Who was in the wrong here?

Who was in the wrong here?

Other urls found in this thread:

foolz.fireden.net/tg/thread/20649377
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

It doesn't matter because the story is a fabrication

...

The players. Just because they chose to ignore a threat that the DM clearly established doesn't mean that threat ceases to exist.

You. Fuck off.

The players. If the DM presents a certain situation, they still need to keep it in mind and act as if it's just as real as anything.

This one isn't.

Go on.

HOL UP

If the story is true (which it isn't) then its the DM's fault. The players got together and decided the kind of story they wanted to play, then the DM played along only to screw them in the end. If he didn't want to run that campaign, he should have just said so instead passively aggressively invalidating the campaign like that.

Except the players didn't say they didn't want to play that kind of campaign, they just went on a random tangent in an already established game world.
The players shouldn't be the center of the universe, where everything outside their immediate care or concern is frozen in stasis.

The GM should've hinted at the upcoming crisis. Plus no other group of adventurers going after the lich means the players actually were the center of that world.

What happens if other people went after the lich and failed?

Liches aren't weaklings, and high level adventures are rare.

Plus your players only know what their characters find out about, if they aren't listening for rumors, then they shouldn't hear them. It's part of the reason why I always have large spy circles, and always hid my powers, knowledge is power, and in a cut throat like d&d its best to go full alpha legion.

Where did this meme come from? Was there actual evidence that the story was fabricated, or is it simply that people don't want to believe it?

True, but if he's going to roll on the city with an army of undead he could drop a few hints beforehand. Maybe some of the rebel squads getting attacked and one of them manages to get back and warn them of the threat. Maybe some farmers from the outskirts run to the capital to report the threat after skeletons show up on their doorstep.

The players for ignoring the plot in favor of their gender studies bullshit.
The DM for passively-aggressively fucking over the party instead of putting them back on the rails.
The original poster for making the entire thing up in the first place for [you]s.
You for dredging it up again to bait for more [you]s.
Me for taking the bait instead of moving on with my day.

Everyone is in the wrong. No one is worth saving. We all deserve exterminatus.

>Maybe some farmers from the outskirts run to the capital to report the threat after skeletons show up on their doorstep.
>implying liberals let peasants anywhere near centers of authority

kek

The only one right was Goodman.

report.
hide.
/sage
stop making these fucking threads faggot.

No story posted on Veeky Forums is true. It is a site built on lies.

>It doesn't matter because
Carl, please inform this user of the truth he seems to be avoiding.

On to the point:
>Who was in the wrong here?
Assuming that the story is 100% truly told and free from embellishment or bias (and why would we not?), then the answer is clear:
>"I told you full well that you had to kill that lich before he completes the ritual and ushers in an age of eternal darkness."
>they think playing rebels might be more fun than killing liches.
The players were informed of a threat to the kingdom and, rather than defend against it, they actually weakened the defenses of the kingdom by starting a rebellion.

The players were in the wrong.
But, the GM was still a dick.

>The GM should've hinted at the upcoming crisis
>he could drop a few hints beforehand
Which he clearly did.

>no other group of adventurers going after the lich means the players actually were the center of that world.
This is a valid criticism, but as the GM states "*you* had to kill that lich", he could be intending a chosen one storyline or the PCs could have been the only ones informed, which is open to additional criticism itself.
Honestly, there isn't enough information to make a clear call on this point, but at any rate this issue doesn't decide the question at hand.

>Where did this meme come from?
foolz.fireden.net/tg/thread/20649377

>Was there actual evidence that the story was fabricated, or is it simply that people don't want to believe it?
It's a story about people actually playing a game, most people on current Veeky Forums have trouble believing such things happen.
Back in the day, we just accepted internally consistent stories.
Accept the premise, then discuss.
Nowadays it's all angry refusal, impotent dismissal, and unjustified smugness.

>stop making these fucking threads faggot.
Which threads are those?
Just curious if I've missed a recent rash of baitthreads or if you're just kneejerking hard.
The OP image hasn't been reposted that much recently, so that's not what you're going on about.

The story obviously is fabricated /Pol bait but presuming it is true the DM is in the wrong as he effectively let the players do what they wanted then punished them with 'rocks fall everyone dies'

A good GM would after they took control of the kingdom then seed them the Lich plot again, perhaps he has advanced the ritual, he has increased defences now, maybe he has a small army under his command enough to destroy some border towns but not siege the capital itself and the players now as rulers have to deal with that, as explicitly democratic rulers which is really interesting as they may slip into tyranny in such dark times etc.

