What are some Veeky Forums-related things that you don't think exist

Burning Wheel players.

digital dices: just shapes that display a number at random on their upward face

>A story so good it makes the system irrelevant.
I have done this ONCE with Fate and it nearly killed me. I just assumed that the players would pass all their rolls.

Being able to complete a satisfying campaign as a player.

Portcullis. My DM loves this word, I wish he would just say ''gate'' though.

If you don't like it, there's the door______.

A perfect system.
>Easy to GM(don't fight the system or spend hours number crunching)
>Easy for Players to Learn and play(No slogging through rules, or pulling teeth to get them through combat)
>Still presents a challenge to players.
>Versatile, can run more than one campaign type.
>Can find players for it.
Pick 3 and a half options.

Oh, and I'm sure that a good 70% of our screencap stories are the work of good writing, and are more to be taken as folklore rather than actual fact, teaching Anons how NOT to create an Edgelord or a fetish character or be That Guy.

M-my system checks all of those boxes
>Built with the first four in mind
>Autismed, tested, hacked, chopped an rewrote it until it actually worked
>Last one checks out because I play with friends that also have picked it up to run their own stuff and keep introducing new people to it

what is it?

couldnt he at least fucking shave? I'm a fat bastard myself and IU certainly don't look like that whatsoever, mofucken eww man, shave the fuck up

A generic dicepool system I've hammered out. It's pretty much complete, but still in german and unformatted and I don't want to upload it until it's actually nice to look at, but work as slowed down because I've been concentrating on finishing my degree this last year.
Sorry to be a disappointment

Savage Worlds fills every criterion save for the last.

Minmaxxers that roleplay.
I've literally never met anyone that proves that the Stormwind Fallacy is actually a fallacy.

Cooperatively built campaigns.
I'm currently flipping through Bliss Stage, but so many modern games have this and I don't believe for a fucking second that anyone actually sits down with their group to play a CAMPAIGN , much less a heavily character and story focues one, and figures out which characters exist with them on the fly.

elf slaves

Conservative female player of Veeky Forums

Seen conservative males, seen liberal females, never conservative females

That's time dependent.

It's standard first via virtue of starting out at current then it goes to pauper, then edh

Visit Utah. Just don't swear around them, they're Mormon.

Actually, I was thinking about Savage Worlds specifically when I made that list. It's actually fairly easy to get players for Savage Worlds, it's usually the first system people try after 5e, or easy to convince 5e players to try.
Where it fails is keeping things difficult for players. I'm currently in a Savage Worlds campaign, and my GM, very talented at what he does in his own right, has said time and again that he struggles to provide a challenge for us, his players, and this is AFTER we got rid of the Player's Wild Die.
Game Balance in most RPGs has always been more art than science, but in Savage Worlds it's even more shaky, thus it can also be somewhat difficult to GM.

People who actually prefer Basic OD&D to any other edition of D&D.

>Where it fails is keeping things difficult for players.
What is this even supposed to mean? Give me a example of something that isn't already an automatic failure that can not be made more difficult. Doesn't even have to be an example from Savage Worlds.

From what I understand, they want you to buy into the figure-based wargame, so they'll try to push you towards that, even if you make it clear that you're only into the roleplaying part. They'll have it, probably, but it'll likely be either behind the counter with the rest of the books, or hidden in a back corner of the store, and they'll constantly be trying to upsell you.

My old DM's homebrew system checks every box except the last since I rarely post it.

Plus I think he's gone up a few versions since I broke off with him.

It was a Theros thing, where some of the first run booster packs contained one of every God.

If a shrimp gets large enough is it still technically eaten and cooked as a shrimp? Or do they start treating it as if it were a lobster?
Or are shrimp their own thing and the similarities between the two are superficial; with crayfish being the closer proxy if they were to hypothetically grow lobster sized?

You're doing great user, just keep chugging along. You'll finish when you finish it

Yes, there was a cute redhead that ran one where I used to live. Well it was more for comics and MtG but she had a small section for tabletop stuff too and allowed people to use some of the big tables for games.

Sounds like Shadow of the Demon Lord to me.

It was Journey into Nyx, but you're otherwise correct.

They have different texture and taste regardless of how large the shrimp is. They look superficially similar, and are both aquatic crustaceans, but they taste nothing alike. This is primarily due to different lifestyles, and because of this crayfish also taste different.

In addition, the preparation for Lobsters, Shrimp, and Crayfish are all usually different, with Lobster being steamed, Crayfish being stewed whole, and Shrimp having so many options that they did a joke on it in Forrest Gump.

They all taste great though.

Thai river prawns are massive and are typically cooked over a grill and served pretty similarly to lobsters actually

Put simply, in any given system, combat should always carry the promise of innate threat. What this usually means is that if an encounter is "balanced" according to the system, it should naturally carry the imminent threat of death, without it feeling like the GM is an asshole. Or to say it another way, a peasant with a dagger and the element of surprise should absolutely have the chance to at least seriously injure even a higher level player.
In other words, any time the system presents conflict to the players, there should always be something at stake for the players both mechanically and narratively.
The BRP Family of rpgs, as well as most OSR/Retroclones tend to do this rather well.
This is a particular gripe I have with 5e. Past about fifth level, CR balance just doesn't work anymore in providing a credible threat to the players. If you play a Moon Druid, then you'll NEVER be under any tangible threat.
Concerning Savage Worlds, my experience may be somewhat skewed, as we're doing a Capeshit Campaign, and thus using the supers supplement. The issue my GM has expressed is that he can never seem to up the ante enough to really threaten what should be our relatively low-level players. We're barely 25 XP into the game, and like I said before, we left out the Wild Die.

Women

They exist. I got into tabletop because a girl I liked asked me to play D&D once

Fifth Edition_________________

>Basic OD&D
That doesn't exist. OD&D is its own thing, Basic/BECMI/Rules Cyclopedia and AD&D came after it. And frankly, what is so unbelievable about someone prefering Basic over AD&D or 3.5?

An unrape-able elf

...

I do both. I minmax mainly because I hate RNGs, including dice, so I try to minimize the effect of luck whenever possible.

Did I fucking studder?

>it should naturally carry the imminent threat of death, without it feeling like the GM is an asshole.
This sounds like a player-GM dynamic problem and not an issue with any system. You can't realistically expect a single level of risk to be ideal for everyone. And why can't your GM use bigger numbers if smaller numbers aren't working?

One of my players is a minmaxer and one of the better roleplayers in my group desu but he's a good dude plus he's very experienced so it makes sense to me

I don't believe either of you and never will until I come across someone like that myself. Minmaxxers are always autists that only "roleplay" their characters to be the super bestest and never flawed.

I bet dollars to donuts that you adopted this mindset early on and it's so entrenched that literally no one will qualify in your mind as doing both. If someone shows up with a min/maxed character and roleplays him well, you'll decide that either he didn't roleplay *that* well or his character wasn't *that* min/maxed.

If someone shows up with a min/maxed character and roleplays him well, then I'll eat my words. But that shit just doesn't happen. It's always some autist who thinks "fast forward to the next time my epic build is useful" is roleplaying.

Played a game of basic dnd and ignored was a blast. The party ran into 4 shadows two rooms into the randomly generated dungeon at level one.

The fucking hobbit spent all his starting gold on holy water and just kept chucking.

Somehow they survived with no casualties. I was gob-smacked.

It was great fun for a simple dungeon crawl. Not sure about prolonged campaigns (we had a starter box) but me and my group enjoyed it immensely.