Aranna's page

MDT, You're talking about napping.

Actually there is a tactic used by commando teams in the military where you both sleep AND march at the same time. And no one can claim these guys are fighting at ANY sort of fatigue penalty. SO short and simple there are a lot of ways to sleep (I would require a feat or two to pull off this trick.)

So lets compare more shows...
~30 Rock =66 awards
~Modern Family =56 awards
~Arrested Development =26 awards
~Big Bang Theory =13 awards
~Parks & Rec =8 awards
~Community =4 awards
~Happy Endings =0 awards

By this expanded view this places BBT firmly middle of the pack in quality. BUT BBT scored 6th most watched show of the year back in 2012, while lower quality shows like the much praised (at least on this thread) Community placed 144th calling in to question if it should be canceled.

So while it's quality isn't superior to those top quality shows like 30 Rock it does have a very large number of people that think it's funny. And for a comedy that is what is most important.

Keep in mind my above post assumes a party full of crafters.

If you have just one crafter get them a magic ring or select a sleep free race. This can net you up to 11hrs 45min of extra time per day depending on the need for food, sleep, and skipping watch. Plenty of time for fully productive 8hrs of crafting even while traveling the hard way.

Time isn't an issue for most crafting while adventuring:

1- Wake in the morning and prepare spells... 1hr
2- break down camp since most of us use magical shelters which can be setup or removed with a simple command word... a few rounds if we are lazy.
3- adventuring till the casters need rest... 15 minutes
4- setup camp... again a few rounds if we are lazy.
5- eating three prepared meals (magical prep or travel rations which can be unwrapped and eaten without cooking)... may as well be lazy here too and take 15min per meal.
6- rest time... 10hrs (no rings needed- extra time accounts for two hour watches ~5man team ~5lone PC sentries augmented with animal and magical sentries) [this can be reduced if the group needs less sleep]

Total = 12hrs + some number of rounds
leaving the better part of 12hrs to craft... since workshop setup doesn't require more than a few rounds it shouldn't be an issue crafting for 8 hrs of fully productive effort. [assuming you don't get attacked in camp, and even if you do you might still have enough time to get the full 8 hrs of productivity]

Now on the days where you actually HAVE to travel somewhere for 8hrs the hard way that lowers your free time to 4 hrs. Still enough time to take the craft while traveling bit for half effort.

Yeah they don't automatically gain wealth out of thin air. After joining up with your character he only gains what you give him. Or at least that's my take on it.

Aranna wrote:

Certainly by the industry standards of measuring quality 30 Rock is better than Big Bang Theory which in turn is better than Community...

HA! HA! HA!

I thought you didn't like Laugh Tracks Sebastian?

Isn't it painful to you to have to pretend to be one?

Aranna wrote:

Quality in a performance is often measured in the acclaim it receives. BBT has won 13 awards and been nominated more times than I care to count. This makes it very high quality in the views of it's audience and the members of the industry.

That's at least a more objective measure -- we can count awards and nominations, especially if we track where they're coming from (I've received 20,000,000 awards for Best Game Designer, but they're all from me, so they don't count).

Of course, "30 Rock" blows BBT out of the water using that rubric, but that's a topic for another thread...

Certainly by the industry standards of measuring quality 30 Rock is better than Big Bang Theory which in turn is better than Community...

In terms of PURE popularity Big Bang Theory is a top ten show.

Quality in a performance is often measured in the acclaim it receives.

BBT has won 13 awards and been nominated more times than I care to count. This makes it very high quality in the views of it's audience and the members of the industry.

Aranna wrote:

DSXMachina wrote:

Aranna wrote:

Poor Mark Sweetman didn't understand the humor when he watched the girls comic book episode. So I will attempt to explain it.

The girls start out the episode with the popular misconception that comics are just for 12 year olds... which is an amusing and perhaps aggravating real world misconception. But despite their words they end up nerding out just like the boys when they attempt to understand these comic books. Making the joke ultimately ON the girls not on the boys. The episode actually affirms a part of comics appeal and makes the joke at the expense of the popular misconception.

Whilst the lads go off to the desert (well Con#132) and are too enthsiastic to remember to lock their car. Then a car-jacker steals it, with all the non-cosplay clothes inside. Thus they end up at a diner where everyone thinks they are 15 (or nerds) & need their mothers calling - because they are so stupid. To which Howard affirms they are, as he asks for them to call his Mommy.

