Jandrem's page

The things I find the most fun about being a DM is exercising creativity(whether it's good or bad, just getting it out of my head), and seeing the player's smiles and seeing them genuinely enjoy themselves. If the players aren't having a good time, neither am I.

I have a weird way of running games, and it's taken me many years to put together a group of like-minded players who enjoy my style. I finally feel like I've got just the right group, and we're having an absolute blast. I get to create backdrops and scenery for their characters to live in, and in turn they get really into character, and give me lots of inspiration to build off of. It's a cycle of fun and inspiration, and at the end of the session, we feel exuberant and satisfied.

I'm not a fan of railroading, but a lot of people I play with are. The main group I gamed with for years used to homebrew campaigns in different campaign settings, but for the past few years they just do PF AP's, which are very railroady. Well written and beautifully illustrated, but still railroady as hell.

The convenience of a pre-built campaign is nice, but I find it extremely boring as a player. Knowing that my PC's influence in the game will have zero effect on the outcome of the game, sucks the creativity right out. Some ready-made campaigns out there do actually take the time to plot out variations on the adventures and different possible outcomes(Drow Wars was really good at this), but, these are few and far between. Most modules and AP's I've seen are terribly linear.

I prefer homebrewed campaigns, where the overall direction is a mix of player actions and DM resolutions, where anything can potentially happen. I loved being surprised, especially as the DM. I like to use a variety of one-shot modules mixed with homebrewed adventures and plot points, to build an overall narrative with the players.

Not everybody has the time for that, and sometimes I goof stuff up, but it just feels like a more satisfying game experience, if we all contributed to the story. AP's lately just feel like "go here, do this, turn to page 23 and read the grey box."

Gaming these days draws influences from a LOT more pop culture than it did in the 70's and 80's. There's just more crazy stuff out there, and fans of all that tend to bring stuff into their games.

Classic medieval adventuring just isn't in style right now. Material is out there, but it's sort of been relegated to "been there, done that." Eventually people will get tired of Dragon-riding Fox Ninja's with rocket launchers built into their cybernetic limbs.

My first major D&D group named our characters "The ****ing Champs." We were a bunch of metalheads/punks in our early 20's, and curse-words were apparently funny back then.

Those who tell me at the last minute when they can't dhowcto the game. I understand that sometimes life throws something at a person at the ladt minute. Or a person just does not feel like gaming. Dometimes I don't want to game either. Just don't tell me at 9 pm on a Friday when we're gaming Saturday afternoon.

Just how much notice do you need? My group plays on a weeknight, and there have been many, many times where one of us could not make it(overtime at work, sick kids, etc) and did not find out they could not make it until just shortly before the game is scheduled to begin. Personally, as long as someone just tells me at some point before the game, I'm fine with it. I just can't fathom needing more than a day's notice.

I do give XP for puzzle and problem solving, but it's awarded party wide.

Pretty much this. If/when I award any kind of bonus xp, it's party-wide. This removes the competitiveness over points and helps keep everyone at the same power level. Quiet/shy types don't feel left out, and everyone benefits from getting more involved.

Also, as a DM, it's just less bookeeping when everyone is the same level/XP. Encounters are much smoother to design. Adventures are much easier to plot out.

Our party Barbarian wields an Intelligent weapon, that's voice sounds like Randy "Macho Man" Savage. So, the logical thing to do was...

...Open up a Macho Man soundboard on my laptop. Never laughed so hard in years!

13. You attempt to Quick Draw your Greatsword, but the blade sticks in the scabbard. You wind up flipping yourself forward and are now prone on your back.

Mine resembles me a bit in real life, except I wear glasses, and my earring is much smaller.

I dunno, the pic just looks like a sarcastic a-hole, which I've been called many times. Just kind of giving that "Are you serious? Yay." look.

I believe people are often aiming for the wrong thing when they do horror games. Fear is not exactly an emotion. It is up close, flesh and blood, and directly tied to your person. It is not what you're going to get people to feel when their characters in a RPG are threatened. It doesn't really work all that much better than stuff jumping out at their characters.

