RP confessions thread:

Are you me? I keep trying to remember to write the names down but it always comes down to me trying to get the player to ask about the NPC by name to make them appear again.

I don't enjoy GMing, but I'm the only one in my group diligent enough to pull together the prepwork (let alone a base understanding of the rules) and get us together to actually play. I enjoy interacting with my friends, and they say that I run sessions well, but I don't get satisfaction out of roleplaying the NPCs and moving the gears of the world, just an assload of stress every week. The main enjoyable part is dropping cool or terrible things on them for their reactions.

I really don't like one of my two GMs, but the one I like, the one who's GMing style I work better with, is leaving soon. So I'm thinking of trying to host a game at some point, finally stop relying on others to do something I'd love to see play out. At this point I've GMed before, and it wasn't that hard.

I despise half the players at my table and want them gone. They are here for beer-and-pretzels game, and they are actively dragging the campaign down to thelr level. Things would be much better without them.

I stall for time when writing by BSing slice-of-life sections in the middle of an investigation-heavy campaign.
>The players like the slice-of-life more than the actual adventure.

I refuse to use standard RPG-fare monsters because I hate the meta and want to give incentive for knowledge skills. 90% of monsters I use are made the fuck up.

The last two times I played as a character, I:
1. Seduced the GM in-character, knowing that she liked yaoi way too much
2. Called a different DM out at an Adventurer's League session for being garbage and only regarded as "good" by fat autistic neckbeards who wanted to dick her. (One of those bitches who threatens "lightning damage" for not working on-script and doesn't even let you loot the pelt of a deer with GOLD FOR FUR to use as a sick-ass cape.)

I fudge my rolls when I GM.

>I consider slaughtering the entire party an okay way to have to party learn how to play D&D
Whenever I teach a system I run a one-shot. Since we won't need the characters after the one-shot I have no problems having most or all of the party killed off.

I've never played an RPG my entire life and only browse Veeky Forums after randomly discovering it a couple of years ago, though I will probably opt in for a random beginner friendly game on roll20 soon and see how it goes.

I'm fucking awful at making and running encounters. In any game. Can't do DM-side combat to save my ass.

I worry constantly that my GMing and worldbuilding isn't good enough. My players all seem to think it's great and have told me as much, but I'm pretty sure they're lying.

I've never finished an RPG campaign in my life as a GM, because after the first or second session we miss a session for the week and then nobody attends and then people lose interest and then whenever I attempt to set a new campaign nobody trusts me anymore with GMing but still won't make their own game so I'll probably abandon the hobby without ever getting to have fun with it.

>on roll20
Wrong choice. Prepare for an ass-raping.

I've always had a high threshold for people with "difficult" personalities and I feel confident in my abilities to handle them just fine

I really hope I get weirdos because I feel like them being awkward or weird or whatever would balance out my own awkwardness

>I'm a shitty RPer
>I use D&D as an excuse to hang out with other humans

This dude RP'd so well and is just a far cry from any other potential this guy and kept it up the entire game I may have fallen in love with him AND his character.
The young elven prince he agreed to bodyguard the next campaign might just be a bit on the amorous side for his ruggedly charming mercbro

I'm losing patience with a couple members of my campaign. I made it very clear about the tone, style, pace, and media the setting was going to be based from and they bring in murderhobos who's only depth of character is "i attack it". Out of character one is constantly waving their dick about how they could take any of the other characters in a fight, and the other constantly metagaming wether it be other conversations they werent a part of or monster stats. One even openly admits they "only" take the highest tiered feats/classes is to off set their "bad luck" at rolling.

I try my hardest to make balanced encounters for them, but it never works out. Like most systems, the balanced encounter charts/resources fall apart very quickly or dont account for enough factors and ultimately make fights cake walks. When i spice things up even a little bit be it terrain, action economy, immunities/weaknesses, or minor support it edges too far against them. The combat is largely non-lethal and mostly for sport, so i dont feel so bad about it but i always get complaints from my problem players. Weve talked about how they over specialized their charactera in areas that wont come up often, but they seem to think that shouldnt count against them.

I like DMing but I really want to play a PC sometime, but I'm also afraid if someone else DMs, my players will want them to DM from now on.

I want to DM, but I've never done tabletop roleplay as a player, and I feel I need that experience. No one would want to play with me, anyway, though.