I am not saying every joke ends well... this is the only episode of the show I don't like so far. Whoever wrote that episode made it TOO much about them not acting like grown ups and too little affirming. It was an episode in poor taste. But every series fails at some point and I take this one episode as an exception that proves the rule.

Have you seen the show? Remove episode specifics and it follows the same pattern as every episode I have seen, and I haven't seen many.

Supposed geniuses do something monumentally dumb (again). Then they have to deal with normal people, and fail misserably, reaffirming everyone's negative oppinion about them by simultaneously being collosal jerks and doing more dumb things.

I have watched all of the shows. The part where they were basically told by the people in the diner that they were being childish wasn't what bothered me, that happens all the time to me. What bothered me was that they were ready to give up and go home. Not a funny attitude at all. I would have done that part SO differently. It was somewhat redeemed by the girls comic debate. BUT It was still overall a bad episode.

Since you don't watch the show I can tell you most of the anti-geek stuff ends up either geek affirming or treated as a work in progress. Don't let one depressing moment ruin the whole series. I have to admit if THIS episode had been the first one I saw I might not have watched it either and ranked it poorly too.

Aranna wrote:

Poor Mark Sweetman didn't understand the humor when he watched the girls comic book episode. So I will attempt to explain it.

The girls start out the episode with the popular misconception that comics are just for 12 year olds... which is an amusing and perhaps aggravating real world misconception. But despite their words they end up nerding out just like the boys when they attempt to understand these comic books. Making the joke ultimately ON the girls not on the boys. The episode actually affirms a part of comics appeal and makes the joke at the expense of the popular misconception.

Whilst the lads go off to the desert (well Con#132) and are too enthsiastic to remember to lock their car. Then a car-jacker steals it, with all the non-cosplay clothes inside. Thus they end up at a diner where everyone thinks they are 15 (or nerds) & need their mothers calling - because they are so stupid. To which Howard affirms they are, as he asks for them to call his Mommy.

I am not saying every joke ends well... this is the only episode of the show I don't like so far. Whoever wrote that episode made it TOO much about them not acting like grown ups and too little affirming. It was an episode in poor taste. But every series fails at some point and I take this one episode as an exception that proves the rule.

Poor Mark Sweetman didn't understand the humor when he watched the girls comic book episode. So I will attempt to explain it.

The girls start out the episode with the popular misconception that comics are just for 12 year olds... which is an amusing and perhaps aggravating real world misconception. But despite their words they end up nerding out just like the boys when they attempt to understand these comic books. Making the joke ultimately ON the girls not on the boys. The episode actually affirms a part of comics appeal and makes the joke at the expense of the popular misconception.

A Rope Trick would be an ideal workspace for any items that don't require a forge. A small fire for small things like melting gold in a crucible over a Bunsen burner could probably be magically or alchemically produced so as to be smoke free and very portable. No having to heft a full sized forge up into a Rope Trick. And secure shelter or other magical alternatives would be an ideal place for any crafting.

The default rule seems to be an example of a caster setting up and tearing down his workspace repeatedly whenever he had an hour to spare. Explaining both why he only has 4 hours (he is just squeezing the time in between other things in various increments) or why 1/2 the effective use of the time (having to constantly tear down and set up his workspace means far less time to work).

Once I did a traveling crafter... I was a divine caster from a race that needed no sleep and was immune to fatigue. So I frequently had vast amounts of time to craft with... on some days I had more than 16 hours to craft. But the GM limited me to a maximum of 8 hours. Still workspace, environment, and time were not an issue. I used a Rope Trick at the time, but then I wasn't trying to forge weapons or armor. I was mostly making rods, staves, and wands... with the occasional wondrous item.

Offtopic: Is that Ameiko on your avatar?

Yes it is Ameiko herself.

I couldn't let her go unclaimed as an avatar so now she is my avatar.

Aranna wrote:

How many he said she said what if tales must we sit through?

