This is a voluntary opt-in advertisement. Any profit generated goes to Comic Fury for hosting.
Page 812 in Cocoyashi Village
first Latest
Page 812


first Previous Next Latest
Average Rating: 4.67
Number of people who have voted: 3


By the same author as Grand Line 3.5
Comments:

Kagimizu




2nd Mar 2016, 1:41 AM
"Roleplayers & Murderhobos"

Geez, Nat's group sounds like a bunch of disrespectful assholes. I don't see why she bothered to stick with them for any real amount of time.

What about you guys? Have you ever dealt with a person or group that just couldn't seem to respect your way of doing things?

edit delete reply

Cliff Robotnik




2nd Mar 2016, 3:20 AM

Yeah, my group had two different guys, at two different times... One was just awful, and the other couldn't spell right for the life of him, and tried to turn absolutely every game he was in into "Civilization".

edit delete reply

Ged




2nd Mar 2016, 3:37 AM

Well, I did get murdered randomly by a lawful good character after succeeding a diplomacy roll for a sandwich that he failed. I have also had my brother deliberately avoid the plot and try to make me waste my planning. It turned out ok in the end but it still was an extremely irritating thing.

edit delete reply

Ged




2nd Mar 2016, 3:38 AM

Edit: I was the DM on the second one.

edit delete reply

DiploRaptor




2nd Mar 2016, 5:34 AM
"Murderhobos or Fed Up?"

I'm curious personally.
When did that behavior start from them.
That is what I want to know.

I just have a lot of questions.
How much of that was just a different group dynamic and Nat did not blend with her verbose style.
How much was it different personalities clashing with Nat
Where they accepting and then got upset when she got angry because they killed a npc who was important to her.

Basically I want to know if these guys were giant jerks, or simply people and Nat did not work well with there group meaning they were jerks towards her

edit delete reply

Guest




9th Nov 2017, 4:54 PM

seem like they where jerk from what you know about them.
also, there's a way to do and say things if one player's style don't suit this of the others, mocking her like this is'nt gonna make any good

edit delete reply

Steven




3rd Mar 2016, 1:05 AM

At one point one of my fellow players, when confronted by a crying child, threatened to murder him if he didn't stop crying. My character, a member of a (homebrew) race for whom even the idea of harming a child was one of the deepest taboos, was disgusted by her (I was too, which made it easier to act out) and she flipped out when he called her out on her shit, saying that I had no right to treat her 'speshul snowflake' like the sociopath she was.

edit delete reply

DiploRaptor




3rd Mar 2016, 5:02 AM
"Baby Olympics"

That reminds me of my own sordid tale with children and RPG's

It ended with a baby being spiked from a tower into the courtyard in front of his parents... yeah the plan to kidnap(make the kid vanish or dead was the goal) the kid went really south really fast.

I dislike homebrew races. But as long as it didn't cause trouble glad it was fun

edit delete reply

Elou




19th May 2016, 7:26 PM

Yea. One guy was the Rogue Trader, in our group, and believed that gave him the right to command everyone, regardless of the rest of the hierarchy. Arrogance IC, I can understand, but he was a obnixious, offensive doosh OOCly as well. Totally ignored the advice of everyone, and scoffed at the idea that he was anything less than The Boss.


Eventually he got killed after getting wounded in an ambush - when he took a dozen plus men down a narrow corridor against the advice of his Arch Millitant - and his medic decided she'd have enough of his dickish ways and killed him, while making it look like he died from his wounds.

edit delete reply

IakKereshna




7th Nov 2016, 4:40 AM

I've had a GM that played favorites, to the point that, at the end of the entire campaign, literally all the deities in the books (plus the ones he added for his campaign) were PHYSICALLY THERE. One of the players (a "favorite") was absorbing the power of the evil anti-deity that had just been taken down... and the gods were watching, letting it happen, to the point that one of the other players (very much NOT a "favorite") wanted to do one action that would kill that character (and thus stop them from absorbing the essence of the big bad)... but he played a paladin (might have been a cleric), and his lawful good deity REFUSED to let him take action.