I currently play a lolrandumb insane character.

Somehow I still wound up being the party's straight man. I don't know how it turned out like this.

You sound like the guy who introduced my group to D&D, he DMs about 66% of the time, and any time he is a player he just seems wholly disinterested in what is going on. He loves throwing the deck at us and we love drawing from it but I don't remember any one ever getting Void.

I'm the groups forever dm, and honestly I'm sick of half the players. They drink before the game starts when we wargame and are utterly incapable of paying attention during the game, It's fucking exhausting trying to rally their attention over and over again. especially since 1/2 to 2/3rds of the players (we have people that don't make it every week) seem to really enjoy playing the game.

this happened to me as well.
how the fuck did this happen.

In my case, a large part of it was probably that most of the players can't roleplay past [alignment] stupid.

The Paladin has actual Aspergers and couldn't diplomat his way out of a paper bag, the barbarian has an intelligence of 6 and is intent on becoming the god of beef (because he's a minotaur), the mage and warlock barely talk outside of combat, and the bard is constantly caught up in spreading the myth that they're the 'greatest swordsman in the world' at the cost of a lot of other stuff.

Granted, the bard is actually pretty good, they just manage to be a lot more flamboyant than I ever did.

Meanwhile my character just wants to pour a flask of acid down the BBEG's throat because that fucker shorted him payment. Out of just about everyone I somehow have the most grounded character motivation in the party, save the paladin who is still absolutely boneheaded.

this

I don't like playing. I can only barely tolerate playing my grumpDwarf in an old AD&D game. I thought I was getting burned out ,but I don't think it's because I'm GMing too much.

I actively do things I know the rest of the party will hate both IC and OOC despite knowing it'll get them legitimately pissed in both cases.

I actively try to get characters that I don't like killed by any hand other than my own, be it PC or NPC. Albeit relatively subtly.

I'm 96% sure that I'm my group's That Guy (and seen as such) and I'm just waiting to hear the GM or one of the other players to tell me to fuck off and never come back.

Not an RP confession but I'm pretty sure everyone I know hates me and only put up with me out of either pity or something similar.

What's it like having an Asp player? I've seen it a few times before

The details I make up when I create a setting are always either too big or too small for my players to ever notice. It's either the contested borders of countries they'll never visit or a trivial folk legend from a fishing village they might have passed through.

I use random elements in everything I create as to avoid contrivance.

If I spent half as much time writing important things as I did making randomized tables then I would be an infinitely better GM.

The way I GM a game goes something like this:
>Pick out an idea from from one of the dozens that I have thought about but never use.
>Bullshit my way through a session, usually little to no combat, just setting up stuff. (I have a system for randomizing plot and setting elements which usually gives me something to work with.)
>After the session, retroactively write in reasons for everything that happened, determine, start writing the adventure they were supposed to be on one session after it starts.
>Run the next session with an idea of where its going. This is usually a more combat-heavy session until the players get to the next part I planned out. Important combats I might build myself, everything else I leave to random encounter tables I devise.
>Rinse and repeat ad infintum

This can actually end up creating pretty organic adventures where everything has its place, but it's all natural enough so as not to feel contrived. That doesn't excuse me from having a lazy, shitty method, though.

He's got a relatively mild case. Mostly he doesn't understand how to RP dialogue with any impact and has a habit of trying plans that would work well if it wasn't for some glaringly obvious flaw that he just always forgets about.

For example: We're trying to stop the dwarfs and orcs from killing the shit out each other at the moment. The paladin tries to blend in to the dwarf army to avoid being seen by the officers (since we're ~80% sure there's a splinter faction in their army who's largely to blame for the current conflict).

Except he's an aasimar. Not only is he two feet taller than everyone else, he glows like a fucking Christmas tree, and it's the middle of the night. When he's approached by one of the officers (who legitimately just wants his input on something) he basically goes:

>"Uh..."
>activates his angel wings made of crimson fire
>flies to the other end of the column
>pretends like nothing happened

He did this twice.

Slightly less obvious, but still very stupid, he tried to challenge a warlock to a duel on his first game. The problem was that he agreed to start the duel at 30 paces and had totally fucking skipped spells during his character creation. So he was a paladin with no spells at 30 paces against a warlock who was three levels higher than him. You can guess how this went.

