That one important thing you want to make absolutely clear to your players before playing

BG was 18 years ago. DA:O was casualshit though. The Skyrim of its time.

>Use a coaster.

this is the most /v/ thing i've ever read on Veeky Forums, do us a favour and go back there

>Dark Souls
>roguelikes
Not even fucking close.

just go back to /v/ you autist, this board is for traditional games, not for arguing how MLG you are

I would prefer if OP went back to /v/ with that idiotic topic of his. Whatever though, enjoy your brown and bloom waifu simulator.

>roguelike
>anything to do with RPGs
The Sims is more of an RPGs than that shit.

I'm just pointing out the fact that roguelikes have, even if they lack a commonly accepted perfect definition, several pretty much universally agreed upon requirements: turn-based combat, grid-based actions, and top-down perspective being some of them.
The Sims is pretty much 100% RPG.

>PnP usually has clear, consistent rules, you know.

There was literally 1 edition of D&D where this was the case and everyone threw a shitfit and called it WoW.

kek, as soon as /v/ is mentioned, it's now the topic.

I would suggest everyone in this thread learn the difference between RPGs, Rogue-likes, Rogue-Lites, action, and adventure games.

Considering Dark Souls a Rouge in any shape or form is incorrect to the meaning of the genre.

Comparing Dragon Age (A traditional RPG in the vain of a d20 system, including system rolls and skill checks) to Skyrim (An action RPG, if you can call it that. It has RPG elements. Just because it has dragons in it, and you can gain levels, doesn't make it an RPG.) is just blatantly uninformed.

But the Sims is an interior decorating game.

>I've tried three editions of D&D so I know what I'm talking about
It's a sad state of affairs, to be sure.
Skyrim has system rolls and skill checks, and you can play different roles.

>kek, as soon as /v/ is mentioned, it's now the topic
This. Give me my thread back.

>rouge

>Repeatedly and consistently derailing or having your character act like a social retard will get you ejected from this game. No, I don't care if "that's what my character would do", because it pisses me off and spoils the game.

Depending on the group I also regularly have to break out...
>Nobody is allowed to play as a Dwarf.
Because almost all players I've had who've played as a dwarf end up breaking the first rule, even though I know they act much less like autists when not playing dwarves.
People playing dwarves very quickly take the stereotypes to extremes and generally piss off everyone around them.

Some examples of dwarven shenanigans in games I've run.
>Smash a barmaid over the head with a bottle, and upon being ejected from the tavern he takes a shit in the town well
>Female dwarf sleeps with male dwarf with explicit purpose of acquiring jewelry, and then promptly murders him when he points out that she is acting like a prostitute, because she does not consider herself a prostitute and thus calling her a prostitute was an insult worthy of death.
>Writes a massive, insulting letter of complaint to the local king claiming his rights as a dwarf are being infringed because a court bailiff won't let him enter a courtroom while carrying a warhammer, a battleaxe, and a musket.
>Runs away from a fight and even barricades his comrades in the boss arena, leaving them to fight the boss, convinced they will die, and then whines to me out of character because he didn't get an equal share of the experience reward when the boss was defeated.
>Pisses off priestess by asking her stupid questions over and over until she calls a guard to drag him out, and then murders the guard claiming "self-defence" as soon as the guard grabs him by the shoulders.

The Sims lets you create and play characters with different and meaningful personality and ability traits that colour their interactions with static objects, NPCs and other PCs alike. They have skills, which can be increased, and which increase their odds of succeeding at certain actions. It's has all the elements of an RPG, it just has more aspects, such as house design. It's not a /traditional game/, however, because unlike vidya like Vampire: the Masquerade, it has no connection to traditional board gaming.

You should have made a better thread if you wanted it to stay on topic.

>anything I tell you, DM to players, OOC is absolutely true
>anything I say your characters perceive is true to the best of your characters ability, but it can be fooled by magic or the like.
>Anything an NPC tells you might or might not be true, even if the NPC in question knows what he or she is talking about, which might or might not be the case.

I open every campaign with a speech to that effect. I still get occasional complaints when NPC lies get believed.

I don't consider murdering everything with your sword to gain exp a good 'cause for levels to then throw into something like Lockpicking. Just because you can be different _COMBAT_ roles (I now want to cast spells! No, wait, armor!) doesn't grant role playing. Choice has very little meaning in the game. Could you give examples of skill checks? Any of them? It's been a while since last I've played it. Maybe I'm being ignorant.

The only form of Role playing in this game is grinding meaningless quests for the different factions. Literally, the only choice that makes any consequence (And thus, I personally would consider role playing), is the war story quest. You destroy the architecture of Whiterun in either one way or another, and cannot revert back. It effects the story for the rest of the quest line, and the world permanently. Can you name any other examples or quests in this game that effect it in such a way?

