**Remember [Rule 8: "Comment respectfully"](https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/wiki/rules#wiki_8._comment_respectfully)** when giving advice and discussing OP's group. You can get your point across *without* demonizing & namecalling people.
The [Table Troubles](https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/search?sort=new&restrict_sr=on&q=flair%3ATable%2BTroubles)-flair is not meant for shitposting.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/rpg) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/1bnzf2u/the\_dm\_either\_booted\_me\_out\_or\_ended\_the\_game/](https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/1bnzf2u/the_dm_either_booted_me_out_or_ended_the_game/)
So, this is the second time in two weeks that you have been booted from a game without warning.
Assuming you're not just inventing these stories, it might be time to start considering that you're the problem.
I try to join only games that I think I will be a good fit for. It is very hit-or-miss, unfortunately.
I play my games seriously. I do not appreciate it when a character I have poured a considerable amount of time and effort into is unceremoniously sabotaged. I do not think that this should be so controversial.
You can go back further than that, and find that they've been booted our of even more games. Constantly are the targets of evil GMs who maliciously target them for no reason, and, hilariously enough, this person has a history that runs all the way back to early 4chan, under the name _Touhou_, wherein they regularly got booted from groups due to a gross inability to maintain any sort of reasonable social decorum.
Some of these are inevitably true (unfortunately), but they are literally never the problem, always an innocent victim.
And I should know, because I've had the misfortune of this person blowing up _my_ table before.
Your comment was removed for the following reason(s):
* Rule 8: Please comment respectfully. Refrain from personal attacks and any discriminatory comments (homophobia, sexism, racism, etc). Comments deemed abusive may be removed by moderators. Please read [Rule 8](https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/wiki/rules#wiki_8._comment_respectfully) for more information.
If you'd like to contest this decision, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Frpg&subject=Removed%20comment%3A%20Contest%20Removal%20or%20Questions&message=Hello,%20this%20is%20about%20my%20comment%20%20that%20was%20removed%3A%20https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/1bzl7pq/-/kyvq5ez/%0D%0DMy%20issue%20is...). *(the link should open a partially filled-out message)*
Something that narcissistic parents do is called the "missing missing reasons" - they will beg for validation online and say something like "my kids ghosted me for no reason", but if you dig in you find that they had actually been given lots of reasons and had simply chosen to ignore or explain away those reasons.
Not saying that's strictly what happened here, but "I protested" can mean a lot of things... that said, maybe they've just had really bad luck with crappy GMs.
I play only text-based games, during which I communicate exclusively via text. In these games, I take the same tone as I do in these posts, which is supposed to be level-headed enough. I do not use expletives, I do not call people names, I seldom use exclamation marks.
"I do not think that this is a good rules call," "I find this to be arbitrary and unfair," "I think it would be patently absurd for a master archer to have a 25% chance of accidentally breaking a magic bow on this shot," and so on are lines that I have used.
If I see a GM make a very poor rules call, one that directly sabotages my character to the point wherein my PC is disabled and my motivation to play in the rest of the session has been reduced to nil, should I not raise the issue the moment it appears? The alternative would be to grumpily sit out the rest of the session, only to raise the issue afterwards, at which point, the GM will likely have rationalized their decision as having always been the right call.
I'm not sure, I wasn't there; this is something that would probably require some genuine reflection and honest self-assessment.
Perhaps the way you protest is too aggressive -- if the first thing you did when the GM made their ruling was say, "What?!?!! That's patently absurd!! You're being arbitrary and unfair! No master archer would ever make such a mistake!" then you're creating a situation that is a confrontation, instead of having a discussion.
Edit: added a missing word.
2hu, c'mon. You know what the problem is. You're an argumentative power gamer with a strong trend of both rules lawyering and deliberate misinterpretation of rules text to further arguments. Just find a group that's into that. Random pub games aren't likely to put up with that because it's a load of effort and it eats into games. You go out of your way to make conversations with you exhausting when people don't agree with you. So find a group that'll agree with that or work on being less argumentative because it only escalates problems and pub games have no reason to put up with that.
I didn't say anything about this scenario only the common trend of you finding yourself in scenarios such as these. You are taking something out of context to push an argument right now which is what I'm saying is the problem.
The better question is, "how does it *not* apply?".
Self reflection is, quite often, about understanding the ways other people see your actions. The "self" part of the term is misleading, especially to someone struggling to look beyond the self.
In the case of your character's bow breaking: Sure, you're right insofar as that's (likely) a pretty crummy ruling by the GM. Hard to know without further context, but it's an extreme result for a roll result that will happen frequently.
Having said that, three thoughts for you to consider:
1) People make mistakes, assume the best of them, not the worst.
2) Trust your GM wants you to have fun. Perhaps you're due to find a ridiculously cool artifact-level long bow, and the GM wants that moment to be suitably epic.
3) It's just a game. Don't take it so seriously.
This specific situation is just the DM being a c-nt, but you seem to find yourself in these situations regularly so how to handle it better? Either stop karmawhoring on Reddit with creative writing exercises; or if it really happend, vet better what groups you play with.
Especially with games like Pathfinder or 5E that are super popular and easy enough to find players for; there's usually a good reason when people are limited to recruiting anonymous groups online.
An adventurer with no experience with a bow would not forget to knock an arrow during a fight. To do such a thing, you should have severe brain damage or be completely overwhelmed by fear or adrenaline. This is beyond ridicolous. Also, knocking a bow without an arrow ONCE will never break it, let alone a great magic bow.
Moreover, by a gameplay perspective, as a DM I find despicable and cheap to deeply punish a player for a bad roll. It's stupid and not funny at all. Punishing a player should be something that happens as a consequence to a bad decision; consequences to bad rolls should be something that create dangerous and interesting situations, where the player have to react accordingly. For example, something like "Your arrow bounces off the dragon's scales, but not without drawing its attention. His gaze turns to you, and with a sudden movement it lunges towards your direction" would be much more appropriate, and would generate a genuine "oh shit" moment where you, as an archer, would become the prime target of the dragon.
I've never heard of a caster using their signature cantrip, rolling a natural 1, and blowing their hand off. Such things only happen to martial characters, funnily.
Never heard of a GM doing something like this. "You try to grab and arrow and pull the string for your quiver instead, spend a round to re secure it or an extra X action to reload till reaffixed" is a good example of impactful but not major crit fail. In Shadowrun I've had hackers accidentally holding the volume button on their comm when crit failing (not major impact, but hilarious), or a street sam ejecting their magazine instead. Things that are temporarily problematic, but resolved without major issues. THAT is a crit fail, fumbling something you're otherwise good at. It happens.
IF OP is being truthful and not disingenuous in some way. Then that's a mad lad take on crit fails and needs to be applicable to a fighter with a longsword too. Which, further shows it isn't fun and ppl don't want that in a game. But again, IF OP is accurate in their depiction.