Leaving abruptly is rude in all cases.
Most of the time we as nice people excuse that rudeness if they had a good reason. BUT not everyone might think it was a good reason, in that case there might be some hard feelings. Communication IS key. If you communicate your reasons for leaving well then you are more likely to be excused for it. Just because you don't ever intend to see these people again is NO excuse for behaving badly yourself... even if you are truly the one wronged. Who knows impressing someone you don't know with your ability to react well under duress might lead to other opportunities. In any case behaving well always is the right thing to do. I am not saying I always live up to that ideal myself, but I make the effort.

Again, even though i see the wisdom in your words, i couldn't care less about feelings of people who ruined my day by either being asses or too timid to stand up to GM bullying.

I appreciate honesty first and foremost. If someone is having a bad time, i want them to tell me. If i am picking on someone without realizing i want them to tell me. If i overdo it, i want that someone to get up and leave, to show me that they will not take it for politeness sake.

Wouldn't you rather they simply told you you were being mean? That is what I would do. That invites further dialog. Leaving abruptly says you don't even want to talk about it any more. Kinda the opposite of communication.

How many he said she said what if tales must we sit through?

Leaving abruptly is rude in all cases.
Most of the time we as nice people excuse that rudeness if they had a good reason. BUT not everyone might think it was a good reason, in that case there might be some hard feelings. Communication IS key. If you communicate your reasons for leaving well then you are more likely to be excused for it. Just because you don't ever intend to see these people again is NO excuse for behaving badly yourself... even if you are truly the one wronged. Who knows impressing someone you don't know with your ability to react well under duress might lead to other opportunities. In any case behaving well always is the right thing to do. I am not saying I always live up to that ideal myself, but I make the effort.

Thanks Hama I will look into that site.

Never had a problem getting them to work. Everyone of them has worked since release date for me. Though I cannot say the same for NNW2. Ran into a game ending bug and said screw it.

Yeah... Obsidian does shoddy work, especially when updating someone else's game. But the OC bugs are such that you can reload a previous save and miss the bug the next time past the glitchy point. No such luck with SoZ's bugs but at least those ones don't halt your story progress. MotB works flawlessly though. Or you can download any number of well made fan made adventures that run just fine. Even make your own... if you have a lot of patience with the engine.

goldomark... they just eyeballed a price. There is no formula.

444: "Me? I am SO not with this batch of losers."

The not believing turning into immunity sounds like the Nega-psychic from Beyong the Supernatural RPG. Except in the Nega-Psychics case it makes sense. It makes sense because the nega is in reality a powerful psychic whos disbelief is so strong that it transforms their power into a sort of paranormal damping field.

There is no hard rule on pricing an item that grants a feat. It is up to your GM to price it if he allows it at all.

~ Neverwinter Nights 2 (1 doesn't run on a machine as advanced as mine - for when I need a D&D fix)
~ MoO 2 (the best 4x game ever made - and one of the first games I ever mastered - needs DOSbox to run)
~ Risk (this one is MCGA graphics but it has the best AI of any Risk game I have seen and it still runs smoothly even on advanced machines)
~ Various Hoyle games (Hey they are buggy and simple, but I couldn't live without access to some nice casual games in my library)

Aranna wrote:

Kthulhu wrote:

If BBT runs for 20 years, and Community is cancelled after the current season, then Community will still have been the far better show.

Depends on how you define "better show" clearly you are only using personal opinion... obviously making this absurd statement only true for you or a few others like you. But if a show was cancelled than it failed to be pleasing to the vast majority of people. THAT is the true legacy the show will leave... a forgotten piece of stale comedy that people grew tired of after a few short years. BBT on the other hand has proven it's comedic staying power by running for many many seasons and still going strong. Most people certainly aren't tired of BBT we think it's funny. :p

So Fire Fly, was not a good show because it lasted one season?

Exactly. Just because I love Firefly doesn't mean the show had any sort of mass appeal. Sadly when the show first aired I, like many people, said "a cowboy western in space, yuck". It wasn't till I was bored a year or three later and surfing reruns that I discovered this show was actually awesome. But again that is merely my opinion. To the world at large this was a silly short lived sci-fi show.

It is a game breaker at low levels.
I guess whether you draw or not depends on how competitive you are. You can definitely get ahead by using it but you can also lose your character (unless you are high enough level to counter many of the bad cards).

If that's how you interpret my statement, I think you will enjoy BBT for many years to come.

