beer and listen, but don´t let me play it.

As a GM:

Players that can´t accept setting rules to be hard rules.

Being unable to leave ideologies behind when engaging in a setting and what happens based on setting ideologies.

@Steampunkette:

Consider two things:
Western culture is becoming more and more sexualized and that´s putting on a lot of peer pressure.
In certain age segments, genders life very segregated lives and are actually quite unsure how to act or interact with other genders. Hormones, transition from sheltered families to being part of wider society and, again, raising peer pressure.
Some things, I fear, we have to accept and come to terms with it because they´re basic human nature and biology. Others we have to actually work against or the situation will worsen. Jung males trying to peek at boobs? Jung females trying their charmes with an older man? Happens. More objectification of females or growing hate against minority groups because they don´t fit into the ever more rigid peer groups? Pretty much a step back that we should act against.

PersonMan
2016-05-29, 04:29 AM
On topic first:

As a player:

[...]

"Rule of Cool", "Rule of Drama" or "Dramaturgic reasons in the story". If you want to tell me a story, cool, do, then I´ll grab me some beer and listen, but don´t let me play it.

Does the 'Rule of Cool' apply in general, or only when the DM uses it to empower NPCs while restricting PCs?

Florian
2016-05-29, 04:55 AM
Does the 'Rule of Cool' apply in general, or only when the DM uses it to empower NPCs while restricting PCs?

Conditional. Depends on playing a "balanced system" or a story-driven system.

Enacting the "Rule of Cool" should give people an incentive to be creative, be a bit more descriptive about their actions and be more present at the table instead of "just" rolling it.
Once that learning experience has been made and it is clear who can deal with it and who can´t, sticking to it will begin to widen the gap in play experience and fun, something to be avoided in an equal opportunity game.

It´s a good thing when forming a new group or adding a new player to say something like "Whoa, great action! Here, have a Fate Point/Benny/Extra EXP as a reward!" but later on? Nah!

goto124
2016-05-29, 06:41 AM
Being unable to leave ideologies behind when engaging in a setting and what happens based on setting ideologies.

I wanna hear your horror stories!

Max_Killjoy
2016-05-29, 07:05 AM
Interminable discussions about "what would be best for the story". Just play your damn character and watch the story unfold, that's the whole point.


Agreed -- the focus on narrative as a mechanism / the entire goal, rather than as an emergent property that arises from the interactions of the PCs, the NPCs, the setting, and the "plot skeleton", drives me CRAZY.



On topic first:
"Rule of Cool", "Rule of Drama" or "Dramaturgic reasons in the story". If you want to tell me a story, cool, do, then I´ll grab me some beer and listen, but don´t let me play it.


I have to resist the urge to bang my head on the table just thinking about it.

Saintsqc
2016-05-29, 07:15 AM
Calling it out is doing nothing in your book?

And shaming me isn't at all helping.

Im not shaming you, im just pointing out the inconsistency of your reasonning. Stop getting all emotionnal.

If you did not bother with teeanage boys looking down your shirt we wouldnt have this discussion. The problem is, you get mad when it happen and your solution is to...

...wait for it to happen...then say that you dislike that. Dont you see the weakness of your reasonning here?

In my book, if someone dislike an outcome, this person should take preventive measures to avoid this disliked outcome. You have no preventive measures. You just wait for the disliked outcome to happen and then, you try something to prevent an eventual repetition. But, if you used a preventive measure in the first place, the disliked outcome would have never happen and you would not have to get mad !

And in my book, being confrontationnal is the worst solution.

Anyway, i dont care how you dress. Keep getting mad over teenage boys all you want for all I care. If you cant see the flaw in your logic here, its your problem after all.

Cluedrew
2016-05-29, 08:34 AM
(Again, this is not a judgment, but just a note of the irony. Guys are theoretically "decent" in less clothing than are girls, but girls' clothing typically exposes more flesh, particularly in the areas where guys could go without entirely.)As a whole the human race is not good at logic (or reasoning in general). I mean we are close enough in most cases but then you get this.

To Saintsqc: What is this "preventive measure" you speak of, that somehow neither involves inaction or confrontation? In these situations the two tend to form a scale, that you can move a long but not leave. You either ignore the behaviour or change it, and to change it you have to confront whoever is who is doing it, even if the confrontation does not involve yelling.

Saintsqc
2016-05-29, 08:47 AM
To Saintsqc: What is this "preventive measure" you speak of, that somehow neither involves inaction or confrontation? In these situations the two tend to form a scale, that you can move a long but not leave. You either ignore the behaviour or change it, and to change it you have to confront whoever is who is doing it, even if the confrontation does not involve yelling.

I got a third option for you : take actions so it would make this kind of situation impossible to happen.

From the top of my head: wearing a t shirt or a scarf, changing the web cam angle so the cleavage does not appear on the screen or not playing with teenage boys.

Cazero
2016-05-29, 08:52 AM
I was going to make a joke comment about standing atop a ladder and refuse to sit down so the boys never get the opportunity to look down the shirt and have to look up the skirt instead. And then someone had to ruin the mood with dismissive comments.
Ho well. Have the joke anyway, do whatever seems fit.

Regitnui
2016-05-29, 09:03 AM
I got a third option for you : take actions so it would make this kind of situation impossible to happen.

From the top of my head: wearing a t shirt or a scarf, changing the web cam angle so the cleavage does not appear on the screen or not playing with teenage boys.

OK, duly noted. It's Steampunkette's fault, since she obviously unconsciously wants the teenagers to look down her shirt despite saying the exact opposite multiple times. /sarcasm. Watch for your own lapses in logic before accusing others, my friend. The teenagers are wrong. I make it a point to look any woman in the eyes, or even forehead, if I'm dealing with them formally.

Anyway, gender politics like that is off topic. I'll second people not keeping the tone of the setting in mind. One of my players from a kaput group played a narcoleptic dragonborn, just so he could fall asleep when roleplay was on the cards. Given my DMing style and the serial-numbers-filed-off Eberron tone of the setting, he ended up having to be woken up twice each session. Not just the usual "action to wake" either. He insisted on making the rest of the group jump through hoops. The group didn't last much longer, though.

goto124
2016-05-29, 09:11 AM
Twice per session? Is that a lot or very little?

Honest Tiefling
2016-05-29, 10:45 AM
It's not so much a matter of "boys will be boys", as it is "we can't expect boys to behave like men", boys (girls as well), will make social mistakes, will not be able to deal with their hormones or the related emotional content that comes with that, and puberty is a difficult time for them, so it's better to be compassionate rather than accusatory in those cases, because they are yet learning to manage those feelings and attitudes.

You have far more faith in young people then I do. I believe more that they're doing it because they are not in arm's reach and cannot be smacked. People of all stripes become idiots and jerks with the Internets. These kids need to learn that a second long glance is fine. A stare is not.


Consider two things:
Western culture is becoming more and more sexualized and that´s putting on a lot of peer pressure.
In certain age segments, genders life very segregated lives and are actually quite unsure how to act or interact with other genders. Hormones, transition from sheltered families to being part of wider society and, again, raising peer pressure.

I'd like to think that most 14 year olds have grasped the concept of 'staring is bad, mmmkay?'. She's a woman, not an instructional aid, so if these kids haven't grasped basics taught to five year old children, well, they get booted out.

Yora
2016-05-29, 10:50 AM
DMPCs are at the very top of my list.

Megadungon and Hexcrawl are also not going to keep me in the campaign for more than two or three sessions. I might tag along to hang out with a game, but not as a regular thing.

Traab
2016-05-29, 11:01 AM
You have far more faith in young people then I do. I believe more that they're doing it because they are not in arm's reach and cannot be smacked. People of all stripes become idiots and jerks with the Internets. These kids need to learn that a second long glance is fine. A stare is not.



I'd like to think that most 14 year olds have grasped the concept of 'staring is bad, mmmkay?'. She's a woman, not an instructional aid, so if these kids haven't grasped basics taught to five year old children, well, they get booted out.

Its that too, the thing is, with the boys cant be expected to act like men thing is it applies equally to guys and girls of a young age. Its like whats happening right next to me now, my nephew who is six years old literally CAN NOT be forced to shut up while playing his roblox. He chatters incessantly at the screen no matter how many time I tell him to stop, set him on fire, or punch him in the teeth. My 14 year old neice however, is capable of shutting up when I inform her she is getting out of control and lasting awhile before she starts to slip. Barely any teeth punching involved. Then you have myself, or even my mom. We tend to play silently unless something incredible is on the screen. "Oh Hans Moleman, you poor dear, what did you do to make the football hate you so much?"

Its all about self control. Kids have less of it, and hopefully, they learn more as they age. When you combine the already low self control with internet immunity, well, it can only spiral downwards fast. They gotta be called out on their behavior or else they will never have any reason to change it. If all you do is quietly remove the magnificent mammaries of the illustrious Steampunkette then they learn nothing and move on to the next set of boobs with a voice attached somewhere vague. Oh, and speaking as a guy able to look back on the dim antiquity of his teenage years, you would be surprised how easy it is to accidentally end up obnoxiously staring at body parts. You catch something out of the corner of your eye, confirm what it is and are distracted, then suddenly your danger sense kicks in belatedly and realize you are leaning over sideways trying to get the best look possible and the teacher is standing over you with a yardstick about to collide with your ear. You.... you learn quickly when properly motivated.

cobaltstarfire
2016-05-29, 11:09 AM
Yeah....I recognize that middle school aged children in general are dealing with a lot of hormone weirdness, and are awkward, and can be more than a little squirrely, but it does not excuse a pre-teen from being called out/disciplined for unacceptable conduct.

Asmodean_
2016-05-29, 11:11 AM
A paladin who (mid battle) is revealed to be almost four times our level.

(I was not aware of the railroading at the time)

Segev
2016-05-29, 11:27 AM
OK, duly noted. It's Steampunkette's fault, since she obviously unconsciously wants the teenagers to look down her shirt despite saying the exact opposite multiple times. /sarcasm. Watch for your own lapses in logic before accusing others, my friend. The teenagers are wrong. I make it a point to look any woman in the eyes, or even forehead, if I'm dealing with them formally.


It's worth noting, once again, that nobody has said that the teenaged boys' behavior is acceptable nor that they are blameless. I personally think those who've suggested that they should not be reprimanded miss that without reprimand, they may not realize they're behaving in an unacceptable fashion, so I think they should be called out. (The ability of the human mind to engage in congnitive dissonance such that it's socially acceptable 'if I don't get caught' can make sense to them.)

I will once again liken this to going into an area of town known for pickpockets. Yes, the pickpockets are in the wrong, but there are steps you can take to protect yourself and your valuables, such as changing where you carry them, not bringing them with you, not going there, or taking proactive measures to ensure they're more difficult to take.

Should you HAVE to? No. You shouldn't. But that doesn't change the reality that doing so will lessen the risks of encountering the problem.

If somebody shoots out in front of me, ignoring a stop sign at an intersection, I am not in the wrong for keeping going at the speed limit. He broke the law. I didn't. He's fully responsible for the accident. But that doesn't mean I'm not wise for slowing down and avoiding the accident entirely.

Segev
2016-05-29, 11:30 AM
Megadungon and Hexcrawl are also not going to keep me in the campaign for more than two or three sessions. I might tag along to hang out with a game, but not as a regular thing.

Out of curiosity, what repels you about these? (I can think of a number of possibilities; I'm curious about your specific reasons.) As well, what DO you look for in a game? What style is your preferred one?

Yora
2016-05-29, 11:36 AM
Simple reason: They are boring. I want adventures that have some kind of progression towards a goal. Megadungeons and Hexcrawls are treasure hunting for the purpose to become better at treasure hunting. That doesn't interest me in the least.
It's fun playing Diablo or Darkest .Dungeon on computer, but in pen and paper it's dull and a waste of play time that could be spend on something that you can only do with pen and paper games. Like playing a character with narrative agency.

Saintsqc
2016-05-29, 11:52 AM
It's worth noting, once again, that nobody has said that the teenaged boys' behavior is acceptable nor that they are blameless.

