Be me

Oh, stop it you guys, we have that dance all the time. At least invent some more stories with strawman normie perspective like OP. They are kind of fun when you read them as a joke.

>I wanted to win because DnD is about winning
You are the one ruining this hobby. You and everyone like you. You are just as bad as the 'tolkien wannabes', because both you and them want to 'win' a game you don't win. Fuck off.

>is an autist that can't think for himself
>im ruining the game
if you didn't want to roll fucking dice then don't play D&D shitheads.

>When the DM doesn't want to put up with socially deficient autists.

On one hand
>MFW I couldn't completely ignore playing a role by using a twenty-sided piece of plastic

On the other hand
>MFW DM lets you roll but there's no possibility of success

You understand what you're playing, don't you, you fucking autist?

Why'd he allow any diplomacy without an in character argument. Sounds like you weren't trained well as a player,

there might have been success had your modifiers been better?

Don't be autistic.

yup d20 based system so I'd like to fucking use it.

Sometimes you don't want to just say "It's impossible," and you'd rather they figure it out by rolling. I wouldn't have just said "No critical success on skill checks, FAGGOT" and actually given an RP description of him trying his best to convince the big bad, but it just not being enough, but that's whatever.

>Roleplays case
>lowers DC
>Passes check

Not rocket science. Not that it matters as this is a shitposting thread, but still.

>but it's not just being enough, but that's whatever
WTF did I have a stroke typing that?

Don't blame your failure and inability to socialize on the DM, it's your failure. Your temper tantrum is fucking autistic and you feel ashamed.
It's called a role-playing game, you know what they are, right?

>"No critical success on skill checks, FAGGOT" and actually given an RP description of him trying his best to convince the big bad

If the player flat out refused to put in any effort to convince the vampire, why should the DM do it for him.

"You demand the vampire releases the hostages. He refuses."

If a vampire met someone that was as socially incapable as you, they would've wiped the floor with you too.

>I pickup as DM
So... How do you handle similiar situations OP?

Only because he rolled high. I don't like to get petty with my party if they're annoying me during the game. I'd rather talk about it after, or pause for a second to discuss it. Getting catty just ruins the whole experience. Though with OP being this autistic, the campaign may have been a lost cause by that time and the DM just wanted to go home.

Hah!
If op doesn't let others autosucceed on a nat 20 on skill checks, op's a fucking hypocrite.

See

Yeah, like I said at the end.

>when we meet up in the tavern
>in the tavern

lol

This. CHA-based rolls are meant to support an argument, not replace it.

8/10 I almost got mad

...

Most DMs don’t even have the balls to make a player choose to do something before calling for a roll or telling them it is impossible. At least this fake DM in this fake story offered to lower the DC through roleplay.

I thought it was absolutely obvious as a parody thread but guess Veeky Forums proves you right.

...

this the only proper response

My DM is brand new, and the experience is extremely on-rails (we're the slave-crew of a pirate ship that his omnipotent DMPC is captain of.) 90% of the sessions is combat, and the other 10% is shopping in ports where doing anything other than shopping is not allowed. I don't even know the names of the rest of the party because we have no time to roleplay or even introduce ourselves. He doesn't describe anything and shows us what we're fighting using the monster manual pictures.

The only one in the group who isn't new is a huge powergamer with no interest in anything except min-maxing combat, so I feel like everybody else is getting the impression this is just how D&D should be.

Is there any friendly advice I can give the DM without coming off as a huge autist? My gaming group is my irl friend group

just ask to change game

the problem is that D&D enforces that playstyle with unexperienced people.

the rules are basically all combat and the encounter are hard to balance so the unexperienced master railroads hard.

try another game with lighter rules so everybody and your GM get used to roleplaying and not just combat

kay well the whole world agrees with me so nice try lol

>Slaves
>Allowed to shop
This DMPC captain is a little retarded, isn't he?

>D&D enforces that playstyle
maybe if you're past a certain threshold of autism, but anyone with any amount of willpower and common sense can play a social-heavy game in almost any system. you need to be pretty dumb or autistic to think that just because the rules are there, you need to use em.

Now THIS is bait racing.

