Autism aside, who was most in the wrong here?

I mean, is the DM wrong for relying on a special NPC? Yes.

But I hate players that go out of their way to derail the game because they're so above it all. Like they think they're clever for seeing through the ruse that the NPC was going to give them a quest to do.

I’m not really into railroading, but having the campaign continue is better than having the players wander aimlessly in a town bc they killed the questgiver until the BBEG’s horde wipes the place.
Although if I had players that throw swords and intentionally derail/murderhobo I’d ban offending players

Sorry, the girl was the hipster's girlfriend, not the DM. I think I fucked that up. But yeah the girl has no idea what is going on really and thinks he is just cheating at a board game. The GF even likes Scott (the fat guy who's the DM) when she first meets him and tries to be nice to him but he ends up being such a sperg that that changes.

A lot of people are wrong here. The gf, the DM etc. But it is most bogus that you have a dishonest DM, I wouldn't ever play another campaign if I knew my DM was scamming the dice.

NPC should have been left with 1hp, no fudge required cos who knows how tough he was?

DMs GF is also a dick and the hipster is in the wrong for existing, why haven't you ostracized him?

Well of course. But a different quest, right? Cause I think introducing another NPC to do the same exact shit seems more railroady to me. Plus, you need to make actions have consequences as a GM. Especially intentional fuckery.

So, boot hipster and GF?

I agree. So much of that movie hits home for me.
>the opening scene where Scott makes fun of his friend for thinking of a stupid way to fight a fire elemental, going out of his way to magnify his friend's mistake
>the fucking around and off-topic comments at the table
>scott desperately trying to make up for his shit life with an engaging RP campaign
Scott's a railroading shit head with serious maturity issues but he is a sympathizable character even if you're not also a manchild.

That's what he tries to do, but they end up kicking him out of the group instead.

Ah no. I misread. I've played with many that guys/girls in the past but I am glad I usually don't get more than one per group.

Nah, I think the "going to his house" part is not only possible, but I've seen that shit happen before. Complete sperg gets invited to a social situation and doesn't know how to handle social interactions in which he doesn't have some kind of meta authority.

Is there a video or somethkng?
I'd like to see it

Player's GF was most in the wrong, for looking at his roll
Hipster dude also in the wrong for being a lolsorandumb dick
DM not in the wrong at all

What the hell are we talking about here? Sauce?

Sure one sec
Here you go: streamable.com/nvw6n
Sorry for italian subtitles.

>DM not in the wrong at all
As the OP of this thread and a huge fan of the movie, no no he is definitely in the wrong. Mostly because of him flipping out, and being a railroader. I'm just curious how you guys would lay out the blame, pie-chart-wise.

I agree with previous user and say the DM did nothing wrong. It's up to their discretion if something with such large consequences can go through or not. Of course, if he weren't an asslord, he wouldn't have had a tantrum. All a DM has to do to preserve important characters is just set up the quest situation such that moves by the PCs to be stupid murderhobos ends with all their characters getting slaughtered. Or have a group that isn't filled with shitty players like hipster Ooga Booga Sword-go-through-ya

This seems like an atrocious group overall desu.

Railroading isn't wrong and neither is being upset with your asshole players.

>drinking and playing tabletop

Never fucking ever.

Especially if you are a generic nerd with a relatively small social circle that is going to get vaporized the first time two people have a serious beef with one another.

>save is DC 25, you rolled a..
>no FUCK you man
>what??
>FUCK YOU
>someone stepping on a bear trap turns into "you did that just to fuck with me" into "you acted like a fucking cunt in my house, your not welcome back" into "yeah well FUCK that faggot" etc etc

Jesus christ this is cringy as fuck. After seeing it both the GM and the hipster dude are cunts. The GM for being terrible and having a huge fucking ego. The hipster dude did nothing wrong in game but he's a massive cunt to mock his friends creation.

The gf is pretty innocent desu. The op makes it seem like she's a player but she's just walking past. Doesn't seem like she understands the reason for the GM screen.

This guy nailed it.
OP, your thread is bad, your question is bad, and you should feel bad about them.

He didn't handle it very tactfully, but he wasn't wrong to fudge that roll and the player was purposefully being a dick

I really don't care.

Yeah I agree. I don't mind players derailing the plot, but the dude was being a dick, IMO.

he could have just had the hit not be fatal

Is there a character arc in this movie? Does someone learn something and change? Is it funny? Or is it just a sad movie about pathetic people?

This is it.

what kind of deranged people are you playing with? I've had drinking with two different groups and although it made things more silly, it made things more entertaining

The gf for looking behind the screen and revealing the result in the first place. There's a reason the DM has a screen people.