Meanwhile, Dragon Age- if you start the quests in the town of Redcliffe, and leave, everyone dies. Or, you can ignore everyone in town, leading to high casualties, or work really hard to save everyone, and progress from there. It effects the game world, how others react to you throughout the rest of the game, and even the challenges you'll face moving forward. All without even a morality system, such as Skyrim.

There's your example on why the two games are vastly different.

Good advice, next time I'll make an 'Elf waifu what do?' thread, that way I'm sure my thread will be successful.

I'll take my words back, I don't really mind the thread getting of topic. Discussion is what it's all about.

Pretty good.
True, perks may be put in any skill, but only if you've leveled the skill sufficiently by repeatedly using it. The role playing comes in with the different character creation options, the different combat roles, the different out of combat roles, and the fact that you can pick between different factions, quests, etc. depending on what role you wish to play in the game.
>All without even a morality system, such as Skyrim.
I'm sorry, what?

Thank god there are better games out there that D&D.

I don't know friend, those dwarves sound pretty fun. Do you hate fun?

I like how you admit that was your second choice.

>Skyrim has system rolls and skill checks, and you can play different roles.
skyrim has "shoot bow for low low damage, spray magic for low damage, and just turn down the difficulty this combat is boring as shit and none of it feels like it has any depth or weight"

I like how you say 'admit' like that actually happened.

So, some games tend to use a morality system to help change the way that others see you. It's a cheap way of saying, "Oh, the player has amassed this number of evil points, unlock this option". Mass Effect is a decent example of this. As soon as you hit a certain number in a direction (Renegade for Evil, Paragon for Good), in game characters react differently to you, and it opens dialogue options accordingly.

Skyrim and Dragon Age don't have these systems in place.

Skyrim allows the player to repeatedly steal items, and people will react ("Keep your hands away, sneak thief!").

Dragon Age doesn't have a morality system in place, either. However, when you demand a shop keeper to give away items for free, he charges you higher, and the rest of the town either becomes more prepared for the incoming attack. Meanwhile, you're being charged more for items that you would need.

Now, both Dragon Age and Mass Effect are made by Bioware, so this can be seen as how the two games are vastly different in areas of role-playing. Comparing them to Skyrim, Skyrim is closer to Mass Effect in terms of gameplay and roleplaying.

But who actually plays the Sims how it was meant to be played. Everyone either plays it as a house decorating sim or a torture sim.

Middle school girls, mostly.

I'm in charge. We can have discussions, but the moment you start giving me ultimatums, you are out.

>Now, both Dragon Age and Mass Effect are made by Bioware, so this can be seen as how the two games are vastly different in areas of role-playing. Comparing them to Skyrim, Skyrim is closer to Mass Effect in terms of gameplay and roleplaying.
I never played Mass Effect, admittedly.
I think just about everyone outside of /v/ or Veeky Forums plays it how it's meant to be played.

Well, nobody I know or ever knew played the Sims the intended way, so I was going off that.

>As GM, my word is final. If I tell you to drop something, drop it.
>If you want your character to be a special snowflake, you're going to have to work for it.
>Hell, if you want your character to have a completely unique skillset or use a brand new class of magic, go for it. You're just going to have to write the skillset, integrate it into the world, make sure it doesn't conflict with the existing skills, balance it, clear it with me, and then I might consider it.

It isn't as bad of a game as other people say it is, although it does drop the illusion of choice towards the end. Same with Dragon Age: Inquisition (especially Liliana. If I murder her in the first game, she shouldn't be alive in the third without some damn good explanation. Which isn't even somewhat given). SO, getting back to OP topic;

The illusion of choice. I want the players to respect that illusion, but damn sure if they want to dick around in town trying to get laid in a bar, rather then getting the McGuffin to kill the BBEG, I will bring down the fury. You can call this railroad-ing, but they were given options on how to proceed. Then, they took it and threw it out the window.

Stop worrying about the mechanics, this is a game of imagination. If your character wants to do something and you do not know how to execute it, just tell me what your character is doing and we'll make it work (Dice Gods willing).

Now if only I had a group still to even give this edict to. D:

>People will lie to you. I won't, but i'll leave out information that wouldn't be obvious.
>Tell me how dark I can go. For fuck's sake, don't be afraid to tell me when you get uncomfortable.
>You can give me as many NPCs to play with as you want, but you don't get to be sad when shit goes down.

Math doesnt make something a RPG, role playing does (except in video game land where actual role playing games are incredibly rare so everyone misunderstands everything, which is why the term JRPG even exists)

>That one important thing you want to make absolutely clear to your players before playing

If you want to eat, you have to pay your fair share.