Using a bit of Post Hoc fallacy?

Thankfully I am fairly sure I will enjoy BBT for many more years.

If BBT runs for 20 years, and Community is cancelled after the current season, then Community will still have been the far better show.

Depends on how you define "better show" clearly you are only using personal opinion... obviously making this absurd statement only true for you or a few others like you. But if a show was cancelled than it failed to be pleasing to the vast majority of people. THAT is the true legacy the show will leave... a forgotten piece of stale comedy that people grew tired of after a few short years. BBT on the other hand has proven it's comedic staying power by running for many many seasons and still going strong. Most people certainly aren't tired of BBT we think it's funny. :p

Aranna wrote:

PS: I watched a couple episodes of community, and it was lame. Now I know a couple episodes doesn't make me an expert. But at least I laughed the first time I saw BBT. Can't say the same for community.

Sounds like it went over your head.

Oh? You are now acknowledging that I did use the right phrase after all. My how fickle you are.

Ansel Krulwich wrote:

I wouldn't touch that campaign with a 10-foot pole.

Also, I advise you to purchase a 10-foot pole. Useful for probing pits, flagstones, murky liquids, and inevitable traps from a safe distance.

I really don't get this whole obsession D&D players have with abnormally tall citizens of Poland. Is this some Gary Gygax thing? Did some huge fellow called Zbigniew save Gary's life in a back alley of Chicago, and Gary felt obliged to immortalize that? I'll never cease to wonder.

That's hardly an honor... That poor citizen of Poland is being employed as a trap tester. The tragedy!

not finding funny != not understanding

If I tell a horrible racist joke, you may not find it funny, but it won't be from lack of understanding.

I submit that the jokes in BBT are pitched at a level where even the most slack-jawed, knuckle-dragging troglodyte can understand them. It's a sitcom that is designed to appeal to even the lowliest of the unwashed masses and that plays a laugh track just in case even they can't keep up - it is not a great and sophisticated piece of art that goes over anyone's head.

Or, to put it more succinctly, it's no Community.

Ok whatever... you know what I meant. Pick a better phrase if it pleases you, my points stand.

PS: I watched a couple episodes of community, and it was lame. Now I know a couple episodes doesn't make me an expert. But at least I laughed the first time I saw BBT. Can't say the same for community.

Sebastion one of the meanings of the phrase "goes over your head" means "To fail to understand something" I used it correctly. If you don't "get" the humor then you failed to understand it.

Major reasons to dislike BBT:

1)It's not funny! They record a live audience that laughs on command to let us know when something is a joke, which is somewhat ridiculous/insulting. References are often wrong, or suffer from Family Guy syndrome.
2)I'm a geek. I'm a physicist. Those characters are neither of these things. I know many geeks, and many physicists. Even saying that the characters of this show are exaggerations of realistic characters is a huge stretch. Yet every non-geek, non-scientist friend or family member will ask me about this show. Even my family has started to assume I must be similar to these ridiculous TV caricatures...
3)Female characters are weak, or simply sex objects. Physics has enough of a problem attracting females to the field without this show's influence. The girls in the show are mostly there for male characters to stare at with their tongues out.

There are plenty of quality TV shows, and this one isn't worth my time. Maybe if I were one of the millions of Americans who live sedentary lives and watch TV for 4-5 hours until sleep, day after day... but still, probably not.

Maybe you should actually watch the show before commenting on it.

1- It IS funny to a huge number of people myself included. Just because you don't think it's funny doesn't mean it isn't... It just means the shows humor goes over your head. And that isn't an insult, there is a lot of different kinds of humor not everyone gets all of it. For myself I don't get the humor where people get hurt and others laugh at it.

Also, you don't watch comedies on TV at all do you? I mean how could you if you find the widely used laughing as an insult.

2- You realize you could simply tell them you don't watch the show when they ask about it rather than blame the show... That and you can't be serious that your own family thinks you are like a comedic stereotype. I mean we have to assume they have met you and known you for quite some time.

3- HOW are the women weak? That is absurd. The show largely revolves around Leonard with the two polar opposite characters in Leonard's life being Penny his girlfriend and Sheldon his roommate BOTH strong influences on the show. All three women stars of the show are strong in their own way. Although I am sure Amy Farrah Fowler would be flattered that you only think of her as a sex symbol.

