I don't think the player sounds "dumb" at all. Has anyone in defense of the player considered that he intentionally destroyed a magic item in his forge, at the same time he worked on his weapon for a reason? Maybe, if anything, the player is upset that he destroyed an item of a certain value and all he got was a whistling effect that called rats that didn't do anything. Now, he's intending to channel a lot of magic through his weapon, that has magic in it now due to the pipes, of a certain type lightning and fire, because he WANTS it to have one of thoses elemental effects. Sounds like players I've seen in the past that will try and come up such interesting, creative, RP use of powers to bypass the necessity for certain abilities, like the item creation feats.
I am all about RAW, and I agree with the DM on this one. He gave the players an item of a certain value, to keep them in line with wealth by level (giving the benefit of the doubt here), and one player decided to destroy it. Not the DM's fault. Once the DM awards treasure, what the players do to use or waste it is up to them. If you give the fighter +2 scale and he wanted +1, summoned plate so decides to throw the +2 into lava. Oh, well he just threw away (I think) 4k gp of treasure. Giving his weapon a creative effect, of no numerical value is more than I would have given him. He chose to destroy it, not me. If he then gets a diff random effect, by channeling a full complement of destructive spells through a weapon in a wild magic zone, I may just have it do wild effects, or melt to slag. But no matter what I wouldn't give a numerical benefit as nothing implies that using magic on items without item creation gives anything, a story effect might still be fun though.
As long as the player has been made aware of everything his PC should know based on appropriate knowledge checks (or in the absence of such, assume a take-10) for magic weapons, wild magic zones, etc, I think the OP is doing ok. I'm usually pretty strict on RAW, and I don't like free-form house ruling. But if you guys hashed out the consequences and the player decided "Yeah, my PC knows it's risky, but that's what he'd do," then kudos all around, good RP.
Also i like the whole idea, Making magic items should be dangerous and I like the idea of a sword being tainted, If the player has a problem with that, well get over it.
For the record, making magic items is already dangerous. That's how cursed items come into play, and PF has codified exactly how that happens.
Personally, I'd email the story over to Jolly R. Blackburn. This has got Knights of the Dinner Table material written all over it.
Let me get this straight...
Player didn't want X. Player disposed of X, sacrificing its resale value. DM decided part of X isn't disposed of. Player still doesn't want X. DM decided getting rid of X requires a side-quest. Player doesn't want a side-quest and disposes of X again, sacrificing a day's worth of his character's abilities. DM posts on the Internet that player is dumb.
You have got to be kidding here.
Look, there's taking character actions and using them as seeds for plot hooks and events. That's a good thing. Then there's taking your player's choices and saying "that didn't work". Repeatedly. That's a bad thing.
I've got a DM rule. The players decide what is fun. I'm providing a platform, an environment, a framework for my players to play with. If they're not having fun, I'm wasting my time. Yes, absolutely it's important that I have fun too, but if my players don't want what I'm creating, the whole enterprise is fundamentally flawed. I come last. When you apply flavor onto a PC, you are always on shaky ground. You can kill them, maim them, imprison them, and even nerf them, but there are consequences to changing their eye-colour. Be careful and let flavor be chosen.
Your player is telling you what he wants. Bloody stop screwing with the character and give it to him. It's not like he's asking for anything that's against the rules or even the spirit of the rules. Stop looking for angles and justifications and inspirations that let you say "no, that didn't work". Find ways to enable your player's character. "Yes, that was a clever use of an ability."
So the spells were cast somewhere that things go awry. GREAT. Instead of breaking or destroying the sword, they purge the bull-crap YOU attached as a penalty to it. Awesome. There's your awry.
I'm - as you can tell - with all of the people telling you your player isn't dumb.
Let me get this straight...
Player didn't want X. Player disposed of X, sacrificing its resale value. DM decided part of X isn't disposed of. Player still doesn't want X. DM decided getting rid of X requires a side-quest. Player doesn't want a side-quest and disposes of X again, sacrificing a day's worth of his character's abilities. DM posts on the Internet that player is dumb.
You have got to be kidding here.
I thought the whole affair was bizarre from the onset as well.
|
I don't think the player is necessarily dumb. Perhaps a bit stubborn...you repeatedly told him the correct way to deal with the (non) problem and he did other things. But at the same time, I find absolutely nothing wrong with what you did either. Hell, if I was the player, I'd be happy to have such a unique item that I could claim that I created myself. I like my characters to have quirks, and having a sword of dancing rats would defiantly qualify as a bit of a quirk.