Agreed.

>hipster dude throws sword at him
why would you even do that?

The answer to all four of your questions is "yes."
The character development doesn't happen until literally the last 30 seconds of the movie, though.
And it's pretty disappointing for the dramatic change you usually see.
But in my mind it's more realistic.
People don't change overnight.

the DM screen's main purpose is so player's can't see the rolls and be able to easily deduce the enemies statistics and for things like enemy perception/stealth rolls. Fudging rolls is just unfair to your players and most systems have things that allow for dm rerolls.

>Fudging rolls is just unfair to your players
Not really, and I say this as a player and a GM.

Sometimes people are just getting their asses whooped by RNG in spite of coming up with an otherwise decent plan. Sometimes the encounter you thought up is getting decimated because one dude stumbled into a crit while your enemy was unable to land so much as a single hit before they were unceremoniously dunked on by the party. It's like railroading, there's nothing inherently wrong with a DM doing it unless they abuse it to skew the results in a way that doesn't benefit the overall enjoyment of the group.

Like I genuinely wouldn't have minded if the DM fudged a roll to save his pet NPC, especially when the player had no reason for attacking the NPC and is only doing it to be a dick in hopes of derailing the campaign for everyone else.

Everyone in that scenario sounds terrible. I don't think that was a party destined to last.

>Sometimes people are just getting their asses whooped by RNG in spite of coming up with an otherwise decent plan.
My GM was introducing a new player to the system in our game earlier today, so as part of the plot had him encounter a wolf in a basement that was riddled with rotting meat (long story). The idea was that he could kill the thing in one, maybe two turns. He would have, if he ever hit, and was reduced to half HP before the GM sent in an NPC to bail his ass out.

Every once in a while, RNG just likes to fuck with people.

very interesting. My philosophy is that players should be able to do what they choose. The DM also has the right to make calls and do stuff like fudge rolls. I don't see why they all had to be so hostile during the whole interaction. It could have been resolved with a normal conversation

There was once a Deathwatch game we played where my friend was playing a sniper build that hit on an 85 or less and spent the entirety of combat rolling nothing lower than a 90+ on the d%.

>NPC has to save or die
Why does the NPC have to save or die?

The players don't know how much HP the guy has.

What is this from? Some youtuber dnd channel?

Because it's a movie and drama has to happen

Cause it's in the rules of his homebrew system.

...

The players wouldn't know it was the same quest. So what is the difference? If the DM wants you to kill the dragon and Sir Cuntsniffer was going to give you them the quest but they got killed by your retard rogue the DM could just introduce a new NPC Princess Shitalot to introduce the quest.

That's a good philosophy. Unfortunately the DM is a sperg and the player is a jackass and the other players are already sick of the DM's shit by that point, so it all falls apart.

The DM. You are the narrator, the impartial God of the world. You don't get attached to an NPC. If the players slaughter a quest giver, you shrug and continue the story.

Chances are the retard rogue would try to rape/kill the princess the moment she's introduced and probably end up getting himself and the party murdered in the process.

There's only so much you can do when you're dealing with a murderhobo fucktard without saying no.

Hipster is a dick for attacking a guy randomly, but in his defense the GM's "game" is a shitty railroad anyway.

You're half-right. You're the DM, you are the narrator, the impartial God of the world. If the players do something you don't like that would irreparably throw off the story for themselves or anyone else involved, you can tell them "no, you don't" and they can't say shit to you sort of packing up their shit to leaving (which has the amazing side effect of removing one problem player from subsequent campaigns).

I hate this idea that DM's are supposed to kowtow to the players no matter how dumb, self-destructive, and disruptive their actions become; you are the "Dungeon Master," not the "Bottom Bitch" and you don't have to respect their agency as a player if they clearly don't respect the agency of the rest of the party or the amount of time and effort you put into preparing the campaign that they're shitting on.

Er no. The DM was wrong for... being an Autic fuckwit. You can recover bad railroading. You can recover ANYTHING with the right spin. You can make your player's eat shit, and they'll think they'll like it, because it's all about how you roll with the situation.

Failing a roll could be any number of hundreds of things. Sperging out even when you are RIGHT can cause shit to fall apart.

Rolling and failing or succeeding- that's chump stuff that players deal with. A DMs job is to be able to handle whatever punches are thrown at them, it doesn't matter what the dice come up with.

OP, with all kindness, you are asking for a answer, but not the solution in your post.