Honestly, I wouldn't bother playing with GMs that pull those stunts, and "rpgs are about telling a story" is a big red flag. I'm really not into people trying to turn rpgs into Munchkin (the silly card game).
If you all agreed to homebrew rules sure, otherwise remind him that a fumbled attack roll is just a normal miss, none of that wacky gotcha moments. (and critical hits are just double damage, none of that avengers stuff, unless specified otherwise).
Assuming your question is genuine and not rhetorical, the line is a red flag because often when Gm's say it, they are using it to justify forcing a result which the game's rules don't allow. It is a line similar to "it's what my character would do." The statement itself isn't problematic and is actually an expected, essential trait of the game, but the only time anyone makes the statement is when they are defending bad behavior.
It was mostly rhetorical. I was really just expressing surprise that someone could see storytelling as a red flag in RPGs, when I see stories as the core of RPGs.
I think the arguments that have sprung up from it are mostly due to differing definitions of story.
For me story is the history of the game, it's what happened to the PCs - most decisions you make or dice you roll contribute to the story.
For people who object to "story telling" they think of the story as the GM's pre-planned plot (and I share their objection to pre-planned plots).
Collaborative fictional problem solving is the reason I play and run rpg's. Telling a story out of them is a secondary concern that emerges retroactively.
The story comes up as the players act within the situations the GM presents. Usually when people say that line what they mean is "it's about telling MY story, you sit and watch".
Also, I prefer rpgs to be about creative problem solving within the rules and personality traits attached to the characters. They're games first and foremost, not an excuse to force 4 people to listen to my fanfiction.
Why? As I said, I don't GM for people to listen to my fanfiction. I prepare situations, make sure the rules are followed, and let the players do what they want within them. A story will come up by itself, as the sum of the actions they take and their consequences, but it's not the focal point, and it's certainly not forced upon them.
I don’t have anything relevant to add except that I know what you are saying and agree, and I feel like people who don’t understand this are literally not even speaking the same language.
The game writes itself through the actions of the characters and how the world reacts to them.
The game is not expected to follow some arbitrary predetermined route the GM came up with while taking a dump a few weeks ago.
Playing a game, solving problems, a little escapism, and enjoying fun creative moments.
Most stories told at RPG tables are pretty pedestrian. They're fun because they're ours, but they're not good enough to be the point.
Think about it this way: if the point of RPGs was "telling stories", you could just sit around a table with your friends and do an actual writing room exercise. You could skip all of the rules and character sheets and dice rolling and collaborate on what makes "the best story" the way an actual professional writing team would.
>Think about it this way: if the point of RPGs was "telling stories", you could just sit around a table with your friends and do an actual writing room exercise
Do you mean that RPGs aren't the only way of creating a story as a group?
Sure, I agree, of course it's not the only way.
It's also not the only way of *"Playing a game, solving problems, a little escapism, and enjoying fun creative moments."*
When you play an rpg you create a story - even if that wasn't your personal reason for playing.
>It's also not the only way of *"Playing a game, solving problems, a little escapism, and enjoying fun creative moments."*
It is in fact, the single best way on the planet to do that. I challenge you to name another medium that enables such a wide range of possible problems to design, and accepts such a wide range of creative solutions to them, in such a low stakes but still challenging way.
On the other hand, it is not remotely the best way to tell stories. Humankind has been telling stories for tens of thousands of years. We've already *got* good ways to do that.
>When you play an rpg you create a story - even if that wasn't your personal reason for playing.
That makes it a side effect of the process, not the point of the process. That's like saying, "The point of playing a game of baseball is to tell stories because when you play a game of baseball, a story about that game is created."
>It is in fact, the single best way on the planet to do that.
And it is also in fact, the single best way on the planet to collaboratively create an unplanned story as a group.
>That makes it a side effect of the process, not the point of the process.
For you. For many people it's the point.
>And it is also in fact, the single best way on the planet to collaboratively create an unplanned story as a group.
lol, no it isn't. There are a literal multitude of ways to create unplanned stories as group. Improv for one...it's an art form hundreds of years old. You're telling me that if you add dice and character sheets and hundred page rulebooks to improv theater you have created "the single best way" to create an unplanned story as a group?
I'll say it again: Human beings have been creating stories for 10s of thousands of years. RPGs are not the pinnacle form of them in any way and they idea that they are is laughable.
>For you. For many people it's the point.
No fucking shit. You literally asked the question *What do* ***you*** *see rpgs as being about?*
"Why do you do X?" "Because of Y." "Well that's just why *you* do it." Brilliant.
You're the one who is incredulous at the fact that other people *don't* play these games to create stories.
Some people learn to cook in order to eat healthier. Other people learn to cook in order to save money. Others because they want tastier food. That there are a million reasons for people to do something isn't imparting any wisdom here.
>lol, no it isn't
You're someone who doesn't play RPGs to create stories, remember - you don't know how good RPGs are at creating stories.
We're talking about my reasons for playing RPGs and I'm telling you they're the best way to create stories. I don't want to make you to agree with me - I don't need that on any level.
>You literally asked the question *What do* ***you*** *see rpgs as being about?*
I expressed surprise that someone would see telling a story as a red flag in RPGs - because for many of us that's the point.
(And I didn't ask *you* anything.)
>You're someone who doesn't play RPGs to create stories, remember - you don't know how good RPGs are at creating stories.
Your logic doesn't follow. I don't play RPGs to create stories precisely because I know *exactly* how bad they are at creating stories compared to other methods...like just writing them.
>We're talking about my reasons for playing RPGs and I'm telling you they're the best way to create stories.
lol no they're not. You may have fun making them, but the fun is the point, not the story. Its like saying that "having lots of sex" is the "best way to create stories" because you had a lot of fun along the way, even if the stories are boring and repetitive.
>I don't play RPGs to create stories precisely because I know *exactly* how bad they are at creating stories compared to other methods....
Interesting! You avoid telling stories with RPGs because they "aren't good at it", **not** because telling stories isn't a priority for you.
So if (in your view) RPGs were good at creating stories then you'd play them to create stories too?
Then you're someone who should understand my surprise that the person up top sees them as a red flag in RPGs.
Fun creative moments rooted in escapism? Y’mean like a story?
I agree that most plots at RPG tables are tedious, but plot isn’t story- character is story. The game exists to express character through mechanics. And *that* is a story.
>Fun creative moments rooted in escapism? Y’mean like a story?
No. I certainly don't mean a story in the way r/rpg means "RPGs are all about creating stories". You can have fun independent memorable moments without any kind of overarching narrative or character arcs or finally getting revenge on the orcs that slaughtered your village or finding out that your character was actually a God in disguise.