A Fighter/Sorcerer fought a Wererat and took its Pipes of the Sewers.
The PC, Judging that the Pipes were EVIL, burnt the Pipes in his forge while working on his sword. (double checked w/ the player that he didn't just burn them, but burnt them while he was actively working on his weapon). I Thought this was dumb, and that, at some point, there would be an effect of this.
What makes it dumb? There are currently no rules to say that magic items have any consequences to their destruction except a rare few specific ones. Would you have thought the same thing if the fighter's sword was struck with a shatter spell? What about if a scroll was torn apart by high winds? Those are also magic items being destroyed.
A bit later, the PC acquired a function to throw their sword and do damage to all creatures in a line (like a ray). Well, at that point, just for grins, I decided that since he'd burned the pipes of the sewers while working on the sword, 25% of the time when he threw the sword like this, it would whistle and attract local mice and rats to the area, ie a bit of the summoning power of the pipes got stuck in the sword sitting in the forge.
I don't think this is over the top and, personally, I like when magic items have more flavor than "+1." I wouldn't have gone this route but it seems annoying but not hindering.
The Player decided he didn't like this, and the PC started asking around trying to figure out how to get this latent magic of of this blade. He was told there was an anvil that could be used to get the magic out (which I'd read about in the RPG Superstar and really liked).
Did the anvil seem like it was too far or difficult to get to in a timely manner?
But the PC became impatient and decided not to run off to where the anvil was. Being a sorcerer with a fire and lightning fetish, he decided that one morning, while doing his pushups and meditation readying for the day, he would BURN all his spell slots of the day as lightning and fire spells, and channel them thru his blade, burning the magic out.
You know, I might have just allowed this to have the intended effect, except the day he decided to do this, the party was standing in a clearing in a mountain range known for magic being disrupted, or having the "wild magic" trait, ie Spells Don't Work Right.
I triple checked. Yes, he was doing this, in this place, now.
What would you do, as a DM?
At this point, since he knows that the area can cause spells to go awry, something should happen. I would just use a Wild Magic Table I find online that suits my campaign. I would also be wary of screwing him over at this point. It was you as DM who put him in this predicament by changing the rules on a whim. Regardless of how harmless the effect was, he is now in a position of having to second guess his actions as player because a level of trust has been broken.
I think what you did sounds fine from a story perspective and I don't see any harm done. Keep in mind that arbitrarily changing the rules to suit your desires as DM makes it hard for the players to want to continue in the campaign. They won't know what they can and can't do if there is no consistency.
Here is my recommendation on what to do, if it is not too late to use the wild magic area.
1st off, let him win. He doesn't want the effect, it's a totally minor/fluff effect, and he is about to hose himself my blowing out all of his spells through the sword. (how is he doing this, by the way?)
Normally I would not allow this to work, but since it is a wild magic area I will, but I would do it something like this:
Let him waste a few spells, to keep in line with the wildness of magic, don't let it happen on the first time or it will be obvious. Don't making him burn through all of his spells. I say a max of two or three. After determining the first few spells, do whatever you do for determining the random effect, but then ignore the results. Have him succeed instead. Depending on which spell he uses on this attempt or the result of the random magic check, have a visual manifestation happen that gives him proof that he succeeded.
So if he used lightning bolt, have lightning spew out of the sword and hit the ground, and then a large lightning elemental like dire rat shape appears there, the flute sound starts eliminating from it, then it dissipates. The effect is now gone. If he continues blasting spells through it, that's his problem, but if he tries to determine if the spell is still there give him an easy spell craft check to determine it is gone.
Problem solved, everyone is happy. (well, at least the pc is, not sure what those first few random magic spells did...)
Alternatively the rat thing that comes out can stay, and it can be a living spell, or treat it as a dire rat with special abilities depending on what spells gave it life. The pcs could fight it (maybe giving that player a bit more satisfaction to defeating the "evil" spell, or it perhaps is thankful to being given life and wants to help the PCs by doing a favor. Be careful of this though, as the player may associate his anger now to the magical rat npc.
Hopefully this helps, he could always go the remove curse, wish, break enchantment, miracle, ect route too.
|
Okay the first part wasn't dumb...burning the pipes while working on the sword as written has no odd effects by RAW and if you were gonna houserule that destoryed magical items have residual effects you should have said so clealy from the start.
