pres man's page

Milk?

Yeah here's the thing and this is pretty cut and dry.

If youre a guest in someone's home? Follow the rules of that home. Especially if they were laid out in advance.

I dont know about the rest of you but rolling up in my house and just helping yourself to my food and drink after being told NOT TO is cause alone for getting the boot. It's not overreacting. It's' just damn RUDE.

If they ask you not to curse and you're like "what's the big deal we're all adults"? The big deal is that they dont like cursing or being subjected to cursing. You, being a guest in THIER HOME dont get to dictate to them what's cool and what's not. If you feel the need to curse despite then then you can GTFO.

Also if youre partaking of the food and snacks and not paying your share CONSISTENTLY then youre a leech. If you know when you go to a game that people chip in for snacks and you've been attending this game for the better part of a year? Unless there's a financial hardship? You need to make sure that you have money in your wallet to contribute. Missing it every now and then is totally understandable. Everyone has that time where youre strapped for cash or forgot to hit up the ATM before the game. But if it's consistent? youre being a leech and a jerk.

But it did better than The Dictator (good for it) and came in behind The Avengers (impressive in my opinion). That's not bad at all. In fact, that's damn good when you look at it in that context. I'll take a cheesy sci-fi flick based on a board game over anything Sacha Baron Cohen does any day.

Fantastic movie overall... One of the best movies I've seen in quite a while. No gore, no foul language, no nudity; Just good clean fun (like a Star Wars!). You can bring your kids and the whole family will have a blast with this film.

The ONLY part I would change:

I've seen it in 3-D and think that it wasn't necessary. It's like Thor 3-D, not Avatar 3-D, so...

I can't wait for more films in this series.

(Now if DC can wake up and start thinking of a Justice League)

Ultradan

...exotic weapons aren't supposed to be better, they're supposed to be different?

Let me make this as clear as I can. I think Zimmerman should be taking the short bus to school. Not only did he ignore the dispatcher telling him that he didn't need to follow Martin, he also failed to get a good lawyer -immediately- in a case involving someone's death.

I think the police are not so much corrupt as keystone. I'd be embarrassed to have any connection to them.

I think Martin was a typical 17 year old - young, dumb, and full of cum and he should have just left the area after he lost Zimmerman.

But, stupidity is not a crime. None of these reasons by themselves is enough to convict anyone.

What I'm puzzled about in the video is why Zimmerman is in cuffs. If he wasn't formally charged and is just being brought in for questioning, the cuffs don't make sense.

No blood on his shirt.

To be more precise, no visible blood on a red jacket which covered his shirt in a low quality video

A witness heard the shot and saw Zimmerman get off of Trayvon and didn't see any blood. She tried to tell the police but they wouldn't even take her statement.

do you have a link for this?

If his nose was broken it would be easy to prove it.

It would be easy to prove - with medical records, not a grainy video.

Battle Axes, for some odd reason.

Hammers, chisels, and Pick Axes, because Dwarves are miners.

Does anyone notice the pattern here? DM’s saying “well, I run a DMPC and my players love it!”. No Players saying “My DM runs a DMPC and we love it!”. Like I said- your players will not tell you they don’t like your DMPC.

(PS, I agree with Blueluck, etc, in that a small game, like with just two players who rotate playing/DMing is a special case)

I see what you mean, but it's not always the case. I've had players recruit npc's into the party multiple times, and even in normal-to-large sized parties, I've had players actually ask me to roll them up a npc to help out, when things are getting rough.

Case in point, in my last Ravenloft group, everyone rolled up a different manner of spellcaster/magic flinging person. The group could blast their way out of any trouble, but if an enemy came within melee distance they were in for it. After getting beat down a few times, they asked for a tank/meat shield to take some of the heat. I happily obliged them a Knight, which took "agro" from the front lines, so they could all get back and use their magics freely.

I encourage my players to play the characters they really want to play, not what the party "needs." In this case, everyone made a spellcaster, and it made for an interesting party dynamic. When needed, dmpc's can help take up the slack so the players can shine and do what they enjoy doing.

I enjoy role playing training as well... But to be fair every new feat, skill, or ability should be trained NOT just the class dipped ones. So the fighter going to level 2 should be taking time off to learn his new feat and skills. I mean if your fighter can say "Wow I suddenly know how to speak elvish and cleave two opponents!" Then why couldn't the new rogue say "Hey I am suddenly able to sneak around and stab people when they aren't paying attention!" Training if you decide to use it should be universal. And then you would need an instructor and time off for any class. The best feature of requiring a trainer is the ease with which you can restrict PrCs.

It seems to me both sides of the argument on this issue are just worried about the erosion of their point of view and thus argue overzealously in order to make sure the 'public opinion' doesnt slip any further one way or the other. The reality is pretty much everyone here agrees, dms can make rules and rulings as they see fit but they should not abuse that privaledge.