I completely disagree. Fear as an emotion in a RPG is hard to pull off, but when it happens, it's glorious. The DM has to set the right mood, and you have to have players who are willing to immerse their characters into the game setting, and aren't just there to test out the lastest splatbook feat combo or powergame/min/max. It's not for everybody. I've had players so shook up, that their characters went out of their way to avoid important story locations and scenes for fear of their character's safety.

I've run horror campaigns for several years, and player chemistry is a huge, huge factor. If one player isn't getting into the scene, they can throw the whole mood off. The players have to allow their characters to be afraid of things, and be affected by things other than hp loss or stat damage.

Low to No magic settings work best, I feel. The more powerful(big numbers and dice) abilities a player can throw around, the less scary everything in existence becomes. But if you're a level 2 spellcaster, with no armor, few hp, and only a few spells left for the day, survival becomes a much higher priority(making encounters more nerve-racking). High-magic horror can be done, it's just a lot more technical than I like dealing with.

As for the horror itself, nothing gets under the PC's skin like the fear of the unknown. As soon as something has a stat block, it stops being scary. Of course, everything the PC's encounter has a stat block, but as long as the players are unfamiliar with what they're up against, they have to think on their feet and actually form strategies.

The Ravenloft 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide(not the normal D&D one) and 3.0 Campaign Setting have a wealth of advice for setting moods and helping establish a scary atmosphere. I found myself consulting lots of horror-writing advice threads more than gaming-related ones.

I've had many successful sessions that never had a single combat encounter, but still had players rolling dice, interacting with the setting, etc. So, it's not just "magical tea party," or even LARPing; we're still sitting at the table, rolling dice, and playing the game.

Just let players play, and treat and players like you would treat anyone else.

If we stop singling people out for playing because of their gender/race/etc, maybe it'll stop being an issue altogether. Acting shocked and surprised whenever a non-neckbeard is interested in something geeky, just reinforces the stereotype and wards others away from the genre.

DM Under The Bridge wrote:

Yep, but compare bloat and usability if you only use 5 books from 3.5. ;)

That is how I've done it, and how others I know and play with have done it. The simple and clean 3.5 rules, with a dab of extra content (sometimes 2 books extra, sometimes 4, sometimes you change which books are used for which game) seasoned with some house rules that make sense for all involved. So much better than pathfinder's rush to bloat, and pf dms I know are seeing this as well (and getting tired of new classes they have to learn and challenge). Of course I make omelettes to my taste.

Except one could argue also that 3.5 and WoTC were notorious for nickle and diming you if you will... I mean, you had to buy at least 3 books just to start playing the stupid game (The Player's handbook, the DM's handbook, and the Monster Manual)

3.5 PHB, DMG, and MM; $35 each, so $105 total(before tax).

PF CRB($50) and Bestiary($40), $90 total.

I didn't think $15 for a whole other book was that big of a deal.

Besides, players weren't really supposed to be using the DMG(or MM and now Bestiary, for that matter) So if you were just a player, all you needed was the PHB($35), as opposed to playing in Pathfinder needing the CRB($50). DM's of course needed more books, but that's sort of part of being a DM.

But, now we're just splitting hairs.

The Truenamer truly didn't work, which is a shame, because it had tons of flavor as well.

That book had some real hidden gems, but you had to work to find them; I once broke a campaign(accidentally) with Shadowcaster with the Dark Creature template and a MASSIVE Hide check. I'd give Tome of Magic 9/10 for flavor, but 4/10 on actual crunch.

Quote:

Paizo has avoided branching out like this because most of the books that introduced these rules went unused by players.

... wow your experience is completely the opposite of mine. I had lots of psionicists in my groups over the years, a fair smattering of Binders and Incarnum users, lots of Maneuver Initiators, and a good number of others using various subsystems. I'd definitely feel comfortable saying I had more spell- or spell-like focused characters who used something OTHER than the core casting system than I did who did, prior to Pathfinder.

Frankly I disagree with the majority of your conclusions as well, but am feeling too utterly lazy to get into yet another "is/isn't 3.X psionics broken" argument with someone.

Same here. My groups use tons of psionics back in our 3.5 days. Lots of Warlocks/Dragonfire Adepts, etc. I'm a huge fan of Incarnum, and have made quite a few Incarnum-based characters over the years. My current PF character is a half-golem Incarnate of Law, that I've been playing for more than a year.

