GM kills you for slight mistakes

>GM never lets women play in his campaigns

You've apparently never had one in your campaigns if you think that's a bad thing. Bonus points of bad idea if it's a player's girlfriend.

Some guys like to play female characters as a fetish thing, and some other people are way too paranoid about anything sexual showing up in their games.

I can testify. I regret to this day ever introducing my gf to pathfinder. Stuck having her in every game for ever, as im the DM. Fucking hell.

I'll play devil's advocate.

>GM kills you for slight mistakes
>GM only runs his homebrew 2e
>GM hates magic
I see no issues with these, it's the GM's preferred system and rule set.

>GM never lets women play in his campaigns
Bad experiences with women in gaming perhaps?
There are many reasons this could be a logical choice for that GM.

>GM makes you fight only kobolds and gnolls for 30 sessions
The GM likes to stick to the tried and true.

That makes him outlier. I mean there's people that can't do 24. Poshybrid

Oh, yeah, "I'm not going to help you introduce your barely-interested bf or gf to RPGs" makes much more sense. But most women who sit down to tabletop aren't there just because they're humoring their boyfriends.

I can see being against that, but i'd probably just read over a sheet to make sure that character wasn't purely fetish fuel before banning it outright

all but one of my games have had girls in them and they didn't derail, or make the game worse for anyone, so maybe your players just doesn't know how to hang out with girls who aren't shit?

it's almost like Veeky Forums neanderthals are grumbling incels or something

No way, that's impossible.

I've had games with mixed groups, all male, and all female. In my experience all female groups tend to operate differently from all male groups, but the differences are subtle and its hard to really convey. The mixed groups are the least functional in my experiences. Its almost like watching a mini guerilla war, as both sides battle for control of the group. I don't mean that the men and women are openly hostile, its very subtle and unless you have seen it happen quite a bit and have other groups to compare it to that are all male and all female, its so damn easy to miss the cues and clues that spark these subtle conflicts. FYI women almost always win in the end.

I'd have to see it to believe it. Sounds like an exaggeration

I don't know why you guys act like girls are so much different from boys, I've never seen anything like what you're describing inside and outside of Tabletops

Even if 30 sessions is an exaggeration, I kind of get what he means. If you spend too much time fighting dogshit mook creatures like goblins and kobolds and shit it gets boring. and if you're really a creative DM you can come up with ways to add in more unique and interesting creatures and adversaries, relying on the standard "You encounter five goblins!" shit into level 4 or 5 just looks like a lack of creativity

>GM hates magic
Based as fuck. Magic ruins everythinf
>GM never lets women play in his campaigns
Nothing wrong with that. Everytime a women appears all the neckbeards try to win some reproductive rights with her.
This when they're not ignorant about the game, which is very normal

>>GM never lets women play in his campaigns
All else is forgiven

Go back to plebbit roastie

Avatar posting...

Kokichi makes for good reaction images, What can I say?

How do you find women that act like men that are not shit?

It's not that they "Act like men" they just don't act like some kind of stereotype I guess, As for not shit. idk I just don't tend to find myself around shit people I guess.

Why would a woman who acts like a man play a children's game?

Okay allow me to clarify
>The mixed groups are the least functional in my experiences.
This hasn't happened in every mixed group I have been in but out of 23 such groups I have been in, mini guerilla wars have happened 22 of them.

You have your experiences and these are mine. Neither are wrong just different. Just because you've never seen anything from my experiences doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Just because I haven't had your experiences doesn't mean mixed groups don't work together.

Because fighting, which is very common in RPGs, is a male role. And RPGs are basically roleplaying male roles in a fantasy world.
If a girl want to roleplay as a male, I expect that she's likely not much feminine.

>Fighting is a male role.
if you say so

...

Points 1 through 3 you have a valid answer to.
Point 4 is literal faggotry
Point 5 is exactly as written and not what you want to imagine it is. You know it, I know it. Every fucking Body knows it's going to be "evil kobolds"

>>GM never lets women play in his campaigns
There is literally, unironically nothing wrong with this.

I thought I was in Veeky Forums not /r9k/

Aside from the 2e thing I can live with most of those. I don't particularly like them, but they don't really seem difficult to work with, and I actually like killing kobolds and gnolls

REEEEEE!

But seriously, there's a lot of overlap.

Depends are the women bros or are they attentionwhore 6s who couldn't get attention from hot guys so they make due with nerds who'll ruin their friendship in an attempt to try get with her?

Former is fine latter should always be chased out.

Nerds need to learn to tell thots to begone.

That's when I drop the neckbeards as opposed to the player who has done nothing to make the game worse.