Tonight, our old 3.5 DM decided to run a one shot campaign. It's been well over six months since we played these characters. We have had to get everything approved by him. That means nothing is on my character sheet that he didn't approve, this piece of information is important.

Tonight we fought these demon things, they have DR 10/ something and also have what I can only assume is displacement. My paladin has the Complete Champion feat, Awesome Smite, which if you don't know, allows me to as a tactical maneuver, either bypass DR up to twice my CHA, or automatically bypass miss chance (there's also a third maneuver but it doesn't matter here.) And he refused to honor the feat, which he approved.
I was okay with not bypassing the DR, what if it's DR/epic I thought. But when he decided that I can't use the feat at all because he doesn't remember it, I just walked out.
This is the same DM that made us auto fail checks to have our gear stolen and put us in a no win scenario where we either kill the BBEG and our stolen stuff turns to stone, our we don't kill the BBEG and we die....
DM god complex/ entitled player/ this is why I took over as DM/ this is why I switched to Pathfinder/rant/thread

I have never walked out on a game mid session.

If this GM had pulled this on me I would have calmly put that character away and asked him what the character creation rules were for this game. Because it would be illegal to play an unapproved character. Since the current character contains an unapproved feat clearly I need a new character, right? Let him stew when we have to stall the game for a bit so I can make "Miss Expendable the First" although I would have fun with the new character. After all it's a one shot, time to test out something crazy.

Here's a story TOZ likes.

Couple of years ago, was running a homebrew campaign and the players were getting ready to deal with the big bad evil guy. One of my players had temper issues. He'd get mad when his dice rolled bad and fling them across the room. He was also getting pretty pissed off at a player's girlfriend for having to do her quest. S@+# was getting nuts and I had tried talking to him before the game to chill out. Well they are fighting the evil ogre mage and the oni kills his character and he loses his temper and literally punches me in the face. So, the game grinds to a halt as a lifted him up and powerbombed him through my table, because you just don't punch somebody for killing your character. Needless to say, he didn't return for subsequent games.

Remind me never to invite you over to play at my house... I like my furniture especially my antique table. Also I would need the local police on speed dial to deal with the violent guy.

Aranna wrote:

... My quote was from a poster that said useless ...

No, actually he said low stats are fine. He said a huge difference makes you feel like sidekick. Even if a sidekick is far from useless, it doesn't feel heroic to some people.

Since you can't be bothered to read let me try again:

whats-her-face from Resident Evil 4, who you constantly have to protect, because she cannot do jack poop.

That IS useless.

Aranna wrote:

... There is ALWAYS a difference between characters in rolled stats. ...

Agreed. That is why many of us don't like them. But even allowing for differences, most GM's that I have played with would allow a reroll if one PC was exceptionally less gifted than all the others.

I would also allow a reroll here. But that isn't the point. The point is he had an opportunity to play a slightly more challenging character while having fun and impressing the others, maybe even making some new friends... or he could do something sure to get him uninvited from all future games... like walk out.

Aranna wrote:

... Life (and how much fun you have in life) isn't about how fair the hand you were dealt was, it is about how much you can do with the hand you were dealt. ...

This is a game, not my life. I work fairly hard at getting by in my life because I don't have a better choice. Doesn't mean I want to do the same in my hobby.

Everything in your life is your life. The game, your job, your children, how you do everything, it ALL is your life. And working hard isn't even required. All you really need is a positive attitude.

Aranna wrote:

... Besides, this is a RPG you always have more lives after this one. So why not just have some fun with it? If you are SO convinced that you are doomed by these stats then that should make you happy then that it will be that much sooner to the next character. ...

Or if you are fairly skilled and don't die you could be stuck with what feels like a sub-par character over the course of the campaign for the next 2 years (some of our last that long).

If the character is able to handle every challenge thrown at it then clearly it wasn't sub par now was it? This is why you should make something fun to play. I know it is HARD for power gamers to look past the numbers and see a character, but it is rewarding when you learn to do that.

Aranna wrote:

... Make someone awesome, someone fun to play, and worry about your uber build mega stat room sweeper character next time.

But I usually don't enjoy being at a significant disadvantage from everyone else.