No idea what this is but
>player's gf from behind screen says that it was actually a fail
>"No it wasn't, his bonus to the roll is actually that high, it's very hard for him to fail his saving throws. But the players aren't supposed to be aware of such things, which is why you shouldn't be spying on my dice rolls. The screen is there for a reason."

Seems like simple solution to a simple problem.

This, but what do you expect?
There are a lot more players than GMs on Veeky Forums, and most only know how to be an entitled player of the worst stripe.

>build your own homebrew system
>allow instakills 5% of the time
>get angry when this fucks with your railroading

it was a failure of his own device

fpbp

They're all in the wrong? I don't know story for this garbage film, but it's likely no one despite clearly being in their mid 20s talked about what kind of game everyone wanted.
When you lay down the rules and guidelines of what's gonna fucking happen no one has a reason to sperg out. Also if you're a railroading gm, don't try a narrativist approach. Just set up a mega dungeon or something.

Having a save or die system is retarded, having a save or die system that triggers on a single Nat 20 when really it should be a minimum of 2 Nat 20s is even more retarded. Killing NPCs without justification is something children do. Railroading wrong is something stupids do (yes you can railroad right, just have all roads lead to rome with different paths).

Overall it's a horrible table with no respect from either the players or the DM and stupidity all around. This is what happens when there is a forever gm or a forever player who is never in the role of the other. The player does not respect the time the gm spent, the gm does not respect the players want for the illusion of choice.

I assume this is a skit, not badly done.

If I had been the DM in that place I would have handled it in one of two ways.

Option one "No you don't, because rocks just fell from the sky and killed your character. You can leave my house now." This option if I felt the guy was trying to ruin the game for everyone else in order to be a lolrandum edgy fuck. I have zero tolerance for that.

Option two "OK, your call, but X happens". This option if I feel the player was being more honest with his characters actions. The option being "consequences for actions as they make sense, though not as punishment". So whatever would naturally happen at that point is what happens. Did he really have the stones on him? Did they need the feather for some reason? I'm perfectly willing to allow the entire campaign/quest to fail if such a mistake were made if that is the reasonable outcome. For me, success is measured one session at a time and not by if the campaign ended like the book did.

So who was more in the wrong? It comes down to if you think the player was being honest or if he was just being a jerk trying to cause trouble. If he was honest, then the DM was in the wrong. If the player was a jerk for the sake of being a jerk, then the player was the worse of the two.

I'm twelve minutes in, and this is the scariest horror movie I've ever seen. It's like looking into a dark mirror of my future self.

Thanks for the recommendation user!

Never have anything in your campaign that you can't walk out on in 10 seconds flat

>garbage film
Scott is actually a well-done character. The acting is quite excellent as well.
You are right that the entire group is horrible, though. I guess my question really was: who was most in the wrong.

Well it was a chance to die each time on a crit. So really, less than 5%. I guess he wanted to make combat really lethal. I am guessing the system was a rip-off of AD&D and something like Palladium based on the snippets of rules you hear.

>alright, NPC cries out and dies
>Suddenly some guards come around the corner and seeing the obvious culprit read-handed, charge.
If they die, then lead the PCs on an endless slog of murder until they are finally overwhelmed.
>Whelp that's the end of my campaign, lets pick someone else to GM for next game.
Then GM tucks his notes away and saves his campaign for a group that will appreciate it.

I really don't care. It's still garbage and honestly doesn't belong on this board. I've just told you my opinions based on the situation given.

Whose worse? That's hard to say. Probably anyone who stayed in the group past that point. The player sounds like garbage and so does the dm. The other players are worse though because they're likely passive bitches who won't just drop both of them.

>a movie about DnD doesn’t belong here
Sure kid

It really doesn't. Especially not with the question posed. The movie is irrelevant to the thread.

.......
The thread is literally about a scene in the movie. Are you autistic?
>It's still garbage and honestly doesn't belong on this board.
Okay. It's a movie about a Dungeon Master and his players. If That Guy threads belong on this board, so does passing discussion of the movie. Especially when I am using it to discuss the relationship between DM and player.

No all I'm saying is that the thread has nothing to do with the movie. It's simply about a situation presented in the film. The movie may as well not exist.

The only reason I'm hostile to this is because I don't wish to irrelevant threads to creep into this board. You in fact are making a bigger deal out of it than I am. I'm just calling it garbage and irrelevant.

>I don't wish to irrelevant threads to creep into this board

You say that as if it hasn't already happened.

The question posed is based off a scene from the movie which someone posted ITT for your viewing pleasure. This may be the most on topic thread currently active on tg that isn’t a general

Probably the best solution.

>for using minis
Excuse me?