Instead he said 'lol game over because you didn't chase one of my plot hooks in session 1.'

As a counterpoint, he allowed the players to achieve their self-declared goal, challenging and engaging them along the way, and only after they achieved their goal did he drop the rocks.
If he was trying to be a dick, there were a great many worse options.

Freedom of choice doesn't mean freedom from consequences. The DM clearly established that a lich was afoot at the very beginning. Even though the players decided to ignore this he still let them. Of course, just because they ignored the lich doesn't mean it just sits around doing nothing. The players were idiots who ignored the parameters of the game for their own wank session.

You.

Though it appears he did this merely to prove some political point of his own rather than in the interests of his players or the game.


Again we have very little context as it's a made up story but should the GM have really wanted to push the Lich thing then they he have been dropping constant and pretty obvious hints throughout the sessions that the Lich is out there and doing bad things.

Its effectively a really shitty form of railroading to set up a world ending threat on session one, never mention it again, let the players do what they want, then say 'lol you should have followed my railroad game over' at some arbitrary point. This is a really bad way to have consequences in a game as they're entirely binary.

I personally like to use the threat wheels from apocalypse world in this respect , each threat has a final conclusions and multiple steps along the way which the players get told about. They can step in at any one of these points and it's only if they ignore all of them that the bad thing happens. (And even then it's preventable still, I mean why couldn't they fight the lichs army? Go on a mission to kill the Lich? )

>Its effectively a really shitty form of railroading to set up a world ending threat on session one, never mention it again, let the players do what they want
>never mention it again, let the players do what they want
>let the players do what they want
>let the players do what they want

That's literally the opposite of railroading

Of course. "The stories posted here are works of fiction and falsehood" and all that. Still, it's amazing how a good amount of them turn out to be true, so why was this specific one targeted?

Players were in the wrong 102%. GM, may have been a dick but he gave clear warning in the beginning. If it was an open sandbox kind of deal and their were no aford mentions of lich stuff, then the gm would have been in the wrong.

the players both lack a respect for the narrative and for "consequences of action"
the DM just seems to be kinda petty


you have to keep in mind that the players DID get to play the adventure they wanted, and the consequences that followed had been established beforehand.

>Hey guys, you can do whatever you want in my open world game, but if you don't do the exact thing I want the entire game will come to an end and you'll all die.
>Boy do we feel like we have choices!

>by the by there is a lich wanting to kill people
>ignore it
>what the fuck why is everyone died?!?!?!?!

Idiot

Bethesda's "open-world" game policy

What "open-world" games should be.

The world does not revolve around your characters, and the threat was established at the beginning, the players did not object to the threat having been established, forgot about the threat, and whined when the threat that they deliberately ignored came back to bite them.

If Skyrim players faced consequences for dicking around, no player would have a Guildmaster in all three guilds and the Dark Brotherhood.

>Hey guys there's a bear trying to get into the house maybe we should stop it?
>Nah I'm just gonna fuck around and ignore it
>*gets eaten by bear*
>WHAT DO YOU MEAN ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES RRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAADDDDDDDDDDD

Please never DM. You are everything wrong with this hobby.

Why did anyone do anything wrong? It's a good story.

>Though it appears he did this merely to prove some political point of his own rather than in the interests of his players or the game.
Praytell what "political" point could this have been?
I can totally see him proving the idealogical point of either "don't derail the game with stupid OOC nonsense" or "don't ignore a massive threat explicitly presented to you", but neither of those are "political".

Both.

>The players.
Wah let's help the gays because we're so progressive
No you cunts, stay out of my campaign.

>The GM
Not just kicking them out or at least tell them to stop being cunts.

>being the DM of a gay marriage based campaign
this is why you don't let fucking girls play games with you, dumb shit like pop-politics leaking into fun

>Its effectively a really shitty form of railroading
No, it's not.
It is establishing a premise and a threat.

>This is a really bad way to have consequences in a game
True, which is why the GM is still a dick even though he's better than the players.

The gays want to imagine that the DM was just punishing his players for wanting a gay marriage campaign.

Feels like it is, why make the Lich instantly kill everyone precisely at that moment?

The players are retarded and lame, but the GM is passive agressive piece of shit in this case. Terrible group full of terrible people, but it's not like this story wasn't fabricated anyway...

>why make the Lich instantly kill everyone precisely at that moment?
Because the players had achieved their goal. At the expense of ignoring the looming threat.

They could have just made the quest to defeat the lich one big gay adventure, ending with the barbarian admitting a love for boners. Turns out the lich just wanted love afte all.