The second part of his plan to dump his spell in a wild magic zone IS BLOODY STUPID AND DESERVES DEATH. Now if he waits til he out of the clearing, having it work or not is up to you.
|
Wait just a minute. He enchanted his own sword? And presumably succeeded on the necessary checks to do so? And you decided to screw him over by arbitrarily cursing his sword?
SHAME ON YOU!
The flavor of what you are trying to do is nothing short of awesome, but you've crossed the line when you broke the rules in order to ruin a player's fun.
Heaven forbid that a GM actually work with the circumstances presented by the player to make things interesting.
Having the game entirely decided upon by mere dice rolls = lame.
Bravo to the OP for actually coming up with a flavorful side effect that apparently has no real mechanical consequences, just RP ones.
....
What? No mechanical consequences? He tries to throw his weapon - a pain in the ass thing to specialize in - and it summons rat swarms. Why? The DM thought it was funny. So he wants to get rid of it. Of course he tries to do it in a dumb way, but the DM is already screwing with him so it doesn't really matter.
If the DM warns you, and you do it anyway, it's your fault.
If the DM doesn't warn you, I see your point. If the DM says "Are you sure you want to do that near the wild magic area, and you do it, your fault.
We have a running joke in our game stemming from a game long ago where a player got into an argument with the DM about what he could and could not do, and apparently that person would not let it go.
So the DM had the hills attack. Literally. He told them to roll initiative, and the hills attacked.
So whenever someone is getting squirrelly at the table, this comes up as a warning to settle down and remember that the DM is driving the bus and we are the passengers along for the ride.
A good DM listens, tried to make it fun for his players, and takes suggestions. But if you don't listen to the DM warning...all bets are off.
Don't like it, run your own game.
If the DM warns you, and you do it anyway, it's your fault.
If the DM doesn't warn you, I see your point. If the DM says "Are you sure you want to do that near the wild magic area, and you do it, your fault.
Except it wasn't so much a warning as it was the GM telling the player how to play his character. Railroading of that nature would tick most anyone off. I'm not at all surprised the player made a point of going against the GM on this one. The GM was practically asking for it.
|
|
Except it wasn't so much a warning as it was the GM telling the player how to play his character. Railroading of that nature would tick most anyone off. I'm not at all surprised the player made a point of going against the GM on this one. The GM was practically asking for it.If the DM warns you, and you do it anyway, it's your fault.
If the DM doesn't warn you, I see your point. If the DM says "Are you sure you want to do that near the wild magic area, and you do it, your fault.
My understanding of events.
Player wants to destroy evil flute by burning in his forge. DM says "Are you doing that when you are working on your weapon?"
Smart player realizes his DM is warning him and says "No...somewhere else...later...not near my weapon..."
This player says "Yeah!". Consequences ensue...
Same player with same DM wants to work on same weapon in a wild magic area. DM says "Are you sure you want to work on that weapon in this area?"
Smart player remembers his DM has already punished him once for doing something dumb, and says "No...I meant later after we are out of the wild magic area, obviously..."
This player says "Yeah, in the wild magic zone. I ain't scared!"
Now if the DM doesn't warn him, I am with you. But he did warn him and the player did it anyway. Maybe this player has a low wisdom score in game and is roll playing it. I've both done that and had players in games I've run do dumb things intentionally because that is what the character would do.
The player made bad choices after being warned. Bad outcomes come from bad choices.
Ravingdork's absolutely right in this instance.
Just because it's not a mechanical penalty (-2 to attacks or something like that) doesn't mean it's not a penalty. There is such a thing as style, and a lot of characters will not like it when they're suddenly stalked by rats.
Plus, the GM seems to be overly elitist and condescending towards the player. Doesn't play by the books (such side effects are not in the book), but doesn't tell his players, either (nothing wrong with weird things like this, but the characters should know they live in a world like this, especially if one's a magesmith).
Either tell players stuff like this can happen (or allow them a check to realise it), or don't do it. Especially if you think the player wouldn't like it (and it seems that the player didn't.) A good GM knows his players and what they like and dislike, and tries to avoid things they dislike, and when misunderstandings result in people being pissed, it's the GM's job to fix it, taking *reasonable* steps. (Forcing them to "run off" and leave the party for a side-trek adventure isn't reasonable).