Then I've had GMs who went against the rules, not because they didn't like them and specifically wanted to change them, but because they literally didn't KNOW the correct rules, and refused to be corrected even if they were shown the correct info from the books. This includes a GM who INSISTED that Sorcerers, like Wizards, are REQUIRED to have a spellbook. -_-

edit delete reply

SpoonyViking




2nd Mar 2016, 1:47 AM

So Nat roleplayed Emp? Awesome! :-)

edit delete reply

Guest




9th Nov 2017, 4:57 PM

AH ! i knew i knew that one but could'nt remember from where it was.

edit delete reply

Luminous Lead




2nd Mar 2016, 3:10 AM

Uh oh. I have a feeling things around the table are going to get really dire in just a minute.

edit delete reply

Kaze Koichi




2nd Mar 2016, 12:55 PM

I found Nat's "extreme roleplaying" eh... extreme, but... All those roleplay-hating guys, that like mindless fighting and looting: where are you getting them? I only heard about them in stories, but I never seen anyone like that in real life. In my latest group I am the one that always want more action and battles, and I always jump at the chance to roleplay. I believe in munchkins - nothing wrong with wanting your character to be strong, or loonies - some people could get a good laugh to exstreme. But "real men" that cannot roleplay? I think they are just legends and satire, but not real people.

edit delete reply

Otaku

Otaku




2nd Mar 2016, 1:06 PM

I suspect they exist but are quite rare.

I base this on a similar experience with "geewunner" Transformers fans, a derogatory term for fans that usually care only about the original Transformers series and toys, sometimes including the comics but often just limited to a handful of action figures they owned plus what they remember about the cartoon. This is different than someone who simply is a fan of those things, or who is a fan but just prefers those things: the geewunner is the kind of pushy fan that insists what they like is best because it is the original (or simply just because) and... well hopefully you get the idea.

With Pokémon hitting 20 years in Japan (and past 15 years in North America) now "genwunner" has become a derogatory term in those circles (I think some tried to make it geewunner, but there is enough overlap in the fandom that the distinction was required =P). Same deal; original games and animation are supposedly inherently superior to everything that came afterwards. Same need to distinguish between fans that just prefer that generation versus fans that arbitrarily insist it is "teh greatest!".

So... yeah, RPG fans that are all about the hack'n slash and nothing else are probably out there, though I would think video games would suit them better. If the RPG collective fandom transitioned into the mainstream a la Transformers, Pokémon, Star Wars, etc. then there might be more of such people, or at least they would be easier to spot.

Oh, because by now I realize this is just a thing in fandoms; after all in my two main examples (Transformers and Pokémon) eventually I started noticing similar behavior from fans of later generations. Snobbish Beast Wars fans in Transformers, same for Gold/Silver/Crystal (Gen II) for Pokémon and it just seems to happen each generation, becoming more apparent in said people once their fav is no longer the newest (where their exuberance can just be mistaken as general).

edit delete reply

Shgon Dunstan




3rd Mar 2016, 1:09 AM

While such fans do certainly exist... You can't really blame a low opinion of anything past the early seasons of the Pokemon anime on such... The thing, quite literally, gave up on having any overarcing plot lines, just the same repetitive league quest doomed from the get go as Ash drops any Pokemon that actually starts to show real power like a hot potato, and then gets bludgeoned over the anemia bat of eternal youth just in time to do the whole bloody thing all over again...


... On the plus side, I hear that of late it's at least trying to dig itself out of the rut that it's been in for literal decades, so there's that.. But that is a HELL of a lot of pointless filler to just up and forget exist. -_-

edit delete reply

Otaku

Otaku




4th Mar 2016, 1:11 PM

Yes, but that doesn't really affect what I am saying. We are talking about the handful of fans with unreasonable (not reasonable) preferences for a particular iteration or period of a franchise. In the case of Pokémon what makes it so interesting is that it can be hard to tell what is more prevalent: the games (the origin of the franchise), the animation (the easiest to access, I think) and the TCG (still actually huge but seldom acknowledged).