Imagine you go with some friends to the bar to play pool. The guy that drove says you (and only you) have to play with the dork stick. It [snip away the absurd bit] isn't even straight. I would probably laugh and give it a try to see how good I could do tonight. But what if he says, we are going to come here and play pool for 3 hours every week for the next 18 months and you have to use the dork stick the whole time. I think I'd probably find something else to do with my Friday nights.

That's what if feels like to some people. Not everyone, but some.

A +1 to +2 difference is significant??? Wow you have some serious expectations from a friendly game. Sure having to play with a loner cue that is slightly off straight will put your game at a minor disadvantage. Unless you are a master pool player you likely won't notice the difference a slightly off straight cue makes. But with THAT attitude that you DEMAND the best pool cue in the place if you have to play more than once or you won't even play a friendly game... wow is all I have to say. Soon you will be playing pool alone.

Of those who have posted into this thread, there are very few that said a couple of +1's makes you useless (though there have been a few).

What has been often said is the vast difference between the players can make a player feel inferior. That has nothing to do with power gaming.

I don't mind the challenge of a lower stat. I wish my group was willing to play with 15 or 10 point buy. However, I don't like having an arbitrarily harder challenge than everyone else sitting at the table.

My quote was from a poster that said useless.

There is ALWAYS a difference between characters in rolled stats. Life (and how much fun you have in life) isn't about how fair the hand you were dealt was, it is about how much you can do with the hand you were dealt. Besides, this is a RPG you always have more lives after this one. So why not just have some fun with it? If you are SO convinced that you are doomed by these stats then that should make you happy then that it will be that much sooner to the next character. BUT why sit there unhappy in the mean time? Make someone awesome, someone fun to play, and worry about your uber build mega stat room sweeper character next time.

I had fun once with a Bard (dancing bartender: like Coyote Ugly) who would inspire her companion to great heights while serving him drinks in combat. Her companion was of course a Drunken Style Monk. ;)

But huge gaps in points forces some characters to be more or less sidekicks or whats-her-face from Resident Evil 4, who you constantly have to protect, because she cannot do jack poop.

I fail to see how a couple +1s difference equates to useless? In fact with three 13s this character should have few issues selecting feats. So this person ends up with a 15 primary stat... when the others may have between 16 and 18 in their primary stat. Your spells have a 1 or 2 point weaker DC or you do 1 or 2 points less damage in combat... Hardly something to cry about. Sure it makes combat marginally tougher for you, but that hardly makes you useless. Why must power gamers always have the pinnacle stat or they go home? Can't they enjoy the challenge of a lower stat?

Not that the OP is a power gamer we can't know that yet. Many would have felt put upon by that GM and his odd quirks...

PS: Did the GM explain why he wanted to roll all your stats? It seems odd.

I recently had a character with five 12s and a 10... played a human rogue and bumped the 12 Int to a 14. I had a lot of fun. She ended up being a good skill monkey despite her fairly difficult time in combat.

That being said 3.5e had a reroll clause. Better than a 13 stat and better than +0 total mods = playable. You just barely inch under the the reroll conditions, because you have no stats over a 13. So maybe if you explain that he will give you the reroll... although I am uncertain if Pathfinder kept the reroll clause?

I would have played anyway. I have in the past. The best way to handle this is to ignore the stats and play what you want. Have fun and be ready with a back up character. If you want to hurry to the back up character put your low stat in Con and refuse to be raised from the dead. BUT don't go in with a bad attitude. Just have fun and don't worry about whether you might get killed.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Aranna wrote:

Now you're being disingenuous since you have a list of what is banned and can see whether druids or half elves are on that list or not, you REALLY are just fishing for an excuse to badger the GM.

Minor correction: If you were the DM, I'd have a list of what is banned. And I'd abide by it. Some of the other thread participants, however, have told me that they don't need to issue a list, it's "obvious" what's "appropriate." I've provided examples that are very, very close to actual conversations I've had with DMs.

With those people, you can't look on the list, because it's supposed to be "obvious" -- but it generally isn't, so you have no choice but to ask ("badger" the DM, in other words).

The guy who told us that "all wizards have to wear robes, or else they're not wizards" comes to mind.

And others have said that such lists show lack of creativity or laziness...

