Dirty Veeky Forums Secrets

I don't actually play, mainly because people bore me. I'm just here for the 40K lore, rumours, and WIP threads.

I don't see that as a bad thing.
I'm here for the storytimes

All my settings I introduce to players and use are actually just Magical Realms created as an afterthought from the erotic stories and smut-lit I've written in the past, with minor tweaks made to conceal this fact.

Pretty clever. link

well over 50% of Veeky Forums

We should bring /wst/ back, or something like it. A place to contain everybody's boners because just banning a lewd theead's existence sure ain't working.

I've written a handful of screencapped Veeky Forums stories an every single one was fiction.

Furthermore, I've stolen other Veeky Forums stories for use in my fiction.

I think people who dislike D&D hate fun and I try not to associate with them.

... but this is just correct

all my homebrew settings are based off metal songs and albums.

I constantly see people shit on D&D and call it a bad system, but 5e is an easy groundwork to free-form the rest, and the other editions offer varying styles of game with more/less substance etc.

I honestly do not know why people seriously hate it and play things like Pathfinder (which is a cancerous mass of throbbing homebrew).

I recenty found out Kitsune are my fetish.

When not doing actual discussion, I use Veeky Forums as a fielding ground for my most retarded inner thoughts and creations, so I don't feel bad when I post piss drunk or say something stupid.
I ran what was pretty much the worst quest ever about two years back on the same basis, partially out of a misplaced sense of artistry and partially because I wanted to see how much mileage I could get out of it before it blew up in my face.
I use RPGs as something to commit to, because I have a history of anxiety and depression and anything that forces me to think about another person instead of myself is a huge benefit. Besides, I enjoy being a DM, even if I objectively suck at it.

I don't really like the horus heresy that much, I find "modern" 40k much more interesting

5E hate/Pathfinder love is a pretty useful for avoiding playing with someone/wasting time engaging them about gaming

If the party isn't meant to see through the disguise of a non-villainous NPC yet, the DC is arbitrarily high.

why even bother to set a DC

I absolutely hate nearly every story that frequently gets reposted in our "epic screencap" threads. Sir Bearington? Low-effort Chicken Boo ripoff. The SJW party who let the kingdom get invaded by the necromancer while they got sidetracked instituting a revolution for gay marriage? Shit that never happened, and heavy-handed political morality story on top of that. The saga of Edgardo? Oh, whoop-de-fucking-doo, it's the story of a guy who found a game-breaking flaw in a homebrew. That's about as big an accomplishment as getting laid in a women's prison with a handful of pardons on the day the cafeteria served rohypnol as dessert. And it's too long and repetitive; life pro-tip, guys, just because the post is longer than the fucking Ramayana doesn't mean it's epic and an instant classic, jesus.

All of you, stop liking things I don't like, and stop having fun.

I don't, that's my point. But I can't stop them from rolling checks.

I subtly fuck with my party on purpose as a GM and attempt to get them to kill eachother.

I only browse Veeky Forums for lore and green texts

you said the DC is arbitrarily high

I ask why you set a DC

you say you ... don't

soooo it's not arbitrarily high, it just doesn't exist at all

also you can let your players know that you will ask them to roll dice when it is necessary; this is "calling for rolls"

...

I've had years of fun running semi homebrew D&D 3.5 games, and am currently running a star wars one based on that system.

I almost always put an NPC in the party when I'm DMing, so I have someone to help move the game forwards and give the PCs hints.

I think current edition 40k is boring, and have a complete collection of 3ed codexes+ rulebook so me and my friends can play retro warhammer.

>running SW with D&D 3.5

truly terrible secret

>always insert DM PCs

filthy horrible secret!

>thinks 40k 7E is boring

... but that is just correct

>soooo it's not arbitrarily high, it just doesn't exist at all
An unassigned DC is either arbitrarily low or arbitrarily high, in that it is either impossible to succeed or impossible to fail. Since you're dealing with discrete values when rolling dice, the fact that a result always has the same outcome, regardless of the value, would be represented by a statement that is true for arbitrarily large or arbitrarily small values of x.

