Susaga @ Susaga @ttrpg.network

Posts

24

Comments

313

Joined

2 yr. ago

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.

What the hell is the meme you're looking at? In the meme I see, the DM is annoyed by the current environment of murderhoboing and responds by introducing a Bahomet in a way where the players clearly don't know who he is and haven't met him before. The DM chose to add him, just like they chose every element of the campaign thus far and they chose to continue playing among murderhobos. The only reason Bahomet was included was as a punishment, and it's fucking baffling you insist that's not what's happening.

I can think of several reasons to have a god show up in a game. I can only think of one reason to respond to the players being murderhobos by introducing a god in an innocent disguise and saying "try it, bitch". What do you think is the point of the meme if not "the players are being murderhobos, so I'm going to punish them by making them pick a fight with a god"?

You assumed my assumption, but it honestly doesn't matter if it came out of nowhere or not. Step one is talking to the players like adults about the problem. Step two is removing a player from the game, possibly yourself. There is never enough buildup to justify introducing an OP enemy to guaranteed kill your players as a punishment. Even if there was, you should have left the game long before that point, and should leave the game now instead of firing that big gun.

Why do players need to acknowledge it in game? That's not where the problem is. The problem is among the players, not the characters. You don't solve OOC problems within the game.

I don't think I'm the one assuming a lot of stuff and missing the point here.

I'm the kinda guy that stopped watching a 12 episode series on episode 11. I don't regret it. It wasn't a story worth completing.

Then why do you need to finish the session? Just quit on the spot and see what you can make of the rest of your evening.

Why? You're not having fun playing that game. What you want to do won't be fun for everyone else. You didn't like the game to begin with, so there's no point in giving it a satisfying conclusion. There are better things you could do, like setting up a game you'd prefer. Why waste your time playing that last session?

"We attack this random old man!"
"Gotcha! It was a Dragon God in disguise!"

You see how it's a trick? You see the deception?

If you live in a high-crime area and put a shotgun trap behind your door, then you are guilty for the murder of anyone who dies trying to break into your house. Should they have tried to break into your house? No. Should you have killed them? Also no. You're not in the right just because they're in the wrong. It doesn't work that way.

Why is throwing Bahamut at the players knowing they'll pick a fight with him a better solution than just talking to them?

I agree entirely, I just offer a warning first. And either way, you don't keep playing so you can throw Bahamut at them.

If you don't want to play in the type of game the other players want to play in, you leave. That's the same for regular players and the GM. If it's just one or two people making it less fun for other people, you kick them. No need to keep playing with them so you can punish them in game. I never get far enough in the game to punish that kind of player, because they're already gone.

Honestly, this runs on the same logic as murder hobos. You're not having fun, so you decide to get your fun by ruining someone else's.

Nobody said "hey, maybe turn down the murdurhoboing?", they chose to trick the players into attacking a god.

But you're not balancing the game. You're not adding a powerful BBEG. You're putting a GOD in their path specifically to threaten the players into submission, even goading the players into action with that little "try it, bitch". You're showing the exact same antagonism, desrespect for the world and propensity for violence as the players are. I don't care who did it first.

Just fucking talk to them. Like people do. Say "hey, maybe turn down the murdurhoboing?" instead of jumping to killing them. It's the DM's job to mediate the game and solve disputes as they arise so everyone has fun. Do your fucking job.

Edit: It's always funny how unreasonably upset people get when you suggest talking through problems in a game played entirely through talking.

Is that not just the DM equivelant of being a murder hobo?

Granted. Your nude pictures are now embedded into every web page on the internet. You can clearly be identified, so now everyone recognises you as the guy who put your nudes onto every children's website. You are under arrest for hacking, indecent exposure and sexual harrassment of children. You sick fuck.

Ever seen Interspecies Reviewers? This comes up. There are fun, sexy things you can do that aren't just putting dick into hole.

Terry

Yeah, exactly. It's not someone dodging a lot, but someone asking a lot that's abnormal.

Fun fact: That's just an average amount of question dodging. Paxman had to stall for time and realised he could just stretch it out by getting the guy to actually answer the question.

He wasn't going to be any MORE nuts. Everyone knew he was a crackpot who hated women, and it was heretical for him to claim anyone but God could grant anyone powers. I make sure to do it in front of people and there's suddenly an audience to see him be condemned by a divine agent. If they try to say it was anything else, they're heretical too.

At the very least, it can't get WORSE.

The first time Heinrich Kramer tries to show someone the Malleus Maleficarum, I appear directly in front of him and set the book on fire. Not only is the book destroyed, but a clearly supernatural event took place to put the fear of god into him. Bam. No witch trials.

This entire post is people trying to debate game mechanics using real world violence. I'm pointing out they're doing it badly.

And yes, PCs are superhuman to a degree. That's why they have much higher ability scores and, in the case of the barbarian, a bonus to damage while raging. And when they do an unarmed attack, it deals 1 + Strength (+2 for Rage). For a commoner, that's 1 or 2 points of damage. For a level 1 barbarian, that's around 6 points. 1d4 + mods doesn't make sense and 1d6 is right out.

I suggested a bear because it has twice as much health as a commoner, so there's more space to measure. A .22 rifle can kill a bear, but it might take a few shots because of a low damage roll. And it's a fuck ton more likely to kill it than just biting it. 1 point of damage isn't a small amount. We just don't want to measure anything smaller.