>If X shares a opinion on a irrelevant question with Y, it implies that X is Y

>GM never lets thots play in his campaigns

Correlation does not imply causation

mods pls

>4th Ed
>First time playing ever
>Make a Tiefling Warlock, explain I don't want to look like I just walked out of WoW though, we hash out some details for something a little more classic fantasy
>Party includes a Mage, a Rogue, and a Barbarian
>First quest, go to a cave and kill a shitload of Goblins who have been poaching the local area recently
>Fair enough, off we plod
>Handling encounters okay so far, Healing surges and shit allow us to make do without an otherwise mandatory Healer
>Suddenly, "That" Encounter happens
>Large cave, big chasm in the middle, narrow rope bridge going across
>5 Goblin Skirmishers or whatever, they use Javelins, one on the bridge, other 4 on the opposite side of the chasm
>Roll initiative, Barbarian is first, I'm dead last
>Barbarian charges part way across the bridge, reduces one Goblin to the consistency of chunky salsa
>Other four Goblins get their turn back to back
>Each one performs this "tactical move" ability, where they move several feet, gain tactical ground, and get bonus to hit and damage or some shit
>each one of them takes aim, and throws Javelins
>They didn't aim at the Barbarian
>You know, the guy who just made Goblin Salsa, and is within reach of them on his next action
>No, they aim at the Warlock who is currently skulking in the shadows at the back of the cave, hasn't taken an action yet
>All 4 javelins hit, because the AC of a caster is shit, even in the modern, harder to die in 4th Ed
>Each Javelin deals about 15 damage or so, give or take a couple points
>I had about 20 HP total
>I am now at about -40 HP

The Rogue and Mage were murdered in short turn after that, the Barbarian was the sole survivor.

>GM kills you for slight mistakes
That Ghost detected.

>But "no women PCs" is a much more common rule, and actually defensible.
No it's not

t. ism

Either you're socially incompetent or hang out with girls are

Most of this are just preferences. I wouldn't like to play such game, granted, but i think they are valid, if sometimes stupid or weird to me.

Did you tried to argue with him? What was his reasoning? Because that sounds weird.

See, I discussed it with him, but here was his problem; he felt that as a GM, he had to be adversarial to the players. In all honesty, I'm surprised the barbarian wasn't the primary target for _so many reasons,_ one of them being that the adversarial attitude was directed primarily at him for being something of a power gamer.

Needless to say, I wasn't particularly pleased, but rolled up a Cleric as my second character. People stopped attending after a while, because of aforementioned issues. He can be alright at times, but he can also be quite competitive in a weird sense.

What you should have done is ask him:
"What could I or someone else done to avoid this outcome" and if his answer is 'idk' it just means he's a trash GM and person. It seems fairly obvious they gave no thought to the encounter at all.

That is because you are a huge faggot.

well, it's is pretty hard to get away from your hand.

Sounds like a fun campaign for me to be honest, maybe ~30 sessions of fighting the same creatures is maybe too much if it does not have flavour.
Where can I join game like that?

So using this logic, if a GM has had an issue with a male/coloured/gay/ etc. player it would be perfectly logical for them to ban one of those groups of people too?

How the fuck do you choose to only run 2e (clearly D&D because nobody else fucking calls systems just their edition number cause usually other games editions aren't vastly different and dogshit between each other outside of D&D) but also hate magic even though, from what all the old school grognards on Veeky Forums seem to jerk off the system for, 2e doesn't make casters super duper the best?

Dedication is cool and all, but you can be dedicated to something with every fibre of your body, and still be worse than some random douche that barely tries.

Don't know what kind of chicks you've been hanging out with, but my girlfriend is the best dm I've ever had.

Having no female PCs isn't defensible if allowing women to be players is alright to do you tard. Everyone with a handful of sense usually plays their own gender when they game, at least for their first character.

If what you meant to say is "not letting male players play women PCs" is defensible, then sure, you're right. Because never IRL have I seen a someone in my group play a woman competently outside of the forever-GM (although when he did it he was playing a Sororita in Dark Heresy) and it usually devolves into dumb fucking "haha girl stereotype things, periods and shopping, amirite u gaiz" jokes or crass undeveloped lesbianism.

>ITT: "That GM"
Do as OP says, not as OP does.

Don't make slight mistakes.

His name is James isn't it.

It's neal ericsson

back to witcher general realism fag
hold up actually, you are worse then them

Not him, but...
Do you play with people you don't like?

Oh shit, this incel hasn't succumb to hopeless depression yet, they're still white knighting to get laid. Roflmao
"You're making it hard to WOMYNX to express themselves in ur campaign, it's only okay to acknowledge that men are the ebil uncapable of rping onez and cannot be womynx."

...

>Player from shadowrun group wants to host his own shadowrun game. Wants to give forevergm a chance to play
>Forces least friendly character creation on group (Equivalent of 3d6 in order)
>Makes changes to the mechanics of things for 'balance' AFTER characters have been made, effectively neutering 2/4 characters
>Creates a new police force who's gimmick is literally "Shoot first, ask questions later" and are about 5 times as aggressive as typical shadowrun cops

Needless to say, that game lasted all of 3 sessions before it was never returned to again.