I will once again liken this to going into an area of town known for pickpockets. Yes, the pickpockets are in the wrong, but there are steps you can take to protect yourself and your valuables, such as changing where you carry them, not bringing them with you, not going there, or taking proactive measures to ensure they're more difficult to take.

Should you HAVE to? No. You shouldn't. But that doesn't change the reality that doing so will lessen the risks of encountering the problem.

If somebody shoots out in front of me, ignoring a stop sign at an intersection, I am not in the wrong for keeping going at the speed limit. He broke the law. I didn't. He's fully responsible for the accident. But that doesn't mean I'm not wise for slowing down and avoiding the accident entirely.

Exactly this, couldnt have said it better.

Segev
2016-05-29, 11:52 AM
Simple reason: They are boring. I want adventures that have some kind of progression towards a goal. Megadungeons and Hexcrawls are treasure hunting for the purpose to become better at treasure hunting. That doesn't interest me in the least.
It's fun playing Diablo or Darkest .Dungeon on computer, but in pen and paper it's dull and a waste of play time that could be spend on something that you can only do with pen and paper games. Like playing a character with narrative agency.

You're generally right. Most wind up that way. They needn't, though; a hex crawl and megadungeon are basically site-based adventure design, and those CAN have advancing plot and reveal greater purpose.

An excellent example of this done VERY well is Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters. I heartily recommend you look it up.

cobaltstarfire
2016-05-29, 12:26 PM
My last RL DM managed to make Isle of Dred very interesting with plotty bits, but he's been largely DMing for longer than many of us have probably been alive..

It was a hex crawl at its heart, and somewhat sandboxy, but there was still definitely a narrative going on, with an end goal.

He managed the same with The Lost City, which was at its heart a mega-dungeon, but he put purpose into it. That one we semi-unified the people still living there and created an army to fight Zargon...though later on while we were on Isle of Dred we started getting hints that Zargon might not really be gone, and may have been the reason why our druid was slowly going the evil/mad scientist route....It was definitely a game where both the players and gm got to shape the narrative.


I assume that this may be out of the ordinary? With most large dungeons/hex crawls are just resource management puzzles/combat with little else?

Are hex crawls generally a good thing to look out for as not terribly interesting, or is it more just a preference kind of thing, like preferring a little more structure rather than a sandboxy feel?

Florian
2016-05-29, 12:34 PM
I assume that this may be out of the ordinary? With most large dungeons/hex crawls are just resource management puzzles/combat with little else?

Are hex crawls generally a good thing to look out for as not terribly interesting, or is it more just a preference kind of thing, like preferring a little more structure rather than a sandboxy feel?

A "bad" sandbox gives you a map, hands you some pointers and leaves you alone after that point.

A "good" sandbox has some overall themes, names some of the larger conflicts or attainable goals and then lets you run free.

Malimar
2016-05-29, 12:45 PM
I assume that this may be out of the ordinary? With most large dungeons/hex crawls are just resource management puzzles/combat with little else?

Are hex crawls generally a good thing to look out for as not terribly interesting, or is it more just a preference kind of thing, like preferring a little more structure rather than a sandboxy feel?

I think many megadungeon and hexcrawl experts would say that a megadungeon or hexcrawl without any plot isn't a very well-designed one. The plot may be behind the scenes and difficult to discover, so you may need to dig a lot, but the ultimate point of a megadungeon or a hexcrawl is digging until you hit plot. True, you've gotta enjoy the digging, because that is most of the game, but it's not like there isn't any plot there to be dug up.

At least, that's how I run my megadungeon. (It can take awhile: in over five years of several parties digging at it simultaneously, one party has found one major plot and may be about to find a second.)

AMFV
2016-05-29, 01:53 PM
It's worth noting, once again, that nobody has said that the teenaged boys' behavior is acceptable nor that they are blameless. I personally think those who've suggested that they should not be reprimanded miss that without reprimand, they may not realize they're behaving in an unacceptable fashion, so I think they should be called out. (The ability of the human mind to engage in congnitive dissonance such that it's socially acceptable 'if I don't get caught' can make sense to them.)


To clarify my position. I was suggesting that SteamPunkette should not be reproving them if she is not in a position of authority. Not that they should escape reprimand altogether. Children have a very strong sense of Justice, and having somebody who really has no bearing yelling at them, is more likely to make them bitter than anything else. She should have somebody who's responsibility it is to deal with them talk to them about that.

BWR
2016-05-29, 02:35 PM
To clarify my position. I was suggesting that SteamPunkette should not be reproving them if she is not in a position of authority. Not that they should escape reprimand altogether. Children have a very strong sense of Justice, and having somebody who really has no bearing yelling at them, is more likely to make them bitter than anything else. She should have somebody who's responsibility it is to deal with them talk to them about that.

And being the person the kids are unpleasant towards isn't authority enough?

AMFV
2016-05-29, 02:38 PM
And being the person the kids are unpleasant towards isn't authority enough?

Nope, sad to say, but nope. Being affronted doesn't give you any authority. People are often affronted without cause, and as a teenager I tended to dismiss people who were offended by things I did, unless that was backed up by somebody I actually believed to be worth respect. That's pretty consistent to now frankly. Yes, SteamPunkette has likely a valid complaint, but the teenagers won't assume so, and they're probably right to be skeptical when somebody angrily accosts them who has no legitimate authority over them. Of course, if she does have such authority, then matters are very different.

Honest Tiefling
2016-05-29, 03:05 PM
Nope, sad to say, but nope. Being affronted doesn't give you any authority.

Awesome! There's nothing preventing me from sexually harassing people now! Or insulting their clothing and life style choices. Finally, an excuse to leave the house!

Seriously, what sort of place do you live in where people can't say 'hey you, stop staring at my tits'?

The Glyphstone
2016-05-29, 03:21 PM
Great Modthulhu: Alright, this has been thoroughly derailed. Start a new topic if you want to discuss corrective behavior for bad players.

Vitruviansquid
2016-05-29, 03:37 PM
I go NOPE to a game when there's even one player who is an ass.

RPGs are basically social gathering. I don't want to have social gatherings with people I don't like.

Jormengand
2016-05-29, 03:41 PM
A paladin who (mid battle) is revealed to be almost four times our level.

(I was not aware of the railroading at the time)

To be fair, it was more meant as a reminder that people who are higher-level than you exist and that not all encounters are winnable - in fact, he was a paladin precisely so you wouldn't get killed by him, because he had no reason to kill you - than railroading. I mean, you're being "Railroaded" so hard that, get this, one of the characters is doing the exact opposite of what I intended and that's okay!

Yora
2016-05-29, 03:54 PM
Are hex crawls generally a good thing to look out for as not terribly interesting, or is it more just a preference kind of thing, like preferring a little more structure rather than a sandboxy feel?

I really love sandboxes. Just not hexcrawls. Combing the landscape and hoping to find a place to loot doesn't do anything for me. I much more prefer spending my time learning about places from NPCs or documents and then getting there quick and painlessly. And not to poke around to see if there's something valuable, but for the purpose of progressing a larger goal.

Segev
2016-05-29, 04:02 PM
I really love sandboxes. Just not hexcrawls. Combing the landscape and hoping to find a place to loot doesn't do anything for me. I much more prefer spending my time learning about places from NPCs or documents and then getting there quick and painlessly. And not to poke around to see if there's something valuable, but for the purpose of progressing a larger goal.

I believe the INTENT behind a hex crawl is not that you randomly wander the map, but that the DM has sites X, Y, and Z made known as areas of possible interest to the party. He probably has a lot more prepped, plus random encounters ready to be pulled together to form cohesive plot threads (whether they're deliberate seeds and hooks into his ongoing plot, or they're things that might give him ideas as they help fill in some areas of the map for him). The party starts at Point A, and moves to their choice of X, Y, or Z, and part of the adventure is just getting there. The random encounters and the stuff on the map in the intervening hexes forms a means for the party to discover things while travelling, to which they can return later.

So, done how I think they should be done, you do get a lot of the "spend time learning about places from NPCs or documents," because they tell you where and in what hex Interesting Point Gamma is.

Now, you prefer to get there "quickly and painlessly," so that's out of the spirit of the hex crawl; the idea in the hex crawl is that getting there is part of the adventure (and may even partially explain why you are one of the rare few to have gone there). And hooks you trip over on the way there will be more documents or NPCs or other clues to more Interesting Points to explore later.

Yora
2016-05-29, 04:11 PM
In the end Hexcrawls and Megadungeons are both about treasure hunting and that's just not a working motivation for me. I don't want to play treasure hunters and find it unfulfilling as a GM.
And that is indeed pure preference.

No-Kill Cleric
2016-05-29, 05:45 PM
"Okay, your character background looks really cool! I like how you had a ton of interesting story and characters noted in here that could be used to help grow the game world. Alright, this is great! I'll see you next week at gamenight!" ... "Okay guys, you're all prisoners on a ship going to a remote prison desert island."

My DM kind of does that to one of the people in our group, but they have a set of five characters with fully fleshed out backstories, plot hooks, NPCs, and locations. The DM tries to tie them in, but they really don't appreciate having to recreate the universe to accommodate a character, especially one they've worked with before. Its worse when one dies, and then a new continent and ten new secret societies appear out of the ether to force the character into the setting.

No, nothing about this character change. No, they "can't" make a new one. Yes, the evil secret society of evil is required or they will ask about it incessantly.

Telok
2016-05-29, 09:03 PM
In the end Hexcrawls and Megadungeons are both about treasure hunting and that's just not a working motivation for me. I don't want to play treasure hunters and find it unfulfilling as a GM.
And that is indeed pure preference.

I did a hexcrawl/megadungeon/sandbox several years ago, the dungeons were the only places to get treasure and counted as milestones for leveling up. Themed around exploration, freedom/tyranny conflict, and revenge. Quests to do, npcs with personalities and backstory, actions with consequences.

They couldn't remember the names of towns when I gave them updated hardcopy and email maps twice a month. The only name they remembered was an npc who pissed them off. In fact they treated npcs as 'quest dudes', computer game merchants, or 'useless scenery'. Including the king that they publicly insulted. So much for those quests. They were going to hear of npcs getting famous for doing those quests but they took on a mission for a powerful enchantress. It was a suicide mission but they never asked how they were going to escape after assassinating an emperor.

Steampunkette
2016-05-29, 09:07 PM
I like Hex crawls under the guise of exploration. A group of mercenaries, archaeologists, historians, and researchers landed on an uncharted continent and founding a town from which to expedition and learn about the locale and locals!

That kind of Hex crawl can be a ton of fun!

Themrys
2016-05-31, 06:32 PM
I'm surprised it took three pages for sexual harassment to come up. That's usually, like, the #1 nope-inducer for most people. (I mean, not for me -- the one game I played where a character got raped by an NPC, I was uncomfortable for the player but didn't actually care enough to say anything and didn't leave the game.)


I didn't mention it partly because to my great shame I must admit I remained in the only group where this happened, and said nothing. (Should have said something - other female player also was uncomfortable. Group broke up, though only the man who had behaved inappropriately towards her character was blamed. Man who made his char be inappropriate towards my char was never called out on it. I wanted to be a good sport. Was young and stupid at the time.)

Rape of NPCs is not usually a nope for me, but I had specifically requested that it not happen in game, ever, because it is mostly not handled well. GM included it. Did, of course, NOT handle it well. (Had male NPC on whom my char had a crush be raped by another woman via love potion. Then claimed that it wasn't rape because the guy wanted sex at the moment, due to love potion induced love. Didn't make sense.)

I was stupid enough to let that one thing go, and then ... was punished for that by GM increasing the amount and severity of rape.Only ever NPCs, but I had said clearly I wanted no rape, ever.
I only realized that he was trying to force his rape-culture and misogynist beliefs on me when he made our characters turn into members of a race that consists ^only^ of male rapists and female rape victims. Like, exclusively.

That guy was the worst GM I ever played with, and yes, that includes the GM of that other group that broke apart - not noticing how uncomfortable female players are while male players are hiding inappropriate behaviour behind their characters is one thing. Trying to force someone to tolerate rape, quite another.


Direct sexual harrassment of my actual person is not a thing that makes me go NOPE in a game. It is a thing that makes me go NOPE in real life. I didn't mention it because I also didn't mention murder. Or setting my books on fire. Or a player pulling his pants down to **** on the floor. Like, it is so far out of the realm of acceptability, one shouldn't even have to mention it.