You're a fucking nigger. No one is writing a novel. No one is trying to write a novel. Not liking the stupid "LMAO nat20" shut and the autistic shrieks of glee that accompany it, does not make you a railroading powergaming DM who hates fun and is trying to write a novel. Those are all shit strawmen. You argue on the level of a fucking infant. You and all the other normoniggers who have been ruining this hobby for the past 5 years need to fuck off. This existed before your time and will continue to exist after your time. Our refusal to cater to you and baby you does not make us gatekeepers. We play the game the way we want. You are not entitled to have fun. Your idea of "fun" is shit. Quit your group and find another one if it makes you so asshurt.

never fucking post this pasta again

>pasta

>being this buttmad about dice

Am I still banned?

if you are new to rpg and your master is new to rpg and his fucking first book is half about combat and the other half how to prepare for said combat i think that it's pretty normal if your adventure are all about combat

Not an argument. I am sick of these fucking niggers who think that D&D is specifically made to pander to them and their shit taste. That it is meant to be like a game of Apples to Apples or Cards against Humanity. Where the entire goal is as much autistic laughter as possible, like we're watching some faggy ass roosterteeth podcast where a bunch of 20- something soys flare out the mic with their autistic laughter, pounding the table with their fists because Hodor the dwarf fighter got a nat20 to convince the guard captain to suck his own dick. You people are a fucking cancer. Spastic grog powergamers are bad but you people have actually managed to be worse. Fuck off. I know you watched Game of Thrones and saw Critical Roll and now you think d&d is super cool but guess what that doesn't mean you need to bring your spergery into things. How about shutting the fuck up and observing the people playing so that you know how to fucking behave, instead of copying what you see on a tv show like fucking faggots that you are. No other hobby is as cucked as tabletop, when it comes to sucking dick to help out new players. And you entitled little cuntdicks demand more. You even write articles on salon about it, and get the head of D&D to send out virtue signalling tweets about how anyone not willing to sit while Colleen and Alexa try to figure out which one is the d20 again, are "fired" from D&D. Good, fuck you WotC, fuck you Crawford. I'm glad I pirated your shit books because I'll never put a some toward anything your cunt company puts out again. I hope the "new market opportunities" are worth it, you mongoloid fucks.

Buddy, you got a way with words, and I like you.

>watch players to learn how to play
>5 out of 6 players at the table wanted it one way

back to GURPS

I thought heroes and halfwits was at least okay, not the exaggerated shit you said there. (I only watched the first 10ish sessions) Seemed like a bunch of newbs just figuring shit out. Critical role on the other hand...

>posting jap twinks to be ironic
No one gives a fuck who wanted what. Tabletop is not a democracy. If it was then the players would never lose at anything and there'd be no challenge. Are you fucking stupid? Oh wait, that's what you want. You don't want a challenge. You don't want a world to engage with. You don't want an enraging story that you can affect and take part in (at least, not outside of exploiting it for cheap comedy). You are outside the GNS sphere entirely. You are a plebian fuck who wants to take a hobby that can actually give you creative fulfilment of a unique sort, and reduce it to the same brainless media consumption that permeates the rest of your life. That's why you people will stand in line for 10 hours to get a packet of soy sauce. That's why you'll laugh at creative people for being creative, call what they make cliche and stupid while you kneel at the altar of some obnoxious cartoon or HBO show, because you have no appreciation of time and because you've never created anything in your life that wasnt a shit. You are a giant, gaping maw that hungers and consumes, and gives nothing back. Except for peaks of autistic laughter at whatever latest inanity you have found to temporarily entertain yourself.

There's nothing wrong with the way you guys play, as long as everyone is on board with it. You should always be upfront with your GM about what you expect from the experience, and let him be upfront with you.

I find critical successes fun, but never automatic successes. Instead, if the player rolls a natural 20 and they would have succeeded anyways, I let them succeed in a special way. If they fail, they fail in a way with a super obvious bonus that lets them do more game to succeed.

Well that's stupid.

Why?

Sounds like that DM dodged a bullet.

Why would you let people roll dice if you already decided that they can't succeed even on the maximum possible roll that happens in about 5% of cases?

If yo

u play like that, you're just wasting people's time. Fucking captcha.

Have you people never seen a DC over 20 before?

If the DM decides, with no reasonable argument, the DC to convince the vampire to let the hostages go is 25, rolling a 20 does no good if you have a +4 bonus or less.

Off that logic OP, what if two PCs are engaged in a grapple against each other and one rolls a nat 20 and the other rolls an 18, but has +5 to acrobatics?

Who wins then?

Why the hell would you ask for a roll where there is no possibility of success?

First of all, what the fuck is that question? You get 20+skill modifier, so with 5 in skill you beat DC of 25.

Second of all, if the DM decides that the DC is 25, and the character can't beat it, why the fuck do you waste his time with a roll? The player who rolls a nat 20 will be disappointed as fuck that his roll didn't matter at all.

To give the illusion that there is a chance and to prevent metagaming.

Well, congratulations, you ruined the illusion and disappointed your players. They thought their actions mattered, but you demonstrated that your world was a cardboard cutout all along.

To give the players a chance to stack modifiers? Can't you use a Cleric cantrip or bard song to buff up rolls?

Also you're assuming the DM is intimately familiar with each PC's modifiers.

Just because a specific PC can't make a roll doesn't mean it's impossible.

You're not wrong my dude.