I'm kinda curious...is ANYONE defending the players attempt at dumping his magic in a wild magic zone as anything but utterly moronic?
Yeah the first part...the DM may have fudged that up a bit or not...but I'm honestly curious if anyone thinks that the second part is anything but pure idiocy.
Check my reply.
I'm kinda curious...is ANYONE defending the players attempt at dumping his magic in a wild magic zone as anything but utterly moronic?
Yeah the first part...the DM may have fudged that up a bit or not...but I'm honestly curious if anyone thinks that the second part is anything but pure idiocy.
Really, it depends on the nature of Wild Magic in this particular game-world, how common it is and how well-known this area is for being a Wild Magic-type place.
If it is common knowledge that truly horrible things happen when people try to cast spells in this particular area... Well... That's kinda on the player. But, once again, if the OP just makes up Wild Magic effects on the spot, I still think this is pretty poor behavior because if it is Wild, it may not always be negative. It could be neutral (rats turn purple) or even positive (caster gains a nifty and unique rat "familiar"). That is why having a specific table of effects that is rolled on is the best way to handle it.
|
|
I don't think the player sounds "dumb" at all. Has anyone in defense of the player considered that he intentionally destroyed a magic item in his forge, at the same time he worked on his weapon for a reason? Maybe, if anything, the player is upset that he destroyed an item of a certain value and all he got was a whistling effect that called rats that didn't do anything.
I was going to say something along the lines of this. But the Aardvark beat me to it.
Either or, I really fail to see how OP has done anything wrong (except maybe misused the word "dumb"); God forbid a PC should suffer a negative experience during his ascent to King Victory in the Land of Nice Things Happening to PCs (which, I assume, is not the campaign setting OP is running).
I can think of a lot of items that are far, far worse than a 1/4 chance that rats/mice show up when you toss a sword end over end. And I can think of far worse ways to rid oneself of a curse than being clued in to the mystic forge on magic mountain. Ultimately I can think of far better ways to rid oneself of a curse than the method the PC in question seems to be considering. Seriously, are people really going so far as to say that since the player/character ostensibly feels annoyed by the consequences of his actions (which I feel are fair, all things considered), the DM has dome some terrible wrong?
Can we, for just one moment, please get off our ten-foot-high horses and maybe instead of assuming we understand how the group dynamic of people we've never met before is so obviously tantamount to our own personal experiences/peer groups, can we maybe just answer the guy's question instead of being hostile? Maybe kind of like how Jose did?
By the way, thanks Jose.
Now if you'll all excuse me whilst I dismount my ten-foot-high horse...
OP: I would just let the dice decide. Roll those wild magic rolls for each spell used in the zone, and come what may, for better or worse. Best case scenario, and nobody permanently turning into a tie-dye squirrel statuette, there's always that magic forge.
Rule of thumb, your DM says "Are you sure you want to do that? Really sure? In this place? In that way?" You either think again and asks the other players what they think you should do... Or you go ahead, but be ready to bend over, cause you had your chance and now the DM is going MWAHAHAHA!
Really, OP double checked with the player if he was going to burn a magical piece while reforging his sword, he had his warning. And trying to do what he tryed to do in a wild magic zone was just dumb, the other PCs should have dogpiled him and convinced him that it was a dumb idea.
A Fighter/Sorcerer fought a Wererat and took its Pipes of the Sewers.
The PC, Judging that the Pipes were EVIL, burnt the Pipes in his forge while working on his sword. (double checked w/ the player that he didn't just burn them, but burnt them while he was actively working on his weapon). I Thought this was dumb, and that, at some point, there would be an effect of this.
A bit later, the PC acquired a function to throw their sword and do damage to all creatures in a line (like a ray). Well, at that point, just for grins, I decided that since he'd burned the pipes of the sewers while working on the sword, 25% of the time when he threw the sword like this, it would whistle and attract local mice and rats to the area, ie a bit of the summoning power of the pipes got stuck in the sword sitting in the forge.
The Player decided he didn't like this, and the PC started asking around trying to figure out how to get this latent magic of of this blade. He was told there was an anvil that could be used to get the magic out (which I'd read about in the RPG Superstar and really liked).