We loved us some sub-systems! Tome of Magic got lots of use in my games as well, as I loved the flavor(if not so much the mechanics) of Shadowcasters and Binders a lot.

The only thing the OP had to say about Illumians was that they "look human..." Wow, what a shocking understatement. Might as well have not even mentioned them, if you're going to shortchange them like that.

I probably sound inappropriate for mentioning myself, but yeah, I will always argue for "the rule of cool" in a game, that benefits the players. Really, in our home games, there's no official Paizonian referee on hand to stop us from changing the rules, so if a player wants to do something cool that makes sense, we do it.

Also, props to my current DM for allowing me to use Incarnum resources in our PF game, despite not really understanding it, nor wanting 3e materials in the game. I've been playing the same character for the past year, and so far things have been pretty good. Nothing broken or confusing. Although, with the way Pathfinder consolidated skills, a lot of Soulmelds got really powerful.

People don't appreciate that board games/tabletop games/TCG's of all types are incredibly expensive, reducing their possible market by quite a bit. What was the ACG with standard shipping, 48$? And you wouldn't be able to play Pathfinder with just the ACG.

This is an important point. It's difficult to be a "casual" RPG player and pay full price(or LGS equivalent) meaningfully for the hobby. Whereas CCG players can pick up a couple of booster packs, some card sleeves, buy some decent singles, etc for half of what a RPG book alone costs.

6th level.

Alchemist/Druid/Sorcerer/Rogue/Gunslinger/Barbarian.
See any problems here?

Are they playing an Illumian?

I'd love to run a Castlevania game. It was my main inspiration for running Ravenloft in the first place. Something taking in the lore of Transylvania, with a focus on classical monsters has always been my goal, but it just gets sidetracked a lot.

At this point, I'd love to run a good Ravenloft game again; all my groups ever seem to do is just run generic modules and AP's. Nobody wants to go off the rails and "live a little."

I've also wanted to run something set in either Final Fantasy I, IV, or VI's settings. I glanced at some of the FFd20 stuff linked earlier, but I'm not really feeling it. Too much copy pasta from existing PF classes with new paint jobs. That, and I disagree heartily with a lot of the dark Knight stuff.

Orthos wrote:

Players say: "....."

Players mean: "None of all of us put ranks in social skills. We're all playing brooding loners."

In a group.

And we'll be called... "The Lone Rangers!"

Why is it when anything good D&D related comes up, people automatically assume it was taken from Pathfinder?

Did we somehow forget that Pathfinder itself was taken from D&D?

I've told this one a few times, but I think it counts for this thread. I'll put it behind a [ spoiler] for those who've probably read it several times already.

I was DM'ing a Ravenloft campaign, and the players picked a fight with an npc who turned out to be Strahd Von Zarovich. I didn't plan on an actual fight to break out, but boy, they sure did.

Player says: I want my character to be Chaotic Neutral

Player means: I'm not that worried about alignment, anyway.
Player means: I want to be Chaotic Evil, but since Evil isn't allowed...
Player means: garfanableagulumpugu WHY DO THE BANANA PLATE!kupokupo

Player says "I want to play something that Paizo hasn't'/can't cover. Have a look and tell me what you think?"

Player Means "No, really can I please break the game? I mean sure there are thousands of potential characters I could make with all the Pazio stuff that's out there, but this monk that can turn into air as an immediate action really speaks to me."

You already vented with your first post. Talk to your players.

I'm a big fan of using lots of 3p stuff(PF is just a 3p houseruled D&D 3.5e), and have very rarely ran into this thing you're obsessing over. Get it together and talk to your group.

Player says "Do you allow 3p material?"
Player means: I want to play something that Paizo hasn't/can't/won't cover(maybe due to the OGL). Have a look and tell me what you think?

My group was always cool with all sorts of "mature" stuff, but honestly nothing of that sort has come up in our games for a very long time. I dunno, we've just been in "go here, kill stuff, get loot" mode for the past year.

Hama wrote:

Then you stop playing with them? Or don't GM for them.

@TOZ, dang, can't find it right now.

I quit last Saturday.