Mr Beer
2016-05-31, 07:18 PM
I go NOPE to a game when there's even one player who is an ass.

RPGs are basically social gathering. I don't want to have social gatherings with people I don't like.

This.

I'm too old to waste my spare time associating with people I dislike.

goto124
2016-06-01, 03:13 AM
Themrys: That's less NOPE and more NOPE NOPE NOPE.

It's sad that such stories happen even once, let alone on a regular enough basis to hear about them every so often.

Max_Killjoy
2016-06-01, 08:17 AM
This thread is making me feel guilty about the few times I thought it was character and story appropriate for a male NPC to make what I thought was a very non-creepy romantic advance on the character of a female player. :smalleek:

Florian
2016-06-01, 08:43 AM
Don´t be. Talk with your players before even committing to the game what themes might and possibly will crop up. Be aware that even when they green-light them, they will still react to it when it actually comes up later in actual play. Foreshadow some of it and watch out for their reaction. Drop it at once when the foreshadowing provokes negative results.

As a GM, one is responsible for the game, not for the psyches of the players. In this day and age, everyone has some baggage and has at least a bit responsibility for what they themselves bring to the table. If they can´t control it, then possibly, they should´t be there.

Ok, that sounded harsh, but if someone tells me before a campaign starts to exclude certain matters or watch out for certain triggers, that´s ok, I´m warned and will honor that request.

Evelyn Elliott
2016-06-01, 09:08 AM
This thread is making me feel guilty about the few times I thought it was character and story appropriate for a male NPC to make what I thought was a very non-creepy romantic advance on the character of a female player. :smalleek:

Ask ahead of time. "Hey, do you mind if my characters hits on your character?"

Some people don't like involving romance and feel uncomfortable when they're hit on. Let them say no.

Regitnui
2016-06-01, 09:14 AM
This thread is making me feel guilty about the few times I thought it was character and story appropriate for a male NPC to make what I thought was a very non-creepy romantic advance on the character of a female player. :smalleek:

I actually had a positive RP experience that involved a romance blossoming between my bitter cynic superhero and a female friend's young, but immortal fire-based superhero. This wasn't a D&D game, but the fact still applies that in-character flirting and relationships aren't a bad thing if it happens with consent from both players and enriches the story. Like most other interparty dynamics, it won't work if its forced. But if you're playing a womanizer, feel free to play that character. The problem arises when its played over the top and unfairly; a womanizing bard flirts with every woman, even if they're an NPC played by your fat, neckbearded DM.

Themrys
2016-06-01, 09:37 AM
Ask ahead of time. "Hey, do you mind if my characters hits on your character?"

Some people don't like involving romance and feel uncomfortable when they're hit on. Let them say no.

Just ask.

The problem I have with it is that in 90% of cases, it is an attempt to hit on the other player. In fact, I have played along with an ingame romance, because it fit in the game, only to learn later that the player has a crush on me. That's awkward. :smalleek:

So the problem is not your attempt at initiating in-game romance, the problem would be to then try to make it out-game romance. However, people who have had it happen to them may be uncomfortable with ingame romance to begin with.

And then there's the kind of player who wants to roll on his skill in "seduction" or whatever the game has, and then wants to have the other player be forced to roleplay a sex scene. That kind of player is irredeemable and needs to be kicked out of the group immediately. (I have only read about this, fortunately, but if someone opens a thread asking what kind of character has the strongest willpower/ skills to resist seduction attempts, as she already know that guy in her group is going to try ... :smalleek:)


But if you're playing a womanizer, feel free to play that character. The problem arises when its played over the top and unfairly; a womanizing bard flirts with every woman, even if they're an NPC played by your fat, neckbearded DM.

Yes - though I think someone who doesn't plan to try and sneakily flirt with a female player would intend for his womanizing bard to flirt with all and any NPCs, anyway. What you write is less advice on how to play a womanizer and more advice on how to recognize inappropriate behaviour.

Also ... goes without saying: You really, really, really shouldn't try to play a womanizer a la Belkar. If the OotS had players, and V was played by a woman, I am rather sure she'd leave the group after having her character be assaulted by Belkar without her consent ... though the attacks with explosive runes might be a possible reaction by a insecure teenage girl who doesn't dare address the problem with the player directly.

Telonius
2016-06-01, 10:52 AM
I've played exactly one womanizing character in my years of gaming - and played it up for laughs because the character constantly (and deliberately on my part) failed so horribly at it. I was playing a middle-aged Shifter conman who was the comic relief. The rest of the table was totally on board with it. The DM even started throwing encounters at us based on exactly how I failed.

Though it did get kind of awkward the one time he actually succeeded. (DM turns about as red as I've ever seen him; "Okay, I'm really not cool with playing out the rest of that." "Dammit Jimmy, the last three times it was a plot hook!")

Segev
2016-06-01, 11:11 AM
Just ask.

The problem I have with it is that in 90% of cases, it is an attempt to hit on the other player. In fact, I have played along with an ingame romance, because it fit in the game, only to learn later that the player has a crush on me. That's awkward. :smalleek:

So the problem is not your attempt at initiating in-game romance, the problem would be to then try to make it out-game romance. However, people who have had it happen to them may be uncomfortable with ingame romance to begin with.

This has always puzzled me. If I want to hit on another player OOC, I'm probably going to hit on her OOC. Because I'm about as smooth as Steve Urkel, I'm more likely to simply ask: "Would you like to go on a date, perhaps see the new Superhero Movie next weekend?"

My character is not me, and her character is not her. Hitting on characters is not even remotely likely to be indicative of the player's interest.

cobaltstarfire
2016-06-01, 02:00 PM
Yes, but you've proven to be a fairly stable/mature person who actually thinks things through and tries to be logical. :smalltongue:


I don't think I've ever encountered anyone hitting on a character IC because they're interested in OOC players...but I'd believe it to be a thing, similar to how some people use their characters as an excuse to be massive [insert colorful insult here]'s. Though even OOC the person I am thinking about was barely able to hide their terribleness.

HidesHisEyes
2016-06-01, 04:40 PM
In the end Hexcrawls and Megadungeons are both about treasure hunting and that's just not a working motivation for me. I don't want to play treasure hunters and find it unfulfilling as a GM.
And that is indeed pure preference.

http://theangrygm.com/category/megadungeon/

Angry DM is building a megadungeon at the moment and writing a blog about it as he goes. His plan is that the players will uncover and resolve the story of the dungeon as they go through it. They are explorer rather than treasure-hunters. It is painstakingly structured and not just a big dungeon with monsters and treasure scattered around. I'm sure one could take a similar approach to sandboxes, hexxy or otherwise.

2D8HP
2016-06-01, 10:46 PM
Wow.
:smallfrown:
So much that I've read in this thread seems to cross the line into what if it were at work would be considered "harassment". At first I was shocked and grateful that I hadn't seen that kind of behavior, but then my dim memory started working. Between about 20 to 30 years ago, while in a D&D game the live in partner of the DM came up from behind me and placed a "bedroom toy" on my shoulder. Since I was (and probably still am) "uptight", that was a "NOPE" for me!

Draconi Redfir
2016-06-01, 11:31 PM
When the players are presented with a problem that is set up to be a very challenging obsticle to overcome, but with teamwork co-ordination, and hard work, they will be able to get over it and make it a satisfying conclusion.


and then One player has their One character use One spell/ability/item to completely negate the entire obsticle and make the whole problem solved, but utterly pointless.

i've personally bailed on RP's D&D and non-D&D alike where that has happened. One person solving entire problems on their own does not an interesting story make.

goto124
2016-06-02, 02:51 AM
while in a D&D game the live in partner of the DM came up from behind me and placed a "bedroom toy" on my shoulder. Since I was (and probably still am) "uptight", that was a "NOPE" for me!

I'm not an uptight person, but I still would not be alright with some stranger sneaking that kind of stuff onto my body without my knowledge.

RazorChain
2016-06-02, 05:13 AM
Im not shaming you, im just pointing out the inconsistency of your reasonning. Stop getting all emotionnal.

If you did not bother with teeanage boys looking down your shirt we wouldnt have this discussion. The problem is, you get mad when it happen and your solution is to...

...wait for it to happen...then say that you dislike that. Dont you see the weakness of your reasonning here?

In my book, if someone dislike an outcome, this person should take preventive measures to avoid this disliked outcome. You have no preventive measures. You just wait for the disliked outcome to happen and then, you try something to prevent an eventual repetition. But, if you used a preventive measure in the first place, the disliked outcome would have never happen and you would not have to get mad !

And in my book, being confrontationnal is the worst solution.

Anyway, i dont care how you dress. Keep getting mad over teenage boys all you want for all I care. If you cant see the flaw in your logic here, its your problem after all.

I hope you will never control the nukes

or anything else

RazorChain
2016-06-02, 05:40 AM
As a GM I will never let a player live out his sexual fantasies through me!

I made that mistake once as a 15 year old GMing with a one middle aged guy in the group.
When I got home I took a shower to wash away the taint while listening to the crying game

Themrys
2016-06-02, 07:49 AM
Wow.
:smallfrown:
So much that I've read in this thread seems to cross the line into what if it were at work would be considered "harassment". At first I was shocked and grateful that I hadn't seen that kind of behavior, but then my dim memory started working. Between about 20 to 30 years ago, while in a D&D game the live in partner of the DM came up from behind me and placed a "bedroom toy" on my shoulder. Since I was (and probably still am) "uptight", that was a "NOPE" for me!

Ohmygod. 20 to 30 years ago - were you even an adult then? Not that it'd be okay to do that to an adult, but the mental image that someone would do it to a teenager ... :smalleek:

Placing anything on anyone's shoulder without asking is bad manners, but, uh, "bedroom toy"? What the hell were they thinking?



Apparently this thread here was started by the same person who asks how to be the most horrid DM ever in another forum ... I am a tad bit worried we might be giving someone bad ideas.

Faily
2016-06-02, 08:29 AM
Ohmygod. 20 to 30 years ago - were you even an adult then? Not that it'd be okay to do that to an adult, but the mental image that someone would do it to a teenager ... :smalleek:

Placing anything on anyone's shoulder without asking is bad manners, but, uh, "bedroom toy"? What the hell were they thinking?



Apparently this thread here was started by the same person who asks how to be the most horrid DM ever in another forum ... I am a tad bit worried we might be giving someone bad ideas.

I guess everyone is different.

The same situation applied to my gaming group, or to myself, I would probably have laughed at it all. After saying something along the lines of "I sure hope it's clean". (And yes, some of us have actually encountered "bedroom toys" in rather odd situations like the one above :smallwink: )

Then again, most of our players have a dirty sense of humour. The long running phallus-jokes in our Dwarf-campaign, the endless sexual innuendo in Ars Magica, our not so PG-13 Harem Comedy game...

I swear, we're adults! :smallbiggrin:

Segev
2016-06-02, 11:21 AM
When the players are presented with a problem that is set up to be a very challenging obsticle to overcome, but with teamwork co-ordination, and hard work, they will be able to get over it and make it a satisfying conclusion.


and then One player has their One character use One spell/ability/item to completely negate the entire obsticle and make the whole problem solved, but utterly pointless.

i've personally bailed on RP's D&D and non-D&D alike where that has happened. One person solving entire problems on their own does not an interesting story make.

I see why this would be frustrating, but that typically is more a problem with a combination of adventure design and what the GM allowed players to build. If there is an ability that just outright one-shot solves something, that something is not really an obstacle to those who have it.

For example, if your very challenging obstacle that requires teamwork and coordination is a chasm you have to get across, but your party wizard solves it by casting fly on the horse and letting everybody ride it across, then that was a poorly-designed obstacle.

So while I get the frustration, it's not "The One Player with the One Character" that's the problem so much as it is a distinct difference in expectations between the GM and the game. Chasms are not serious obstacles to most 5th level or higher parties in D&D.