But the PC became impatient and decided not to run off to where the anvil was. Being a sorcerer with a fire and lightning fetish, he decided that one morning, while doing his pushups and meditation readying for the day, he would BURN all his spell slots of the day as lightning and fire spells, and channel them thru his blade, burning the magic out.
You know, I might have just allowed this to have the intended effect, except the day he decided to do this, the party was standing in a clearing in a mountain range known for magic being disrupted, or having the "wild magic" trait, ie Spells Don't Work Right.
I triple checked. Yes, he was doing this, in this place, now.
What would you do, as a DM?
Well for a kick-off I'd have given the weapon a positive effect as well as a negative one - like making it a vermin-bane weapon or lycanthrope bane or something - or made it tempoary so it isn't constantly annoying. That could have mollified the player, in fact maybe it was what he was intending. I'm afraid I will call this one 'your bad'.
Burning out the magic? Plain silly. It feels like the player is trying to do things for random effects in the hope they will be beneficial. I advise against screwing him over (you already did that once), but at the same time you don't want to encourage this kind of behaviour. I would have it do nothing at all - metal is a conductor, so the lightning passes right through the weapon leaving it unchanged.
OK, 99% of this thread doesn`t seem like it`s actually productive for the OP`s actual situation
(as opposed to arguing whether he is WRONGWRONGWRONG in his general approach)
but I have one suggestion which might help with this player:
are you routinely rolling, or asking for, knowledge checks in areas his character would know about, e.g. being a spell caster with signifigant ranks in know arcana or spellcraft, presumably...? simply saying `from your studies, you know that magic is fluid and unpredictable, so standard practice is to isolate magic item crafting and destruction` you don`t have to spell out exactly what will happen, but phrase it in such a way that the player knows what his character`s assumptions of `common sense` would be in regards to these aspects.
obviously, with wild magic zones... i think however you go is fine.
i find the suggestions that you really REALLY need to restrict yourself to percentile tables of wild magic effects and not just make up stuff spontaneously pretty silly. rigourous charts don`t sound to `wild` to me. wierdly, AFAIK the `RAW` effect of what he did with fire and electricity spells to his weapon... would basically just be to destroy it... so unless the `badbadhorrible` wild magic effects you rule are now attached to the weapon include some curse that he can`t drop the weapon, he can always just destroy or throw away the weapon, i.e. what `normally`should have happened after what he did... even if it`s really wierd and wonky, if it`s benefits are enough that he doesn`t throw it away, it`s better than RAW effects of what he did to it.
But none of this should be about `punishing` the player for stupidity, if anything it`s obviously adding creativity into your game, which is a good thing, right?
That's a possibility ... do it like this - say to the player:
"OK, you are in a random magic area so the effect WILL be random, I will roll this D6 for all to see.
1 = you de-magic the sword, completely.
2 = it loses an ability or +1 at random.
3 = it loses the ability you want it to lose.
4 = nothing happens.
5 = it strengthens the ability you want it to lose.
6 = it gains a new ability, in this case Shocking because you are using electricity.
Do you want to roll or shall I?"
This gives 2/3 chance that it won't break the item at least, but he knows now what his odds are. He rolls, he has no-one else to blame.
We have a running joke in our game stemming from a game long ago where a player got into an argument with the DM about what he could and could not do, and apparently that person would not let it go.
So the DM had the hills attack. Literally. He told them to roll initiative, and the hills attacked.
And I wouldn't be coming back. The only thing I dislike more than people pulling arbitrary rules out of their ass is people people arbitrary rules out of their ass solely to spite people.
I'm kinda curious...is ANYONE defending the players attempt at dumping his magic in a wild magic zone as anything but utterly moronic?
Yeah the first part...the DM may have fudged that up a bit or not...but I'm honestly curious if anyone thinks that the second part is anything but pure idiocy.
I'm of two minds on it. On the one hand yeah it's not so smart. There is no reason "raw" to think this will work, and every reason to think it's just going to really make the situation worse.
On the "creative" story side though I agree that bending magic is easier in a wild magic field, and that if I was willing to take a big risk and do something odd that the wild magic field would possibly be the place to do it -- especially for a sorcerer with the more "wild" and "inituitive" grasp of magic.
|
|
And I wouldn't be coming back. The only thing I dislike more than people pulling arbitrary rules out of their ass is people people arbitrary rules out of their ass solely to spite people.We have a running joke in our game stemming from a game long ago where a player got into an argument with the DM about what he could and could not do, and apparently that person would not let it go.