I'm sorry to hear you had to give it up, but it sounds like PF/3.5/3e/etc is not your style of game at all.

I really don't get the hate for splatbooks, especially considering PF has what, 1/3 the number of splatbooks 3.5 had? Honestly, I still feel like there's a ton of stuff PF has not done YET that needs an update(official psionics, or something along those lines).

Splatbooks are just options, that's it. Optional options. Paizo needs to make new products that customers can buy(who have already bought most/all the existing products), and game worlds grow and expand. Nothing past the CRB, Bestiaries, and maaaaybe the GMG are "required."

Don't like options? Don't use them. PF runs just fine on the core books alone. I realize you already said you quit, I'm just making a general statement.

Optional declaration:

*shrugs*

I really don't know what to say. I'm pretty sure I've had a mix of Good characters and Neutral characters (both played as such) in every game I've ever run (and most I've played in).

Heck, my current game has a Paladin and several CN characters of varying attitudes (including one who just wants everything to be on fire). No real problems thus far (there've been conflicts...but there's a difference between conflicts and problems).

So...saying this doesn't work in gaming is utterly foreign to me.

I can relate. In my current PF group, there are 5 players, each with a different alignment. But, our characters work well together, and as players, we're long time friends, so that helps. The DM doesn't put too heavy a hand on alignment anyway, barring extreme cases.

We do have both Good and Evil characters in the same group, and it doesn't get any rowdier than some off-color banter when coming up with plans of action.

K177Y C47 wrote:

Personally I tend to prefer the darker grittier characters...

Mr. Knight in shining armor is just utterly boring and has been played out way to many times. Additionally, Mr. Do-Gooder-for-the-sake-of-goodness is so utterly bland. It is kind of the reason why I hate superman. He is dull. When you are the epitome of boyscout, your character has no character and you are just kinda... a cardboard cut-out...

I'd call that a matter of taste. I hate the grizzled anti-hero. You want to talk about overdone? Wolverine, The Punisher, Lobo, V, Rorschach, The Question, Elric, Hellsing, Batman (granted this is largely dependent upon the writer, but the most well known Batman - Frank Miller's - definitely qualifies), pretty much every video game character ever that's not a Croft or an Italian plumber.

Just . . . ugh. We get it. These characters are like cigarettes - cool and dangerous but ultimately not worth the money and bad for the health of the culture.

Cynicism is easy. I've fallen to it many more times in my life than I care to admit. It's easy and boring and vulgar (in the Shakespearean sense) and I hate, hate, hate, hate it. Even the perennial Boy Scouts like Green Arrow and Superman are getting gritty anti-hero reboots.

Finding another way, being better than the world and not capitulating to it, showing those who have all but given up that there is hope left - that is far from boring. That is the coolest thing imaginable.

The preceding, of course, is all my own opinion and I'm sure there plenty of people who feel the opposite.

100% Agreed. Wolverine was awesome when I was young and angsty, but he just comes off as a shallow and selfish character to me now. The unkillable killing machine thing has been played out for a while too, but that's a topic for another discussion.

Captain America has always been my favorite comic book hero; because, despite how bleak things get, despite how many reasons get shoved in his face to not be "good," despite all the 90's comics cynicism, he still fights the good fight. That's the difference between Cap, and your average everyman anti-hero. That's what helps make him a "super hero." His dedication to his cause supersedes personal revenge stories or selfish desires; he's good for the sake of good. He protects the will of the people, because it's the right thing to do, not because his boss pays him to, or he's told to by someone else. That, I can get behind.

Anti-heroes are popular(in my opinion) because they are so relatable on a basic level. Everybody gets crapped on in life sometimes, and a lot of folks wish they had some kind of super power to deal with that crap. Anti-heroes do this in spades. They don't always save the world, but they make damn sure to pay back whoever crossed them and get some vengeance.

Personally, I'm sick of revenge stories. I'm tired of the arms race of badassitude constantly getting ratcheted higher and higher. I choose to play PF characters with conviction, fighting for some higher cause than gold pieces and XP. But, that's just me. Different strokes make the world go 'round, so I'm not here to invalidate anyone else's play motivations. Just expressing my point of view.