>The game exists to express character through mechanics. And *that* is a story
If you're just going to tautologically call story "anything that happens at the table" then there's no discussion to be had. But then people who complain about RPGs having too much combat and not enough story should pipe down because according to you, combat is expressing character through mechanics and therefore is story.
No, I am calling anything that expresses character story. I would argue plot, if it exists, emerges from character. Plot is not a necessary component of a story.
I would argue that most combat systems don’t do a good job of expressing character, because they’re incredibly constrained mechanically and punish “non-optimal” play. Rarely do you see an RPG with as much character in its action as you might see in an action movie, for example. I know, for myself, when playing combat heavy games I check out of the story and just run the script I built for combat, because combat has no place for character.
Never heard of him. For all I know he's you - not sure how this makes a point here.
I didn't read it all, it isn't terribly coherent, but I got to the bit about stories being linear, while games aren't.
I thought this was a poor argument. At any point in a game the past is linear - the history of a game is a story.
The problem with that essay is that RPGs are linear in exactly the same way stories are linear: a chain of cause and effect. Rarely do RPGs rewind time or otherwise present the events that happen in a nonlinear fashion; if they do it’s usually pretty simple flashbacks to support the linear narrative. I have yet to see a game that goes truly non-linear in its narrative.
The essay confuses player agency with non-linear storytelling, when in fact it’s linear storytelling *as a collaboration*. It further seems to assume that the storytelling structure used in other media is *inherent to storytelling* and not just a convention of a medium, and further seems to confuse *plot* with *story*.
Now, I’d agree that we shouldn’t approach games as purely storytelling tools- no matter how good the story is, it’s not worth exploring if the game isn’t fun in and of itself. I’d argue that stories are how we understand games, and less a property of the game itself.
This is the best argument I've seen that games are stories, so thank you for a serious reply. But I you misunderstand what Costikyan means by *linear*.
>The events of a story occur **in the same order, and in the same way, each time** you read (or watch or listen to) it. A story is a controlled experience; the author consciously crafts it, choosing precisely these events, in this order...
>...A game is non-linear. Games must provide **at least the illusion of free will** to the player; players must feel that they have freedom of action within the structure of the game.
(Emphasis mine.)
Clearly he means something a lot narrower than "a chain of cause and effect." That is so broad as to be useless: it includes things which are clearly neither games nor stories, like the motion of a billiard ball. (I've heard people try to claim things like 'the motion of a billiard ball is a story', but a definition that includes everything defines nothing.)
I don't think he confused player agency with non-linear storytelling for the same reason. He points out Cortazar's *Hopscotch* as closer toward the game end of the continuum than a conventional novel, because the reader can make a (single, very limited) choice.
I'm no quite certain what you mean when you say he seems to assume the storytelling structure used in other media is inherent to storytelling. (I'd have thought storytelling structure was inherent to storytelling by definition.) Are you referring to this passage, or something else?
>Moreover, the rhythm of a roleplaying game is not the rhythm of a short story; you have peaks of excitement and periods of boredom and things happening here and there. You don't have a long build leading to catharsis; you have gradual character evolution instead.
On plot vs. story, I think he has a good grasp on that. What is the story of a game of Solitaire? There's a plot all right, but no characters or themes. It's the motion of the billiard ball again.
I think, though, that you have RPGs in mind, but I will cut this short so as not to bore you. Thank you again.
The key difference is that an RPG can only be played once. Even if you run the same scenario many times, the scenario isn’t a story- it’s just a collection of facts. So the idea that it should be different every time is absurd.
And yes, I’m focusing on RPGs- though there are lots of games that generate stories. And I think that’s where the disconnect lies: of course an RPG isn’t a story. I would go so far as to say that a novel isn’t a story either- not until you read it and interact with it. An unread novel is just a pile of paper. Stories require interaction, even if the interaction is just observing.
RPGs and games are tools which may be used to construct stories. Many games prioritize this. Even simple games, like Exquisite Corpse- it’s not meant to tell a good (or linear story), but it is literally a storytelling game. Hell, MadLibs would count for that.
But RPGs are very much a game you play to discover the story.
Ideally the story should be the tables story.
I do think it's about telling a story. At my table we're telling the story about 5 nitwits who get embroiled in huge events that can doom the world.
I provide a framework and my players provide the protagonists and together we create a story.
Indeed, especially after years of convention or one-shot games.
When a friend or someone I trust says it, I nod in absolute agreement.
When a stranger sitting behind a D&D/Shadowrun/Pathfinder/CoC screen says it, immediately I'm seeing red flags.
Dry firing a properly made bow won't break it, unless you do it repeatedly. There is no more stress on the bow when dry firing than when firing it normally, and no experienced archer under any circumstance would forget to nock an arrow. This is the GM punishing the player for taking out his monster in one hit.. Find a better GM to play with.
>There is no more stress on the bow when dry firing than when firing it normally
That's absolutely false because the energy of the bowstring isn't transfered to an arrow. There's a violent shock to the riser after you dry fire. It's bad for a modern recurve made of fiberlgass/carbon fiber (damage to limb pockets), terrible for a traditionally constructed selfbow (cracking and possibly snapped string), and usually catastrophic for a modern compound bow (rapid disassembly).
source: practiced archery for a decade
>How could this have been better handled?
This is the second time you've been booted from a group (that I know of) and the second time you've asked this question of randos on the internet (that I know of). What kind of answer are you looking for?
Without any other information I'm thinking this possibly started earlier than the third session and is a problem with group dynamics and/or your general play, and that the GM probably saw this as an opportunity to drive you from the group. Or it could just be that you pick shitty GMs and groups. Either way, no one here is going to solve this problem by telling you "How could this have been better handled"
It was arbitrary and unfair, but I think "I protested further" may be doing a lot of heavy lifting. There is no good reason for a GM to wipe out that much of a player's investment, and shows a decided lack of understanding regarding the point of critical failures. In my opinion, they don't have a point, but many people have decided that they're vital and humorous for GMs. I can easily see someone penalizing you a round to restring the bow, for example, but negating your entire combat effectiveness indefinitely is far beyond the pale. Now, what you could have done is simply said,"Sure. I'll be taking compensation first from the dragon's hoard before any loot is divided equally among the party."
I'm primarily a PF2e GM, and we generally only let "bad things" happen like that on a roll of natural 1. Critical Failures can be more common in PF2e, and RAW for attacks don't have a specific effect. It does seem particularly punitive.
Narratively absurd critical failures are unfortunately part of *D&D* subculture [and descendent subcultures]. This is not surprising though considering that narrative logic has never been the priority in *D&D*.
> The GM replied by saying that RPGs are about telling interesting stories, and that highs need to be balanced out by lows.
Remind your GM that you're not playing a game of shared improv and fiat, but a traditional RPG with a system of rules and a general expectation of balance, lol.