So the DM had the hills attack. Literally. He told them to roll initiative, and the hills attacked.
Then our method of play works. Nothing more annoying at a table than a rules lawyer who wants the power of the DM without the responsibility.
I can't tell if you're joking or not.Wait just a minute. He enchanted his own sword? And presumably succeeded on the necessary checks to do so? And you decided to screw him over by arbitrarily cursing his sword?
SHAME ON YOU!
The flavor of what you are trying to do is nothing short of awesome, but you've crossed the line when you broke the rules in order to ruin a player's fun.
I'm really not. If a GM did this to me I would be royally pissed. It's nothing short of turning my own item creation feats against me.
The GM's only saving grace is IF the player botched his magic item creation skill check and produced a cursed item. If that's not the case, then this is absolutely a case of a GM treating a player unfairly for the sake of his "story hour."
And then starting a thread asking for advice on how to further screw the player once he understandably tries to desperately fix his sword as as soon as possible?
Bad frikkin' form I say!
SHAME!
It's an RPG. The GM can bend, twist or break the rules, especially if it adds a strong roleplaying element--not just based on a malicious and arbitrary whim.
Besides, the PC essentially corrupted his enchantment by releasing "evil" magic at the exact place and moment of the imbuing process. It'd be like building an adobe home out of radioactive dirt or baking a cake with flour that contained rat droppings; there would have to be consequences.
I can't tell if you're joking or not.Wait just a minute. He enchanted his own sword? And presumably succeeded on the necessary checks to do so? And you decided to screw him over by arbitrarily cursing his sword?
SHAME ON YOU!
The flavor of what you are trying to do is nothing short of awesome, but you've crossed the line when you broke the rules in order to ruin a player's fun.
I'm really not. If a GM did this to me I would be royally pissed. It's nothing short of turning my own item creation feats against me.
The GM's only saving grace is IF the player botched his magic item creation skill check and produced a cursed item. If that's not the case, then this is absolutely a case of a GM treating a player unfairly for the sake of his "story hour."
And then starting a thread asking for advice on how to further screw the player once he understandably tries to desperately fix his sword as as soon as possible?
Bad frikkin' form I say!
SHAME!
It's an RPG. The GM can bend, twist or break the rules, especially if it adds a strong roleplaying element--not just based on a malicious and arbitrary whim.
Besides, the PC essentially corrupted his enchantment by releasing "evil" magic at the exact place and moment of the imbuing process. It'd be like building an adobe home out of radioactive dirt or baking a cake with flour that contained rat droppings; there would have to be consequences.
Except the player wasn't making a magical item in any way shape or form.
Then our method of play works. Nothing more annoying at a table than a rules lawyer who wants the power of the DM without the responsibility.And I wouldn't be coming back. The only thing I dislike more than people pulling arbitrary rules out of their ass is people people arbitrary rules out of their ass solely to spite people.We have a running joke in our game stemming from a game long ago where a player got into an argument with the DM about what he could and could not do, and apparently that person would not let it go.
So the DM had the hills attack. Literally. He told them to roll initiative, and the hills attacked.
Perfectly fine with me. You have your game of jerks and I can go play with people who care about the rules or at least DMs who aren't actively try to screw over their players out of spite.
Besides, the PC essentially corrupted his enchantment by releasing "evil" magic at the exact place and moment of the imbuing process. It'd be like building an adobe home out of radioactive dirt or baking a cake with flour that contained rat droppings; there would have to be consequences.
Except (a)he wasn't enchanting anything and (b)it wasn't evil.
Except (a)he wasn't enchanting anything and (b)it wasn't evil.It was certainly magic, though.
So what?
|
|
So what?
So, he runs things like that. I just feel its a bit unfair to jump to conclusions and assume that the decision was spiteful. The subject title is referring to a caster's decision to expend every available spell he has in a wild magic zone, something that's ostensibly dumb.
Otherwise, having a sword that attracts rats doesn't seem all that spiteful. Just saying. Of course your mileage may vary, but still, in a world of magic, where magical things do magical stuff, when you burn a magical item whilst simultaneously working over a sword, maybe something magic might happen, you know? I rather like the idea. Maybe you don't, ok, great, we get it. We even get that you wouldn't ever play in/return to a game that was being run in such a fashion. Fantastic. But that's all like, you know... your opinion man.