The point is that, although your particular players aren't playing nice with you, that doesn't support the OP's position that there are "no more heroes anymore." The fact that their behavior has been consistent over time makes the "anymore" part even less appropriate.

I think you're misreading it. I quoted something someone else said(K177Y C47), that reminded me a LOT of what the players in my group say, often, and I gave my feelings on it.

I even specifically said that I'm not calling out K177Y C47, just that what they said reminds me of my players. I don't even know where you're pulling the "your players aren't playing nice with you" bit from. Did I wrong you in another thread or something?

I'm not really understanding the need to micromanage what I said so badly.

Josh M. wrote:

Ya know, I hear that. I get that. I hear the same players repeat it over and over like a mantra. And yet, in my group, those same players have consistently played evil murderhobos non-stop for the past 8 years at least.

Your group of players does not represent all players; your experiences are not universal.

And? Show me where I said my experiences were universal. I thought that was understood when I said "my group" and not "all players."

I run my Inquisitor as Robocop.

Serve the Public Trust, Protect the Innocent, Uphold the Law.

Cash and treasure are just a means to aquire items to enforce these three prime directives. He doesn't wear or own any fancy/valuables except for stuff to crush Evil.

"Dead or alive you are coming with me."

I'm currently running a LN half-golem Incarnate of Law; a literal Pathfinderized Robocop. I sense a kindred spirit in your character...

Personally I tend to prefer the darker grittier characters...

Mr. Knight in shining armor is just utterly boring and has been played out way to many times. Additionally, Mr. Do-Gooder-for-the-sake-of-goodness is so utterly bland. It is kind of the reason why I hate superman. He is dull. When you are the epitome of boyscout, your character has no character and you are just kinda... a cardboard cut-out...

Ya know, I hear that. I get that. I hear the same players repeat it over and over like a mantra. And yet, in my group, those same players have consistently played evil murderhobos non-stop for the past 8 years at least.

I can count on one hand, the number of "good" PC's I've seen. I stopped counting the "evil" ones after 50. And yet, "good" is "played out and overdone."

K177Y C47 I'm not picking on you specifically, I'm just using your words, because I've seen the same words uttered by players in my group.

thenovalord wrote:

I ditched a witch I had taken from 1st to 10th in SerSku as it just became so much hard work to play......

When GMing I always let people change.....it is the players game really

What's hard to play about a witch?

Get within 30ft, slumber. Got accursed hex? Slumber again. Immune to mind affecting? Misfortune. Fly a lot.

That's it? Remind me to never play a witch.

I want to give DDN a try, but my group will likely stick with Pathfinder. They only made the whole shift from 3.5 to PF a year or two ago, and won't likely want to change up again so soon. Me? I'm ready to move on.

If it were solely my call, I'd dump Pathfinder for DDN with no regrets. I've gotten to the point with PF that i can play "normally," but at this point, I'm sick to death of updating countless rules changes, I'm ready to start fresh. 3.5 was amazing, but it's been ran through the number cruncher a few too many times.

It really irks me when a DM can't gauge player resources, or actual difficulty of a given CR. Any time the players win a tough "boss battle" without ending in a TPK, or us running for our lives, the DM thinks they failed.

Example: The battle is over; our wizard has spent every high-to-middle level spell he has, used several scrolls, even had to melee something at some point. The Cleric is out of healing surges, and blowing through what few spells he has left to keep the Barbarian from dying next round due to Rage ending, and the resulting CON loss. Rogue is dead. Bard is bleeding out...

DM: Man, you guys steamroll everything I throw at you. I don't know how to challenge you guys anymore. I give up.

Players: "****!!!!!"

...And then we get hit with battles 5+ CR's higher than our APL. /tableflip

Burma "The Tusk" wrote:

What is your most commonly played (or favorite to play) alignment and why?

** spoiler omitted **

I disagree. I can't fathom Lawful Neutral being "lacking dedication to a path" in any sense. True Neutral, maybe. But LN characters can be every bit as dedicated and passionate to LN as a would-be Paladin to LG. LN is dedicated to law, balance, fairness, etc. I play many, many LN characters, and could easily see a Lawkeeper-type class being the LN version of a Paladin.