Considering the rest of the party, his character isn't really that out of place. The problem is that the rest of us are trying to be silly and he does it all on accident.

I talked shit about 5e, 3.5 and PF with only very little to no experience.

Now I am playing in a 5e campaign. And it's going okay.

You like playing the opposite of other people. but when everyone is The Joker. there is no balance so you pull yourself back to sane, to be the opposite

I hate my player half the time. I don't give them anything until they give me their blood sweat and tears. and then I only give them half of what they wanted.

>I hate D&D but I believe myself to be an excellent world builder and fantasy author, therefore I DM so I get to show off and be the center of attention

Fucking all of Veeky Forums I swear

>I don't give them anything until they give me their blood sweat and tears. and then I only give them half of what they wanted.
>I only give them half of what they wanted.
YOU MONSTER

>Not an RP confession but I'm pretty sure everyone I know hates me and only put up with me out of either pity or something similar.
I don't know you or your issues, but I've met Eeyores and Secret Eeyores and being certain everyone won't like you is the finest example of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Lighten up.

I legitimately like 3.5 and pathfinder. The fact that I have no other choices does not bother me.

>>I only give them half of what they wanted.
>YOU MONSTER
Why is this monstrous?
Oh, you wanted a puppy didn't you?

...

Killing a new party because they fucked up does teach a lesson. If they are all killed because they didn't have someone to find traps next time they all will have the right tools.

Do you want your half chopped symmetrically or just the front of it?

I've been banging my DM's little sister behind his back for over a year now

>I don't like actually playing D&D, but I love being the GM

Obviously a shitty GM isn't going to enjoy playing. How can you get your god complex fix then ? Likewise you know the games you run are shitfests to strike your ego so you assume everygame is like that and don't want to play in them as a result.

This too shall pass, DMate.

Had one in an online game before.

In our setting, angels are generally asexual creatures who very super rarely fall in love with humans who embody human kindness - their children generally are like their angel parent.

She literally saw nothing wrong with having her half-angel character laugh mockingly and make a "cool one liner" as someone burned to death. Someone who had been changed against their will into a monster and by this point she was made aware they weren't in their right mind. There were strong hints the condition could be reversed too. She set them on fire instead.

She took the "redemption path" placidly, though. And never let the (sometimes nasty) comments of some of the other players get to her. I always felt awful that I didn't step up to tell people to knock it off more, but I didn't actually know what autism/Asp was until years after the game folded.

(I'm sure I've played with plenty who also fell into that spectrum, but she was a standout case.)

>meanwhile in a magical world of fantasy beyond user's wildest imagination

Story time

Are you making the encounters too easy or too hard?

You shouldn't beat yourself up too much for planning an encounter that your PCs have has to retreat from. If they try to fight to the death against someThing mostly immune to what they've got, they're dummies. Give them a knowledge roll to realize they need to retreat and come back with 'silver bullets'

I left a play group because I started to develop a crush on a married man. Possibly primarily because he was a fucking good player who decided his character's entire motivation was to be noticed by my character and all the fucked up things he was doing was in the pursuit of that goal.

Since I know that IC happenings have (or rather, should have) no bearings on OOC and I am not a homewrecker, I decided it was wiser to just distance myself from the group since I was starting to become concerned about whether I was imagining he was flirting with me OOC or not.

He was probably just being friendly. But he did admit that his character (a total piece of shit) was based on how he was as a teenager. And his character was literally going behind his wife's back to fuck my character. Better safe than sorry.

I fucking knew women went for older bad boy assholes. At least you did your best to resist the allure of a married man.

Why not go for one of the nice guys in your group who would love and protect you?

>Seduced the GM in-character, knowing that she liked yaoi way too much
What? Do you mean you seduced her NPC?

Not a sin.

Post something legit or gtfo

Not a sin. gtfo

Yes it is. Fudging is pure shit tier GMing. Instead of rules, consistency and player choice deciding the outcome how the GM feels decides it which ironically is far more random and unpredictable than dice.

Why evem bother rolling dice or having mechanics if you play like this? Just tell your players that you decide when they hit and miss and you decide when they get hit and enjoy your game of make believe/dungeon world.