So now that we've covered every base that's been covered by everyone else who felt that base needed to be covered; you can now share with us your opinion - what exactly would you do, as a GM, given the situation presented in the OP?
|
Afraid I don't have too much advice for handling the player, though the whole wild magic incident is kinda ridiculous (on the player's part) which is why whenever I run a wild magic world I always make sure to let players know that while wild magic may usually occur in some spots, it does have the potential to occur anywhere.
But in regards to all the hate on the OP for what he did, am I the only one, who if he was that player, would have done the following: Looked at the DM and then said "Huh. Let's see what else happens..." and would start to forge all manner of non magical blades with a fire that is simultaneously burning various magical items JUST to see what would happen?
It's an RPG. The GM can bend, twist or break the rules, especially if it adds a strong roleplaying element--not just based on a malicious and arbitrary whim.
When a GM runs a game for a group of players there is an unspoken contract in which they all agree to follow the rules to the best of their ability. If one person, even the GM, isn't following the rules than the game falls apart every time.
This unspoken contract exists in ALL games. It's the sole reason why people are able to play games with one another.
Any changes to the established rules in the books (even if its "I'm the GM so I might change the rules for story purposes from time to time) need to be spelled out clearly to all the players well in advance of the campaign's start (modifying the unspoken contract as it were). Otherwise, the GM is doing nothing less than cheating/misleading his players.
It's an RPG. The GM can bend, twist or break the rules, especially if it adds a strong roleplaying element--not just based on a malicious and arbitrary whim.When a GM runs a game for a group of players there is an unspoken contract in which they all agree to follow the rules to the best of their ability. If one person, even the GM, isn't following the rules than the game falls apart every time. (...)
I'd say that when a GM runs a game for a group of players, there is an unspoken contract in which he agrees to be fair with his players and provide fun for everyone. This tread proves that what is "fun" is different from group to another, and the game falls apart when the "fun" of a player differs from the "fun" of the DM, which seems to be the case in the OP...
'findel
|
|
It's an RPG. The GM can bend, twist or break the rules, especially if it adds a strong roleplaying element--not just based on a malicious and arbitrary whim.When a GM runs a game for a group of players there is an unspoken contract in which they all agree to follow the rules to the best of their ability. If one person, even the GM, isn't following the rules than the game falls apart every time.
This unspoken contract exists in ALL games. It's the sole reason why people are able to play games with one another.
Any changes to the established rules in the books (even if its "I'm the GM so I might change the rules for story purposes from time to time) need to be spelled out clearly to all the players well in advance of the campaign's start (modifying the unspoken contract as it were). Otherwise, the GM is doing nothing less than cheating/misleading his players.
Wrong. I refer you to page 402, 2nd column, 1st full paragraph of the core rule book.
Likewise, don't feel bound to the predetermined plot of an encounter or rules as written. Feel free to adjust the results or interpret things creatively...As long as you can keep such developments to a minimum, these on-the-spot adjustments can even enhance the game
Emphasis mine.
We are not playing chess - we are playing an organic, messy game where the emphasis is on "fun" not "winning"
Oh snap! You mean a DM making decisions like that isn't cheating!
Who'd a thunk it??
|
|
LIES!You all can't handle the awesome of this guy's idea.
Your player has my permission to be shot.
The player was allowed a Knowledge(arcana) check, and was informed that while the result to the blade would likely be as desired, the result of doing this in this region was unpredictable.
The sword itself was "cured" of its summoning abilities.
However, the lightning bolts danced between mountaintops, magnified by the magic nature of the region, and summoned rats (And dire rats, and wererats) from leagues upon leagues in every direction.
They now believe this PC to be their God, and are trying to form social structures that support His belief in what is Right and Just.
|
|
LIES!You all can't handle the awesome of this guy's idea.
Your player has my permission to be shot.
The player was allowed a Knowledge(arcana) check, and was informed that while the result to the blade would likely be as desired, the result of doing this in this region was unpredictable.
The sword itself was "cured" of its summoning abilities.
However, the lightning bolts danced between mountaintops, magnified by the magic nature of the region, and summoned rats (And dire rats, and wererats) from leagues upon leagues in every direction.
They now believe this PC to be their God, and are trying to form social structures that support His belief in what is Right and Just.
Damn, I think I want this sword. What I could accomplish with a wererat army...