I... I'm unsure if you're adding to the argument on my side, or the other?

JRPGs are another beast entirely, which is why it's a "J" RPG and not a normal RPG. I won't lie, there are some JRPG games that are fantastic. {SOME} They take cues from traditional tabletop games and combine them with the power of a computer, letting it handle all of the math and bloat. If I can plug a JRPG game, I would plug the original Phantasy Star tetralogy. Each character fits a role, and experiences a transition from the beginning to the end, better learning their roles as the story progresses.

Just saying that just cause DAO has skill rolls and all that stuff doesnt make it a RPG

You could make a game with traditional FPS combat, no skill system, thats still ten times the RPG any other already existing video game is

I'm still unsure of what you're trying to say. Could you elaborate further? Also, did you read the entirety of the thread? It's explained in

>This is a team game, work as a group and support the other PCs.

I hate having players who insist on trying to work against the party, or want to constantly do solo stuff

>>not cooking sumptuous feasts for your players pro bono
>>not delighting your groups with culinary experiences beyond their ken
>>not awakening your friends palates to a harmony of flavours they didn't even know possible to immerse them in the Elven feast happening in game

I shiggy diggy doot doot.

>>not fattening your players up for the slaughter

Not that user, but I'm fairly anti-fun myself.

>coasters
On a more serious note: phones go on silent.

I don't hate fun, but it's not fun for me to have to put up with players who act like they've forgotten all the rules regarding interpersonal interaction
It's always one dwarf (the player character) who acts like that when all the other dwarves are mostly reasonable people. They're not even playing a stereotype, they're playing an exaggeration of a stereotype.
For instance...
In Warhammer Fantasy dwarves are known to hold grudges which they seek vengeance for. These grudges require some sort of wrong doing on the behalf of target of the grudge. When I ran WFRP2, the dwarf player kept his own little grudgebook, and he insisted on trying to kill every person on it. Problem is, 9/10 of the people on the list were random people, like the shopkeeper who refused to lower his prices, the bailiff who wouldn't let him bring a loaded blunderbuss into the courtroom, the Innkeeper who asked him to leave the Inn after he smashed the barmaid over the head because he was bored and hoping to start a fight. He insisted that he was just 'acting like a dwarf' and refused to listen whenever I repeatedly told him that dwarfs do not start grudges every time someone slightly inconveniences them, nor do they seek to kill these people.

I don't hate fun, I hate people who act like retards and amuse themselves by pissing me off, especially after I've explained why their behavior is inappropriate and I've asked them to stop.

I want to have sex with those meals

Not even then. There's always some dickbag who will eat half a pizza but pay for 1/5th of it. Then if you confront them they say some shit along the lines of "i haven't eaten all day." Or "i helped pay i should get to eat as much as i want."
No. You pay 1/4 of the price you get 1/4 of the pizza end of discussion. That doesn't mean you can scarf down a family size bag of chips that was meant for everyone either to somehow make up the difference you feel you're being snuffed on.

>rouge
It's obviously a typo. He spelled it right twice before that.

>>This is a team game, work as a group and support the other PCs.
It's like you don't play Paranoia. Or VtM.

Literally just don't even split food, dude. Force people to contribute things for common consumption, and just cycle the obligations. If someone isn't going to eat food very fast, motherfucker needs to buy some rank shit that no one else wants.

That's just how it is.

>Or VtM.

Is it poor etiquette to surreptitiously blood bond all of the other player characters? I'm very tempted.

There's no need to be anal about exactly how much somebody's money buys them in each individual case, so long as they aren't grossly inconsiderate (eating up all the food that other people wanted) and contribute a roughly fair share over the long haul. People who are uptight about money are unpleasant to be around and I'm not gonna pick a fight with a friend over a few bucks.

This is the fucking Internet, mate. You can't let that fly, or else the whole place is going to go to hell!

You, every table needs more of you.

except it doesn't have to be, you endless pit of gluttony.

How we do it: if we order food, everyone pays for their own fucking food. If someone wants to cook, they can use the ingredients at the house we're at, without having to pay for it BUT ONLY if they're willing to cook for everyone who wants to eat. If nobody wants to order food, then the host player is required to cook for everyone unless someone else volunteers.

>I hate having players who insist on trying to work against the party, or want to constantly do solo stuff
Yeah. My starting spiel is now something like "This is a game about a group of adventurers working to common purpose. If your character doesn't constructively contribute to this group and their purpose, is unwilling to compromise, wants to go off on his own, or actually seeks to oppose the group or attack another character in it, it's time for you to make up a new character. This is a team sport. If you don't want to be on the team, you don't get to play the game. Simple as that."

That world and interaction has limitations.