So again, the fans of which I speak would never acknowledge that their favorite was not the best written, best animated, best acted, etc. season of Pokémon, even if some of those can be objectively measured.

edit delete reply

Invidiousone




2nd Mar 2016, 8:26 PM

I'm Dm in 2 campaigns right now. In one, my players love lots of the npcs, want to know more about the world, and are constantly making interesting choices. In the other, they asked me for 'standard dnd. we want to do a dungeon, kill all the monsters and get loot. we dont care about the npcs'. Fuckin broke my heart

edit delete reply

zombi3DS

zombi3DS




2nd Mar 2016, 11:54 PM

From the dm side, I know why this is. I have two groups.
#1 hates when npcs are in the spotlight at all and want to be the heroes to the point of getting upset if I have an npc rolling a check against another. Big Fight with their allies and them desperately trying to escape or win somehow: Why are you rolling for him he's not important, as dm you already know which one wins.
The other group knows my love for making builds that would be hard to achieve as a player or are just badass, NPCs can be heroes too, do you really want the universe to just roll over and die when you aren't here? They get the idea and drag them along on quests have died and chosen to play a former npc etc.
I've always followed the another gaming comic (not yafgc which is nsfw) line of thought - that if you have to go outside the rules or don't allow pcs the same level of resources you aren't gming right. If the story is only about the npcs it is about you and not the whole group sitting at the table, It's a fine line to tread.

edit delete reply

sunbeam




3rd Mar 2016, 12:28 PM
"murderhoboes:where and how they live."

I have an interesting anecdote on murderhoboes. In a play-by-post campaign that i'm in, a new player joined playing a semi-alcoholic museum projectionist/street brawler with anger issues. We called him our Wolverine, and he was a pretty interesting character. Then we get into our first major fight (we're on a protection detail for some magical artifacts), and in the aftermath he's straight up brutal to the assailants that we captured to hand over to the police. Like, they're tied up and helpless on the floor and he just starts wailing on them. After a round of ooc "dude, the fuck?" Moments and every in game character with a semblance of authority chewing him out, we get to the heart of the issue: the last group he played with treated prisoners exactly like that. Villagers, the women and children of opposing war parties, everyone that couldn't fight back was brutally mugged. He just thought that was how d&d went (it fit with his stories of murderhoboes players) so he rolled with it. Once we explained that we didn't play that way, his character funneled the remorse from his actions that night into kicking his alcoholism and turning his life around, and he's been great to have. But through a bizarre mixture of small exposure to murderhoboes and grand exposure to stories of murderhoboes, he became one. If people expect that out of d&d, it's what you get.

edit delete reply

GLWgameplayer




3rd Mar 2016, 10:16 PM
"Wow"

that is an inspirational story actually. For the character and the guy. I got lucky and none of my fellow players are murderhobos but at the same time a lot of them are unfocused and like teh comic relief a bit too much

edit delete reply

Arcaia




2nd Mar 2016, 3:05 PM

A friend of mine told me not too long ago about his frustrations with a particular group of people. One that stood out to me involved someone who consistently played characters whose only real contribution to the game was to stop other players doing the things they wanted. In particular, one example involved him playing a highly religious character, but apparently all that involved was to say "No, you can't do that, it's against my religion" to anything that wasn't explicitly stated to be okay. No debate, no chance for roleplaying a discussion, or even any kind of roleplaying other facets a religious character, just straight up "No, or I will shoot you" mentality. And yet, this didn't stop the guy metagaming when it suited him, even if doing so would involve acting in a way clearly in violation of the basic tenets of said religion.

Needless to say, said friend of mine no longer plays with these people, as he's had enough. Simply put, at the end of the day a RPG is a game, and each gaming group needs to accomodate for different ways of playing the game, or else it won't be fun.

edit delete reply

TCSquirrel




3rd Mar 2016, 12:31 AM

I had a paladin like that once! Less deliberate obstructionist, more stupidly narrow character, but I digress.

I was a Lawful Evil Soulknife. We did not get along. He actually complained to the DM more than once that I was playing an evil character, particularily when I >played< an evil character.

I delt with him in game. After an argument he started got us ambushed, I manipulated the fight so I wound up saving his characters life, justified that not honoring this feat would violate his religion, and proceeded to use that to taunt and manipulate him the rest of the campain.