If the PC is ridiculously dumb, he should eat the consequences of his actions, whatever those are. If he told the head of the assassins guild that he was going to kill him in public, then he doesn't wake up the next morning. If he knocks up Princess Jocasta, the King may want his head, or forge paperwork to make him suitable.
There's no reason to keep PC's alive when they do mind bogglingly dumb things. Your first goal should be to teach people how to not do those sorts of things.
If you ask them if they're sure they want to do this, and then they do it anyway, do whatever is necessary.
It's okay to kill PC's. People are too squeamish these days.
and to bring some closure to this thread - I have to ask - Is the PC having fun with this?The rest of the story...
Seriously.
I'm simply amazed how many posters here have jumped down the OP's (and by extension his players') throat, and jumping to conclusions.
I'm equally amazed at how many posters think that the OP "hosed" his player because he gave what is essentially a 315gp item a silly quirk, which in all honesty the player could simply have thrown out or sold (while chuckling) to an unsuspecting buyer at half price and then bought the materials and just go forge a brand new sword.
This used to be a fun place.
So, he runs things like that. I just feel its a bit unfair to jump to conclusions and assume that the decision was spiteful. The subject title is referring to a caster's decision to expend every available spell he has in a wild magic zone, something that's ostensibly dumb.
I said it was dumb, but it never should have come up in the first place.
Otherwise, having a sword that attracts rats doesn't seem all that spiteful. Just saying.
Maybe not, but ciretose's games are.
Of course your mileage may vary, but still, in a world of magic, where magical things do magical stuff, when you burn a magical item whilst simultaneously working over a sword, maybe something magic might happen, you know?
I don't see why it would.
|
|
Perfectly fine with me. You have your game of jerks and I can go play with people who care about the rules or at least DMs who aren't actively try to screw over their players out of spite.Then our method of play works. Nothing more annoying at a table than a rules lawyer who wants the power of the DM without the responsibility.And I wouldn't be coming back. The only thing I dislike more than people pulling arbitrary rules out of their ass is people people arbitrary rules out of their ass solely to spite people.We have a running joke in our game stemming from a game long ago where a player got into an argument with the DM about what he could and could not do, and apparently that person would not let it go.
So the DM had the hills attack. Literally. He told them to roll initiative, and the hills attacked.
When do you actually play? You have over 2000 posts on here, and half of them say you don't have time to do this or that...despite the fact you have over 2000 posts.
During the playtests, you don't actually, you know...play test. And I don't remember you ever giving examples of you in a group, doing something.
I wonder sometimes...not for very long, mind you. But sometimes.
|
|
Afraid I don't have too much advice for handling the player, though the whole wild magic incident is kinda ridiculous (on the player's part) which is why whenever I run a wild magic world I always make sure to let players know that while wild magic may usually occur in some spots, it does have the potential to occur anywhere.
But in regards to all the hate on the OP for what he did, am I the only one, who if he was that player, would have done the following: Looked at the DM and then said "Huh. Let's see what else happens..." and would start to forge all manner of non magical blades with a fire that is simultaneously burning various magical items JUST to see what would happen?
Exactly. The most epic quest I've even played in came when the DM had us find a place where a clearly evil sword was in a stone that had labels saying it was being used to trap a great evil and releasing it would restart a great war.
Unfortunately, the only one in the group not dead or petrified when we got to the sword was a follower of Tempus, who was like "Free sword and free war, SCORE!"
The DM had to basically make up an entire adventure path based on that one decision, and it became an amazing quest that took us all basically up to epic level.
All because the player made a "dumb" decision.
As I said to Cartigan, I wonder sometimes if some the people on here actually ever play the game regularly with people in the real world or if they just roll up characters and get chased out of groups after a game or two when people get tired of the complaining.
I'm kinda curious...is ANYONE defending the players attempt at dumping his magic in a wild magic zone as anything but utterly moronic?
Yeah the first part...the DM may have fudged that up a bit or not...but I'm honestly curious if anyone thinks that the second part is anything but pure idiocy.
It might be idiocy, it might be "I stopped caring, this guy is out to get me, anyway".
Or logic you don't agree to: Nobody ever said you can burn out faults in the magic, so maybe doing it in a wild magic zone is the way to do it.
Of course, letting someone dump all of his magic (which will take a while) like that without stopping him in between, telling him that things just got stranger, is getting another level in being mean.