Nah, it shows that there are consequences for actions. Maybe another party member with better skills should have done the check? Maybe they should have picked a different proficiency?

Being able to fail makes the game fun, it wouldn't be fun if everything the PCs did was an automatic win.

>Even if you do your absolute best you'll still not succeed
Might as well tell people they'll automatically fail rather than letting them roll for things that are impossible.

>player asks if he can roll for x check
>ask him what his proficiency is
>tell him that there is no way he would be able to succeed
>he tells a player ooc with a better prof bonus than him to come over to him and attempt the skill on his behalf

metagame status = achieved

This is absolutely not what people here are talking about. People are talking about people automatically FAILING a roll on nat 20. If it's possible just don't ask for a roll then, it wastes people's time.

Literally all the DM from the OP story had to do is say "the vampire lord is furious at you wasting his time, but then his expression softens a little and although you don't convince him to free the hostages, he offers you a bargain. Do [INSERT PLOT HOOK HERE] and he vows to let them go."

This way the illusion of player choice is still there, and although the player "failed" even on nat20, he "succeeded" in deescalating the situation enough to find another way to progress. Perhaps the party then decides to agree to the vampire's offer or try to sneak the hostages out etc. etc.

>The extent of your metagame is about three minutes of rolls to confirm that something doesn't work
>Example is based on someone who is worse at something getting someone who is better at doing to do the thing they're literally better at
>Ignores the fact that the main point of the discussion is on things that have a 0% chance of success regardless of roll bonuses
Wow you really got me there, user.

You keep saying nat20 on skill checks like it means something. There isn't really critical success or critical failure for skill checks.

They're saying Nat20 because it exemplifies doing literally the best you can do.
If you can't pull something off under those circumstances then you can't pull it off at all, which means your roll is literally just for show and The DM is just waiting to tell you how bad you failed.

This only assumes the GM specifically knows what that PC's mod is and knows no help will happen.

Any GM with any experience knows players will pull fucked up shit all the time to get bonuses.

If it doesn't mean anything (and it doesn't mechanically, although it does psychologically), why roll when you have 0 chance of succeeding? The "to maintain illusion" argument needs not apply, we already saw that the illusion shatters the second you roll the maximum possible value. Please also consider that some skill checks might not have binary success/failure outcomes. My vampire lord example clearly shows that there's a certain extent that people can succeed and fail on some checks. If you "fail" on a roll of 20, at least make it the most successful failure the character could achieve, don't just make it a "lol no" situation. If the character is absolutely doomed to fail, just don't let the player roll.

I don't know how you play, but our GM only tells us the roll DC in extremely climactic cases when failure would result in character falling to his death, for example. And he can always ask for the character's modifier before setting the roll DC anyway. What's stopping the GM from changing the DC from 25 to 24 to let the character succeed on nat 20, at least in a minor way? Again, we're not talking some stupid bullshit like "I ask the king to give me his crown", we're talking reasonable persuasion attempt while roleplaying.

What's that got to do with it?
We're talking about a situation in which the player cannot do something no matter how high they roll, not a situation where they're pulling secret bonuses out of their ass to pull a fast one over their GM.

>"Haha you failed because you didn't use guidance and roll a maximum of 4 on the 1d4 bonus roll along with nat 20 :DDDDDD"
Simply ebin.

>Again, we're not talking some stupid bullshit like "I ask the king to give me his crown", we're talking reasonable persuasion attempt while roleplaying.

The vampire has hostages and the PC's seem to have found no reason for him to give them up, not looking for some kind of edge over the vampire in negotiations, nothing. This doesn't seem like a reasonable persuasion situation.

We are? No where in OP did I see that implication unless you go under the false idea that "rolling a 20 is an autowin".

No, you failed because you didn't make DC 25. Maybe there were clues on how to lower the DC, maybe the vampire had an elf waifu centuries ago and so if the cute elf girl PC asked the DC would be lower.

>No where in OP did I see that implication unless you go under the false idea that "rolling a 20 is an autowin".
Rolling a 20 is the best you can possibly do, it isn't about being a critical, it's about the fact that if you can roll that and still not succeed then your roll is entirely built upon The DM hoping they don't have to admit that you're not capable of doing something in their narrative.

You can have extra things that may change the DC or give you extra bonuses but if a player fires off their roll when those things don't apply then that's still a meaningless roll.

You are assuming things on how other people play their game.

Either way, getting upset over this alone to quit the game is pretty pathetic.

Not if it happens constantly.
A good GM should probably not constantly put their players up against challenges way above their ability all the time anyway.

>not considering the simple fact that player psychology is as important for the fun of some groups as game mechanics
The group in question left because the DM cockblocked them. They wanted to have fun and save people, and rolled high. Nobody's saying that they should've just persuaded the vampire to let them go right away, but simply saying "u fail" on a maximum possible roll is kind of a dick move.