This culminated in a great battle in a small town about to be overwhelmed by the forces of darkness. He was determined the entire party stay behind and fight to the last man to give the town time to evacuate with their goods and stuff.

I wanted to flee, and even the party that wanted to stall the hordes only wanted to 'stall' the hordes. So... I let him have it.

I burst into an impassioned speach about how there was no moral path for him here. Stay behind, die 'honorably', the hoard continues to advance unopposed, undetered, many settlements suffering for their lack of warning. Flee the hoards to warn the countryside? He's given his oath, and such cowardice is not looked upon fondly. I spent 7 minutes tearing appart every course of action as a violation against his god.

He protested, out of character, that we 'aren't alloewd' to put him in a no-win situation.

THe GM said two words.

'Justify yourself'.

One foaming at the mouth rage later, in which he weakly tried to counter my arguments without ever actually justifying the path his character took as in line with his faith (Wrong option BTW), he was told he was stripped of his paladin abilities, shamed by his deity and forced to go through atonement in future.

That player left. We rejoiced in the next town.

edit delete reply

Raxon

Raxon




3rd Mar 2016, 2:49 AM

Ughh. I've played with a DM like that before. He reasoned that if my character is evil, then naturally, he's done evil things. Okay, he's in prison. Roll up another character.

I've had another DM that demanded no combat, hunting, or eating meat. Ughh.

Another had a paladin murder a helpless little girl in cold blood because she was a vampire. Doesn't matter that the pendant keeps her human and good, she's still a vampire. Then the cleric burned the remains into ash so the group couldn't rez her. Player was pissed when I declared she had lost her paladinhood.

edit delete reply

DiploRaptor




3rd Mar 2016, 5:10 AM
"Wait... What?"

Ok this one explain.
So the Gm went your guy is being evil make a new character? Was... I... seriously that was the process they took. I mean I know people don't get evil and how to play it but sheesh.

How do you expect a game to go without combat?
You can't demand players play vegetarians, that just sounds like most of the vegans I've met and there reactions and demands to stop eating X

Strictly by the rules the Paladin murdered a vampire.
So depends on the god. I can think of a few who would be happy, for 'curing' the kid. Also I really dislike homebrew artifacts like that personally because of my own experience with a Gm using them to justify things to antagonize us or just give npcs better version of equipment we were carrying. And to give us crappy versions of most magical equipment. Like the robe of +1 will save... we sold that quick and just got a normal +1 cloak of resistance... then the gm said no one sells an item that powerful in the city.

edit delete reply

Raxon

Raxon




3rd Mar 2016, 6:00 PM

The reasoning behind it is that if the character is evil, then they've done things to warrant an alignment shift to evil.

The other one, yeah, we put up with the hippie dm for three sessions, and just ditched her.

The other thing is that the paladin knew that the little girl had a cure. The cure was wearing the pendant! With the pendant on, the girl was no longer a vampire. The little girl had been restrained, so she was completely harmless. The party was divided on what to do. The paladin wanted to just kill the girl. The cleric was with her. The other three, however, wanted to research the incredibly powerful pendant, because it radiated with the powers of a god. They believed that they could find a cure for vampirism forever. The little girl held the only clues for finding the origin of the pendant.

So, naturally, the campaign ended when, without any warning, she punched the little girl to death while everyone else was trying to figure out the clues presented. Then the cleric burned the remains to ash so we couldn't even rez her as a normal human, because she was evil.

Muder is not the noble answer when there is a cure available.

Oh, and it was not just a powerful item. It was an epic tier artifact that could ward off any curse or disease, made from a shard of a dead god of healing and life. It was a magic macguffin meant to serve the plot, not just random loot. I don't just hand out tons of loot or homebrew items.