2D8HP
2016-06-02, 02:03 PM
Ohmygod. 20 to 30 years ago - were you even an adult then? Not that it'd be okay to do that to an adult, but the mental image that someone would do it to a teenager ... :smalleek:

Placing anything on anyone's shoulder without asking is bad manners, but, uh, "bedroom toy"? What the hell were they thinking?.
IIRC the motorscooter I rode to the game and when I owned it, I was probably 18 or 19 years old (but I may been in my early 20's already), so it was likely that I was both a teenager and an "adult". I'm mostly sure that the owner of the "toy" thought she was being funny, but I didn't like it. I hadn't thought about it for years until I was was reminded by reading some other posts on this thread.
Elsewhere in this Forum I posted that I stopped RPG'ing in the 1990's because I couldn't find any tables to play D&D anymore but I could only find tables that played RPG's (Cyberpunk, Vampire etc.) that lacked the "Magic" for me, but I now remember that I actually left a table I could have still played the game at because of an unpleasant (to me, probably the surprise as much as anything else) incident, which wasn't the only disagreeable experience at that house. Earlier I was asked if I wanted "to meet our new ferret", since a girl I previously knew had a couple as pets (they just seemed mostly like cats), so I said yes. Almost immediately the beast bit hard on my boot (fortunately thick leather) and I had to kick it off! In retrospect that probably should have been a "NOPE"!

Draconi Redfir
2016-06-02, 02:05 PM
I see why this would be frustrating, but that typically is more a problem with a combination of adventure design and what the GM allowed players to build. If there is an ability that just outright one-shot solves something, that something is not really an obstacle to those who have it.

For example, if your very challenging obstacle that requires teamwork and coordination is a chasm you have to get across, but your party wizard solves it by casting fly on the horse and letting everybody ride it across, then that was a poorly-designed obstacle.

So while I get the frustration, it's not "The One Player with the One Character" that's the problem so much as it is a distinct difference in expectations between the GM and the game. Chasms are not serious obstacles to most 5th level or higher parties in D&D.

To be fair, in most cases where that has happened to me personally ith as not been a D&D game, just a pseudo free-form RP game. Where in order to get a group of people together, one character somehow manages to clone himself because "strong psychics" and then basically forces the other chartacterts together all at once with "strong psychics".

or in annother setting where the plot was "your space ship just crashed on an alien planet and everyone is hurt and you should probably leave the torn up and damaged ship" in which this (same player) picked up the entire surviving crew with "strong psychics" and literally carried them out of the large colony ship in a single post.

So yeah, a mix of OP characters, bad roleplay, maniuplating other peoples' characters without their consent, completely nullifying challenging obsticles, and completely disreguarding the possibility that it would have been a better story if everyone had worked together.

I was mainly making the "one character using one spell to solve a complext problem" thing as a very borad example to cover more bases.

The Glyphstone
2016-06-02, 02:36 PM
God-modding is an entirely different issue, and what most people would refer to that situation as.

JAL_1138
2016-06-02, 02:55 PM
Sad to hear of (more) times that people have dealt with blatant sexism, rape-culture, and outright sexual harassment in this hobby.

Makes me wonder if I sometimes take the basically-decent gaming community around my area for granted, or if stuff like that does go on and I just don't see it. Sadly, it's statistically more probable than not that it's the latter.

Segev
2016-06-02, 03:07 PM
To be fair, in most cases where that has happened to me personally ith as not been a D&D game, just a pseudo free-form RP game. Where in order to get a group of people together, one character somehow manages to clone himself because "strong psychics" and then basically forces the other chartacterts together all at once with "strong psychics".

or in annother setting where the plot was "your space ship just crashed on an alien planet and everyone is hurt and you should probably leave the torn up and damaged ship" in which this (same player) picked up the entire surviving crew with "strong psychics" and literally carried them out of the large colony ship in a single post.

So yeah, a mix of OP characters, bad roleplay, maniuplating other peoples' characters without their consent, completely nullifying challenging obsticles, and completely disreguarding the possibility that it would have been a better story if everyone had worked together.

I was mainly making the "one character using one spell to solve a complext problem" thing as a very borad example to cover more bases.Ah. Okay, yeah, that's something else entirely. In free-form, this is the OP Marty Stu coming in and solving problems with his go-to omnipotence. It's bad writing injecting itself into RP/cooperative writing.

I've also heard of cases where the Marty Stu just develops new powers that are tailor maid for the situation, which is equally lame.

I tend to assume that a free-form RP is going to be a lot more dependent on trust between the players, and be much less "game" than those which use mechanically-rooted systems.

But at least your situation makes sense as to why you'd blame the player, now!


Sad to hear of (more) times that people have dealt with blatant sexism, rape-culture, and outright sexual harassment in this hobby.

Makes me wonder if I sometimes take the basically-decent gaming community around my area for granted, or if stuff like that does go on and I just don't see it. Sadly, it's statistically more probable than not that it's the latter.
I think it more likely that we just tend to hear about the problems more than the non-problems, because people rarely need to vent about decent gaming groups full of friendly folks who just sort of get along. It takes much, much more above-and-beyond than merely "not being jerks" to become a forum-worthy story to share.

"In today's top story, Bob got up this morning on time, skipped breakfast because he spent too long in the shower, drove to work with only minor irritation over a few stop lights, had a mildly productive day at work despite taking a long lunch, then helped his kids with their homework before sending them to bed and enjoying an hour of his wife's favorite TV series with her on the couch before going to bed," is not likely to even make a local news station's broadcast.

Draconi Redfir
2016-06-02, 03:26 PM
Yeah, just because you hear about the bad things more doesn't mean that they happen more then the good things. Don't beleive everything you see on tumblr:smalltongue:

cobaltstarfire
2016-06-02, 03:35 PM
On Tumblr about the only D&D related stuff I see are positive stories actually, about awesome/clever things a party has done, funny moments, or a DM being interesting.

I wonder what a thread about sharing those kinds of positive stories would be like here, since most of the time threads that come up here are trouble shooting, or questioning various entrenched bits of role playing games.


I have no idea how I'd react to someone touching me with a "bedroom toy". Seems like not the kind of "joke" to pull on someone unless you know each other very well though.

JAL_1138
2016-06-02, 05:04 PM
I know, negative experiences will get shared more (particularly in a "NOPE" thread), and that it's comparatively much more rare. But even so, it's still sad that it happens at all.

Tetsubo 57
2016-06-02, 07:02 PM
{Scrubbed}

Max_Killjoy
2016-06-02, 07:05 PM
{Scrubbed}

Liquor Box
2016-06-02, 07:15 PM
I guess everyone is different.

The same situation applied to my gaming group, or to myself, I would probably have laughed at it all. After saying something along the lines of "I sure hope it's clean". (And yes, some of us have actually encountered "bedroom toys" in rather odd situations like the one above :smallwink: )

Then again, most of our players have a dirty sense of humour. The long running phallus-jokes in our Dwarf-campaign, the endless sexual innuendo in Ars Magica, our not so PG-13 Harem Comedy game...

I swear, we're adults! :smallbiggrin:

This.

Every group is different. What is offensive to some is funny to others and neither is right or wrong. Best to play with others who share a similar view of what's acceptable (or are at least willing to conform to the group's view).

Draconi Redfir
2016-06-02, 09:25 PM
{Scrubbed}

illyahr
2016-06-02, 10:04 PM
Ok, I know what a megadungeon is, but what is a hexcrawl? I don't think I've ever heard the expression before.

And my 2cp for the thread: joint back stories. Seriously, I haven't seen these turn out well. Even the well-intentioned players will end up spotlighting since anything that happens to one of the characters, by default, will affect the other character as well. One gets a power boost and the other feels like they are being held back. One gets into a situation that affects the story and the other loses out on their character development since it no longer applies. One of them dies and so the other becomes a cardboard character since they relied on their partner.

Worst of all, one dies and the other "because it's what my character would do" sabotages the group with his angst.

Arbane
2016-06-02, 10:23 PM
Ok, I know what a megadungeon is, but what is a hexcrawl? I don't think I've ever heard the expression before.


A hexcrawl is (I believe) an overland exploration adventure. (Since it's akin to a dungeoncrawl, and world maps often use hexagonal grids instead of squares.)

Fable Wright
2016-06-02, 10:44 PM
Marty Stu just develops tailor maid powers for the situation, which is equally lame.

Misquoting you a bit here, but if Marty Stu is suddenly developing the power to accessorize suits but only while wearing a maid costume, that's more of a draw to the game than a 'Nope'. That sounds like a fun system, at the very least.


A hexcrawl is (I believe) an overland exploration adventure. (Since it's akin to a dungeoncrawl, and world maps often use hexagonal grids instead of squares.)

Overland adventure, yes, but it carries connotations where each hex will have things like 'plains', 'forest', 'mountain', 'town', and 'dungeon', each with their own minor plot hooks and bits of loot. Most people associate it with episodic adventures with the goal being to explore and amass personal power or wealth in a quirky, small corner of the world.

Sith_Happens
2016-06-03, 12:27 AM
GM: "Everyone roll this". Only one player: "I'll take average."

Not only am I the "one player" above, one of my biggest pet peeves in D&D is people rolling things when they could take 10 and succeed. It's like, for Pelor's sake man you're giving yourself a 45% chance to fail for no reason.:smallfurious:


GM asks why we're not trying to escape harder.

"Well there's one thing I haven't tried yet."

*packs up things and leaves without saying another word*

Takewo
2016-06-03, 01:51 AM
You are asking the victim of harassment to figure out how to mitigate their own harassment. *That* is blaming the victim. *She* shouldn't be required to do anything at all. That she has called them on it is enough. Stop expecting victims to 'fix' the behavior of harassers. There seems to be a flaw in your 'logic'.


Somewhere between "multiple burkas" and "running around naked", there's a rational AND cultural line where one might expect the bits of one's self that one does not one to draw attention, to be safe from attention from anyone but jerks and pervs.

Where to draw that line might not be entirely an individual, personal choice.

(Please note that I AM NOT making any specific comments about any specific situation in this thread, just adding this to the conversation.)


Forgive me, but there is quite the difference between "blaming the victim" and "suggesting tips on how to better defend oneself." The post you are referring to is a clear version of the latter.

. . .

Saintsqc was not saying it was Steampunkette's fault that guys were harassing her. They were suggesting preventive measures to help prevent guys from harassing her in the future. there is a difference.

Just in case you guys missed it:

Great Modthulhu: Alright, this has been thoroughly derailed. Start a new topic if you want to discuss corrective behavior for bad players.

Kami2awa
2016-06-03, 02:10 AM
Slightly different one to most posted here, but:

I won't play games set in schools any more, particularly if the PCs are school students. School was not a happy time for me and I've no desire to re-live any of those memories, especially not when I should be enjoying myself.

Draconi Redfir
2016-06-03, 02:16 AM
Sorry, didn't mean to take it that far.

So to help aliveate this;

I'm guilty of this one myself, i was young and stupid, please forgive me, but I’ve also been the victim of it myself much more recently.

players not reading the posts of other players in a play by post RP.

When i was young and stupid i did this, i saw long posts and big words and couldn't get my head around it so i asked for a summery of what the players wrote. this ticked off a lot of them, and before long, partly due to my own decisions, i left the roleplay. i was a bad player for it, mary sue, the whole shebang, but that's another story.

but now that I’m older and wiser, i understand what those other players were upset about. it's a huge shot in the chest when you pour your heart and soul into writing a post detailing your character's actions and motivations, only to have it completely glossed over or ignored by other players, or even the GM at times!

I've had situations where other players completely skipped over months worth of posts from me, thus completely being caught off guard when forshadowed twists and plot points came up that i'd been planning for and that they would know about if they just read the posts for months. And then there are other situations where due to the GM not reading my posts, my character abruptly teleports around like a maniac. i write that my character climbs UP a Tree into it's BRANCHES, and the GM posts that they are BENEATH the Tree in it's ROOTS. i write that my character jumps OFF her mount to hug a fellow party member, and the GM in the next post states that she is still ON her mount. I write my character speaking something in Giant, another character who doesn't know giant somehow understands them. etc.

Like i'm not writing these things for myself here, I’m reading everything you guys are writing, i'm kind of expecting you to do the same.:smallannoyed:

Ultimately it's not something that will get me to nope out of the entire campaign, but it is incredibly annoying to see all your hard work be completely ignored.


oh! Here's annother one! Using Gold to solve all of life's problems.

