Players playing weird characters breaking the immersion of my group

I have an issue with two players in my very large gaming group that I would like some advice from people who have perhaps dealt with players like these. In terms of age and experience, we’re all between the ages of 18 to 21, and we’ve variously been playing the game for 2 to 10 years. This particular instance there were only 4 players, but our extended group is near 20.

To put it simply, they will only play weird characters that break the immersion for my self and the other players. An example being a recent pathfinder game where the party consisted of a human gunslinger, human fighter, elf wizard, and a flail snail. It was a one of these things is not like the others situation. No one could really get into the game because of having to imagine this fairly typical group, plus a snail.

There was one instance where one of the players demanded to play an aquatic elf in a land locked campaign. It slowed the group down mechanically when they had to keep finding water. Another example is when the GM was adamant that the campaign he was running was human only, the player still went on to nag the GM to let him play anything from various pixies, plants, and even a swarm. The arguing wound up delaying the campaign from starting for several hours.

I’ve asked the players why they play these types of characters and they say things along the lines of:

  • Its too hard to play a humanoid character because there is too much to think about when playing a neurotypical standard humanoid
  • I want to play characters that no one can relate too
  • I like playing with self imposed restrictions in terms of how I act.

We have asked them as a group to play more normal characters and there have been mixed responses from the two. One will keep asking whoever is the DM until they break down and allow something. The other will play a more normal character but is clearly not having fun.

If anyone has had experience with a situation like this, how did you resolve it?

Prevent Mathematica from playing an animation upon loading

When I load a notebook that I’ve previously saved containing lots of animations, Mathematica will automatically begin playing all of them. (Typically, I’m animating plots, so my code would look something like this:

Animate[Plot[f[x,n],{x,0,1}],{n,0,1}] 

This leads to a lot of lag and it is time-consuming to have to pause them all before I can continue working. Is there an option or method to prevent Mathematica from automatically playing animations when loading a notebook?

what is great fortitude or even fortitude specifically in rpg games, playing low magic age which has this

I find fortitude confusing, do not know whether or not it is good, bad whatever. I did look up what fortitude is and the explanation is more than confusing. I did also look up What happens if Fortitude sinks to 0? as well as https://rpg.stackexchange.com/search?q=fortitude . The game itself seems to be dnd-inspired, at least according to the developers and the people who are talking about it. Low Magic home page.

According to some it is more preferable that I talk or ask about fortitude in D&D. I haven’t ever played a paper-and-pen rpg so don’t really know.

From what I gathered from other people is that the game uses D&D 3.5e and uses ‘evolved OGL rules’ made by wizards of coast.

Is playing D&D 5e with two people feasible, particularly with the Starter Set adventure?

My girlfriend and I want to get into roleplaying games, we’ve both been interested in trying out Dungeons and Dragons. She has never played a pen and paper RPG before, I’ve played the Swedish Drakar och Demoner (DoD) once in school. We don’t have a group yet, so we thought we’d start out with just the two of us.

We’ve bought the D&D Fifth Edition Starter Set, but I’m not sure how well the game will work with one of us as the DM and the other as a player (I will probably be the DM for our first campaign). Is this feasible? Will the example campaign in the box work well enough for us to get started? How can we get started playing one-on-one 5e effectively?

Method for playing an online text-based RPG that doesn’t require everyone to be online at once?

I am contemplating starting up a web-based text game for my D&D group to be played alongside our weekly sessions. The idea would be to play through events related to the main storyline, but not so involved that the outcomes would directly affect our current adventure.

I don’t want to require everyone to be online at once (or else this is just another session), so IRC and chatrooms are out. I am looking for a method that allows us to play at a slow pace but gives everyone a chance to respond to what the GM says before moving onward with the story or the combat.

The only idea that comes to mind is a forum-based game with heavy restrictions (e.g. each player must post a response or opt out of responding before the GM posts again). For combats I would post maps with the position of all the monsters and characters between each turn.

Does anyone have any experience running a game like this?

What’s the best way to run a web-based text RPG in such a way that not all players need to be online at the same time?

Playing on a grid, is this situation 1/2 or 3/4 cover?

We have four medium creatures, blue (1), green (2), yellow (3), and red (4), positioned like so:

enter image description here

The rules for determining cover on a grid state:

To determine whether a target has cover against an attack or other effect on a grid, choose a corner of the attacker’s space or the point of origin of an area of effect. Then trace imaginary lines from that corner to every corner of any one square the target occupies. If one or two of those lines are blocked by an obstacle (including another creature), the target has half cover. If three or four of those lines are blocked but the attack can still reach the target (such as when the target is behind an arrow slit), the target has three-quarters cover.

Following the instructions here, I have this diagram:

enter image description here

This appears to be 3/4 cover: all four lines are blocked, yet the attack should still be able to reach the target since these creatures do not occupy their entire spaces.

But I am not so sure this is 3/4 cover. The general rules for cover state:

If a target is behind multiple sources of cover, only the most protective degree of cover applies; the degrees aren’t added together. For example, if a target is behind a creature that gives half cover and a tree trunk that gives three-quarters cover, the target has three-quarters cover.

Considering green and yellow as individual sources of cover, we see:

enter image description here

Each only individually provides half cover. Do green and yellow combine to provide 3/4 cover as in the first cover diagram, or do they together still only provide 1/2 cover since degrees of cover do not add together?

What are the game playing impacts of allowing players to take turns out of initiative order? [duplicate]

As per a previous question I asked RAW do not allow players to go later in initiative order in 5E as they could in earlier editions of DnD and other roleplaying systems.

What are the potential things to consider if I choose to home brew changes to this behavior as part of my own rules?

The rule I am considering is as follows.

In a players turn they may either hold an action based on a trigger as per RAW or they can choose to delay there entire turn until after another stated players turn. A player may only delay once per round and cannot name a player Or NPC higher in initiative order to wait for. E G a 5 character combat 4 players and NPC roll initiative and are in order players 1 to 4(high to low) with the NPC sitting after player 3

Player 1 can choose to delay their turn and take it after players 2-4, or the NPC, they state they will go after player 3

On player 3 go they may choose to either go after player 4 or now, they cannot decide to go directly after player 1

Player 1 now takes their turn and must have a turn they may not choose to delay again.

Next round the players return to original initiative order.

In order to stick to stack guidelines I am looking for specific examples from players and GMs who have tried this rather then opinions.

Playing online without a VTT, and is it worth it?

New DM here. I have dabbled a bit with D&D in the past, including playing on FG back in 2010. I’m now looking to get back in to it and start up an adventure with my wife and a few friends. My friends are remote, so it would necessitate playing online. I really enjoy rolling actual dice though, and I fear that using a VTT like Roll20 or Fantasy Grounds would kind of cheapen the experience. I’d like to run a pre-written adventure, most likely Mines of Phandelver just to ease the DMing burden rather than create my own adventure right off the bat.

How much more work would it be to just use Discord and basically play without any VTT, doing everything manually? Would this slow down the game too much? I’m eventually shooting for like a 70%/30% RP to combat ratio because I really enjoy theater of the mind vs. tactical maps/dungeon crawls. Is this insane? Should I just use a VTT and get on with it?