I do however believe the sense of entitlement runs both ways, dms and players suffer from it, usually because the screen stays on one side of you. I think that is a pretty terrible mistake made by many gaming groups. If you want to be a good dm or a good player you should spend at least a handful of gaming sessions on the 'other side' every year, just to remind you of the other perspective. Sit too long on either side and the quality of your experience and those around you will drop.

The only thing I would actually argue against that has been stated in this thread is the 'supply and demand' theory or 'I have been dming x years and never had a shortage of play so obviously I am doing it right'. That is a pure fallacy. I have not played in your games ofcourse, so I have no idea if it is fun by mine or anyone else's standards, but the simple fact that there are people at it does not mean it is objectively a good game.

A starving man will eat dog food but that does not make it a good meal for him. If a player doesnt have another option(or thinks he doesnt have another option) he may stay with your game even if he is unhappy for the social aspect. The only game in town syndrom can happen in a gamming group even if you are not in fact the only game in town. Friendships, social restraints, schedules and the cliquish nature of our hobby can easily prevent people from seeking out new games even if they are present for the taking.

Again I dont know if your game is good or bad, it may be the best game ever run by anyone in history, but the simple fact that you have always had players does not mean it is a good game.

The Laws of D&D:
Rule -1: There isn't a game without players
Rule 0: The DM is always right.
Rule 1: The rules were written for a reason. Ignoring them wasn't it.

Well, that post got away from me a little but my acutal point here is, rule 0 is an important rule, no-one denys that, but it can lead to people feeling victimised if it isn't handled carefully. With great power... yadda yadda. Try too look at things from your players perspectives, no-one likes having the rules changed from what they expected without warning.

my lawn my rules...

No, it's not your lawn. The GM doesn't own the game and graciously allow the players to participate. It's everyone's game.

If the demand (the player's wishes) don't match... well; seems that player will not be playing with me for that scenario. If I don't get enough players, my offer obviously wasn't good enough.

Players seem to shape up real quick when they realize there dispensable.

These are both examples of an obnoxious and sadly common attitude. The relationship between the GM and player should be a give and take. Being the GM doesn't give you the right to tell people "My way or the highway." Sometimes, it's necessary to tell a problem player that, but telling someone to get lost just because they had a somewhat different idea about a rule or a different idea about what sort of game to play is over the line.

The problem seems to be more culture. like not respecting your elders, talking back to your parents, drinking from the milk jug etc. Seems youths today in general (not including everyone)just feel there entitled to everything.

DAMN YOU KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN!

So imagine my disbelief when a player started to rant and rave about the 'fallacy' of rule zero. That any GM that doesn't go by the rules perfectly is an idiot.

No, that's not it at all. GMs can and absolutely should adapt the rules to their game as needed.

The fallacy is the Oberoni fallacy. The Oberoni fallacy is that a broken rule is no less broken because the GM can fix it. It's only relevant when you're criticizing a badly-designed game, subsystem, or rule.

If you don't agree, feel free to stick to Rule minus one: No one forces you to play at my table.

The flipside of this rule is that powertripping GMs only get to play with themselves, mind.

My example was simply a case where the most obtimal choice made no sence from a RP perspective, and the most logical RP choice, (picking something like goblins, which we have fought lots of, but the bonus against them was all but useless) was sub-optimal

Once again, the choice you made was not a roleplaying choice, it was a mechanical choice.

You are correct that is was probably the sub-optimal choice, but it wasn't "good roleplaying", nor is it "bad roleplaying", it isn't roleplaying at all.

You made the sub-optimal choice because you apparently seem to think that good roleplaying occurs when you do the math of levelling up your character.

Picking goblins as a favored enemy isn't roleplaying. How your character reacts and deals with goblins is.

Your character could hate (HATE HATE HATE) goblins without goblins being a favored enemy. Favored enemy is just a mechanic, it doesn't need to define the personality and experiences of your character. You get to do that.

Maybe your character goes nuts every time he sees a goblin, and goes out of his way to hunt and kill goblins, and his voice gets shaky and his face goes red when talking about them.

Maybe your character has derogatory terms he uses in regards to goblins, or uses the term "goblin" as a derogatory term. "You stink like a goblin Bob.", or the more violent, "Bob, when you don't bathe, it makes me want to gut you like a goblin!"

Whatever attitude your character has towards goblins, that's roleplaying.

Getting +2 to hit and damage against goblins is absolutely not roleplaying.

In addition, getting +2 to hit and damage against golems when you've never fought a golem isn't bad roleplaying either. Maybe it's just an affinity, nothing wrong or unrealistic about natural affinity. It's no different than a Ranger's Ref save going up, even if he's never made a Ref save before, it's just mechanics.

For a cheap raptor mini that is way better than a paper clip, got to your local toy store and buy one of those dollar tubes of dinosaur toys.

I removed a post. Please do not use "rape" that way.