It's proved to be rather prophetic.

The 'cool' hipster funny guy who joins the group is obviously like Matt Mercer and the like while the main character represents your average fa/tg/uy who gets increasingly angry, bitter and resentful of the new, handsome, clever, funny guy 'stealing' his game and proving that you can be sociable and popular and still play shit like D&D.

As we've seen play out in real life this shatters the fa/the/uys world as he's built up so much of his identity into rpgs and other nerd bullshit and told himself that's what makes him special and people in society just can't accept the 'real' him and he's smarter than them anyway and those jocks would be too dumb to understand the game anyway.

Then suddenly Matt Mercer appears, who probably used to give the fa/tg/uy wedgies at school while fucking his crush and proves he can do what the fa/tg/uy can do better.

Pretty bleak really. But a good reason to learn to grow up and diversify your social circles and interests.

/thread

Sort of. The hipster character, in the movie, is kinda shown to just be into it because it's trendy and 'cool', where the fa/tg/uy is in it because it's his identity.

Is this what passes for bait these days?
Mods aren't doing their jobs, throw this garbage back to tv

>proves he can do what the fa/tg/uy can do better.
Matt Mercer is not that good of a DM. I'd literally rather play in Scott's campaign than in Matt Mercer's. I also think Scott is a better narrator than Mercer. I am being completely serious. That said, Mercer is a pretty cool guy. I hate Critical Roll but I don't hate him.

As for Chad playing in your game, I have played with plenty of Chad-type dudes. The ones who actually played the game properly were fine, no one got asshurt at them. The ones who tried to hijack the game for laughs, got booted.

The rest of your post just seems like projection. I have built up a lot of my identity into RPGs too but I don't get triggered when I meet someone more talented than me.

I'm a long time GM and I say fudging has its very small place, but not to fucking railroad a story.

I had a GM that did this and I would have been on Miles' side here.

The gf didn't know what the fuck the game was about.

So the only one in the wrong was the GM. All the players hated the railroad.

Add: Watched the movie because of this thread. Not bad. but could have been a bit less on the drama side.

So, if a player is being a dick without reason (Miles had reason) I would speak to him about it. I had these games and I always went along with it back then and it was fun most of the time. But when you're older, the PvP shit and anarchy is not that funny anymore.

Fudging dice isn't cheating. That's why there's a screen in the first place.

It was fucking shit in this situation. And all the players hated it.

You might fudge, when there are no big consequences and you do it to keep the game going but not to fuck with the players or their expectations of the game.

Btw, doesn''t the title trigger your autisms? 0 charisma = death. The protagonist had like 4-7 charisma.

And what was the deal with the GF? Why did she almost make out with Scott? That was weird.

I have no idea. She is still the one character I cannot figure out in that movie.

>0 charisma = death.
Depends on the system. In Runequest 0 charisma just means your character is an autistic troglodyte who nobody wants to be around which fits here.

>making any hobby such an intrinsic part of your identity you sperg the fuck out when other people join that hobby
Please don’t do this fucking shit

I don't think charisma is a fatal stat.

0 STR = Cannot breath = death
0 DEX = Cannot walk = not death
0 CON = No hp = dead but not beyond saving
0 INT = No thinking = comatose
0 WIS = Not a smart man = dumb but alive
0 CHA = Hate by everyone on site = alive

if i recall correctly, the only stat that outright kills you if it falls to 0 is con, at least in 3.5

Correct. 0 Charisma just puts you in a coma.

Why do edgy contrarians think their edge posting is suddenly acceptable when you make fun of the le nerdy fatguy strawman?

The vast majority of people who are in this hobby are adults with jobs. Many of which have girlfriends or wives. The tabletop community out of almost all others is one of the most accepting and honest communities out there.

Your "Chad" strawman example is false, and not what is actually happening. What is ACTUALLY happening is a marketed, politicized invasion of a hobby that already had a healthy community and atmosphere being sold out to mass media consumption. People who watch youtube videos about D&D without any understanding of the lore and backgrounds that made up these stories and rules, have no idea about actual game design themselves, aren't familiar with the "nerd" community as a whole are not innocent people just trying to have fun. They are mass market consumers that move into a space where they would be welcomed otherwise; but instead want to change it. Stop trying to change the issue on its head by pretending the nerds are somehow the bad guy when it is their hobby and activities being taken from them by people who do not care or accept their culture.

And yes, I am 100% sure you will respond to this post with a le fat man showing me that I'm wrong, or a "lol I troll u you got the b8", but it doesn't change the fact that (You) and everyone who shares your gay little contrarian opinion is wrong.