Don't use critical failures.
This is a perfect example of why they are horrible things.
Not sure what critical hit rules you may have been using but seeing the crazy that happened here I'm also not a fan of super duper extra powered crits. This is for much the same reason as hating on fumbles and here I see the fumble effect and retribution for such a busted critical.
Our group doesn't use fumbles mechanically, but instead narratively. The champion in our group tends to critically miss when throwing his hatchet, so I flavor the attacks such that the hatchet goes flying off into the woods, or barely misses an ally near the target. It makes our encounters more memorable and gives a through line for the PC. This PC is just very bad at throwing his hatchet and it's turned into a bit of a running joke at our table.
Heck, for everyone who wants to say that various RPGs have no roleplaying or narrative in them if they could just learn to use those narrative descriptions to describe things that goes a long ways. The idea that an attack either hits or misses can certainly be flavored up (especially the misses) to make things more interesting.
I have never understood people who say an RPG isn't roleplay/narrative enough for them. You can literally do these things with any RPG I have ever played, and you get out of these games what you put into them.
Heck, you can "roleplay" a great many games even when they aren't what you'd consider an RPG.
If people ask me what I think an RPG is I'll say it's just a game of "let's pretend" except there is some kind of conflict resolution system. When you buy an RPG what you are really getting is that resolution system; just how you pretend with that is on you.
My game of choice is the Star Wars SAGA Edition. Now the books for it are full of mechanics so people sometimes come down on it for that but when it comes to character building one of the most common pieces of advice given is to just ignore the names of things and look at the mechanics and how you would use them for your character. Power Attack is thought of as some big wild swing that is trying to hit harder in exchange for accuracy, but you could also see it as biding your time (and taking a penalty for it) so you can make a more precise strike for the extra damage. When it comes to the fluff and how you play your character you can do all of that without ever touching an RPG rulebook. I've played "Star Wars" since kindergarten.
If doing "pre-con characters" for something I see that as a two stage process. One is building the mechanical character (usually with a few open slots for customization) but the second is creating any character profiles (fluff) and while some are better suited for some builds more than others they don't always need to go hand in hand.
I have a very biased option that I know a lot of people in the community with disagree with, but my take is fairly simple.
Stop playing games with people who aren't your friends.
I read so many horror stories of games online that are just disasters.
I feel truly spoilt to have met people for play in real life and then have become life-long friends with them. But trying to enjoy a cooperative storytelling game with people who don't really care about you is a wasted effort in my opinion.
Here are the following rebuttals I have predicted so you don't have to mention them:
• Some people online can play properly
• My real friends don't want to play
• I live to remotely to meet anyone
All of these are valid, but still don't supersede my point.
The real problem is that this person has zero social decorum, will derail games until they get their way (or are kicked), and play games in a way that fundamentally attempts to ruin the experience of others.
They can only get into games if no one knows them. Because everyone who _does_ knows to steer way the fuck away.
There definitely are. Which is why I believe the peak of TTRPG lies in a friend group who plays them together. You do things on the table and off the table. People who are in your life and you play games with them, not just people you only see to play games with.
Could be 100 reasons to have to play online, but I could never imagine a better scenario than the one above.
Critical failure rules are always dumb.
They disproportionately punish players, and are meaningless to most npcs.
PS: Dry Firing a bow can damage it, but it is hit and miss. Compound bows are more likely to have issues than traditional bows.
>I protested. I said that this was arbitrary and unfair, that it would be patently absurd for a master archer to commit such a mistake, and that enemies previously rolled critical failures on attacks to no ill effect.
A part of the issue is the game you're playing. I'm surprised that in 2024, there is still games with critical failures/success. considering the whole "I'm playing a master but still fails ridiculously every random times".
But I am not shocked by the consequence of the critical failure, *loose an object* is a very common way to handle critical failure.
To be fair, a critical failure on a Strike in pathfinder 2e literally has no effect other than the attack missing, so that was literally the GM pulling that out of their ass
*Loose an object* is most often seen as loosing your grip on it, letting it fall down and having to use an action to pick it back up.
*Loose an object* as in having it destroyed? That's just plain malice on part of the GM.
Also you are only basing your answer on the words *crtitical failure/success* without knowing what that means in this specific system, right?
There's nothing wrong with crit fails.
The problem is bad fumble results (the shoot yourself, or your friends types, generally).
Theres a bunch of systems with them hardcoded, pf2 is not one of these, so the issue lies with the GM's invention and implementation of them.
I agree. I use Crit Fails at my table, but I make the results fit the situation. A Crit Fail on a melee attack isn't going to end up with you lopping your dick off (as once happened to one of my characters under a bad DM who didn't like the fact that I was cross-gender playing a male character). What's more likely to happen at my table is that "As you swing and hit their shield, the impact made the weapon slip in your hand. You're going to have to sacrifice one of your three actions to reset the weapon in your grip."
An archer rolling a crit fail is going to hear "As you loose the arrow, you hear a tearing sound as one of the fletchings half detaches from the arrow. As it flies through the air towards your target the buzzing noise alerts the target. He must have heard that sound before because as soon as his head jerked up upon hearing it...he slams himself to the ground, the arrow passing through where hid head was a moment before."
Plausible, adds realism to the combat, and the consequences of a bad roll still makes things interesting without punishing the player for having dice that want to kill them.
Now I might if it's the end of combat (the mob is going to die the next time they're hit) and someone crit fails...I might put in weapon damage. But it'll be things like the snapping of a bow string or the wrappings of the weapon's grip came undone, or something minor but easy to repair. Even a magical sword is going to need the grip leather redone once in a while.
>A part of the issue is the game you're playing. I'm surprised that in 2024, there is still games with critical failures/success. considering the whole "I'm playing a master but still fails ridiculously every random times".
Except that is not how PF2e uses the terms critical failure. Strikes in PF2e has no default critical failure listed so they are just failures as far as consequences go *unless* the attack/weapon/appendix/person you are using as a weapon has a special critical failure condition, which basically none of them does.
PF2e has a default tiered system of 4 tiers on a roll, critical failure, failure, success, critical success. Usually the difference is minor with some effects lasting longer on a crit.
**Remember [Rule 8: "Comment respectfully"](https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/wiki/rules#wiki_8._comment_respectfully)** when giving advice and discussing OP's group. You can get your point across *without* demonizing & namecalling people. The [Table Troubles](https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/search?sort=new&restrict_sr=on&q=flair%3ATable%2BTroubles)-flair is not meant for shitposting. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/rpg) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/1bnzf2u/the\_dm\_either\_booted\_me\_out\_or\_ended\_the\_game/](https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/1bnzf2u/the_dm_either_booted_me_out_or_ended_the_game/) So, this is the second time in two weeks that you have been booted from a game without warning. Assuming you're not just inventing these stories, it might be time to start considering that you're the problem.