Let's not forget that part of the statement.

Who made that statement? I would consider not having a list to be lazy. But to leave you guessing what is allowed??? Why keep character generation a secret?! If this is the only reason you have to not accept "I hate elves" as a reason then ok... but you probably have other issues to worry about with this GM, making it a poor example for a honest discussion. In general "I hate elves" is a perfectly acceptable reason.

Aranna wrote:

BUT "I hate elves" is perfectly valid. DO you really need to know exactly what about elves they hate? This sort of opinion can't be changed by making a nuisance of yourself. If the person behind the GM screen "hates elves" then you know all you really need to know.

Not true at all. Do they also hate half-elves? Do they hate elves because they hate stereotypical tree-huggers, so I should be sure to avoid wanting to play a druid as well, or a ranger? Do they hate androgyny, so I need to make sure my PC is hyper-masculine? A DM that will ban stuff "because I hate it" will also ban a lot of other stuff that touches on whatever the sore emotional area is. Because they're banning stuff for emotional reasons, rather than rational ones, the specific example you've stumbled on is very likely represents only the tip of the iceberg. I've experienced this many times in the past.

You're not going to change the DM's opinion by asking why, but you're not going to be able to avoid annoying him/her if you can't find out what it is that rubs him/her so wrong.

Now you're being disingenuous since you have a list of what is banned and can see whether druids or half elves are on that list or not, you REALLY are just fishing for an excuse to badger the GM.

Aranna wrote:

Unless you have a history of being a problem player I can't imagine a GM not giving you an explanation. WILL you accept that explanation even if you don't like the explanation? THAT is what separates an entitlement player out.

I'm addressing the people with the strong opinion that they need give no explanation, or else can simply say "I don't like it; think of something else." Again, those are specifically non-explanations. If someone doesn't accept them, that's not refusing to accept the DM's explanation; rather, it's trying to make the DM see that those are not explanations at all.

Aranna wrote:

WHAT do you do with the explanation? Do you argue about how the GM is wrong? Do you dismiss the GMs opinion as not relevant? Sometimes the GM has a strong opinion "I hate elves" for example. They dislike so many things about elves that trying to figure them all out may takes weeks of therapy. Do you hold the game up while you argue every bit of fluff and mechanic elven? Or do you accept the GMs quirk and play a gnome or a human? If your go to response is to argue then you are ruining everyone's fun.

If an actual explanation is given, I already said I'd, personally, be fine with that -- so none of these would apply, except maybe for the "I hate elves and I can't be bothered to think about why so suck it up," which is more or less a non-answer. So, if I was really hoping for an elf campaign, that would be a good signal for me to get out of there.

"because I said so" isn't an explanation... it is the GM shutting down an argumentative player. I will give you that. BUT "I hate elves" is perfectly valid. DO you really need to know exactly what about elves they hate? This sort of opinion can't be changed by making a nuisance of yourself. If the person behind the GM screen "hates elves" then you know all you really need to know. Play another race and have fun or walk out with an attitude and likely not get invited back.

Aranna wrote:

Talonhawke wrote:

When I saw arbitrary I don't mean because you don't like it, I mean if you have no reason for not liking it.

There is always a reason for everything. The point is it ISN'T that player's right to sit in judgement over the reasoning whether you agree with it or not. THAT is entitlement thinking.

If I ask to play a tengu ninja and you say no without reason then I have no clue what the issue is.

Is it that I'm a tengu?
Is it that I'm a ninja?
Is it both?

Reason one and two are way different than reason 3 insomuch that I can play a rogue if ninjas out, or a human or half-elf if tengus out. No one is trying to sit in judgement or at least I'm not but the more I know about the why the more likely character 2 won't get turned down. Over having to guess at what part/s of character 1 were the issues.

Unless you have a history of being a problem player I can't imagine a GM not giving you an explanation. WILL you accept that explanation even if you don't like the explanation? THAT is what separates an entitlement player out. WHAT do you do with the explanation? Do you argue about how the GM is wrong? Do you dismiss the GMs opinion as not relevant? Sometimes the GM has a strong opinion "I hate elves" for example. They dislike so many things about elves that trying to figure them all out may takes weeks of therapy. Do you hold the game up while you argue every bit of fluff and mechanic elven? Or do you accept the GMs quirk and play a gnome or a human? If your go to response is to argue then you are ruining everyone's fun.