So our characters are trapped on an alternate plane, one that's used as a prison dimension with one way in and no way out. Gold is all but meaningless here, everyone needs to trade and work with whatever is on them when they come in. Think Stormworld if you've ever seen it on TV. So we're meeting with this old woman who has a special crystal that will allow us to approach an evil demon fella without him controlling our minds if we touch it. but she demands payment, something that equates to about one or two thousand gold. So i start looking through my inventory, pecking around all my possessions, thinking to myself "Hmm, this sword has served me well, but it's my backup sword and could be enough to satisfy her. i also have this handy haversack that i can replace with this magic chest i just got. Perhaps that will do as well." And I’m assuming everyone else is doing the same, that everyone else is going to sacrifice something near and dear to them in order to get what they need to survive.

Next words i hear while contemplating? "Okay, so we teleport over to the demon's prison..." Waitwaitwaitwaitwait, WHAT!? we haven't given her anything yet to touch the crystal! I bring this up with the others and APPARENTLY they just gave her two thousand gold pieces for each of us??? on a plane that has no use for gold????

Needless to say i was incredibly salty for the rest of the session. We were given the chance to have an interesting and emotional encounter in which we had to sacrifice something meaningful to us in order to do what we had to do. but NOPE! just throw gold at the problem until it goes away! Thanks guys. reeeeaalllly great storytelling you've done there.:smallannoyed:

goto124
2016-06-03, 02:46 AM
Slightly different one to most posted here, but:

I won't play games set in schools any more, particularly if the PCs are school students. School was not a happy time for me and I've no desire to re-live any of those memories, especially not when I should be enjoying myself.

It's the opposite for me. School was a very boring time for me, and I just can't see what's so interesting about it. Even/especially after all those high-school animes.

Tetsubo 57
2016-06-03, 04:16 AM
{Scrubbed}

Florian
2016-06-03, 06:56 AM
That whole sub-discussion reminds me on three additional NOPEs:

- No more serious gaming with people with a toddler.*
- No gaming with people who don´t get a grip on their (maniac) depression.
- No gaming with people that take fictional content personal beyond a certain point.**

* Had that once. friends of mine married and got a baby together. 3 out of 4 hours of game time, they were looking after the toddler. Tried that for some 3 session when I got fed up with it. The funny thing? They got angry and accused me of discriminating their parenthood.

** Had a girl in the group that was heavy into feminism and some related topics. She fine-combed every scene in D&D for it being kosher or offensive to her. Actually made a scene because she thought I was not treating her as equal by not attacking her character often enough. (And that was in 4E, you know, a game that actually has tanking mechanism is place...)

Sir Chuckles
2016-06-03, 07:26 AM
Ohmygod. 20 to 30 years ago - were you even an adult then? Not that it'd be okay to do that to an adult, but the mental image that someone would do it to a teenager ... :smalleek:

Placing anything on anyone's shoulder without asking is bad manners, but, uh, "bedroom toy"? What the hell were they thinking?



Apparently this thread here was started by the same person who asks how to be the most horrid DM ever in another forum ... I am a tad bit worried we might be giving someone bad ideas.

A player in my current group once hit another player in the face with a Bad Dragon product. If you don't know what that is, be glad and do not look it up.

The group, minus the one being hit, wasn't upset because the one being hit was talking, unironically, about wishing to move to a specific part of Japan because of the significantly lower age of consent.

We don't play with that person any more.

Themrys
2016-06-03, 07:39 AM
A player in my current group once hit another player in the face with a Bad Dragon product. If you don't know what that is, be glad and do not look it up.

The group, minus the one being hit, wasn't upset because the one being hit was talking, unironically, about wishing to move to a specific part of Japan because of the significantly lower age of consent.

We don't play with that person any more.

Well, in that case, offending him isn't really a problem, eh? Can't say I oppose hitting someone like that in the face with anything you have there at the moment. Though I do wonder how it comes you have something one shouldn't look up there first thing.

@Florian: Awww, a fledgling feminist. She's not on this forums by chance? She might be just the person for starting a feminist rpg group. :smallsmile:

(What are "related topics" you mean, though?)

Max_Killjoy
2016-06-03, 07:57 AM
{Scrubbed}

goto124
2016-06-03, 08:44 AM
And then there are other situations where due to the GM not reading my posts, my character abruptly teleports around like a maniac. i write that my character climbs UP a Tree into it's BRANCHES, and the GM posts that they are BENEATH the Tree in it's ROOTS. i write that my character jumps OFF her mount to hug a fellow party member, and the GM in the next post states that she is still ON her mount. I write my character speaking something in Giant, another character who doesn't know giant somehow understands them. etc.

That is horrible. I've never had such huge 'misunderstandings' were the GM wasn't even reading.


(What are "related topics" you mean, though?)

I'll say racism, classism, sex-negativity, and misandrism. Not an exhaustive list, but I'll stop here.

Nerd-o-rama
2016-06-03, 08:48 AM
For PbP: If the title of the recruiting thread is misspelled or the opening post is in nocaps (assuming it's a GM posting it). Am I a snob? Maybe. But I take that as a sign of how much effort they're going to put into the game.

goto124
2016-06-03, 08:53 AM
Once I was watching a live stream of a game of 5e, when another watcher (aka only part of the audience, not a player) asked the GM if she could join the game. She said she'll bring in her old-time character, which had lasted from 1e all the way to 4e (already a flag), and went on talking quite a bit about her character in the public chat.

JAL_1138
2016-06-03, 09:38 AM
Some systems are just NOPEs for me. Not in the sense that I react with horror, just in the sense that I don't like them and won't join a game using them. I've tried them, or read them, or don't care for certain aspects, found them wanting, and won't play them. That's not to say the systems themselves are inherently bad, or that people who enjoy them are wrong, just that I'm personally not keen and no amount of persuasion attempts will change that. Not going into the list here to avoid edition-warring.

There are other things besides system that are NOPEs for me, like setting or playstyle, that are not inherently bad, just questions of preference, and like with systems, I'm not saying they're bad, either, just that I'm not keen.

NOPEs for me that are purely due to personal preference:
*Dating-sim games / harem games. No, really, these exist in tabletop form.
*Most Anime-based games.
*High-school games.
*Middle-school games.
*Villain campaigns.
*Greyhawk, post-Greyhawk Wars and with Vecna as an active entity. [1e box set Greyhawk? Yes please; one of my favorite settings. Grimdark, everything-is-miserable 2e and onward version with plot-armored Villain Sue? No thanks--that's what Ravenloft is for :smalltongue:]
*I'll play Forgotten Realms because that's the only option in League until the Ravenloft season kicked off, but will usually turn down an invite to a FR home game.
*Requiring a pre-existing motive to adventure. I generally don't have a character figured out completely until I've played them for a few sessions, and on top of that, if my character's motive is, for example, questing for the Lost Staff of Flibbertigibbet the Fantabulous, and the plot hooks I'm given don't relate to that directly and immediately, why am I following your plot hooks or working with this group of adventurers again? Just trust me to keep my character engaged, please. You worry about the game world, I'll worry about my character's motivation.

Nopes that I actually take issue with:
*Telling me how to play my character. Barring a roll for SAN loss or hostile magical mind-control (and to me, nearly any attempt at mind-control is hostile), my character is mine.
*Obvious, heavy-handed railroading, above and beyond simply having a fairly linear plot.
*DMs who don't tell me things the character would logically know from living in the setting or having functional eyeballs, and then penalize me for acting logically on what limited information I have at my disposal. (Had a few who've done this, but it's the exception, not the norm).
*Related to railroading in a way, one and only one moon-logic solution to any given problem.
*Related to the above, retconning or adding descriptions to the information that has been presented to prevent any logical attempt to act on the initial information presented other than the one the DM wants.
*Fudging rolls--whether against or for the party.
*Players cheating on rolls.
*Tiny or hard-to-read dice (see previous. Less NOPE and more just a complaint.)
*Evil-aligned PCs. Lawful evil maybe, but NE or CE? Nope.
*DMPCs.
*Mumblers and people who talk very quietly all the time. I'm not deaf enough for a hearing aid according to my insurance company, but I have some hearing loss and kinda-bad tinnitus. I don't need people to shout, just project and enunciate...and some don't, even after multiple requests.

The Glyphstone
2016-06-03, 10:11 AM
Great Modthulhu: Locked For Review.

The Glyphstone
2016-06-04, 01:00 PM
Great Modthulhu: Alright, let's give this one more try.

Any discussion of how to mitigate or correct harassing behavior in a game, or who is to blame, or any related digression, is not appropriate for the primary topic of discussion for this thread. The parties insistent on debating this may still open up a separate thread for such, provided all other aspects of the Forum Rules are adhered to, but further activity in this thread will result in a permanent lock.

Themrys
2016-06-04, 02:03 PM
Slightly different one to most posted here, but:

I won't play games set in schools any more, particularly if the PCs are school students. School was not a happy time for me and I've no desire to re-live any of those memories, especially not when I should be enjoying myself.

Funny, for me it's the other way round. I never played a game set in a school, but totally loved the Harry Potter novels exactly because I had no friends in school and was bullied. Something about reading of other children having a happy time feels comforting.

Can relate to not wanting to roleplay mundane things that aren't all that great in real life. There are people who really like recreating real life in role play games. Terribly boring in my opinion - the less like real life it is, the better. (A certain level of realism is nice, like, laws of physics should apply unless a witch or wizards tells them to shut up, but it shouldn't be like MY reality.)

Regitnui
2016-06-04, 02:45 PM
Can relate to not wanting to roleplay mundane things that aren't all that great in real life. There are people who really like recreating real life in role play games. Terribly boring in my opinion - the less like real life it is, the better. (A certain level of realism is nice, like, laws of physics should apply unless a witch or wizards tells them to shut up, but it shouldn't be like MY reality.)

"If you'll excuse me, I'm somewhat preoccupied telling the laws of physics to shut up and sit in the corner." Best summary of wizards, especially 3.5 wizards.

I like the approach 5e has. Roll on a "stuff happened" table. If you want to pursue it, great, we'll work it in. If not, cool. E.g. If a player rolls (or asks for) her character falling in love, then if she wants to continue with it, we make an NPC, if not, we narrate it to the rest of the party as a 'bad breakup' or something.

DJroboninja
2016-06-04, 09:50 PM
Biggest thing to make me auto-NOPE:

"You meet the other player characters at a tavern to prepare for your adventure. Also, this wizard who is five levels above the rest of you will be tagging along, played by me."

As soon as a DMPC rears its head in a group that does not need one (ie: most groups IMHO) I'm out.

Draconi Redfir
2016-06-05, 03:23 PM
it won't outright cause me to leave the game, but I’ve never been a fan of times where I’ve come up with a fun and interesting plan to deal with a problem, and tell the DM about it, only for them to outright tell me that it will not work.

Like, that isn't cool in my honest opinion. Often i work really hard on these plans and I’d like to believe they have a pretty good chance at success while telling an interesting story.

i'd much rather enact the plan with the possibility of success and have it fail then just be outright told it WILL fail before i even get to try. i don't care if the DM knows for a fact it won't work the moment i tell them about it, just don't tell ME that and give me the chance to try.

AMFV
2016-06-05, 03:40 PM
Oooh, here's one: Having to pay a weekly charge for the DM's miniatures, which after the game go into the DM's collection rather than community minatures.

JNAProductions
2016-06-05, 03:41 PM
Oooh, here's one: Having to pay a weekly charge for the DM's miniatures, which after the game go into the DM's collection rather than community minatures.

That's... No. Just no. Has that really happened to you?

Honest Tiefling
2016-06-05, 03:43 PM
it won't outright cause me to leave the game, but I’ve never been a fan of times where I’ve come up with a fun and interesting plan to deal with a problem, and tell the DM about it, only for them to outright tell me that it will not work.

Are you talking about not being allowed daring plans because the DM didn't plan for such, or the DM trying to tell you that such plans are a bit too much? I've seen both, such as people trying to make deals with demons. No, please don't do that. Also had the case where the DM had to flat out tell the party they didn't prepare for that, so uh, don't do that.