I am legitimately sad that Veeky Forums is turning in such a shithole.
Have you even read the 10 commandments? It's because if you leave Everything to the dice, eventually it Will bite you in the ass.

Let's say the players step up to the evil lieutenant of the main villain, who through a very lucky crit manages to one-shot/knock out one of the party members and rolls godlike for the next few rounds. He eventually dies, but the party is now at half their original strenght because of bad luck alone.
Then the main villain shows up with the army of mooks that he has -which you had said that accompanied him and now you can't back out of- and cleans up the rest of the party. TPK.

The fight is dry and unsatisfying, just like the forced ending of the campaign, all because instead of giving them a good challenge, you let the enemies curbstomp them without any mercy.

tl;dr: you are pic related and a hater. And you're definitely no nigga of mine.

DMing for me is kinda hit-or-miss, the problem is, when playing, if it isn't Forgotten Realms or a setting I've read and are knowledgeable enough (I don't meta), I just can seem to get invested in the game world, so I end up bored.

I just want a prince neckbeard to come and take me to Greyhawk or even, I dunno, Baldur's Gate like its supposed to be.

You've described a scenario where , without any form of fiat just through playing the game, the players have a reason to both hate and fear the main villain if his lieutenant can do that sort of damage. That's awesome, the dead players can make new characters and the surviving ones can work out a plot for vengeance with serious motivation now.

As for the TPK a wise party would run away once they have lost half their number. If they don't then the TPK is their fault ( although they might get lucky themselves and crit the villain to death or whatever which would be awesome as well) Obviously though parties with GM's who fudge never consider retreat an option because they never lose any fights as they get magically saved at the last minute by gm fiat. See ? It self perptuates its own bullshit to justify itself .

Seriously there's no point even playing the game if you're going to fudge. It means there's no challenge, no tension , no engagement ,no player agency , no meaningful choices, no point in tactics just a series of encounters you can never lose. Dull as fuck.

I mean why should a party in this sort of game ever try say stealthily creeping into the villains castle? They may as well just storm the front gates since they are invincible beings blessed by the gods of luck never to die.

>That's awesome, the dead players can make new characters and the surviving ones can work out a plot for vengeance with serious motivation now.
Yeah, that Lich that now has the macguffin to destroy the whole world will totally let another group of heroes stop him, now that he is basically at the end of his quest to bring death to everything.

>As for the TPK a wise party would run away once they have lost half their number.
Why shouldn't the main villain chase them down and kill them all? This is where you cry "DM FIAT!" by the way.

>If they don't then the TPK is their fault
Let's assume they run. Let's also assume the lich doesn't have never lose any fights as they get magically saved at the last minute by gm fiat.
Please, at least pretend to have read what I posted before. It's rule 6 of the 10 commandments.

>Seriously there's no point even playing the game if you're going to fudge. It means there's no challenge, no tension , no engagement ,no player agency , no meaningful choices, no point in tactics just a series of encounters you can never lose. Dull as fuck.
Says you. You just never had a GM good enough that you could tell whether or not he is fudging the dice or not.

>I mean why should a party in this sort of game ever try say stealthily creeping into the villains castle? They may as well just storm the front gates since they are invincible beings blessed by the gods of luck never to die.
The retardation never ends.

>Start telling a very convincing lie to the NPC about actually working for his megacorp
>the GM was like, "this is in a room where the rest of you [PCs] don't actually know what's going on."
>Other players left the room.
>I wasn't getting the information I wanted
>I still needed to buy about 30 minutes for our megacorp's extraction team to pick up this guy.
>I need a plan.
>Pic related
>Take the seduction route, knowing that the GM is not only into yaoi, but specifically likes hot young salaryman-on-salaryman action
>"His hands are behind his back. Yours should be behind the chair."
>Puts her hands behind the chair
>Whispers into her ear "Why not have a little fun while we're here?"
>I've gone full method acting
>Making out ensues
>I pull back, and say "and then, they fucked."
>I get the info I was after.

It helped that I had already done so with her, and we were already in the "are they dating?" phase.

Funny thing is that outside of method acting, I have very little confidence.

