>Ugh, I don't like how PLAYERS are always such MURDERHOBOS whose first response to anything is to roll initiative and kill it.
>I know, I'll constantly put them up against bloodthirsty savages like orcs and gnolls who laugh at diplomacy, and wild beasts with feral intellects who attack on sight!
Why is this allowed? Why does this always happen?
Other urls found in this thread:
wired.com
twitter.com
>players want X
>DM gives them X
???
Because too many GMs think it's oh-so-clever and genre-breaking and sublimely deconstructive. I know, because I was one of them.
I'm so sorry Kanna
Because a lot of GM's are bad at understanding the consequences of their actions or relating what they want out of their game to what they've been told to do. Part of the problem is being given advice, by books or by veteran GM's, without proper context.
I've known GM's who really wanted to run a system with a consistent compelling narrative based around an ongoing cast of characters getting confused and upset that characters kept dying without ever independently coming around to the idea of tuning down encounters or using results other than death.
I've known GM's who got incensed about players not being invested in the setting or caring about the world, and yet ignored all player input on things they were interested in, recklessly killed NPC's the players cared about and in general did everything in their power that destroyed player investment because that's what they thought good storytelling was.
The worst thing is when a GM in one of these patterns refuses to learn or adapt their style, and is just incapable of realising that the actions they're taking are at odds with the game they want to run. It's really sad.
I have the complete opposite
>playing with goody-two-shoes
>always dealing against human NPCs with family and friends
>we always spare them
I JUST WANT TO KILL SHIT AND LOOT THEIR STILL WARM CORPSE
This is a great point.
...
How about you shut the fuck up and mind your own goddamn business, kyle.
>Because too many GMs think it's oh-so-clever and genre-breaking and sublimely deconstructive. I know, because I was one of them.
Where the fuck did this idea that sticking with cliches is somehow more original come from?
>Where the fuck did this idea that sticking with cliches is somehow more original come from?
Where the fuck did you get this idea that someone thinks that?
It's not about originality. Cliches become cliches simply because they WORK. And deliberately subverting cliches is also a cliche.
No, clichés become clichés when something that might have worked or been interesting once is being mindlessly copied over and over without respect for context, or without consideration whenever it still has a meaningful impact.
Archetypes work. Clichés are when people use something thinking it's an archetype, but it really isn't.
Archetypes are cliches, too.
>Why is this allowed? Why does this always happen?
murder hobos don't care about diplomacy... all they see is loot, and xp.
that's the list.
Kanna is cute, but not for sexual, so I can't be doin with most of you
If she's not for sexual then why did she try so hard to lewd the human girl
No, you cunt. Fuckfaces like you are the reason why virtually all narrative media are in such a fucking slump these days.
99% of everything is shit. Always has been, always will.
There's nothing special about today.
This is where this thread should have ended.
I dunno, I think today is special because scifi exists.
That shit is NEW. Like, less than 500 years.
A lot of what we would now call fantasy would be scifi(or rather, speculative fiction, since "science" as such didn't really exist) back then. What is Icarus if not a scifi story?
Very vaguely.
Scifi today: "What if we could travel faster than light?"
Scifi then: "What if we could fly like birds?"
I'm not really seeing difference other than scale.
Scope and imagination built on more knowledge than ever before.
People back then simply couldn't imagine that life in the future would be terribly different.
Even the Year 2000 predictions from 1900, however prescient some of the imagined technologies were, still imagined gentlemen and ladies dallying about in 1900s fashion doing 1900s activities in 1900s cities with 1900s architecture
You are objectively wrong
>Even the Year 2000 predictions from 1900, however prescient some of the imagined technologies were, still imagined gentlemen and ladies dallying about in 1900s fashion
True, because anticipating fashion is always a shitshow.
>doing 1900s activities
Largely false.
> in 1900s cities with 1900s architecture
Entirely false.
Nice try, champ, but you couldn't cut the mustard.
...
Suck my shit directly from my hairy asshole.
...
...
...
...
...
...
Of course France predicted molecular gastronomy.
Of course.
...
...
Roombas
Don't think we have underground houses, and we wouldn't have built roofs on houses underground
We do have rescue helicopters, but not winged dudes
Nope, no auto-tailors yet
We DO have cranes, and some automated structural building
No electro rollerskates yet.
No brain-fed machines
This is exactly my kitchen
This is not quite right, but it's close enough for intensive breeding
Off by 100 years.
It's actually pretty accurate in a lot of respects. The fashions are the same and they didn't predict the culture, admittedly.
>they didn't predict the culture, admittedly.
That's my main point.
They could envision wondrous new devices but made no attempt to ponder what effect they might have on culture and society
>they didn't predict the culture
My ass that isn't making a pretty heavy statement about what an idealistic technological society would value.
And like I said-- Predicting fashion, specifically, is always a shitshow.
More like your ass-pull. Eat shit.
You can *really dig* thinkin' that folks 118 years ago had heads that were less wired-up than ours or some crap like that all you want, champ, but cherry picking a few examples that don't even support your bullshit claims and then getting real hostile when someone calls you out on it doesn't make that any less fucking whacky.
Hoverboards, nigger.
You haven't called out jack shit you dumb idiot.
All you've got are projections and insults.
>He's so mad he can't read my quite simple to understand posts
Kek.
>''I am half-orc, I call out to the orc chief in Orcish and tell him his tribe shouldn't die over a dumb wagon''
>''you can't use diplomacy on hostile monsters, it doesn't work like that''
>''why do you guys never try to negotiate? I've had 3 potential quest givers you guys have killed without trying to roleplay your characters''
>''you can't use diplomacy on hostile monsters, it doesn't work like that''
Who the fuck actually says that. I'd get it if he was actively trying to chop your head off, but even if he isn't likely to agree there's no reason they wouldn't listen to a half orc
COMPREHEND, COMPREHEND, THE CONCEPT OF AFFECTION
But they do support his claims. He is not saying that they didn't predict some inventions, but that whatever things they envision they use it how the 1900s society would do, to do things that 1900s society already did but in a slightly more convenient way. For fucks sake, they need a maid to guide the auto cleaner and a child to crank the mind feeding machine.
Yes, because they thought they'd reached the highest level of civilisation and that people in the future would always want to be like them.
They weren't entirely wrong on the first part.
Dubai is introducing wingsuits and water-jetpacks to its firefighting equipment.
Fuck off with your bait.
>No electro rollerskates yet.
wired.com
Not commonplace, but they exist.