Unless you're a dirty minmaxing munchin DPR Schroedinger roll-player, playing a Commoner is just fine. My commoner always contributes to the party. He carries extra supplies from 1st level through 20th level, and he can do it all day long. When there are monsters to kill, he has barbarians and fighters and wizards in the party to do that. When there are other situations to handle, he has casters to deal with those, too. Because it's a TEAM game.
All these threads about "fixing the Commoner" are making me angry, because the Commoner is just fine, and those people are all theorycrafting or else just playing wrong. Their GM should fix whatever "problems" they claim to be experiencing, because I don't see them. And we all know that tinkering with the rules to try and fix them will inevitably bring about 4e.
But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about your belief that the GM has an obligation to sacrifice her/his fun to accomodate a single player.
"Oh, woe is me, someone wants to play their own idea for their own character, instead of mine! Now all of my fun is RUINED RUINED RUINED! Because I can only have fun if everyone does exactly what I tell them, like the good little slave robots they're supposed to be!"
If even considering permitting a non-standard race results in the inevitable destruction of all of your fun, I'd say your idea of "fun" is restrictive enough that you're maybe better off not playing with others at all, much less DMing them.
Say the bad guy crosses the street to go murder some kids. The paladin can't find a crosswalk, so he jaywalks in pursuit. He has knowingly and willingly broken a law and committed a chaotic act. Does the DM take away all his powers? I say yes. Or does "has to be lawful" just mean you write it on the sheet, but ignore it when convenient?
The only rolls a player should make are to hits, damage and of course saves directed from outside the party.
Yeah, and not using the purple, red, or blue dice! Only the green ones. And don't let them make decisions, either, or else they get uppity. If players don't get to make decisions, they can't metagame! In fact, they shouldn't even be talking. A good DM will just type up the entire adventure in advance and hand out the transcripts; then the players can sit there quitely and read them, and you'll have no problems with them that way.
Yeah, but you should be using that loose change to buy food. If you've got any loose change left, you don't need my tax dollars!
Unless you're hungry enough to EAT the loose change as soon as it gets into your hand -- to supplement your usual daily alotment of dirt -- then you're nowhere CLOSE to being needy enough to deserve my tax dollars!
Sanakht Inaros wrote:
And what crime was Martin involved in that required Zimmerman to chase him down and confront him?
He was breaking the imaginary curfew AND wearing a hoodie -- obviously he was up to no good. Possession of skittles doesn't look too good, either. Of course, we are all assured that it had nothing at all to do with Martin being (a) a teenager and/or (b) an African American, or with (c) Zimmerman being something of a paranoid delusional.
If somebody aggressively grabbed me at night I would fight back without even thinking.
Well, you're obviously a thug, then! And if you're wearing a hoodie, you should be shot on general principle, because obviously no Law-Abiding Decent Folk (TM) would do so!
Did you know that Obama is a servant of the Rockefellers, who are actually disguised reptilian aliens from the Draco constellation, and who are suppressing magic energy sources revealed to us by other ("good") aliens in crop circles (and subsequently re-discovered by Tesla), in a bid to cement their plan for world domination? I learned all about that in a movie called Thrive. It makes as much sense as the Fox News "Liberal Islamic Communist One-World Conspiracy," but with a better soundtrack.
Yeah, it was probably me not paying attention.
In your defense, that jerkwad Kirth keeps changing the rules when he finds problems with the old ones. Look at this thread -- it's 8 pages of him saying "Boo-hoo, this doesn't work quite right, I need to fix it, woe is me." The whole thing is sickening.
Charlie Brooks wrote:
Among the many, many problems that the United States faces, I find it quite a shame that people associate Fox News with political conservatism. That's the equivalent of associating the Westboro Baptist Church with Christianity.
C'mon, boys! Looks like we got us a RINO here! Let's string him up!!!
Fox News' ratings clearly indicate that it is not, in any way, appealing only to "fringe" extremists. Rather, it represents the main position of neocons in the U.S. If you find Fox News to be wacky, odds are you're a lot less "conservative" than you think. Hell, I was a registered Republican and proud paleocon until sometime in the 1990s. My views haven't changed much, but the U.S. political scene has shifted so far right that those same views are now considered "liberal."