>They may as well just storm the front gates since they are invincible beings blessed by the gods of luck never to die.
Its a 2 way street. You can fudge the dice and they get rekt for being dumb. I never understand why people immediately assume roll fudging means the GM turns on easy mode. You use it at moments where a certain outcome results in max fun. If the party being slaughtered and needing to retreat is fun for them then why possibley deny them that by having dice decide an encounter and it ends up they sweep the fight? You made the world why just toss away control? Sure rolling gives you great basis for challenge but it should never overtake the enjoyment of a party. If you don't have fun the same way as your party find a new one.

It's because autist-user "fudging is bad REEEEEEE" assumes that any GM that is not him only ever makes bad judgement calls.

>I don't like GMing because I feel like there's a lot of responsibility on my solders and I hate the feeling when the players show me that I've fucked up.
>I hate making maps in roll20 but I refuse to use someone else's maps because I think that's just being lazy.
>I hate it when people are critical of my PCs unless it's just a character who I didn't put any effort in.
>I don't like playing as casters because I don't like having to relay on them failing their saves and low to mid levels I have to fight along side marshal anyway. I also hate having to fill out my spell list.

I have worse stuff but I am paranoid that someone from my group might figure it's mean and confront me on it and one of them will punish one of my PCs for it in their campaign.

Is it me or at least 75% of GM suffer from depression or some other mental disorder?

I want legit Sins to be brought back. Like
>I killed a character by fudging a dice because the player didn't use a fucking coaster.
>I had [male PC] abducted by drow and tortured because that makes me hard.
>I ate three slices of pizza instead of two.

You would too if you have to deal with 4-6 retarded murderhobos on a weekly basis.

You're supposed to say anything 5e related is pretty good.

Well, have you considered that it's OKAY to let the players lose if you know, they fail to beat the Lich?

I know you've been raised with the belief that everybody is special and nobody can lose the race because taking part is what's important but that's not how the world works and isn't particularly interesting, engaging or exciting.

I mean how about, they lose,the lich wins, new campaign in the liches tyrannical undead state. New characters could be a small underground resistance movement who worship the matyred original characters as saviours who will one day return or even servants of the Lich in forging his new empire. Isn't that far more interesting than just blandly winning every single fight because the GM said so? May as well just watch a movie or read a book in that case. I mean are you really that scared of failure?

There's actually an entire generation ruined by this train of thought that failure is bad because ironically they've been built so conditioned to fear failure that they can't accept or process the possibility let alone the reality of failure so spend their entire lives suffering with the likes of anxiety and depression and constantly holding themselves back.

See in my games my players earn their victories,sure sometimes they lose but when they do win against the odds victory is sweeter because it is real
In your game everybody is a winner yay , which of course means actually nobody is and nothing matters.

I have no idea if my players like my games, but they have been playing them for a couple of years. I just do my own thing and hope they have fun at this point, but feedback would be nice.

I do and I do.
Just checking to see if I'm not alone.

i eat as much pizza as i like because i'm the one buying it

You fucking mong.

>In your game everybody is a winner yay , which of course means actually nobody is and nothing matters.
We're playing pretend if you hadn't noticed: none of this actually happened and none of this matters except the amount of fun you and your players have in your game.

>There's actually an entire generation ruined by this train of thought that failure is bad because ironically they've been built so conditioned to fear failure that they can't accept or process the possibility let alone the reality of failure so spend their entire lives suffering with the likes of anxiety and depression and constantly holding themselves back.
An awful lot of assumptions there bud. Tell me when you're done with setting up the strawman: I'll wait.

>I mean how about, they lose,the lich wins, new campaign in the liches tyrannical undead state.
How about the plane is crashed with no survivors, like how the Lich originally planned instead?

>I mean are you really that scared of failure?
No, I am simply trying to keep the game as interesting as it can be. My version of fun differs from
>Okay, the evil Lich uses his arcane powers and points his finger at you and *roll die* misses.
After a round
>Alright, the villain tries to hit you all with a fireball and *dice rolling* you make your saves
another round
>The Lich is looking quite beaten, but he tries to use a spell on PC1 *rolls die* but it has no effect
in the end
>The Lich tries to blow himself up with his leftover arcane might, since he is as close to death as he is
>*roll die* So... you are knocked out and everyone else is just fine
>the Lich gets curbstomped by the players because of good luck and they start saying how his liutenant was harder than that and how anti-climactic the last fight was

That you love killing parties has nothing to do with "everyone having to be a winner" or "the new generation"

The only Veeky Forums game I've actually played is 40k, which was back in 4th edition (started right at the end of 3rd ed). I still really enjoy browsing Veeky Forums.