Yeah, I mean, the campaign is at an end right?
The GM indulged them, went their way with the game and at the end incorporated what a derail it was into the epilogue. That doesn't seem like a dick move to me at all.

They were just about to but did not actually achieve it in IMO. Like when you're about to avenge your father's death and then suddenly something stops you.

But that's not the main issue here, the problem is INSTANTLY and sneakily throwing it back at them, if you deny that this is passively aggressive and childish, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Now the REAL problem if this was a real story, is that the group is disfunctional with poor communication/fit and don't want to play or are not interested in the same games.

A half assed compromise like would have been fine if they all agreed to it

...

Something that everyone overlooks is that this GM planned one campaign. Most likely, they were going to switch Gm's and his turn was over at the end of his campaign. Spo he really couldn't continue a second campaign with the characters being at maximum levels and the BBEG being maxmium power, unless they were playing something other than 3.5 or 4e (as 5e wasn't out when this paste was made).

It wasn't so much rocks fall and everyone dies as "I can't actually run the game any further without fucking shit up in one way or another, so sorry, but this is where it has to end".

>The gays want to imagine that the DM was just punishing his players for wanting a gay marriage campaign.
I suppose, but considering the GM ran a whole campaign and allowed them to succeed, it's just so unlikely that I can't imagine anyone really thinking this.

>Feels like it is
Well, there you go.
Your feelings are an idiot.

>The players are retarded and lame, but the GM is passive agressive piece of shit in this case.
Although this remains true.

>why make the Lich instantly kill everyone precisely at that moment?
>Because the players had achieved their goal. At the expense of ignoring the looming threat.
>Yeah, I mean, the campaign is at an end right?
>The GM indulged them, went their way with the game and at the end incorporated what a derail it was into the epilogue.
This.

>That doesn't seem like a dick move to me at all.
It's a little bit of a dick move.
See below

>They were just about to but did not actually achieve it in IMO. Like when you're about to avenge your father's death and then suddenly something stops you.
If you earn a medal and as it's being presented to you, everyone who would care about the medal is killed by undead, you still earned the medal. If you ignored a nuclear bomb threat in order to track down and kill the man who killed your father, find him, beat him, deliver you final words, and then as you swing your death-stroke the bomb goes off killing everyone, you still achieved your goal.

There is a big difference between letting your players achieve a goal and letting them enjoy it.
The players deserved a harsh consequence and got a passive-aggressively harsh one.

>It wasn't so much rocks fall and everyone dies as "I can't actually run the game any further without fucking shit up in one way or another, so sorry, but this is where it has to end".
You are not wrong.
In my opinion, it was more of a "You did it, congratulations! This is where it has to end but remember those rocks in the air at the beginning that you all ignored this whole time? They fall and everyone dies. Great game everyone!"

>Bethesda's "open-world" game policy
That's backwards: the setting-wide threats in Bethesda games are only looming so long as you're actively engaging with them. Otherwise it's simply that there are other people worried about it. If you do other stuff then those more grandiose threads don't progress to any possible conclusion.

Bethesda games have gotten so aweful

So is every single RPG.

I'll point out that the lich's army slaughtered the townsfolk, who were not PC's. the PC's may have well survived for later use in a different game.

I'll point out that you have an odd interpretation of "the entire town" or "good end".

That was what I meant, that the guy I was qouting was a proponent of said policy, not that the qoute he quoted was. I just failed to adequately explain myself.

I even went back to fix my spelling of "quote" and still managed to misspell it. Twice. Fuck me.

True and, even though I love Morrowind, it isn't exempt, either. You can dick around forever and never have to worry about Dagoth Ur.

gay marriage and other sjw agenda are never important in the face of apocalypse.

The players for bringing real-life politics to the table

Obvously that one tard player, what the fuck. Why would you even need to ask?

Never assume a gender. Not even in the face of the Apocalypse.

>civil rights are politics

No one. The DM established a threat. The players decided they wanted to do something else. The DM played along and then showed them the consequences of their actions. There's literally nothing wrong going on here.

on one hand
>intentional campaighn derailment
on the other hand
>dm went along with it

i would like to believe that the person who originally made up the story didn't make it up to push an anti-gay agenda but we all know that isn't true

A masterful allegory for the pitfalls of narrow focus single issue activism. Bravo OP. Will you be sharing your treatise on the value of capital vs labour next?

triphet go away this isn't about that

finally, ningyo hime faggot is revealed
someone prep the banhammer

>marriage
>right
Not everything is a right.
Also, yes the entire modern theory of rights is squarely political in nature. And so is the question of who can qualify for that particular financial/religious contract. All kinds of contracts are political to some extent.