I don't mind someone being only moderately off ratio to input as thats expected. I just hate asshats that think it's a one price fits all all you can eat buffet when everyone else wants to at least taste the food.
We got 3 bags of chips? Cool let everyone get some don't babysit the bag with your fist in its anus 24/7.
Someone brought soda? Cool grab a glass not a whole 2 liter.
I make burgers? Cool i made like 8 for the 4 of us don't grab 5.
I don't mind someone eating more chips than the others but taking ALL the doritos is a dick move when we only got one bag. I don't care if you know you can eat that whole bag by the end of the night you fat fuck or if you say thats all you'll eat, if people want some fucking share.

Nah fuck that shit. I'm a cook by trade and i enjoy making shit for me and mine using the best shit i can get. If i'm hosting i'm not going to use up $175 dollars of my supplies to feed people who don't want to feed themselves and i sure as hell ain't letting them touch my kitchen.

Yeah, I agree with that. Fortunately my group usually has a magnificent asshole who will sarcastically and relentlessly mock somebody if they pull shit like that.

Old People in my setting that arent important always have retard Video Game NPC dialogue

this is good.

Like "I like shorts! They're comfy and easy to wear!" over and over again or what?

"Your actions have consequences, good or bad."
For Fallout:
"Combat is not your friend and doctors are not cheap."
For DnD:
"PHB classes only. No chaotic neutral or evil except for lawful evil characters."

There is always at least one preprogrammed solution to every problem or enemy you encounter.

If an object is included, it is useful or usable in some way.

You can always loot eveything.

You can pause the game and brainstorm a strategy I'm the middle of battle.

"GIT. OFF. MY. LAWN!"
>pulls out Wand of Buckshot

People always want to talk about /v/ on Veeky Forums because Veeky Forums has such great taste in games.

That last one is nonsensical.

There are so many fucking different interpretations of alignments that this shit is nonsense. I'm playing an wizard that I suspect is some sort of evil (we don't use alignments, because they're fucking worthless), as I intend to turn the tables on some demon that has latched onto my soul, stealing its powers for myself, for the express purpose of making me king or something, raising my status in my home land.

Doesn't mean I don't also want to take actions that help people, like dealing with the lich that has taken it upon himself to not only try to conquer the land with undead, but also fuck with us directly. But my motivations have nothing to do with helping people.

To try and define a character by using a 9 pointed chart is just ridiculous, and to further restrict that chart by removing the point that is usually interpreted as "I care about myself, my family, and my friends above all else" is equally silly.

HAVE YOU HEARD OF THE HIGH ELVES?

>There is always at least one preprogrammed solution to every problem or enemy you encounter.
Only if running away counts as a solution.
>If an object is included, it is useful or usable in some way.
Tons of games have worthless items, for flavour, comedy, remnants of unimplemented features, bugs, references, and a bunch of other reasons.
>You can always loot eveything
This is just patently untrue.
>You can pause the game and brainstorm a strategy I'm the middle of battle.
Not in online games.

I only need about tree fiddy.

GOT. DAMN. LOCKNISS. MONSTA!

The first one is absolutely true, it's specifically how games are designed.

The other three points, however, just aren't. But again, that first one is very, very solid, you shouldn't be trying to undermine it.

>Not in online games.
Or Dark Souls
Or fighting games, unless you want the other guy to punch you in the face.

Not in roguelikes. They rely on the procedural generation, so sometimes you run into an enemy or a problem which has no real answer. RNG said fuck you, so I guess you start a new run.

>PHB classes only
If by D&D you mean 3E, you're a monster. If 4th or 5th addition, then carry on with your day, good sir.

Yeah, I started with just the first one, then snowballed the others.

They are examples of "video game logic", not universal laws found in all vidya ever.
You autist.

>I'm not gonna roleplay sex with you.

Well that's just rude. I'm putting in serious effort here and you're just giving me coldfish.

Name 1 game where you can literally loot everything.

Minecraft.

Minecraft, Starbound, Terraria

That was a good thread.

...

If you're having trouble fighting something maybe hire some fucking NPCs to help you instead if hoarding all that fucking money you get.

You can run away

If you fire every rapist guard soon you will have no guards and the elves will escape
If they were not fkawed people they wouldn't work as a guard on a plantation.

Okay, addendum: Chaotic neutral, neutral evil, and chaotic evil characters must have a convincing written background to be played. My experiences on roll20 tell me that those alignments are almost always an attempt to preemptively excuse murderhobos and generally antagonistic roleplay. I don't care for it. At least the others can make for a cohesive group.

4e. And thank you; you also.

>rapist gaurds
>elves working a plantation

What the fuck is your group up to?

So no logic that can be found in vidya is allowed? Because that doesn't leave a lot of logic to be featured in OPs games.