I hate warhammer 40k.

I see, so that makes you arbitrarily pedantic

I still use D20 Modern cause I love 3.5e and I think the system they used for the game is really good & fun for a modern, past, or future campaign.

>also you can let your players know that you will ask them to roll dice when it is necessary; this is "calling for rolls"
Yeah, but telling them that they can't roll against something and then having that thing be relevant generates ill-will. "Oh, of course, we weren't ALLOWED to see what was going on. Jackass."

Meanwhile, having them roll and then fail elicits a very different response at the time of relevance: "Oh, shit, it was THAT hard to do? Fuck, what are we dealing with, here?"

Always allow your players to attempt an impossible thing, even if you know that it's impossible. It will impress them much more than simply telling them that they will fail.

I let my players enter their magical realms in games, and also make the most donut steel characters if they want. No one tends to break a game or go completely sexual and everyone has good fun.

I also enjoy beast races in more than an aesthetic level, but thean, as long as its intelligent and of age...

>he's pedantic for answering your question
Why would you even ask, if you don't want an answer?

The star wars campaign is just based on the 3.5 mechanics.
Imagine Kotor, in tabletop.

As far as DMPCs, you could call them that, but it's really not how it works out in practice.
The last one was a witch, who was useless in combat, but had really powerful buffs and healing.

>oh it was a dc 1000? God he was stealthy

This, but I also homebrew as well

>MTG is only fun in limited and gimmicky casual formats like commander and vanguard and chaos magic and plane chase.
>MTG isn't fun with less than 5 people.
>Edh is only fun if you use both banlists.
>Constructed is only fun with price limits on the deck and individual cards, used like warhammer army points.

I had fun playing with the same two guys with the same 3 decks for throughout high school

rhetorical questions imply their answers

>so a locked door literally cannot be opened by anyone other than the chosen one prophesied by the gods themselves even though it's a nonmagical lock and I have lockpicks

Even though I've played campaigns in like 30 systems, Pathfinder is my favorite game thus far.

i've never shilled out more than $40 in one go for a hobby thing in my life. i think the authors/publishers deserve the money they charge but also feel like anyone who pays that much for entertainment is some kind of fucking idiot

I had fun in highschool playing one ever evolving GW elf deck throughout highschool, but never enjoyed 1v1.

Puzzle lock/unique lock mechanism

I like Kaldor Draigo.

I can't decide which part of this post bothers me more: the fact that you're ignoring that there's no set DC in the conversation you're replying to, or the fact that you think that a DM would or should ever tell the party the DC of anything.

We played 2v1 and just rolled for who was the 1. 1 got double life, double draw, and double land play

if a player says, for example, "my character does not believe that person is really who he claims" then that should be that; there should be no rolling dice to attempt to validate the character's opinion

as to "impossible" seeming tasks, just ask the players ro specifically describe how they are attempting it

they will either figure out that there is no reasonable way to attempt that thing or get creative and propose something interesting, at which point the DM calls for a roll

...

Even a puzzle lock or unique lock could be picked by someone with sufficient skill, even if the sufficient level of skill is inhuman. They should still be allowed a check.

Anyone charging $20+ for a PDF must be retarded.
If I buy a hard copy, I feel entitled to the PDF and will unabashedly pirate it. The notion that they're separate products to be purchased separately is one I find insulting.
I will buy things from a publisher more than once to support them making the thing I like, and will email them telling them I did so to draw attention to it.

You're a shit DM, go write a book.

There can be reasonable ways to attempt a thing that are simply doomed to failure due to the player's skill level. Why shouldn't they be allowed an attempt?

so that makes you arbitrarily aggressive

>he's a shit DM

guess that was his secret

What's so great about them? I mean, there's worse out there, it's just they seem so... bland. Catgirls, wolfgirls, and doggirls all have distinct character traits, but the way I've seen Kitsune portrayed is just... humans with ears and a fluffy tail. It's like saying you like white bread. Just white bread by itself. You're technically not wrong, but at the same time... It's still just white bread.