>he felt that as a GM, he had to be adversarial to the players.

I agree, but he has to know how to design encounters. All ranged enemies in open terrain at large distance are PC killers ...

Just because she knows your magical realm.

>he felt that as a GM, he had to be adversarial to the players
(Depends on individual style but) I think the GM should be prepared to offer the players some form and level of challenge, alongside an interesting world and plot to follow. I think sometimes many people go too far with it and start thinking that their job is DIRECTLY to JUST kill PC's, as they somehow fall into considering the players their enemies. Fucking up the balance of challenge and fairness is an easy way to completely ruin a game.

Sounds great

>But "no women PCs" is a much more common rule, and actually defensible.
Really?

...

Yeah the fact that she literally sucks your dick absolutely has not biased you or changed your opinion in any way at all

>no woman pcs
Can be a good idea. My current game has a guy playing as a woman and one of the first things he does is to chat up a couple of other women (whp arent too fond of men) and having sex with one of them. At least the DM told him to cut it out when he asked to roll how good it was

It makes sense from an strategic perspective. Now, what is arguable is if the goblis would reason like that.

Not that guy, but yeah. Biologically speaking, a woman's far too precious to risk in an adventure. Likewise, she evolved instincts that preclude one from taking those risks.

Think about the most dangerous jobs in the world, and women's ratio. One single female adventurer should be as rare as a man that got 3x18s and 3x14+ out of 6x 3d6.

And chances are she doesn't self-identify as a woman either.

>>GM only runs his homebrew 2e
Based
>>GM hates magic
Enlightened
>>GM never lets women play in his campaigns
Beardy, but understandable. Tom Petty wouldn't let women in his and.
>>GM makes you fight only kobolds and gnolls for 30 sessions
You stuck around for 30 sessions?

>Biologically speaking
Yeah, I bet you are "that guy"

...

If your dm can't make kobolds endlessly entertaining he's a shit dm. Kobolds can form parties, make their own dungeons and traps, capture monsters and domesticate them, tons of shit. Then you can have them all be the underlings of some big monster. Kobolds are nothing to fuck with.

You do realise that these games are generally in a -fantasy- setting, right?

> Ban X type of character
Not that guy, but...

If the DM wants to run a game where everyone is less than 16, female, cute, and have magic powers... who am I to stop him?

I can just refuse to play. Although I might try it once out of curiosity.

> Is it logical?
It doesn't need to. If someone wants to run something more realistic, removing women from the equation (or making said women so out of the norm the term "woman hardly applies anymore) is his choice.

Just like banning drows, gunpowder-based weaponry, schools of magic, etc.

Also, I've seen groups being dismantled, or the games quality heavily deteriorated because that can happen when you mix girls and men that are young, dumb and full of cum.

On one hand, these girls are often hesitant to take decision, fearing without good reason to do a tactical blunder which slooooows down the game.

On the other, the game gets derailed as a single pout pushes the DM to retcon 15 minutes of roleplay.

>be girl
>play girl
>dm tries to force my pc to bang some npc
>long, awkward scene where he says the guy isn't leaving
>'well i jump out the window'
>'there are bars :^)'
>eventually someone else yells at him to fucking cease
>now I only play boys

It's great, boys aren't some sex object to them. Boys can just be people. Boys' appearances don't matter. Boys can also be sexual/attractive beings without a bunch of grins. Boys can be nice to npcs without a bunch of hi5's around the table.

It was our natural instinct when we played End of the World series. INCLUDING THE GIRLS. They asked we took risks in their stead.

Google "% of garbagewomen". Heck, I study to be an electrotechnician, they literally turned NO ONE accepting two candidates that technically did not have all their prerequisites on the spot and no women.

#Not an argument

And in every fantasy setting you know, women are not the only ones to bear children? In the whole Lords of the Rings series, one woman swung a sword. Pretty close to the ratio I described.

I want to play in one of Neal's games.

On behalf of dude gamers everywhere, holy crap I am so sorry you had to deal with that.
My GM found out I was Bi one time and tried to play a somewhat efette, noble born wizard (Kind of a fop, but still good in a fight) and the GM took this as meaning I was a "Trap" and proceeded to try and get my character molested by orcs and Hobgoblins.

I got the fuck out of there by the end of the third session.

>"girl"
>I was Bi one time
Are you usually not?

...

Yeah my grammar is hot garbage. I meant that at one point my GM found out I was Bi and was a creepy perv about it, trying to act out his grody femboy fantasy shit.

>Implying Someone can't just be nice to people.

God Veeky Forums has gotten so jaded.

Stop playing with losers.

>implying Veeky Forums hasn’t always been full of emotionless autists from the get-go

Veeky Forums is now flooded by russians trying to lure NEET white boys into being total pieces of shit. First it was /pol/, then /v/ and /b/ has always been a festering pile. Why do you think moot jumped ship finally?

...

Do you know this DM? Is he accepting players right now?

What if it's not high fantasy.