But, I would probably go with a different name for something paladin-like that wasn't outright Good-aligned.

It sounds like they are not interested in making decisions, and just want to play whatever comes their way. It sounds like you need to railroad them, but I don't like using that term; to me, "railroading" has a negative quality, such as forcing the players down a particular path despite them having other intentions. I've been in railroaded games, where the players wound up playing completely against the DM; we would outright refuse the direction he was sending us, and somehow via deus ex machina, we wound up being shoved down that path regardless.

OP's situation does not sound like that; it they are giving zero input, not even objections, then they are literally sitting around waiting for adventure to fall into their lap. This is NOT a bad thing. You have a captive audience; give them a show and get the ball rolling.

So, like others have said, whittle it down to one option, maybe two quest options if they're feeling antsy. I've only rarely encountered groups like this, but I've always found that they just want to play, and are usually pretty happy to play whatever I throw at them. If they suck at making decisions, make them make fewer decisions.

A group like this is practically begging for an AP or module, where all of the thinking is already done for them.

Tinkergoth wrote:

I don't understand the whole no smokers thing. I mean I don't smoke (I rarely used to, but haven't at all for a few years now), nor do most of my friends, but a few of the guys do and it honestly has no bearing whatsoever on their ability to join in on the gaming groups. Hell, they're some of my favourite people to play with.

It's not like they're lighting up in the house or anything, we just take a break every now and then for them to wander outside for a smoke, and I go with them for conversation and to stretch my legs...

Smokers stink.

I'm the only non-smoker in my group. So, no smoke breaks. They just smoke at the game table. Which, since it's at their house, is completely their right, and I don't say anything. I've been around smoking most of my life, so I just ignore it.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

That applies to its real meaning. Not its meaning in MMOs (unless it's literally just referencing how MMOs are technically animated).

Well, etymology-wise, "toon" in MMOs comes from "toon" as short for cartoon. :)

The folk-etymology is that the usage was inspired by the cartoonish nature of WoW animation. I don't know if anyone's actually researched it.

That's where I heard it mostly. I've played several MMO's, and WoW players seem to be the only one that uses the term with any regularity. I played Ultima Online, Phantasy Star Online, multiple WoW clones, and spent at least 6 years playing Final Fantasy XI: Online. I only heard the term "toon" used a few times, while playing FFXI, and even then, the person who said it got harassed by other players for using it. It would seem even among the MMO community, "toon" is relegated to WoW mostly, and has negative connotations.

I personally dislike the term. To me "toons" are the animated characters in Who Framed Roger Rabbit. I tend to not use MMO terms as I do not, nor have I ever, played MMOs. In fact, I don't even use the term PC outside of the boards. When talking amongst my group I will say "the party" or refer to the characters by name. It does irk me a bit when people use MMO terms, but I grin and bare it. I know it is something stupid to get worked up about, so I just roll with it, using my own preferred terminology while allowing others to use theirs.

^^This. I played MMO's for many years, and I never used the term "toon." It sounds childish and demeaning. "Toon" always makes me think of "Who framed Roger Rabbit." We'd use terms like "main" for our main character/account, "mule" for an extra character who's only purpose was to carry gear, do menial tasks, etc.

I'll sometimes use some MMO terms when talking about TTRPG's, if the topic justifies it. If I'm talking about a character whose focus is defense, and taking hits for the party, I'll refer to them as a "tank." Even then, I try to keep it in the right context so that even non-MMO players can get the gist of what I'm saying.

Use the proper term in the proper context. If you are unsure of what the proper term is; ask around.

Sissyl wrote:

And the fact that some DMs claim to have done it exceedingly well doesn't mean that all who claim to have done so really managed to.

This is true, but I would generally tend to accept the word of the players who were happy with DMPCs in campaigns in which they played but did not DM/GM.

Absolutely. The only "bragging rights" I share from my positive uses of DMPC's, I only share because the players gave me very positive feedback. My friends and I(especially that particular gaming group at the time) are brutally honest; if you're doing wrong, or being a jerk, we'll call you out on the spot. If you're running something badly in a game(like a "bad" DMPC), you'll find out our opinion pretty fast.