Not a simple lockpicking roll though. It's not hard to imagine a lock standard tools are useless for, but I'd certainly allow lockpicking and/or applicable knowledge roll(s) to examine the lock and crafting rolls to build tools specifically for it.

A player should always be allowed to investigate or try anything. They should be able to roll to see through a disguise, even if the person isn't disguised at all. Otherwise, the points at which you DO call for rolls become too transparent. They need to be able to fail a roll in a situation where the check was unnecessary, or else they'll always know that they failed when the check WAS.

Only allowing players to roll when you tell them to encourages metagaming by telling the players, but not the characters, what's actually important.

>It's not hard to imagine a lock standard tools are useless for
Would you be able to tell that from the outside of the lock? If not, then there's no reason to forbid the check.

characters can attempt anything

if that thing is truly impossible, however, there is no reason to roll dice given that the point of rolling dice is to randomize success/failure

but let's keep the actual example in mind: is it really impossible to discover the true identity of a NPC?

generally no - it's just a matter of doing something more interesting than piloting stats on a character sheet and demanding sense motive rolls or similar

but this is exactly why the DM should be the one calling for rolls

At least he specified non-villainous. It's much less egregious if the party simply doesn't realize that they're drinking with the king than if the helpful old man has been the dark lord all along.

>but this is exactly why the DM should be the one calling for rolls
Why? In what was does "Nope, you fail" elicit a different reaction from the players than Oak telling them that there's a time and a place for everything?

If your players don't respond to failure by getting creative, I'm really sad for your group.

Oh I was arguing something completely different. I'd never forbid a roll.

>Only allowing players to roll when you tell them to encourages metagaming by telling the players, but not the characters, what's actually important.

No

a proper DM only calls for rolls because rolling is a randomization mechanic so all calling for a roll actually means is the DM is not deciding whether something will succeed or fail (although he has decided the chances of success/failure)

And, a player could roll to be god, get a confirmed crit and bitch when he isn't god

>crit
>on something that isn't an attack roll

it's not really a matter of saying, nope you fail

rather, it's about asking the player to describe what the character is actually trying

"can I tell if that is someone disguised as the prince?"

"what are you doing to figure this out?"

>It's much less egregious if the party simply doesn't realize that they're drinking with the king than if the helpful old man has been the dark lord all along.

>generally no - it's just a matter of doing something more interesting than piloting stats on a character sheet and demanding sense motive rolls or similar

I think you two misunderstand the reason of my ire. The problem with setting unbeatable DCs for clearly achievable tasks is not that that the players don't get to succeed and the numbers the character sheet aren't there so the PC can have a 40%-to-win button. The stats serve the DM as a guide to build a living breathing world where things interact logically and consistently.

If the benevolent old king is such a master of disguise, why does he not simply disguise himself as the BBEGs lieutenant and simply find out his war plans?

If such un-pickable un-breakable un-dispellable magic doors exist, why not seal the BBEG behind one?

This ultimately turns the world from a consistent fantasy world into a themepark ride where NPC do what they do because that's their role and not because that makes sense and plot-barricades are completely arbitrary so the DM can wank off his story.

>all calling for a roll actually means is the DM is not deciding whether something will succeed or fail
Correct.

Which means that, whenever the DM doesn't call for a roll, success or failure is solely determined by his whims. There's a 0% chance that the DM will be surprised by the outcome.

Even if the success or failure of a venture is predetermined by the DM, and the chance of surprise is 0%, letting the players think that there's a chance of upsetting the plan will keep them more engaged.

Consider Vegas: Everyone knows that the house always wins, but the illusion that you MIGHT beat the system causes people to throw away millions.

>Using critical successes out of combat
>not having reasonable outcomes for crit successes
I mean you can houserule whatever but it doesn't mean it's a good idea.

>I roll to become god!
>nat 20
>Ok, your character is now named God

>hyperbole

Is shit. Stop using it and fewer people will make fun of you online.

If your story can not deal with you as DM being surprised it's a shit story and you should go write a book. The only reason DM screens should exist is for information-keeping and being able to write notes for single players.