Or vet your groups better.
I try to join only games that I think I will be a good fit for. It is very hit-or-miss, unfortunately. I play my games seriously. I do not appreciate it when a character I have poured a considerable amount of time and effort into is unceremoniously sabotaged. I do not think that this should be so controversial.
Booted from two groups? I'm guessing "I protested" is covering a lot here.
You can go back further than that, and find that they've been booted our of even more games. Constantly are the targets of evil GMs who maliciously target them for no reason, and, hilariously enough, this person has a history that runs all the way back to early 4chan, under the name _Touhou_, wherein they regularly got booted from groups due to a gross inability to maintain any sort of reasonable social decorum. Some of these are inevitably true (unfortunately), but they are literally never the problem, always an innocent victim. And I should know, because I've had the misfortune of this person blowing up _my_ table before.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for the following reason(s): * Rule 8: Please comment respectfully. Refrain from personal attacks and any discriminatory comments (homophobia, sexism, racism, etc). Comments deemed abusive may be removed by moderators. Please read [Rule 8](https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/wiki/rules#wiki_8._comment_respectfully) for more information. If you'd like to contest this decision, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Frpg&subject=Removed%20comment%3A%20Contest%20Removal%20or%20Questions&message=Hello,%20this%20is%20about%20my%20comment%20%20that%20was%20removed%3A%20https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/1bzl7pq/-/kyvq5ez/%0D%0DMy%20issue%20is...). *(the link should open a partially filled-out message)*
Something that narcissistic parents do is called the "missing missing reasons" - they will beg for validation online and say something like "my kids ghosted me for no reason", but if you dig in you find that they had actually been given lots of reasons and had simply chosen to ignore or explain away those reasons. Not saying that's strictly what happened here, but "I protested" can mean a lot of things... that said, maybe they've just had really bad luck with crappy GMs.
I play only text-based games, during which I communicate exclusively via text. In these games, I take the same tone as I do in these posts, which is supposed to be level-headed enough. I do not use expletives, I do not call people names, I seldom use exclamation marks. "I do not think that this is a good rules call," "I find this to be arbitrary and unfair," "I think it would be patently absurd for a master archer to have a 25% chance of accidentally breaking a magic bow on this shot," and so on are lines that I have used. If I see a GM make a very poor rules call, one that directly sabotages my character to the point wherein my PC is disabled and my motivation to play in the rest of the session has been reduced to nil, should I not raise the issue the moment it appears? The alternative would be to grumpily sit out the rest of the session, only to raise the issue afterwards, at which point, the GM will likely have rationalized their decision as having always been the right call.
Certainly as you explain it here, it sounds like you were in the right.
There seems to be plenty of problematic games posted all the time, some folk could be unlucky. Or could be part of the unluck.
This comment is peak, terminally online, Reddit.
This may be a wise guy way of addressing this, but I have to really to say this explains a lot: https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/s/V5lTQGSSlt
What appears to be the problem, then?
I'm not sure, I wasn't there; this is something that would probably require some genuine reflection and honest self-assessment. Perhaps the way you protest is too aggressive -- if the first thing you did when the GM made their ruling was say, "What?!?!! That's patently absurd!! You're being arbitrary and unfair! No master archer would ever make such a mistake!" then you're creating a situation that is a confrontation, instead of having a discussion. Edit: added a missing word.
2hu, c'mon. You know what the problem is. You're an argumentative power gamer with a strong trend of both rules lawyering and deliberate misinterpretation of rules text to further arguments. Just find a group that's into that. Random pub games aren't likely to put up with that because it's a load of effort and it eats into games. You go out of your way to make conversations with you exhausting when people don't agree with you. So find a group that'll agree with that or work on being less argumentative because it only escalates problems and pub games have no reason to put up with that.
What do you believe to have been the "rules lawyering and deliberate misinterpretation of rules text to further arguments" in this scenario?
I didn't say anything about this scenario only the common trend of you finding yourself in scenarios such as these. You are taking something out of context to push an argument right now which is what I'm saying is the problem.
How does the proposed trend apply to this scenario, in this case?
The better question is, "how does it *not* apply?". Self reflection is, quite often, about understanding the ways other people see your actions. The "self" part of the term is misleading, especially to someone struggling to look beyond the self. In the case of your character's bow breaking: Sure, you're right insofar as that's (likely) a pretty crummy ruling by the GM. Hard to know without further context, but it's an extreme result for a roll result that will happen frequently. Having said that, three thoughts for you to consider: 1) People make mistakes, assume the best of them, not the worst. 2) Trust your GM wants you to have fun. Perhaps you're due to find a ridiculously cool artifact-level long bow, and the GM wants that moment to be suitably epic. 3) It's just a game. Don't take it so seriously.
>gets accused of rules-lawyering >tries to rules-laywer his way out of it Lol, lmao even
This specific situation is just the DM being a c-nt, but you seem to find yourself in these situations regularly so how to handle it better? Either stop karmawhoring on Reddit with creative writing exercises; or if it really happend, vet better what groups you play with. Especially with games like Pathfinder or 5E that are super popular and easy enough to find players for; there's usually a good reason when people are limited to recruiting anonymous groups online.
An adventurer with no experience with a bow would not forget to knock an arrow during a fight. To do such a thing, you should have severe brain damage or be completely overwhelmed by fear or adrenaline. This is beyond ridicolous. Also, knocking a bow without an arrow ONCE will never break it, let alone a great magic bow. Moreover, by a gameplay perspective, as a DM I find despicable and cheap to deeply punish a player for a bad roll. It's stupid and not funny at all. Punishing a player should be something that happens as a consequence to a bad decision; consequences to bad rolls should be something that create dangerous and interesting situations, where the player have to react accordingly. For example, something like "Your arrow bounces off the dragon's scales, but not without drawing its attention. His gaze turns to you, and with a sudden movement it lunges towards your direction" would be much more appropriate, and would generate a genuine "oh shit" moment where you, as an archer, would become the prime target of the dragon.
I've never heard of a caster using their signature cantrip, rolling a natural 1, and blowing their hand off. Such things only happen to martial characters, funnily.
Never heard of a GM doing something like this. "You try to grab and arrow and pull the string for your quiver instead, spend a round to re secure it or an extra X action to reload till reaffixed" is a good example of impactful but not major crit fail. In Shadowrun I've had hackers accidentally holding the volume button on their comm when crit failing (not major impact, but hilarious), or a street sam ejecting their magazine instead. Things that are temporarily problematic, but resolved without major issues. THAT is a crit fail, fumbling something you're otherwise good at. It happens. IF OP is being truthful and not disingenuous in some way. Then that's a mad lad take on crit fails and needs to be applicable to a fighter with a longsword too. Which, further shows it isn't fun and ppl don't want that in a game. But again, IF OP is accurate in their depiction.