These are the players who, when I was DM, came to me and asked me to keep a few npc's around full-time. Every npc in my games have a personality and a story(available on request, never as a monologue), and sometimes the players enjoy having a npc around. Several notable characters in my games started out as no-name npc's whom the players wanted to keep around and learn more about.

Maybe I don't run DMPC's. Maybe I've just run npc hirelings with a little more personality. It's very possible I've just been using the wrong terminology; every DMPC I've run has been relegated to support roles only, always expendable, lowest on the totem pole as far as loot and resources, and are always removed when their purpose is finished.

The whole group needs to be having a good time; players and DM. The game is in trouble if either side isn't having fun. If either side is not enjoying themselves, then the game loses steam and slows to a crawl. It feels more like clocking in at a job, than a pastime meant for fun and socializing.

I've ran several games as DM, that the players were enjoying, but for one reason or another, I simply wasn't. I'd keep going and try to push through it, but after many more sessions, if I was still not feeling it, I'd give the campaign up right then and there. If it was a published module, I'd even give the module to the group so that they can continue if they wanted.

I think a lot of times, the players forget that the DM is also playing the game, and has just as much right to a good time as they do. I've seen players argue and bicker with DM's, and make unreasonable demands to facilitate their fun, all flying in the face of what the DM is trying to present, without a thought given to the repercussions to the game at large.

It sounds stupidly simple, but I've seen it happen far too many times. Players and the DM need to discuss before the game begins, what kind of game they will/would like to be playing.

Don't tell me it's an open sandbox, and then railroad the party every session. On that same note; don't tell me there's a big, deep story going on, and then every session winds up being 3+ hours of "Uh, so now what are you guys doing?" "We go here." "Okay." *rolls some dice*. "Okay, now what are you doing?"

If a race isn't allowed, say so from the start. If it's going to be a seafaring campaign, say so. I really don't get why so many players and DM's feel the need to blindside the rest of the table. The game's more fun when we're all on the same page!

Josh M. wrote:

Now, I have the freedom to say "Well, too bad. I made a Barbarian." But, then I sound like the entitled a-hole. It's just sort of been a courtesy, that if you join an already established group, you help shore up what the group is missing. It's never been a codified rule, but heavily implied.

Ridiculous that the others get to play what they want simply because they came along first. You could just as easily say, "Hey ... you guys have done what you wanted until now. One of you needs to play a divine caster now while I get into my hottie elven ninja wench."

You only sound like "the entitled a-hole" if you've bought into the BS party line that says, "Eff you, newb. Pay your dues." This ain't your new job, dude. It's supposed to be fun—the maximum fun you can have.

Next time, say, "Well, I'm playing a barbarian, but it looks to me as if you could use a divine caster," glance significantly at the DM, and expect him to do his damned job—which is to facilitate EVERYONE's fun by providing, in some fashion (either GMPC, or, for the obdurate paranoids who think such is impossible, a serviceable NPC), what the party requires.

I don't necessarily disagree, but at the same time, I believe in the group collaborating on things like character roles, to ensure that the group is strong and that we can all work together better.

Like I said above, it's not a hard and fast rule that the new player "pay their dues." It's just suggested that if they didn't already have a character concept they were really into, that they are welcomed to help out and cover a role not presently filled. This isn't always just being the party "heal bot." There have been times where we needed a melee brute, or we needed serious arcane spellcasting, etc.

I have to admit, a big part of my initial gripe about usually covering the party support role, comes from my inherent need to prioritize party support. I apologize if my initial post made it look like my group was deciding what other people played, etc.

Bringing it back to the topic at hand, it'd be nice if more DM's were willing to either run a full-time healer npc/dmpc, or allow more cohorts to cover support roles more often. I took the Leadership feat once many years ago, and made my cohort a Cleric, and some players thought it was a cheap move to get free healing. I explained that since nobody wants to be the Cleric, that I took the feat to cover our butts and make my main character whatever I wanted.

Josh M. wrote:

...I've lost count of the times I wound up playing some kind of healer/support simply because the party needed it, even though I didn't really want to play that. I tend to join already established campaigns, and by that point, everyone's jumped on the fun roles, and all that's left is the cleanup patrol(healer/buffer).

