Susaga @ Susaga @ttrpg.network

Posts

25

Comments

268

Joined

2 yr. ago

That's the dumbest argument you could make. "The little guy is intimidating because he could tell the big guy to attack" just means the big guy is the threat, not the little guy. Imagine the little guy on his own and ask if he'd be as much of a threat at the big guy on his own. Even if he tried to hurt you, how much harm could he do?

If anything, what you're describing isn't the little guy succeeding on intimidation. It's the little guy using the help action to give the big guy advantage, and it seems the big guy really needed it.

Absolutely, Charisma (Intimidation) checks make sense, but you can't threaten them with simple bodily harm. You have to threaten them socially, or with a nearby weapon, or something along those lines.

I legitimately had someone try to argue to me that Kermit the Frog was more intimidating than King Shark.

Also, I like having every skill be floating and see what fun stuff people can come up with. I would recommend Intelligence (Acrobatics) if you're ever going to make a conspiracy and need to do some mental gymnastics.

Death row is just instant execution, and the date you would be killed is now the last day you could be revived with common means.

Yay!

"Do you want it back? It's already open now." "You know what? I think I'll pass."

Open a wine bottle, maybe? Put the corkscrew to use.

Quack :)

The same can be said of any gendered term. That's honestly a comment on the context more than the word.

If you say the word bitch is as offensive as the f slur, t slur or n word, then you're saying those slurs are as harmless as the word bitch. If you believe that, I am offended by you. Do not put them in the same group.

"Bitch" is not a slur. It is a swear. Swears are fine, slurs are not. They are not equivelant, and shouldn't be treated as such.

I would disagree with that being a plot twist, though. You're aware of both possibilities from very early on, and the idea that it's real appears later than the idea that it's not. It's hard for it to be a twist when people keep directly telling you what the twist is going to be before it happens.

None. It's not a good plot twist. Even the Truman Show didn't use it as a plot twist, but as a premise. If the story was engaging without the twist, then it's a gut punch to suddenly pull the rug and say "gotcha! The plot was meaningless!" If the story wasn't engaging, then you didn't get far enough to see the twist.

Granted. Your best friend is caught in a car crash and barely survived. They had gotten a gift for you that was destroyed during the crash. There is no way to mention your wish without coming off as a self-centred jerk.

Throw a few goblins their way. Maybe a Rhino.

By the time they do, their kids will start going to school and the cycle begins again.

From the example you gave, you haven't experienced it either. And the reason I haven't experienced it is because, as the DM, I didn't throw Bahamut at a problem player and just warned them to either cut it out or be kicked from the game. The game then improved for everyone remaining.

Hold on... If I leave the shit pit, I won't be invited back into the shit pit? And that's a bad thing?

You wanna know why I'm so passionate? Because you're infuriating. Because you're writing entire essays about things nobody has been talking about and calling ME passionate about it. Because "rip out the role playing" isn't something anyone has mentioned directly or otherwise. Because everyone keeps replying to me without responding to me. Nobody has explained why it's good to remain in the shit pit for a second longer than absolutely necessary.

If you're in a pit and it's full of shit, either remove the shit or leave the shit pit. I don't get why that's controversial to say.

You absolutely ARE questioning their right to a power fantasy. The "hey, maybe turn down the murderhoboing" is the "are you sure" before you kick them from the table. I'm not going to coddle them and never question their right to be at the table, or their right to have their characters die satisfying deaths. I'm removing all power they have in the game in a single sentence.

Nobody. I just don't approve of vindictive DMing. I don't like spending time doing things that make me miserable so long as it makes others even more miserable. It's weird that so many people disagree.

Correct. Both the players and the DM are being arseholes. Why the fuck are you defending the DM for doing what the players are doing?

You're comparing the nineteen word meme that frames vindictive DMing as a natural consequence, rather than an unhealthy response to antagonism, to an experience you had that was, as far as I can see, entirely unrelated. Making the best of a shit situation you've been put in is to leave that situation. If you're in a pit full of shit, don't make marshmallows and sing songs. Either remove the shit or get out of the pit. Stop trying to argue that it's fine to remain in the shit pit.

It's a perfect example of something ONLY YOU have been talking about. The enforcement of expectations in your example was made using things that were already in the game in order to make the game fun. That's not what other people have been talking about.

Please fucking read my comment. I did not say it was SOLELY the DM's job. I said it was EVERYONE's job, DM included. Please respond to what people ACTUALLY SAY. Yes, it's a group activity, but if everyone in the group wants one thing and one person wants something else, they should leave that group. It doesn't matter if that person is a DM or a player.

Holy fuck, are you not paying attention? It does not matter if it was sudden or not. If it got to the point that the DM was willing to twist the narrative to kill the entire party, they should have already left.

I haven't been traumatised. Heck, I've barely ever been a player. I just don't know why people are being so defensive of vindictive DMing. It's deeply unhealthy. Doms do need aftercare, but they also shouldn't go into their fun with spite on their mind.

Your example is NOT an example, because that player was not murderhoboing. You weren't vindictively adding an element to the game to get him killed, you were organically reacting to their actions with details that had already been established. Your consequence made sense, and it made the game more fun for everyone involved.

It is a DM's job to make sure everyone had fun at the end of the session, DM included. Technically, that's everyone's job, but the DM is the one with more authority. This doesn't mean bad things can't happen, but nobody should be outright miserable. If one person's fun would detract from someone else's fun, then either a frank conversation is needed or someone should leave to find that fun elsewhere.

Granted. A little girl with cancer hobbles up to you and asks what you wished for. She doesn't have long and she's starting to lose hope.