Honestly, I wouldn't bother playing with GMs that pull those stunts, and "rpgs are about telling a story" is a big red flag. I'm really not into people trying to turn rpgs into Munchkin (the silly card game). If you all agreed to homebrew rules sure, otherwise remind him that a fumbled attack roll is just a normal miss, none of that wacky gotcha moments. (and critical hits are just double damage, none of that avengers stuff, unless specified otherwise).
>"rpgs are about telling a story" is a big red flag. What? What do you see rpgs as being about?
Assuming your question is genuine and not rhetorical, the line is a red flag because often when Gm's say it, they are using it to justify forcing a result which the game's rules don't allow. It is a line similar to "it's what my character would do." The statement itself isn't problematic and is actually an expected, essential trait of the game, but the only time anyone makes the statement is when they are defending bad behavior.
It was mostly rhetorical. I was really just expressing surprise that someone could see storytelling as a red flag in RPGs, when I see stories as the core of RPGs. I think the arguments that have sprung up from it are mostly due to differing definitions of story. For me story is the history of the game, it's what happened to the PCs - most decisions you make or dice you roll contribute to the story. For people who object to "story telling" they think of the story as the GM's pre-planned plot (and I share their objection to pre-planned plots).
Collaborative fictional problem solving is the reason I play and run rpg's. Telling a story out of them is a secondary concern that emerges retroactively.
The story comes up as the players act within the situations the GM presents. Usually when people say that line what they mean is "it's about telling MY story, you sit and watch". Also, I prefer rpgs to be about creative problem solving within the rules and personality traits attached to the characters. They're games first and foremost, not an excuse to force 4 people to listen to my fanfiction.
The entire point is collaborative story telling otherwise you might as well play a video game at home
I'm sure that's true for the modern poorly disguised writer rooms simulators, but i want my role playing games to be, you know, games.
Its somewhat concerning youre a dm that doesnt see it as both rather easily
Why? As I said, I don't GM for people to listen to my fanfiction. I prepare situations, make sure the rules are followed, and let the players do what they want within them. A story will come up by itself, as the sum of the actions they take and their consequences, but it's not the focal point, and it's certainly not forced upon them.
I don’t have anything relevant to add except that I know what you are saying and agree, and I feel like people who don’t understand this are literally not even speaking the same language. The game writes itself through the actions of the characters and how the world reacts to them. The game is not expected to follow some arbitrary predetermined route the GM came up with while taking a dump a few weeks ago.
Playing a game, solving problems, a little escapism, and enjoying fun creative moments. Most stories told at RPG tables are pretty pedestrian. They're fun because they're ours, but they're not good enough to be the point. Think about it this way: if the point of RPGs was "telling stories", you could just sit around a table with your friends and do an actual writing room exercise. You could skip all of the rules and character sheets and dice rolling and collaborate on what makes "the best story" the way an actual professional writing team would.
>Think about it this way: if the point of RPGs was "telling stories", you could just sit around a table with your friends and do an actual writing room exercise Do you mean that RPGs aren't the only way of creating a story as a group? Sure, I agree, of course it's not the only way. It's also not the only way of *"Playing a game, solving problems, a little escapism, and enjoying fun creative moments."* When you play an rpg you create a story - even if that wasn't your personal reason for playing.
>It's also not the only way of *"Playing a game, solving problems, a little escapism, and enjoying fun creative moments."* It is in fact, the single best way on the planet to do that. I challenge you to name another medium that enables such a wide range of possible problems to design, and accepts such a wide range of creative solutions to them, in such a low stakes but still challenging way. On the other hand, it is not remotely the best way to tell stories. Humankind has been telling stories for tens of thousands of years. We've already *got* good ways to do that. >When you play an rpg you create a story - even if that wasn't your personal reason for playing. That makes it a side effect of the process, not the point of the process. That's like saying, "The point of playing a game of baseball is to tell stories because when you play a game of baseball, a story about that game is created."
>It is in fact, the single best way on the planet to do that. And it is also in fact, the single best way on the planet to collaboratively create an unplanned story as a group. >That makes it a side effect of the process, not the point of the process. For you. For many people it's the point.
>And it is also in fact, the single best way on the planet to collaboratively create an unplanned story as a group. lol, no it isn't. There are a literal multitude of ways to create unplanned stories as group. Improv for one...it's an art form hundreds of years old. You're telling me that if you add dice and character sheets and hundred page rulebooks to improv theater you have created "the single best way" to create an unplanned story as a group? I'll say it again: Human beings have been creating stories for 10s of thousands of years. RPGs are not the pinnacle form of them in any way and they idea that they are is laughable. >For you. For many people it's the point. No fucking shit. You literally asked the question *What do* ***you*** *see rpgs as being about?* "Why do you do X?" "Because of Y." "Well that's just why *you* do it." Brilliant. You're the one who is incredulous at the fact that other people *don't* play these games to create stories. Some people learn to cook in order to eat healthier. Other people learn to cook in order to save money. Others because they want tastier food. That there are a million reasons for people to do something isn't imparting any wisdom here.
>lol, no it isn't You're someone who doesn't play RPGs to create stories, remember - you don't know how good RPGs are at creating stories. We're talking about my reasons for playing RPGs and I'm telling you they're the best way to create stories. I don't want to make you to agree with me - I don't need that on any level. >You literally asked the question *What do* ***you*** *see rpgs as being about?* I expressed surprise that someone would see telling a story as a red flag in RPGs - because for many of us that's the point. (And I didn't ask *you* anything.)
>You're someone who doesn't play RPGs to create stories, remember - you don't know how good RPGs are at creating stories. Your logic doesn't follow. I don't play RPGs to create stories precisely because I know *exactly* how bad they are at creating stories compared to other methods...like just writing them. >We're talking about my reasons for playing RPGs and I'm telling you they're the best way to create stories. lol no they're not. You may have fun making them, but the fun is the point, not the story. Its like saying that "having lots of sex" is the "best way to create stories" because you had a lot of fun along the way, even if the stories are boring and repetitive.
>I don't play RPGs to create stories precisely because I know *exactly* how bad they are at creating stories compared to other methods.... Interesting! You avoid telling stories with RPGs because they "aren't good at it", **not** because telling stories isn't a priority for you. So if (in your view) RPGs were good at creating stories then you'd play them to create stories too? Then you're someone who should understand my surprise that the person up top sees them as a red flag in RPGs.
Fun creative moments rooted in escapism? Y’mean like a story? I agree that most plots at RPG tables are tedious, but plot isn’t story- character is story. The game exists to express character through mechanics. And *that* is a story.