>not recognizing copypasta

The GM for forcing a premise the players didn't care about.

Also, there really wasn't a single other person capable of saving the world? I don't believe it.

why the hell would anyone spend want to spend enough time here to know that
you're right but fuck you

posting copypasta that gets almost immediately removed with a fucking trip on is begging to get banned though
offtopic sage

A U T I S T

>why the hell would anyone spend want to spend enough time here to know that
It's not about how much you're here, but rather how long you've been. Even just a single year of coming here on and off would mean that you've seen that pasta at least a dozen times.

The only real issue is that the Lich achieved his victory condition all at once. What should have happened is shit getting progressively more fucked up the longer they ignored the Lich.

another autist

>Hey user, write us a story.
>Ok, I've written a story, here goes!
>We don't like that story, we're gonna make up our own as we go
Yeah, how dare the GM care about the fact that he was asked to do only to have entirely ignored and him still expected to go along only for the sake of the players?

>Hey user, write us a story.
>Ok, I've written a story, here goes!
>We don't like that story
>W-well too bad, you don't get a say in it!
Kill yourself.

I want to go back, though.

thank you for not being retarded like 99% of everyone else here

Players and DM need to have a good long talk before game itself begins. So many problems occur because this vital step is skipped for some reason.

>ritual that magically summons a massive fuck-off army must necessarily have effects other than summoning massive fuck-off army
To be fair, it would have been more INTERESTING to see shit getting more fucky, but I'm not going to fault that if it could possibly be consistent with in-game logic.
Besides, watch the players bitch about railroading if they HAD done that.

The player for being an autistic retard
Who the fuck asks
>but can doods marry doe
when she's introduced to a fantasy world?

But the Tribunal is too weak and divided to fight him, Vivec can't use his CHIM powers because he knows that he see Dagoth Ur as the punishment for his sins and the representation of his guilt and he need to be really determinated to use thesd powers without destroying himself.
And Dagoth Ur himself cannot proceed further without the Tools.

>don't get a say in it
"Hurr fucking durr how do I into accurate metaphor?"

Let me fix that for you.
>Ok, fine. I'll sit through what you want, but you asked me to write the story, so I get to decide how it ends.

What the fuck are you even talking about?

Nowhere does it say that the ritual summons the army, just that it ushers in the age of eternal darkness. Rituals like that can't be cheap, nor are they likely to be speedy or completely undetectable. There's lots of openings for "oh shit heroes an important magic artifact just got stolen" or "hey we're getting lots of reports of entire graveyards being emptied" or what have you.

Ignoring the bait

I would love a campaign with you leading a peasant revolt for a democratic republic, followed with an election with you competing with NPCs and PCs for the presidentship

They're still going to bitch about railroading in this case, because that's basically what happened. Only 5 people in the entire world knew about the coming end of the world? Fuck off.

Sure, in the case that the PCs were asking around about anything other than that, absolutely.
But up until they won a position, they hadn't done shit to merit recognition of the capability to deal with that problem and ignored the breadcrumb to head in the opposite direction. Forcing world building flavor text is obnoxious, too.if the players don't want to listen to the story, I'd say a GM is absolutely within reason for slapping their shit for it, depending on the level of importance/severity of what they're electing to not pay attention to.

Writing the end to the story to fit the original premise is railroading? Literally letting the players ignore your story that you wrote in favor of what they want to do is railroading? What logic?
The GM didn't fuck the players during the campaign, just wrote the ending to the tale.

>But the Tribunal is too weak and divided to fight him
Shit, man. Lexa gave me a hell of a lot more trouble than ol' Ur Daggy Dag did. She could have soloed his ass even without Trueflame.

Both parties had fun, so neither.

>Is gay marriage allowed in this kingdom?
>it's not illegal per se, it's just that the wider cultural perception of marriage is more as practical means of organizing reproduction, inheritance, and familial alliances

Is there another open world game that has done it better? Where if you ignore the threat it gets worse and worse

I am pretty sure that at least some of the spiderweb software games have stuff happening in the background regardless of your own progression.

Only thing I can think of off the top of my head.

The ending was pretty much completely unrelated to the story. It's like "rocks fall everyone dies" at the end of an adventure that took place outdoors.

>completely unrelated to the story
>"I told you full well that you had to kill the Lich before he completes the ritual and ushers in an age of eternal darkness."