AMFV
2016-06-05, 03:47 PM
That's... No. Just no. Has that really happened to you?

Indeed it has, and I didn't mind contributing to the miniatures fund, since having awesome minis does really enhance a game. My issue was more that A.) The DM did not contribute equally, or didn't state that he did, and that B.) At the termination the minis weren't evenly divided. I do think that having a group fund for a DnD group can really make some awesome things possible, but it needs to be genuinely a group fund.

Draconi Redfir
2016-06-05, 04:20 PM
Are you talking about not being allowed daring plans because the DM didn't plan for such, or the DM trying to tell you that such plans are a bit too much? I've seen both, such as people trying to make deals with demons. No, please don't do that. Also had the case where the DM had to flat out tell the party they didn't prepare for that, so uh, don't do that.

I'm not pulling stuff out of thin air here. it's more of along the lines of me peicing together bits of information i've received in what i hope are creative ways.

For example, i know that this sorceress lady really wants to have a child, but is infertile. And i know that this dryad of the forest has practiced fertility magic before, but she hates our guts, but is good friends with a fawn whom owes us a favour. So, maybe we can ask the fawn, to talk to the dryad, to help the sorceress with her fertility problems, and with the Sorceress in a better mood, we can ask her for directions to this rare artifact she was too upset to talk about before.

The only reason i would ever say "hey, lets make a deal with a demon" is if we actually knew of a demon that already existed within the game who had the power to get what we needed done, and we were desperate enough to be willing to sacrifice (Key word there.) more or less anything in exchange for it.

edit; Also worth noting is that i am terible at coming up with plans on the fly, and almost every plan i come up with is between-sessions or during long-term play by post games, and i inform the DM/other players of the idea well before the next session is in play.

Mr Beer
2016-06-05, 06:29 PM
I think a reasonable rule of thumb for a GM, is that if a player's plan will make the game cooler, they should definitely get to try it out.

Jeff the Green
2016-06-05, 06:30 PM
@Florian: Awww, a fledgling feminist. She's not on this forums by chance? She might be just the person for starting a feminist rpg group. :smallsmile:

You could totally sign me up for that.


Anyway, for me (in descending order):

Rape. Full stop. I don't care if it's in character for the villain. I don't care if it's something that happened a lot in Medieval times. The DM controls what is shown in the game and the players control what their characters do (with some overlap, depending on the game). You can choose not to have it.
Kids getting hurt "on screen". Like, you can imply it (like that scene in Mulan with the doll), but please don't have mangled kid corpses.
On-screen sex. Implied sex, sure. One of the best moments I've had was when my cousin and his best friend decided that their characters were gay lovers because one of their markers landed sort of on top of the other in a tent when they put them down. But keep it PG-13.
"Your character wouldn't do that". **** you. I made this character. I know what he'd do. If you think it's incompatible with how he's acted in the past, mention that and I'll explain my reasoning.
"That's what my character would do" (to justify disrupting the game). **** you too. You can choose for your character to react differently. (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html) Figure out why she'd do something party-friendly.

goto124
2016-06-06, 12:49 AM
I'm not pulling stuff out of thin air here. it's more of along the lines of me peicing together bits of information i've received in what i hope are creative ways.

For example, i know that this sorceress lady really wants to have a child, but is infertile. And i know that this dryad of the forest has practiced fertility magic before, but she hates our guts, but is good friends with a fawn whom owes us a favour. So, maybe we can ask the fawn, to talk to the dryad, to help the sorceress with her fertility problems, and with the Sorceress in a better mood, we can ask her for directions to this rare artifact she was too upset to talk about before.


DMs have stopped you from doing that by saying it won't work, and won't explain why? It's perfectly logical! If there's a hiccup that will stop it from working that your character would know about, the DM should just speak up (e.g. 'Your character remembers that dryads really hate sorcerors, and would not help them in any fashion'). Otherwise, it sounds like railroading.

Cernor
2016-06-06, 04:24 AM
DMs have stopped you from doing that by saying it won't work, and won't explain why? It's perfectly logical! If there's a hiccup that will stop it from working that your character would know about, the DM should just speak up (e.g. 'Your character remembers that dryads really hate sorcerors, and would not help them in any fashion'). Otherwise, it sounds like railroading.

What if there's a hiccup that you(r character) doesn't know about which would force your plan to fail? Would you rather be told "that won't work, and I can't tell you why because it would spoil a surprise" ahead of time, or be allowed to go ahead with it until the part of the plan which is doomed to fail, regardless of the result of the dice?

Takewo
2016-06-06, 04:43 AM
What if there's a hiccup that you(r character) doesn't know about which would force your plan to fail? Would you rather be told "that won't work, and I can't tell you why because it would spoil a surprise" ahead of time, or be allowed to go ahead with it until the part of the plan which is doomed to fail, regardless of the result of the dice?

Well, at least the second option would give a clue about where the issue is and a chance to investigate.

Segev
2016-06-06, 08:18 AM
Personally, I would like to be told my plan will not work if:

It is based on an incorrect understanding of the facts as my character would know them
It is making assumptions that I apparently think are more solid than my character should ("The queen obviously wants kids, but can't have them, so..." "Er, no, it's only a problem from the perspective of her court; she's quite happy being childless. Sorry that was inobvious.")


I would like to get to try my plan if:
The GM just thinks there's no way that would work, but there's no way my PC could know the things that let the GM know why

Though I would appreciate, in that latter case, chances to discover this countervening information. Which could persuade me to change my plan to accommodate.

Draconi Redfir
2016-06-06, 08:34 AM
it's all really just a matter of perspective for me, it's the same reason i never liked the minecraft update that allowed you to see what enchantment you were for-sure going to get before actually investing the levels in it. I'd much rather have a possibility at getting something i DO want, then the guarantee of getting something i DON'T want, even if the system itself is exactly the same in both cases and the only difference is I’m unaware of what i would get in the former.



While it's on my mind, again it won't cause me to leave the game, few things rarely do, but

Players/GM's not rolling with the punches

Personally i roleplay by following two general guidelines, "what makes a good story" and "what would my character do?" Generally this only applies to play-by-post games or games where i've managed to get a firm grip on my character, but the point remains all the same. If you throw a spanner into the plan my character was going to attempt, they will more often then not take that spanner and use it to try to make a better plan, almost everything but the vaugeist idea i have is reactionary to what the others around me are doing.

So naturally it always irks me somewhat when others can't seem to play it the same way. there have been multiple instances in which my character acted out in a way that was logical for them and caused an interaction with another PC, only for the player to throw a fit because of it. For whatever reason they just can't take the interaction and roll with it, they need to stop it from occurring outright like a stubborn train. I don't know, i was just never able to understand how one can roleplay with others without at least being able to adapt to unexpected circumstances.

goto124
2016-06-06, 08:53 AM
It is making assumptions that I apparently think are more solid than my character should ("The queen obviously wants kids, but can't have them, so..." "Er, no, it's only a problem from the perspective of her court; she's quite happy being childless. Sorry that was inobvious.")

What if the player replies with "The queen needs a heir, there's no reason to actively remain childless"?

Florian
2016-06-06, 08:55 AM
What if the player replies with "The queen needs a heir, there's no reason to actively remain childless"?

Tell me, how do you plan an campaign (arc)?

Evelyn Elliott
2016-06-06, 10:52 AM
What if the player replies with "The queen needs a heir, there's no reason to actively remain childless"?

"There are a lot of reasons someone might choose to remain childless. If you want, your character can ask around."


Maybe she wants to pass the throne to a specific person, so she's already designated an heir.
Maybe there's an ill taint in her bloodline, and she does not want to pass it on.
Maybe she's frail and sickly, and every woman in her family dies birthing their first child. She fears she will die if she becomes pregnant.
Maybe she and her husband have sworn a holy vow to remain chaste for the rest of their lives.
Maybe she never married because she fears losing power to her husband.

PersonMan
2016-06-06, 11:09 AM
What if the player replies with "The queen needs a heir, there's no reason to actively remain childless"?

"Tell her that, I'm sure she'll be happy knowing a random peasant's opinion!" :smalltongue:

Segev
2016-06-06, 11:10 AM
What if the player replies with "The queen needs a heir, there's no reason to actively remain childless"?
Pretty much this:

"There are a lot of reasons someone might choose to remain childless. If you want, your character can ask around."


Maybe she wants to pass the throne to a specific person, so she's already designated an heir.
Maybe there's an ill taint in her bloodline, and she does not want to pass it on.
Maybe she's frail and sickly, and every woman in her family dies birthing their first child. She fears she will die if she becomes pregnant.
Maybe she and her husband have sworn a holy vow to remain chaste for the rest of their lives.
Maybe she never married because she fears losing power to her husband.


Though I'd be more inclined to suggest that the player have his PC tell the Queen that. He's welcome to try to persuade her. (Heaven knows her court's been trying!)

Non-coincidentally, there may be some plot hooks in there.

Draconi Redfir
2016-06-06, 12:29 PM
if all that queen and heir stuff is going on and the player does not know the situations that would prevent her from posessing a heir (health, fertility, vow, etc) then the DM just saying "X plan will not work" is some pretty bad DMing. the players/characters need to find out the reason WHY it won't work on their own, shotting the plan down before they even get to try is just a **** move.

Plus if the party knows some good healers or some orphans (and know for a fact that the queen desires a child) then a plan could be made to hook them up.

Again, this all boils down to "Don't tell me it won't work. let me try it, then tell me WHY it didn't work."

Honest Tiefling
2016-06-06, 01:06 PM
I think I would disagree with that, and say that the opposite is a NOPE. A definite NOPE for me is not being giving information that my character should know. If my character should know that Queenypants isn't in the market for a child, then the DM should tell me such before we horribly embarrass ourselves and potentially ruin our reputations.

Mordar
2016-06-06, 01:06 PM
if all that queen and heir stuff is going on and the player does not know the situations that would prevent her from posessing a heir (health, fertility, vow, etc) then the DM just saying "X plan will not work" is some pretty bad DMing. the players/characters need to find out the reason WHY it won't work on their own, shotting the plan down before they even get to try is just a **** move.

Plus if the party knows some good healers or some orphans (and know for a fact that the queen desires a child) then a plan could be made to hook them up.

Again, this all boils down to "Don't tell me it won't work. let me try it, then tell me WHY it didn't work."

Unless, of course, the DM is trying to save game time and enhance the experience for the rest of the party by sparing time that would be spent on Plan 347b that can't work. Sure, it could be played out and many times that is probably the better choice...right up until you run into the complaint that "my plans never work and their always perfect so the DM is being railroady"...regardless of why the plans never work.

It's kind of a catch-22, and really depends on the group/history/player.

As a player with limited time, and assuming a GM I "trust", I would MUCH rather receive a nudge away from things that definitely won't work. If the plan has a chance of success, even if it is small, let it be tried as the group decrees. But if it is a non-starter, kibash it and keep the game rolling. "Player Agency" is all well and good, but I'd much rather have an entertaining time.

Another caveat: If the doomed-to-fail plan is doomed-to-fail in a useful way (helps the party learn unknowns about the situation that are important, for instance) than of course you play it out!

- M

Evelyn Elliott
2016-06-06, 01:15 PM
Again, this all boils down to "Don't tell me it won't work. let me try it, then tell me WHY it didn't work."
As long as the player knows all the facts.

Like, I don't know if this happens in other groups, but sometimes my players miss or forget obvious information. Maybe the queen already explained why she doesn't want children. Or maybe that's not how succession works in this world (which is something their characters should know).


I think I would disagree with that, and say that the opposite is a NOPE. A definite NOPE for me is not being giving information that my character should know. If my character should know that Queenypants isn't in the market for a child, then the DM should tell me such before we horribly embarrass ourselves and potentially ruin our reputations.

Yeah, this.

BearonVonMu
2016-06-06, 01:47 PM
Had a game master starting a Star Wars Saga game. He asked someone to play a droid.
I was the fool to answer that call.
Four times I made a perfectly legitimate starting droid character. Four times the GM decided that it was too powerful, including when it was a basic astromech droid with neither hands nor weapons (except a blowtorch).
Finally got him to make it for me, just to see what it as "supposed" to look like.
Day of the game? He hands out character sheets for a freeform Scooby Doo adventure wherein Daphne was secretly the villain the whole time.
It's the only time I dropped a game and a group, and to my shame I waited half of the night to see if it would magically get better.