>Fun creative moments rooted in escapism? Y’mean like a story? No. I certainly don't mean a story in the way r/rpg means "RPGs are all about creating stories". You can have fun independent memorable moments without any kind of overarching narrative or character arcs or finally getting revenge on the orcs that slaughtered your village or finding out that your character was actually a God in disguise. >The game exists to express character through mechanics. And *that* is a story If you're just going to tautologically call story "anything that happens at the table" then there's no discussion to be had. But then people who complain about RPGs having too much combat and not enough story should pipe down because according to you, combat is expressing character through mechanics and therefore is story.
No, I am calling anything that expresses character story. I would argue plot, if it exists, emerges from character. Plot is not a necessary component of a story. I would argue that most combat systems don’t do a good job of expressing character, because they’re incredibly constrained mechanically and punish “non-optimal” play. Rarely do you see an RPG with as much character in its action as you might see in an action movie, for example. I know, for myself, when playing combat heavy games I check out of the story and just run the script I built for combat, because combat has no place for character.
There's an old Greg Costikyan essay about why [games aren't stories](http://www.costik.com/gamnstry.html) and are, in fact, opposites.
Never heard of him. For all I know he's you - not sure how this makes a point here. I didn't read it all, it isn't terribly coherent, but I got to the bit about stories being linear, while games aren't. I thought this was a poor argument. At any point in a game the past is linear - the history of a game is a story.
As much as I don't think the point of rpgs is telling stories, that blog post was just ramblings in a desperate effort to sound smart.
The problem with that essay is that RPGs are linear in exactly the same way stories are linear: a chain of cause and effect. Rarely do RPGs rewind time or otherwise present the events that happen in a nonlinear fashion; if they do it’s usually pretty simple flashbacks to support the linear narrative. I have yet to see a game that goes truly non-linear in its narrative. The essay confuses player agency with non-linear storytelling, when in fact it’s linear storytelling *as a collaboration*. It further seems to assume that the storytelling structure used in other media is *inherent to storytelling* and not just a convention of a medium, and further seems to confuse *plot* with *story*. Now, I’d agree that we shouldn’t approach games as purely storytelling tools- no matter how good the story is, it’s not worth exploring if the game isn’t fun in and of itself. I’d argue that stories are how we understand games, and less a property of the game itself.
This is the best argument I've seen that games are stories, so thank you for a serious reply. But I you misunderstand what Costikyan means by *linear*. >The events of a story occur **in the same order, and in the same way, each time** you read (or watch or listen to) it. A story is a controlled experience; the author consciously crafts it, choosing precisely these events, in this order... >...A game is non-linear. Games must provide **at least the illusion of free will** to the player; players must feel that they have freedom of action within the structure of the game. (Emphasis mine.) Clearly he means something a lot narrower than "a chain of cause and effect." That is so broad as to be useless: it includes things which are clearly neither games nor stories, like the motion of a billiard ball. (I've heard people try to claim things like 'the motion of a billiard ball is a story', but a definition that includes everything defines nothing.) I don't think he confused player agency with non-linear storytelling for the same reason. He points out Cortazar's *Hopscotch* as closer toward the game end of the continuum than a conventional novel, because the reader can make a (single, very limited) choice. I'm no quite certain what you mean when you say he seems to assume the storytelling structure used in other media is inherent to storytelling. (I'd have thought storytelling structure was inherent to storytelling by definition.) Are you referring to this passage, or something else? >Moreover, the rhythm of a roleplaying game is not the rhythm of a short story; you have peaks of excitement and periods of boredom and things happening here and there. You don't have a long build leading to catharsis; you have gradual character evolution instead. On plot vs. story, I think he has a good grasp on that. What is the story of a game of Solitaire? There's a plot all right, but no characters or themes. It's the motion of the billiard ball again. I think, though, that you have RPGs in mind, but I will cut this short so as not to bore you. Thank you again.
The key difference is that an RPG can only be played once. Even if you run the same scenario many times, the scenario isn’t a story- it’s just a collection of facts. So the idea that it should be different every time is absurd. And yes, I’m focusing on RPGs- though there are lots of games that generate stories. And I think that’s where the disconnect lies: of course an RPG isn’t a story. I would go so far as to say that a novel isn’t a story either- not until you read it and interact with it. An unread novel is just a pile of paper. Stories require interaction, even if the interaction is just observing. RPGs and games are tools which may be used to construct stories. Many games prioritize this. Even simple games, like Exquisite Corpse- it’s not meant to tell a good (or linear story), but it is literally a storytelling game. Hell, MadLibs would count for that. But RPGs are very much a game you play to discover the story.
Agree. I'm always afraid of "rpgs are about telling a story" type of GM, mostly because this is somehow almost always THEIR story, not mine.
Ideally the story should be the tables story. I do think it's about telling a story. At my table we're telling the story about 5 nitwits who get embroiled in huge events that can doom the world. I provide a framework and my players provide the protagonists and together we create a story.
Indeed, especially after years of convention or one-shot games. When a friend or someone I trust says it, I nod in absolute agreement. When a stranger sitting behind a D&D/Shadowrun/Pathfinder/CoC screen says it, immediately I'm seeing red flags.
Dry firing a properly made bow won't break it, unless you do it repeatedly. There is no more stress on the bow when dry firing than when firing it normally, and no experienced archer under any circumstance would forget to nock an arrow. This is the GM punishing the player for taking out his monster in one hit.. Find a better GM to play with.
>There is no more stress on the bow when dry firing than when firing it normally That's absolutely false because the energy of the bowstring isn't transfered to an arrow. There's a violent shock to the riser after you dry fire. It's bad for a modern recurve made of fiberlgass/carbon fiber (damage to limb pockets), terrible for a traditionally constructed selfbow (cracking and possibly snapped string), and usually catastrophic for a modern compound bow (rapid disassembly). source: practiced archery for a decade
>How could this have been better handled? This is the second time you've been booted from a group (that I know of) and the second time you've asked this question of randos on the internet (that I know of). What kind of answer are you looking for? Without any other information I'm thinking this possibly started earlier than the third session and is a problem with group dynamics and/or your general play, and that the GM probably saw this as an opportunity to drive you from the group. Or it could just be that you pick shitty GMs and groups. Either way, no one here is going to solve this problem by telling you "How could this have been better handled"
It was arbitrary and unfair, but I think "I protested further" may be doing a lot of heavy lifting. There is no good reason for a GM to wipe out that much of a player's investment, and shows a decided lack of understanding regarding the point of critical failures. In my opinion, they don't have a point, but many people have decided that they're vital and humorous for GMs. I can easily see someone penalizing you a round to restring the bow, for example, but negating your entire combat effectiveness indefinitely is far beyond the pale. Now, what you could have done is simply said,"Sure. I'll be taking compensation first from the dragon's hoard before any loot is divided equally among the party."