>The stats serve the DM as a guide to build a living breathing world where things interact logically and consistently.
Let's not pretend that most game systems have numbers that actually make sense in the context of a living breathing world.

According to most editions of D&D, a 20th level monk would not be able to match most Olympic athletes.

here is further context:

I don't call for a roll when the player says his character is going to draw his sword - I just decide that is successful

this doesn't encourage metagaming

if a player says, I will do [seemingly impossible task], I do not simply reply, you fail

I say, describe how you are attempting [seemingly impossible task] and I will tell you what to roll

>According to most editions of D&D, a 20th level monk would not be able to match most Olympic athletes.
Are you mentally deficient? Current standing long jump record is 30 ft = DC 30.

A level 6 character :
09 ranks in jump
+2 from strength
+3 from skill focus

total +14 will succeed at that 45% of the time already. A level 20 monk would have 23 ranks alone in that, with strength, skill focus and tumble synergy he would literally auto succeed on the check every single time
Fucking retard.

oops, 25%, typo

I'm actually constantly surprised by my players, and have ended up rewriting several campaigns on a nearly session-by-session basis. This has sometimes led to behind-the-scenes retcons, where previously unrevealed information has been rewritten in order to make for a better overall story. In fact, in one game, a helpful NPC from early on later turned out to have been the villain all along--and I was as surprised as the entire party.

In such a situation, had the party rolled against her disguise in the first few sessions, they would have never uncovered her identity...because I didn't know it at the time, either.

Someone did the math in a thread a while back, and a 20th level monk is slower than Usain Bolt.

In D&D next, a level 1 paladin had a 25% chance to convince anyone of anything. He could have Asmodeous give him the throne

I fucking love GURPS, but I deliberately avoid posting about it in any system threads because I hate being accused of memeposting or having "LOL SPERG" comments thrown at me.

I just want to be able to post about a game I like in peace, but I know Veeky Forums isn't really the place for meaningful open-minded discussion on most systems. Even OSR has people shitpost all over it.

Mr Bolt holds the 100 m sprint record with a time of 9.58 seconds.
100 m are roughly 330 ft.
330 ft / 9.58 seconds leaves us with a speed of 34.25 ft / s.
A round has 6 seconds, so we reach a total of ~ 205.5 ft / round (which he holds for 10 seconds or roughly 2 rounds.)
A 6th level monk has a base speed of 50 ft. If he uses the run action that is quadrupled for 200 ft / round. If he has the run feat that is increased by 25%.

If the monk is indeed level 20 he'd have a base speed of 90 ft. If he runs he will be about twice as fast as Mr Bolt, reaching a speed of roughly 80 km/h, making it legal for him to travel on a german autobahn.

So, no, whoever did the math was wrong.

Who would have thought that a soulless cash-grab by wotc has not as well thought through mechanics as a system made by enthusiasts

Sounds like alcoholism friendo. Consider sobriety and continue gaming.

I'm leaning in the opposite direction, to a degree. 40K's becoming a bit too nobledark and cartoon-epic for my tastes.

I hate grimdark with a passion and love all the new centrepiece models. I hate metal miniatures, just thinking about assembling and carrying them again gives me shudders. I think the Oldcrons were the worst faction in 40k and the Newcrons are absolutely awesome. I think the Horus Heresy range is extremely bland and boring.

I've been in the hobby since the 90's.

That's okay, I've never believed a singe screencapped story if that makes you feel better.

Their shape changing and magic. Most of the other ones are obvious to spot, but a Kitsune is hard to spot unless they want you to find their true identity.

It's like the pod people only you get to touch fluffy tail when you find one.

I unironically love D&D 3.X.
I grew up in a Veeky Forums household, played dozens of various games from Gurps to Fatal to Shadowrun. Still keep coming back to 3.X. I have every book D&D has produced since 1e, and while i respect and enjoy other editions, 3.X is my favorite. I love the splats for it, all 60 of them.

>these opinions
>since the 90s
You're a weird man and a heretic.

>grew up in a Veeky Forums household
>played ... Fatal

seems you have worse secrets than liking 3.X

Dungeon World is good.