Segev
2016-06-06, 02:35 PM
Had a game master starting a Star Wars Saga game. He asked someone to play a droid.
I was the fool to answer that call.
Four times I made a perfectly legitimate starting droid character. Four times the GM decided that it was too powerful, including when it was a basic astromech droid with neither hands nor weapons (except a blowtorch).
Finally got him to make it for me, just to see what it as "supposed" to look like.
Day of the game? He hands out character sheets for a freeform Scooby Doo adventure wherein Daphne was secretly the villain the whole time.
It's the only time I dropped a game and a group, and to my shame I waited half of the night to see if it would magically get better.

I'm sure how literal you're being here, and that will impact just how much incredulity this brings forth. Was this literally Scooby Doo he brought out, replacing his Star Wars game entirely?

Hunter Noventa
2016-06-06, 02:43 PM
Had a game master starting a Star Wars Saga game. He asked someone to play a droid.
I was the fool to answer that call.
Four times I made a perfectly legitimate starting droid character. Four times the GM decided that it was too powerful, including when it was a basic astromech droid with neither hands nor weapons (except a blowtorch).
Finally got him to make it for me, just to see what it as "supposed" to look like.
Day of the game? He hands out character sheets for a freeform Scooby Doo adventure wherein Daphne was secretly the villain the whole time.
It's the only time I dropped a game and a group, and to my shame I waited half of the night to see if it would magically get better.

I'm personally kind of curious what the droid was "supposed" to look like myself.

Ceiling_Squid
2016-06-06, 03:58 PM
Being asked to play fourth-banana to another PC, whose very existence causes the plot to warp around them. Did this once, and would promptly NOPE out in the future if I saw it again.

Seriously, I don't mind if a character's rise to power as a "legendary general" makes for a major plot hook. But the least you could do as a DM is ensure that the rest of his "intrepid companions" get a bone tossed their way now and again, in the form of a sideplot or something.

We basically wound up being his personal entourage and backup dancers. As the resident bard, I got stuck being his PR guy.

Not inherently a bad setup, but I felt more like a hireling NPC than a fellow main character. It didn't help that the main plot and "war" were an incredibly dull affair.

JNAProductions
2016-06-06, 04:20 PM
Being asked to play fourth-banana to another PC, whose very existence causes the plot to warp around them. Did this once, and would promptly NOPE out in the future if I saw it again.

Seriously, I don't mind if a character's rise to power as a "legendary general" makes for a major plot hook. But the least you could do as a DM is ensure that the rest of his "intrepid companions" get a bone tossed their way now and again, in the form of a sideplot or something.

We basically wound up being his personal entourage and backup dancers. As the resident bard, I got stuck being his PR guy.

Not inherently a bad setup, but I felt more like a hireling NPC than a fellow main character. It didn't help that the main plot and "war" were an incredibly dull affair.

I think that'd be fine, if it was pitched that way. If it was explicitly said "Bill here is going to be the main character-you're his sidekicks," then that could work. You should still get characters who are interested in you, small sideplots, and similar, but there's nothing wrong with having a game focused on one person. Just don't pretend it's something else.

Honest Tiefling
2016-06-06, 04:28 PM
I think that'd be fine, if it was pitched that way. If it was explicitly said "Bill here is going to be the main character-you're his sidekicks," then that could work. You should still get characters who are interested in you, small sideplots, and similar, but there's nothing wrong with having a game focused on one person. Just don't pretend it's something else.

I don't know. Not being able to profit, drive the plot, or anything like that would be annoying. If I were going to run it as a DM, Bill would become His Majesty Billingsworth, stupid/naive/easily distracted heir to the empire.

Draconi Redfir
2016-06-06, 04:55 PM
well don't forget there are always oppertunities for small branching paths.

perhaps the parents of one of the sidekicks shows up and they're very unhappy with Bill's actions, and sidekick needs to deal with his parents trying to pull him away.

or perhaps Bill gets a little egotistical and screws himself royaly, it's now the job of the Sidekicks to take the spotlight and save Bill's life so he can make it to the parade in one peice.

There's also the knights-tale variant of it. Bill dies or takes a vacation, and one or more sidekicks dons themselves in Bill's armor and pretends to BE Bill while Bill is away. sidekicks can then spend any money and fame "Bill" gets on themselves for a change.

Evelyn Elliott
2016-06-06, 06:38 PM
Being asked to play fourth-banana to another PC, whose very existence causes the plot to warp around them. Did this once, and would promptly NOPE out in the future if I saw it again.

Seriously, I don't mind if a character's rise to power as a "legendary general" makes for a major plot hook. But the least you could do as a DM is ensure that the rest of his "intrepid companions" get a bone tossed their way now and again, in the form of a sideplot or something.

I feel you.

I'm running a campaign like that right now. One of my players wanted a campaign about his character (he's the son of a goddess, she's trying to kill him).

I agreed to do it, but I made sure everyone else was involved in the plot. And they get their own personal stuff.

Cluedrew
2016-06-06, 09:15 PM
I don't know. Not being able to profit, drive the plot, or anything like that would be annoying. If I were going to run it as a DM, Bill would become His Majesty Billingsworth, stupid/naive/easily distracted heir to the empire.I think you could do it right, you just need to make sure that everyone gets screen time and is doing stuff they enjoy. An army (or any organization of notable size) has a lot of important stuff going on, far more than a single person can handle so the rest of the party can still be essential to the plot. Especially if you play Bill with some serious short comings.

Although I like the idea of handing His Majesty Billingsworth to the least focused player in the group and let them run with it. Or you know, stumble around blindly with it. I don't think that is what you meant but it might make for an interesting game.

goto124
2016-06-06, 09:32 PM
Another caveat: If the doomed-to-fail plan is doomed-to-fail in a useful way (helps the party learn unknowns about the situation that are important, for instance) than of course you play it out!

What I learnt from these forums: GMs should always make failures interesting, pushing the game forward in some way.

techpriest35
2016-06-07, 03:47 AM
Right? I'll buy a package of paper plates if people really need one. Put that pizza stain on a $1 plate and leave my expensive book out of it. :smalltongue:
al my firends have this awesome rule concerning new books. first person to damage the book(tear a page spill something on it etc) gets punched in the nuts by each of the other members of the group and has to pay for the pizza and sodas for the next session
the books are way too dam expensive to allow even the smallest damage
this rule is null and void if the owner damages the book(its their book they can do what they want since they spent their money on it)

BearonVonMu
2016-06-07, 11:53 AM
I'm sure how literal you're being here, and that will impact just how much incredulity this brings forth. Was this literally Scooby Doo he brought out, replacing his Star Wars game entirely?

Quite literally. I ended up being Scooby-Doo, a great dane with no hands but the ability to bite and speak (badly).


I'm personally kind of curious what the droid was "supposed" to look like myself.

Apparently, a proper droid character looks an awful lot like a Trade Federation battle droid, only without the dependence on the mother ship.
So, in effect, worse than a human soldier in every way unless working in a vacuum.

Themrys
2016-06-07, 03:51 PM
I think that'd be fine, if it was pitched that way. If it was explicitly said "Bill here is going to be the main character-you're his sidekicks," then that could work. You should still get characters who are interested in you, small sideplots, and similar, but there's nothing wrong with having a game focused on one person. Just don't pretend it's something else.

Yes, it should be pitched that way - and in 90% of cases I'd decide against it.

The kind of player who wants to play the main character is not likely to handle this very well.

I would only agree to do it if everyone was onboard with playing a plot where it makes sense for all the main characters to be part of a hierarchy. In DSA, there are some characters you virtually cannot play without some higher-up. Like, a bodyguard. If your bodyguard character doesn't have someone to guard in the group, then she'll logically want to find employment elsewhere, and you'll have to come up with explanations why, despite loving her job, she will continue to travel with the rest of the group.

If some people in the group want to play bodyguards, and some person wants to play a noble, then that'd be okay. But people who just say "Hey, I want to play this super important guy who's secretly the heir of the throne of Gondor" or what, then, nope.

JNAProductions
2016-06-07, 03:56 PM
Yes, it should be pitched that way - and in 90% of cases I'd decide against it.

The kind of player who wants to play the main character is not likely to handle this very well.

I would only agree to do it if everyone was onboard with playing a plot where it makes sense for all the main characters to be part of a hierarchy. In DSA, there are some characters you virtually cannot play without some higher-up. Like, a bodyguard. If your bodyguard character doesn't have someone to guard in the group, then she'll logically want to find employment elsewhere, and you'll have to come up with explanations why, despite loving her job, she will continue to travel with the rest of the group.

If some people in the group want to play bodyguards, and some person wants to play a noble, then that'd be okay. But people who just say "Hey, I want to play this super important guy who's secretly the heir of the throne of Gondor" or what, then, nope.

Which is exactly why the pitch is important. It lets you know what you're getting into, and having the option to say no with full knowledge.

mikeejimbo
2016-06-07, 04:24 PM
I'd kind of like to play in a game where every character had some kind of epic story. One is the son of a god, another is possessed by a demon, another is heir to the most powerful throne, and another is prophecied to save the world.

I mean I'd play it silly, not straight, but still.

Themrys
2016-06-07, 05:37 PM
I'd kind of like to play in a game where every character had some kind of epic story. One is the son of a god, another is possessed by a demon, another is heir to the most powerful throne, and another is prophecied to save the world.

I mean I'd play it silly, not straight, but still.

So, basically, LotR?

I mean:

Aragorn - heir to the throne of Gondor
Frodo - saves the world. Also, sails with the elves.
Sam - helps Frodo save the world
Merry - helps kill the Witch King of Angmar
Pippin - (Not sure what he does, but I think he does something fairly important, too)
Boromir -. dies a very tragic death after struggling tragically with his desire to get the ring. Also, he is heir to factual ruler of Gondor.
Legolas - First elf to befriend a dwarf in centuries. Manages to bring said dwarf into an elf-only country.
Gimli - manages to be given three of Galadriel's hairs. As a dwarf. Also, first and only dwarf to sail to the West.
Gandalf - all-powerful wizard should about cover it. Returns from the dead, too.

It is only due to Tolkien's skill and his focus on the hobbits that this is not annoying.

Draconi Redfir
2016-06-07, 06:05 PM
personally ever since my paladin's holy avenger was turned into a rabbit i've really wanted to do a play-by-post game where everyone plays small barely-intelligent magical woodland critters with different templates and origin stories. all of whom somehow gain acess to class abilities and do some very minor things to save the forrest or something.

JAL_1138
2016-06-07, 06:16 PM
personally ever since my paladin's holy avenger was turned into a rabbit i've really wanted to do a play-by-post game where everyone plays small barely-intelligent magical woodland critters with different templates and origin stories. all of whom somehow gain acess to class abilities and do some very minor things to save the forrest or something.

Well, "barely-intelligent" aside, there's Bunnies and Burrows. (Yes, that exists. It's one of the oldest RPGs, in fact. As with everything else under the sun, there's also a GURPS version that might be easier to track down.)

Pex
2016-06-07, 07:14 PM
personally ever since my paladin's holy avenger was turned into a rabbit i've really wanted to do a play-by-post game where everyone plays small barely-intelligent magical woodland critters with different templates and origin stories. all of whom somehow gain acess to class abilities and do some very minor things to save the forrest or something.

I actually do want to play in a Narnia game. Mouse Paladin of Aslan sounds cool, be Reepicheep's second cousin once removed or something. :smallsmile:

mikeejimbo
2016-06-08, 09:40 AM
So, basically, LotR?

[...]

It is only due to Tolkien's skill and his focus on the hobbits that this is not annoying.

Yes! But probably sillier.

I also think that Tolkien basically being the father of the modern genre helps - it was all new then so the audience wasn't inundated with tons of special snowflakes.

goto124
2016-06-08, 09:45 AM
I also think that Tolkien basically being the father of the modern genre helps - it was all new then so the audience wasn't inundated with tons of special snowflakes.