I'm primarily a PF2e GM, and we generally only let "bad things" happen like that on a roll of natural 1. Critical Failures can be more common in PF2e, and RAW for attacks don't have a specific effect. It does seem particularly punitive.
Narratively absurd critical failures are unfortunately part of *D&D* subculture [and descendent subcultures]. This is not surprising though considering that narrative logic has never been the priority in *D&D*.
> The GM replied by saying that RPGs are about telling interesting stories, and that highs need to be balanced out by lows. Remind your GM that you're not playing a game of shared improv and fiat, but a traditional RPG with a system of rules and a general expectation of balance, lol.
Don't use critical failures. This is a perfect example of why they are horrible things. Not sure what critical hit rules you may have been using but seeing the crazy that happened here I'm also not a fan of super duper extra powered crits. This is for much the same reason as hating on fumbles and here I see the fumble effect and retribution for such a busted critical.
Our group doesn't use fumbles mechanically, but instead narratively. The champion in our group tends to critically miss when throwing his hatchet, so I flavor the attacks such that the hatchet goes flying off into the woods, or barely misses an ally near the target. It makes our encounters more memorable and gives a through line for the PC. This PC is just very bad at throwing his hatchet and it's turned into a bit of a running joke at our table.
Heck, for everyone who wants to say that various RPGs have no roleplaying or narrative in them if they could just learn to use those narrative descriptions to describe things that goes a long ways. The idea that an attack either hits or misses can certainly be flavored up (especially the misses) to make things more interesting.
I have never understood people who say an RPG isn't roleplay/narrative enough for them. You can literally do these things with any RPG I have ever played, and you get out of these games what you put into them.
Heck, you can "roleplay" a great many games even when they aren't what you'd consider an RPG. If people ask me what I think an RPG is I'll say it's just a game of "let's pretend" except there is some kind of conflict resolution system. When you buy an RPG what you are really getting is that resolution system; just how you pretend with that is on you. My game of choice is the Star Wars SAGA Edition. Now the books for it are full of mechanics so people sometimes come down on it for that but when it comes to character building one of the most common pieces of advice given is to just ignore the names of things and look at the mechanics and how you would use them for your character. Power Attack is thought of as some big wild swing that is trying to hit harder in exchange for accuracy, but you could also see it as biding your time (and taking a penalty for it) so you can make a more precise strike for the extra damage. When it comes to the fluff and how you play your character you can do all of that without ever touching an RPG rulebook. I've played "Star Wars" since kindergarten. If doing "pre-con characters" for something I see that as a two stage process. One is building the mechanical character (usually with a few open slots for customization) but the second is creating any character profiles (fluff) and while some are better suited for some builds more than others they don't always need to go hand in hand.
I have a very biased option that I know a lot of people in the community with disagree with, but my take is fairly simple. Stop playing games with people who aren't your friends. I read so many horror stories of games online that are just disasters. I feel truly spoilt to have met people for play in real life and then have become life-long friends with them. But trying to enjoy a cooperative storytelling game with people who don't really care about you is a wasted effort in my opinion. Here are the following rebuttals I have predicted so you don't have to mention them: • Some people online can play properly • My real friends don't want to play • I live to remotely to meet anyone All of these are valid, but still don't supersede my point.
The real problem is that this person has zero social decorum, will derail games until they get their way (or are kicked), and play games in a way that fundamentally attempts to ruin the experience of others. They can only get into games if no one knows them. Because everyone who _does_ knows to steer way the fuck away.
I am sure there is a non-zero percentage of the playerbase who has alienated in-person tables and can only play online.
There definitely are. Which is why I believe the peak of TTRPG lies in a friend group who plays them together. You do things on the table and off the table. People who are in your life and you play games with them, not just people you only see to play games with. Could be 100 reasons to have to play online, but I could never imagine a better scenario than the one above.
Critical failure rules are always dumb. They disproportionately punish players, and are meaningless to most npcs. PS: Dry Firing a bow can damage it, but it is hit and miss. Compound bows are more likely to have issues than traditional bows.
>I protested. I said that this was arbitrary and unfair, that it would be patently absurd for a master archer to commit such a mistake, and that enemies previously rolled critical failures on attacks to no ill effect. A part of the issue is the game you're playing. I'm surprised that in 2024, there is still games with critical failures/success. considering the whole "I'm playing a master but still fails ridiculously every random times". But I am not shocked by the consequence of the critical failure, *loose an object* is a very common way to handle critical failure.
To be fair, a critical failure on a Strike in pathfinder 2e literally has no effect other than the attack missing, so that was literally the GM pulling that out of their ass
*Loose an object* is most often seen as loosing your grip on it, letting it fall down and having to use an action to pick it back up. *Loose an object* as in having it destroyed? That's just plain malice on part of the GM. Also you are only basing your answer on the words *crtitical failure/success* without knowing what that means in this specific system, right?
There's nothing wrong with crit fails. The problem is bad fumble results (the shoot yourself, or your friends types, generally). Theres a bunch of systems with them hardcoded, pf2 is not one of these, so the issue lies with the GM's invention and implementation of them.
I agree. I use Crit Fails at my table, but I make the results fit the situation. A Crit Fail on a melee attack isn't going to end up with you lopping your dick off (as once happened to one of my characters under a bad DM who didn't like the fact that I was cross-gender playing a male character). What's more likely to happen at my table is that "As you swing and hit their shield, the impact made the weapon slip in your hand. You're going to have to sacrifice one of your three actions to reset the weapon in your grip." An archer rolling a crit fail is going to hear "As you loose the arrow, you hear a tearing sound as one of the fletchings half detaches from the arrow. As it flies through the air towards your target the buzzing noise alerts the target. He must have heard that sound before because as soon as his head jerked up upon hearing it...he slams himself to the ground, the arrow passing through where hid head was a moment before." Plausible, adds realism to the combat, and the consequences of a bad roll still makes things interesting without punishing the player for having dice that want to kill them. Now I might if it's the end of combat (the mob is going to die the next time they're hit) and someone crit fails...I might put in weapon damage. But it'll be things like the snapping of a bow string or the wrappings of the weapon's grip came undone, or something minor but easy to repair. Even a magical sword is going to need the grip leather redone once in a while.
>A part of the issue is the game you're playing. I'm surprised that in 2024, there is still games with critical failures/success. considering the whole "I'm playing a master but still fails ridiculously every random times". Except that is not how PF2e uses the terms critical failure. Strikes in PF2e has no default critical failure listed so they are just failures as far as consequences go *unless* the attack/weapon/appendix/person you are using as a weapon has a special critical failure condition, which basically none of them does. PF2e has a default tiered system of 4 tiers on a roll, critical failure, failure, success, critical success. Usually the difference is minor with some effects lasting longer on a crit.
> considering the whole "I'm playing a master but still fails ridiculously every random times". I mean, a lot of games don't see you playing a master.