Orfamay Quest wrote:

"You have no reason for..." is entitlement thinking. You do not get to judge MY reasons

So, if I understand you correctly,

Player -> no rights, only the privilege to be in the game, assuming he/she follows the rules set by DM. Asking for explanations is therefore "entitlement," because the player lacks the authority status to do so.

Why are you being so difficult? NO, asking is fine. NOT accepting the answer IS entitlement.

This is the GMs game she sets the rules. She IS doing this to create a fun, immersive, and challenging form of entertainment. She IS doing this for her own AND the players enjoyment. Part of the enjoyment of sitting in the GMs seat and doing all the extra prep work IS to see how a scenario will play out, how a house rule will affect enjoyment, how a thematic setting will inspire fun role play. Right or wrong it IS the GMs moment to try out the big decisions. Often learning as much about a good game from her failures as her successes. Entitlement players want to rob a game master of her fun by challenging every little detail they don't like. Woe to the GM who doesn't want to let your half fiend/half celestial/half fey minotaur jedi gunslinger from ancient china into their game. They will argue endlessly every little point till you shut them down or kick them out(as some suggest). The have NO interest in playing in your world regardless of the other players interest in the setting. The entitlement player just wants you to be a platform for their latest concept, you have NO say in it. The irony is these players won't be happy even if they find a doormat GM... because a doormat GM isn't going to care or challenge their whatever character at all.

Is this a Pathfinder game or a 3.x game?
Vile damage is from 3.x

1 person marked this as a favorite.

When I saw arbitrary I don't mean because you don't like it, I mean if you have no reason for not liking it.

There is always a reason for everything. The point is it ISN'T that player's right to sit in judgement over the reasoning whether you agree with it or not. THAT is entitlement thinking.

Delthyn wrote:

In answer to the OP's question, I'd say that I am LN, wishing to be LG.

Same

Ditto... though I think I am very close to good.

PS: I reserve the right to smack you down if you are being an evil jerk... I guess that makes me neutral despite the volunteering to help those in need.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Aranna wrote:

My answer to smooth running games is shut down the problem players and help the cooperative players. On the other hand if a concept should fit my world yet I ban it anyway then I probably should just explain myself ahead of time to get everyone on the same page and not leave any lingering resentment from otherwise good players. Some earlier example of a cavalier being banned despite the existence of Rohan being a valid place where they could come from... BUT perhaps the GM simply dislikes the cavalier mechanics. In such a case explanation is a good thing. Otherwise (Kirth?) might think you are being a tyrant.

The only thing I disagree on dealing with problems players. I found it is better to talk to the player about what they are doing to disrupt the game...and give them a warning. If the persist boot them. Why low myself to them by 'shuting them down' when I can just kick them out?

Because not all table dynamics are the same. Sometimes it's less complicated to just shut them down rather than go through the complicated effort of getting them kicked out. For example games where the GM isn't the host or where the GMing is shared or any other mix of invite authority. And in nearly every case a problem player knows exactly what problems they are creating and how, they don't need it explained. Keep in mind they have to get labeled a problem player first before they start getting the short end of the stick. Up until then they get all the consideration everyone else does. If someone steps out of line people, GM or not, tell them. If it persists THEN no explanation is needed, they just earned a place on the naughty list and they will have a difficult time till they either shape up and start playing nice OR ship out if they can't see past their pride and would rather miss out rather than join the fun. It isn't lowering yourself at all to shut them down it is doing a good service to the rest of the players.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have said it before in a completely different thread "Stats DON'T exist in real life". EVEN Strength fluctuates wildly in the same person from day to day based on any number of factors.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Except, again, intelligence is not a measure of how much you know, it's a measure of how much you have the CAPABILITY to know.

In every case how well you learn something in real life is NOT based on a stat, it is based on how much you want to learn it and how relatable the knowledge is to your experiences. It's why otherwise brilliant people do poorly in a particular class or two. If someone were stat driven then all their classes would end in the same grade. With the exception of mentally handicapped people EVERYONE is fully capable of being very smart. Remember the huge controversy over IQ tests unfairly being biased against black people? This is a perfect example of making material relatable.