Also, he likely created or at least popularized some of the tropes we now considered cliche because of his work. Seinfeld is unfunny and such.

Max_Killjoy
2016-06-08, 10:38 AM
Yes! But probably sillier.

I also think that Tolkien basically being the father of the modern genre helps - it was all new then so the audience wasn't inundated with tons of special snowflakes.


As a general observation, at this point, I think "special snowflake" or "mary sue" as terms-of-derision, and the backlash against characters with anything at all different or extraordinary about them, has probably become at least as cliched as the cliches people think they're making fun of when they use those terms.

I've passed up some novels in the last few years because frankly the effort to make the protagonists so absolutely "normal" and "unspecial" and "realistically" flawed ends up creating protagonists that are over-flawed caricatures, either out of some sense of postmodernist hipness, or simple overcompensation brought on by worry that their characters will be tagged as "special snowflakes" or "mary sues" for having the least bit of an interesting or different aspect that's at all positive for the character.

/rant

Themrys
2016-06-08, 11:05 AM
Also, he likely created or at least popularized some of the tropes we now considered cliche because of his work. Seinfeld is unfunny and such.

The problem is more that the Tolkien imitators just copy the "special snowflake secret heir to throne" parts, and not the "... but he's actually not the hero, some ordinary, un-magical hobbit is".

Aragorn is a way less annoying self-insert than Kvothe, and I would be of that opinion if Name of the Wind was older, too. Just saying.

Eisirt
2016-06-08, 11:23 AM
Players sitting around the gaming table in their underwear on a warm day.

Ceiling_Squid
2016-06-08, 11:38 AM
I think that'd be fine, if it was pitched that way. If it was explicitly said "Bill here is going to be the main character-you're his sidekicks," then that could work. You should still get characters who are interested in you, small sideplots, and similar, but there's nothing wrong with having a game focused on one person. Just don't pretend it's something else.

I was skeptical going in because it was advertised as such, but I thought to give it a chance. It's not an inherently bad idea, but it's hard to pull off.

It fell flat on its face precisely because we barely any decent sideplots or a day in the limelight. We were largely expected to fall in line behind the main character. I didn't get much to work with.

Even our individual contributions to the war effort largely amounted to dry bookkeeping vaguely related to our skillset. And when we weren't contrived into doing dungeon-crawling as a group, mass combat was an uninspired blur.

I got to do some backroom politics to help out the general character, but it was all geared towards protecting his reputation. And I think I got to roleplay that all of once.

Hell, the closest thing to character development that happened was when the DM wasted time arguing OOC with the CG ranger about whether his choice to take military orders for the duration of the conflict had shifted his alignment towards lawful. I cannot recall any real character-driven plot points for the other characters.

Lets just say I'm now leery of games that excessively elevate a specific PC over the others by design. I'd prefer that the party choose leaders organically.

mikeejimbo
2016-06-08, 11:40 AM
As a general observation, at this point, I think "special snowflake" or "mary sue" as terms-of-derision, and the backlash against characters with anything at all different or extraordinary about them, has probably become at least as cliched as the cliches people think they're making fun of when they use those terms.

I've passed up some novels in the last few years because frankly the effort to make the protagonists so absolutely "normal" and "unspecial" and "realistically" flawed ends up creating protagonists that are over-flawed caricatures, either out of some sense of postmodernist hipness, or simple overcompensation brought on by worry that their characters will be tagged as "special snowflakes" or "mary sues" for having the least bit of an interesting or different aspect that's at all positive for the character.

/rant

I mean, flaws also play into "special snowflakes" - it's more about demanding the attention than being a Mary Sue. Less of a problem in fiction and more of one in multiplayer games really. Though I do think the overly-flawed hero can be annoying too. Other than that I actually prefer characters with tragic flaws, and I enjoy playing characters who meet tragic ends due to them, but that's just personal preference.

Theoboldi
2016-06-08, 11:50 AM
So, uh, on the actual topic...:smalltongue:

1. When some players are allowed to have massive IC authority over others. Stuff like being the only noble in a political intrigue game, or being the only soldier when the goal of the campaign is to win a war, or being the only drow in an Underdark-based campaign. Every time I've seen it happen, it ended with that character making all the decisions, because they got all the important information from the DM and had all the useful connections due to their background.

Eventually, the other PCs just become their henchmen and hired muscle, their own hooks and ideas on how to proceed getting completely ignored. It's especially bad when the player themselves is knowledgeable on the same topic as his character, leaving them to not even be reliant on the DM to always speak with authority. It has ruined some otherwise really fun campaigns, and by now I try to avoid it like the plague.

2.Players who can't stand to see their characters challenged. They usually optimize for one more or less versatile role, often not even to an overly large degree, but will immediately drop into an overly dramatic tantrum when presented with any problem that they cannot solve with their skillset. If they failed an important roll, they go through insane lengths to argue and attempt to spin their failure into a success, hoping that the DM will put his NPCs and the other players their characters into complete morons so that their shoddy back-up plan can succeed without them looking bad.

And if you present them with an obstacle that their trick can't solve, instead of asking their party members for help or trying to find another solution, they'll usually say that the DM is deliberately targeting them because he has something against them. Because, of course, their character needs to be able to shine in every situation and be able to solve everything by themselves.

3. Wasted backstories. Seriously, I once joined a game where the GM demanded for us to give our characters short-term and long-term goals they could work towards. So I created a character who got most of her powers from an ancient artifact she found, with her long-term goal being to find out the story behind this artifact.

Cue the very first session, the very first NPC we interacted with was some Faustian Bargain Devil kind of guy, who claimed he could give us anything for a price. My character taunted him by demanding to know the story behind her artifact, which resulted in him just basically giving us the entire backstory on it, leaving my character without a long-lasting goal.

Long story short, if you want your players to have in-character goals, make sure to actually communicate which ones will work and which ones won't.

4. Finally, this is something that makes me go NOPE purely as a GM. Namely, players who don't care whether the GM himself is having fun too. The kind who ignore what kind of game he wants to run, who'll try to do wacky high-jinks in a serious setting and torture orphans in a game that was intended to be light-hearted. The kind who, when you say you don't want to run something or don't have the time to come up with an alternate plot hook for the one they are blatantly ignoring, will call you a bad GM. And if they can't get what they want they'll whine and beg for it instead of saying 'okay' or leaving for a different game that may offer what they want.

Luckily, it's not something I myself have had to deal with, but I've seen it happen in other games. And quite honestly, I GM because I have fun doing so. No one's paying me to do it. Some players appear to forget that.

JNAProductions
2016-06-08, 12:14 PM
So, uh, on the actual topic...:smalltongue:

1. When some players are allowed to have massive IC authority over others. Stuff like being the only noble in a political intrigue game, or being the only soldier when the goal of the campaign is to win a war, or being the only drow in an Underdark-based campaign. Every time I've seen it happen, it ended with that character making all the decisions, because they got all the important information from the DM and had all the useful connections due to their background.

Eventually, the other PCs just become their henchmen and hired muscle, their own hooks and ideas on how to proceed getting completely ignored. It's especially bad when the player themselves is knowledgeable on the same topic as his character, leaving them to not even be reliant on the DM to always speak with authority. It has ruined some otherwise really fun campaigns, and by now I try to avoid it like the plague.

2.Players who can't stand to see their characters challenged. They usually optimize for one more or less versatile role, often not even to an overly large degree, but will immediately drop into an overly dramatic tantrum when presented with any problem that they cannot solve with their skillset. If they failed an important roll, they go through insane lengths to argue and attempt to spin their failure into a success, hoping that the DM will put his NPCs and the other players their characters into complete morons so that their shoddy back-up plan can succeed without them looking bad.

And if you present them with an obstacle that their trick can't solve, instead of asking their party members for help or trying to find another solution, they'll usually say that the DM is deliberately targeting them because he has something against them. Because, of course, their character needs to be able to shine in every situation and be able to solve everything by themselves.

3. Wasted backstories. Seriously, I once joined a game where the GM demanded for us to give our characters short-term and long-term goals they could work towards. So I created a character who got most of her powers from an ancient artifact she found, with her long-term goal being to find out the story behind this artifact.

Cue the very first session, the very first NPC we interacted with was some Faustian Bargain Devil kind of guy, who claimed he could give us anything for a price. My character taunted him by demanding to know the story behind her artifact, which resulted in him just basically giving us the entire backstory on it, leaving my character without a long-lasting goal.

Long story short, if you want your players to have in-character goals, make sure to actually communicate which ones will work and which ones won't.

4. Finally, this is something that makes me go NOPE purely as a GM. Namely, players who don't care whether the GM himself is having fun too. The kind who ignore what kind of game he wants to run, who'll try to do wacky high-jinks in a serious setting and torture orphans in a game that was intended to be light-hearted. The kind who, when you say you don't want to run something or don't have the time to come up with an alternate plot hook for the one they are blatantly ignoring, will call you a bad GM. And if they can't get what they want they'll whine and beg for it instead of saying 'okay' or leaving for a different game that may offer what they want.

Luckily, it's not something I myself have had to deal with, but I've seen it happen in other games. And quite honestly, I GM because I have fun doing so. No one's paying me to do it. Some players appear to forget that.

1) Could work. Let's say you have the noble, the bodyguard, the assassin, and the court mage. They might be employed by the noble, but they're free to leave, and are more powerful on a personal level than he is. But, it's still something to be handled with care.

2) Yup. That just sounds bad. Never had to deal with it personally, though, so whew.

3) Eesh. Yeah, that sucks. If you want a long backstory, USE IT.

4) Agreed.

For me, a minor nope is players who think 20s means they can do anything. Sometimes, even a 20 fails.

Telonius
2016-06-08, 12:22 PM
As a general observation, at this point, I think "special snowflake" or "mary sue" as terms-of-derision, and the backlash against characters with anything at all different or extraordinary about them, has probably become at least as cliched as the cliches people think they're making fun of when they use those terms.

I've passed up some novels in the last few years because frankly the effort to make the protagonists so absolutely "normal" and "unspecial" and "realistically" flawed ends up creating protagonists that are over-flawed caricatures, either out of some sense of postmodernist hipness, or simple overcompensation brought on by worry that their characters will be tagged as "special snowflakes" or "mary sues" for having the least bit of an interesting or different aspect that's at all positive for the character.

/rant

Then again you have things like Sir Apropos of Nothing, where the whole point is to have a super-flawed antihero satire of the whole genre.

I don't mind special snowflakes, flawed characters, or caricatures. I only have a problem with any of them when they're not skillfully written.

Theoboldi
2016-06-08, 12:49 PM
1) Could work. Let's say you have the noble, the bodyguard, the assassin, and the court mage. They might be employed by the noble, but they're free to leave, and are more powerful on a personal level than he is. But, it's still something to be handled with care.

You're probably right about this one. That said, my experiences were all with incidents where it happened accidentally. There was no OOC plan to have one character be the leader, and no resources were spent by the player to actually attain their status. Their backstory just happened to give them a lot of power within the setting, and the GM did not account for it. Really, I think it's a pretty bad problem because of just how easily it can happen by accident.



For me, a minor nope is players who think 20s means they can do anything. Sometimes, even a 20 fails.

Oh, that's a pretty bad one. I've seen this a lot from the players I mentioned under 2), though for them any high number suggested that they could do the impossible.

In one case, my character caught one of them attempting to pick his pocket, and he told an incredibly obvious technical truth about not having gone through my pocket. And then he thought because he was not technically telling a lie, he would not have to roll for bluff. And that my character would actually believe him either way. It'd be sad if it wasn't so ridiculous.

I know it's not exactly the problem you mentioned, but I still was reminded of it. :smalltongue:

Traab
2016-06-08, 03:35 PM
I suppose it would be a good idea to explain at the outset that,

"Rolling a 20 just means you got the best possible result. It doesnt make the impossible happen. So rolling a 20 on a diplomacy check doesnt mean the king will abdicate his throne to you and hand over the treasury. It just means he will laugh at your joke instead of having his guards slaughter you on the spot. Rolling a 20 while trying to sunder the world doesnt mean the world breaks into two clean halves, it just means you rolled the most damage possible and chopped into the ground, looking like a lunatic in the process."