Homebrew items tend to be unique and interesting when I have them, not overpowered. In this case, the only way to find the lost temple of this dead god was with the little girl's help. The only way to get her help was to have her wear the pendant.

edit delete reply

Luminous Lead




3rd Mar 2016, 6:56 PM

Given the terrible fuss out of character that ensued (you mentioned happened subsequently at a previous telling), I'm not surprised things ended where they did. Ressurection is a bunch to shell out for for a NPC (especially if at a low level) if you wanted to get past the ash factor.

edit delete reply

Raxon

Raxon




2nd Mar 2016, 7:32 PM

Sweet! It's the cool old guy!

edit delete reply

Arcaia




3rd Mar 2016, 4:57 PM

Well...it IS possible to have combatless games. In fact, it can be quite fun, but it's the kind of thing that you have to make clear from the outset. And of course, it's one thing to have a game which is really not intended for combat, and another thing entirely to prohibit it because "I'm the the GM and it's my game". If players want to get into a fight, give it to 'em.

Unfortunately though, it seems that people are too frequently too focused on what THEY want to do, regardless of whether or not it'll actually be fun for every one else involved. Part of it is that people sometimes get too invested in a character of the game, and aren't able to take a step back. It's kind of one the many reasons I've gradually become disillusioned with having groups of more than 4 players.

edit delete reply

Inbetweenaction




3rd Mar 2016, 5:57 PM

combatless games places much more of a burden on the system though. a no combat DnD shafts the cleric and fighter a bit to hard in my opinion, either the dm has to play way to much with situational modifiers and rp modifiers to make them anything but walking furniture, whereas games like WoD and Cthulhu might actually be better when you never fire a single shot...

once spend half a game night trying to get one of the other PCs sign of on my gambling addiction and bar dives as work related expenses for his company, buying server equipment and committing various degrees of tax fraud (including actually doing our PC's taxes, ingame), and it was probably the best game in a long long time.

edit delete reply

Raxon

Raxon




3rd Mar 2016, 6:15 PM

She had us delivering food and medicine to a city gripped by famine. The mission was done in half a session(two hours). We looked to her, expecting the next plot point. She had nothing. We were not allowed to fight, because she believed violence is wrong. Without combat, it was done in no time.

She had up puttering around for the next two sessions. She knew the system just fine. She just had no idea how to run a game, and could not understand that veganism is less viable in a wilderness survival scenario.

edit delete reply

DiploRaptor




4th Mar 2016, 3:20 PM

Keeps sounding like vegans I've met and known.

That is certainly annoying with the vampire. So I guess the goal was for the party to use the amulet to find a way to have her be cured without it.
Also well she was wearing the amulet was she aging or did that part of the vampirism still take effect?

edit delete reply

zomg




6th Mar 2016, 8:07 PM

Current group doesn't really like doing stuff like roleplaying in character. Or having characters with stuff like characteristics. Or playing the classes in any what that isn't purely mechanically.

Example, there's a class 'Slave' where you have some pretty cool abilities, but then also you're a friggin slave, which is bad, but also gives some awesome roleplaying possibilities. Except with these guys it amounts to you maybe have the name of an npc that kinda owns you, except you'll never interact or see or talk to him because he'll be back home while you're adventuring. So the only thing a slave is is 'class specific skill x'. Same thing with all other classes.

I've pretty much stopped playing with them at this point, there's just no other groups in the area so that sucks.

So yeah, pretty much feeling with Nat here.

edit delete reply

zomg




6th Mar 2016, 8:08 PM

By the way nice Empowered reference!

edit delete reply

Guest




9th Nov 2017, 5:16 PM

You know, i met a guy who was a bit on the fight, get stronger, find the next enemy, repeat mindset. but it was still interesting to have him around because he was not a jerk about it.
the others could rolepay, it was'nt going to stop him from making is build so he had nothing against it.
And he did'nt mind that much for the plot as long as it was a plot that allow him to get into some good combat, and the roleplayer at the table did'nt mind having a plot that involve combat. so the group worked relatively well together.
He could also ocasionally pay attention if he saw a ocasion to get something interesting. for exemple, if he learn of a old master who can guive him a weapon he will not go roleplaying and say "please, old-master bequeath the sacred sword to me, for i need it to free the world of a terrible evil. I swear that i will make good use of it." but he would at least do so much as "i go to the old master and explain him our situation then ask for the sword." and if the old master send him on a quest to prove his worth, he was okay with it if the quest involve some action. So i guess he was'nt that extreme of a murderhobo

anyway, any type of player can be fun to play with, the important is wether or not they are jerk.

edit delete reply

Leave a Comment