I have on several occasions asked about story/setting related advice and ideas while only pretending it was for an RP campaign - in fact, it's been for short stories and amateur vidya devving.

>I know you've been raised with the belief that everybody is special and nobody can lose the race because taking part is what's important but that's not how the world works and isn't particularly interesting, engaging or exciting.
>waitingforthestrawmanstostop.webm

>Well, have you considered that it's OKAY to let the players lose if you know, they fail to beat the Lich?
Yes, if it makes for a good, satisfactory ending of the campaign.

i hate this kind of GMing since it makes me feel like i need to powergame as hard as possible just to keep my character alive after i build up some attachment to them, since i'm sure not going to catch a fucking break anytime soon

>>Implying actually succeeding at something isn't fun.

>>Implying players wouldn't have fun curbstomping a lich.

>>Implying you're an arbiter of fun. The game is fun, reading your novel to the players isn't.

Just keep your eyes and ears open and you'll see if they're enjoying it. If they're having fun you'll hear it in their voices; excitement about next session, concern over an NPC's fate, etc. On the other hand, if their focus is all over the place and you have to constantly get their attention they're likely not all that invested.

>Implying you're an arbiter of fun. The game is fun, reading your novel to the players isn't.
No, the "game" as in the rules for rolling dice is boring as fuck. People get invested on the roleplaying, which they can't do if you are constantly trying to murder their characters

Least bad meaning 3.5?

here. I wanted to ask you a question that's been bothering me for a while now.

Are you that worried about how your story sucks, that you want to place all the blame on the dice when your players start saying that the bosses are too difficult, nothing ever goes right or, alternatively, the ending sucked because the boss was way too easy?

>>Implying actually succeeding at something isn't fun.
It's more fun if it is something difficult, or something that they are really invested in.

>>Implying players wouldn't have fun curbstomping a lich.
Some do. Others would like to actually feel like the last boss is a challenge: it's also partly why Dark Souls had the success it had. Because the bosses are difficult and the players really have to rise to the challenge.
>Oh yeah, it would totally have been fun if Gwyn got curbstomped in the end!

>>Implying you're an arbiter of fun. The game is fun, reading your novel to the players isn't.
Still throwing around assumptions, aren't you?

I know that feel

>>Implying actually succeeding at something isn't fun.

>>Implying players wouldn't have fun curbstomping a lich.

>>Implying you're an arbiter of fun. The game is fun, reading your novel to the players isn't.

some groups enjoy that shit, some don't.

i played with groups like that and because of what I said up here i think i ended up reaching That Guy territory with how hard i was power gaming my cleric by the end of the game when we hit level 21 or so

a lot of persistent metamagic abuse to get the important buffs going for about 24 hours, using a bunch of those "defensive weapon" enchantments on your armor/shield spikes and gauntlets for huge ac bonuses

basically i got sick of the GM killing me when I was trying to roleplay, so the final version of my character could drop an Antimagic field over himself that lasted for 24 hours and also didn't affect him, had an AC in the upper 70's, and an epic level magic weapon

his final boss was literally incapable of damaging me in any way

it was anti-climactic as fuck

Then don't play a Roleplaying like D&D with an intricate simulationist rules system that includes randomness as a factor. All the time your players spend creating any of the crunch or tactical choices for their characters is utterly wasted as ultimately those choices are meaningless. It makes no sense for the games you want to run.

There's plenty of diceless , story and narrative based systems to facilitate your preferred brand of make believe and you don't even have to lie and cheat to your players ( you know the intelligent human beings you play with who deserve your respect not pity ) to get the games you want.

If you got to level 21 in a campaign run like that it sounds like you earned it.

You're, like, the second coming of virtualoptim. Can you please take a trip so I can ignore you in the future?

>any DnD edition
>intricate simulationist rules

So you also endorse power-gaming. Gotcha...

If your improv sessions are stealing the show figure out what they're doing that your carefully written session lacks. It may be the relatively undeveloped story is easier for players to grasp, or it may be your improv story was driven by their actions while your carefully written one left little room for their own impact on the story.

I take character inspiration from JRPGs, namely the Ogre Battle franchise and Final Fantasy Tactics.