Let's not be hasty and call people pathetic over the desire to have fun in their games, please. Some groups want to feel heroic when they roll high, it's only natural. Some groups don't care about your crunch (and you gotta admit that DnD is not the best system mechanically) and want to have drama in their games, and nat20 symbolizes that heroic effort for them. By denying those players the simple joy of doing heroic things like that you're looking like a douche who hates fun.

TL;DR: some groups like to play casually and roll high and get excited when they succeed at stuff like that. Some groups like to play hardball and stack up modifiers. Badwrongfun is a meme. Just find the group/DM that suits your style.

Because not having a gaming group at all is worse... Much worse.

...

I could have sworn I just left /v/. Did I track some s hitposts in?

Most games clearly have rules that state that you must roll a total of a certain number in order to succeed, and if the players are in such a game, why are they getting mad unless they didn't read the rules?
I ran a game where the players had been caught and locked in a prison.
One of the players decided to bend the bars, rolled a 20 and succeeded. Another tried to do the same, rolled a 20, did not succeed, because the success was due to rolling against a static number, not the die roll.
There is a point where the players are bitching they can fail, and when they have a point. This isn't one of them.

That spoiler hit me harder than it should have.

>Be me
>playing game of 5e with my group.
>go into a castle to meet a super powerful vampire lord and negotiate a hostage rescue
>vampire lord is pretty unfriendly towards us but have some CHA mods so I think "fuck it".
>roll ability check
>DM ask me if I wanna make an argument in character to lessen the DC
>think that's kinda weird but nbd and decline
>roll nat 20
>group gets excited that we might be able to pull this out
>DM tells me that there's not critical success on skill checks
>mfw
>we finish session and things get really tense but DM doesn't seem to give a fuck
>without any recourse we wipe.
>session ends and we never contact the DM again and I pickup as DM

Why the fuck are people so strict on the rules when it inhibits the groups fun? It's literally the DM's one job.

shit, meant for Derp I guess.

Have you ever GMed for little kids? They don't like to fail and get excited when they get new shit like magic items. It's the same story really. The "there are rules for that" argument doesn't cut it for them. You either play it loose with them or not at all.

>playing a 5e homebrew campaign
>party stumbles upon an abandoned mansion with a magically locked door
>touching an orb next to the door teleports players to different puzzle rooms
>puzzles are just minigames and riddles (mine was based off of that flow phone game)
>as a puzzle is completed, players can help others with their puzzles
>spend an hour on puzzles until dm has to go to work
>with gm's blessing, continue working on last puzzle for 2 hours after session ended

Thoughts on puzzles?

>Group has been playing together for a few years
>Updated from 3.x to 5th when it came out, continuing the campaign
>One of the party had been about to ascend to godhood just as we did the update
>Ascended quickly and jacked up some rules of the universe in the process, hence game mechanics changing like some Die, Vecna Die bullshit
>His character is retired as a result

>Recently, new campaign starts
>New characters, etc
>Except for that dude, who got knocked off of his divine throne and rendered mortal again
>Goes by a fake name, tries to keep quiet about it, but the player just cannot resist throwing his weight around
>We figure it out along the way
>The angel of death, who he'd beaten pretty badly along the way, shows up just as we figure it out and mention his old name
>Wants to tear him apart so badly, but it would instantly kill the fallen god and bring no closure
>Paladin of the Ancients of our group sticks his sword in the ground, hangs his shield on it, and proceeds to beat the dogshit out of him with his bare hands
>Stops occasionally, asks him, "Are you sorry?" and "Do you accept his apology?" to the angel of death
>Fallen god is trying to fight back with magic, but it's just not keeping up with the paladin's Tavern Brawler d4 and Extra Attack

And that's how a bare-knuckle-boxer-for-justice beat a bastard for the Grim Reaper and got an extra six months added on to the end of his natural lifespan.

>>without any recourse we wipe.
90% of the relevant story in one poorly worded line.
Very awful.
The rest of this nonsense is just awful.

>DM offers to let you role-play
>nah bro, I'll just roll play it
>gets mad when that doesn't work out very well

>CHA-based rolls are meant to support an argument, not replace it.
Well, support as in make it so a player says something "I try to appeal to the vampire's logical side to get him to do X" and gets to roll if that is within the realm of possible given their character's ability. Yes.

But beyond setting up a goal and providing a method for trying to reach it, role-playing an argument shouldn't be required, as that would be the equivalent of insisting a player wanting their character to pry a door open with a crowbar do some real exercise if they want to get a roll.

But yeah, the whole "I diplomacy the vampire" type shit doesn't fucking work.

>the rules are basically all combat
What is true of the majority of RPGs on the market, but only ever gets held against D&D, Alex?

You lost me when you had to use "Nigger" to communicate. Educate yourself.