Josh M., you should never have to do this. Any group that requires it of you, rather than requesting it and respecting your choice, consists of self-entitled a$$holes.

This is in some measure an outgrowth of the Adventure Path preponderance. We have to have "a divine caster, an arcane caster, a face, a couple of meat shields, a distance damage doer, etc. blah fu<kin' blah." What a crock. You have to have what you want to play. Then the DM does his freakin' job and rounds out the party as necessary.

The idea that GMPCs are inherently bad has been comprehensively refuted in this thread. If certain posters won't accept that, well ... pearls and swine.

I've never been required to play the support role, but it's just sort of a manners thing;

Me: Hey guys, who are your characters so far?

Group: Well, we have a melee brute, a Wizard, and a skill monkey/stealthy guy. We could really use some kind of healing or support though.

Now, I have the freedom to say "Well, too bad. I made a Barbarian." But, then I sound like the entitled a-hole. It's just sort of been a courtesy, that if you join an already established group, you help shore up what the group is missing. It's never been a codified rule, but heavily implied.

On the other hand, I've played that "Barbarian" before; group needed divine support, I didn't bring that support, and we get slaughtered down the road.

It doesn't even need to be divine; I was in a group that got devastated by a single flying enemy, because NOBODY had a ranged weapon. Nobody. Spellcasters had one or two ranged spells, but everyone else assumed someone else was going to cover ranged. Since then, I have a subconscious compulsion to prioritize group support when I roll up a character.

Sure, it was an isolated incident, and just dumb luck and poor communication, but it stuck with me.

I've used DMPC's when I DM'ed a few times. Usually when it was a small group(2 or 3 players) who didn't want to play multiple characters themselves. Other times, it was just a means of helping the story along, or having a helper shore up the party's weaknesses; one group of PC's were all arcane spellcasters at level 1, so I had a meat shield accompany them until they didn't need him anymore.

In any case, I will use DMPC's if the game calls for it, if the players ask for assistance(better than a hireling), etc. My DMPC's always take care to stay out of the spotlight, play super-support roles, and are always expendable. They pick loot last, after the PC's have taken what they wanted, etc. They are strictly SUPPORT, and only exist if the PC's want the help.

That said, I have seen some terrible DMPC's. I've played a few games that fit all of the classic bad tropes; where the DMPC was the most powerful party member, had the best loot, always took the lead, always hogged the spotlight, etc. I've had plenty of examples played out to get a good idea of what not to do.

chaoseffect wrote:

Zhayne wrote:

Experience Points

They serve no useful purpose, other than as a pacing mechanism. The acquisition of experience points itself does not, in any way, make a character improve; a level 1 PC who gains 500 XP has not changed.

I agree 100% with this. I've never actually played long with a DM that insisted on players tracking experience, but to me it just helped to kill immersion.

LOL, I dropped XP so long ago I forgot to mention it. Its not that I HATE XP... just think its useless and tends to skew the game play. it encourages players to skip things because they dont provide XP or go out of their way to kill stuff purely for the XP bump.

I think I'm going to(try to) drop XP in the next game I run. My Star Wars Saga group plays this way, with the GM having us level up after adventures/missions, and it's working out great. Nobody is worried about needing X more points to level, doing minor crap to squeeze out more xp. We just play and leveling happens on it's own. Really helps immersion.

My PF group is hard-tied to XP, though. I barely mentioned the idea of forgoing xp and half of them flipped out on me. I think they like seeing exactly how far until they level up again. Sort of like scoring points in a video game, or something.

Josh M. wrote:

I'm not trying to argue, but I'm just not getting your analogy at all.

My point is just that it is a fallacy to assume a 400 page book will contain options of a purely uniform power level.

Which options are bad is a complicated question. How the game designers regulate how good options get, and how bad options get is also complicated.

But saying 'Buff the bad ones till they're all balanced' does not really work the way one might think it would work.

I get that, and I agree. But there should be some kind of standard, or at least a more stringent one for certain power levels of things.

For example, Traits. Traits utterly baffle me with how across the power spectrum they are. Some traits are as weak as one situational bonus to maybe 1 or 2 skills in certain situations, while other grant the player an extra attack. It's nuts.