I had a Dungeon Master that gave us cards that said 'IC' on them for speaking in character. It was much easier to have to display the card for In Character rather than Out of Character since it wasn't normally an issue to accidently say something Out of Character. Not that he really cared if we did, it just beat having to go "My character says...".
It was a shadowrun game, as I said. In that, it's pretty easy to mix IC and OOC when you're not talking to contacts. However, when you're talking to contacts, and you got people with wired reflexes (which by their very nature makes you act like a caffeine junkie on a sugar rush with a side of meth) then blurting out things is pretty common place. So making it default to IC was a lot more realistic, and once they got used to it, fun for them.
|
Anyway, one silly DM rule I had to put up with was that if you didn't have your hand on your head, everything you said was in character. His reasoning for this had something to do with the third party module he was running, but seemed to mostly be an excuse to treat us like morons every time we forgot the rule.
Heh, I use that same rule; put your hand on the head to mean you are speaking OOC. But I mostly do it because I have a pretty large group and it helps keep order; I don't use it as a reason to screw over my players. Though it does cut down on the wise-guy remarks during an otherwise serious moment for fear of they'll forget the hand on head and accidentally insult the powerful spellcaster or the king or something of that ilk.
Developer
|
It was a shadowrun game, as I said. In that, it's pretty easy to mix IC and OOC when you're not talking to contacts. However, when you're talking to contacts, and you got people with wired reflexes (which by their very nature makes you act like a caffeine junkie on a sugar rush with a side of meth) then blurting out things is pretty common place. So making it default to IC was a lot more realistic, and once they got used to it, fun for them.
I should try that if we ever start up our SR4 game again. I like the idea of default in character speech.
|
In one game I quit after the DM decided that ranged characters (including spellcasters) got less XP because they were putting themselves at less risk than the up-front fighters. He didn't mention this at the beginning of the game so it was quite a shock to the ranger and I (mage).
Another game I quit was because the DM would drink pretty heavily and by the second half of the game would be so drunk that he would make very questionable DM decisions and you couldn't argue with him about it because he was drunk and it make perfect sense in his head.
I played (very briefly) under a DM who claimed that gay characters couldn't be paladins or good aligned clerics since homosexuality was evil. The same DM used offensive racial stereotypes as the personalities for major NPCs.
Another DM said that dwarves were too dense and couldn't use swim, regardless of their modifier in the swim skill. Of course this information wasn't offered at character creation, rather players of dwarf characters learned about this rule when it became applicable in game.
I guess this is why I mostly just DM now.
I played (very briefly) under a DM who claimed that gay characters couldn't be paladins or good aligned clerics since homosexuality was evil. The same DM used offensive racial stereotypes as the personalities for major NPCs.
This is an interesting, if loaded issue. I seem to recall a mega-huge thread about it on the forums some time ago.
Anyway, I'm fascinated by the whole prospect. On the one hand, I am a serious proponent of gay rights, but on the other hand the sheer unfairness of this interaction with the paladin's code seems like a good mirror for the unfairness that real gay people face.
My personal take is that the Lawful gods prohibit homosexuality (and in that sense, many paladins are mandated to be straight). I really don't do this to make any claim that homosexuality is unlawful... I do it more to emphasize the authoritarian and conservative attitude of Lawfulness in my campaign.
Paizo, too, seems to have dabbled in this territory. There is a Sandpoint NPC paladin involved in a same-gender affair. In my campaign, I chose to represent him as fallen, but I think PF#1 implies he is still in good graces with Abadar. I think that having him as fallen due to his romance makes him a vastly more interesting character, because it reminds me of the injustices endured by real homosexuals. (especially those who must reconcile their nature with their religious beliefs!)
On the flip side, I totally understand that some gay players might like to imagine the world of Golarion as more tolerant (in stark contrast to the themes of slavery) so they can escape bigotry. If I had any players who felt that way, I might certainly treat the issue differently.
So yes, I share this crazy rule with your GM, although I suspect I might have more benevolent motives (I think it engenders sympathy the way I do it). Do you suspect your GM's ruling was similarly inspired, or is it bigotry?
So yes, I share this crazy rule with your GM, although I suspect I might have more benevolent motives (I think it engenders sympathy the way I do it). Do you suspect your GM's ruling was similarly inspired, or is it bigotry?
Judging by the way he portrayed both racial minorities and homosexual characters (in horibly offensive negative stereotypes) and heavy religious (if misguided) influence I don't suspect any positive intent behind his ruling. Female characters (both PC and NPC) were highly sexualized as well- he asked for percentile rolls to determine breast size upon character creation.
Being both homosexual and of mixed black/white heritage (which I don't show at all; I have a feeling he would've toned down some racial jokes if he knew) I was highly offended at not only his portrayal of black characters (always sounding like gangster rappers or the old "black face" cartoons), but his views on homosexuality as well, which he expressed his personal belief as being an iredeemable and disgusting evil and any gay NPC was either a "hot lesbian" or a lisping, flaming, drag queen.
I think to this day he was mystified why I walked out shortly after the second session of his game started, which is when I found out that his little rule about homosexuality. I was playing a cleric of a goddess of love and community and lost my spellcasting after only acting interested in a male NPC in game.
If there was a sound reasoning being the rule, like what you mentioned above, I would've been fine with it, in fact I would enjoy playing the concept of a paladin trying to come to terms with and reconcile the differences in the tenets of his faith and his personal leanings and trying to be accepted by his church while subtly trying to expand the faith to be inclusive to other like him. But as it was I was given nothing past:
"You lose you divine powers until you find someone to give you an attonement spell."
"Why?"
"Homosexuality is sinful. Gays can't be good aligned. I don't know why you would play one anyway..."
The conversation went downhill from there.
I could use that argument about most combats I've seen. 'It is too deadly, they just die' instead of rolling all the attack rolls and damage to see if they survive. That slim chance of surviving a dip in lava is all the more reason to roll it out. Because if they do it will be a story to remember.
There is something to be said about the Rule of Cool. Watching a tough-as-nails dwarf barbarian fall into lava and then get up to deliver one last swing at the bad guy is pretty nifty.
Also, while I get what you're saying, Lincoln, it seems odd that there is no lawful deity who's more tolerant. It's a big multiverse, and a flexible alignment system.
|
I could use that argument about most combats I've seen. 'It is too deadly, they just die' instead of rolling all the attack rolls and damage to see if they survive. That slim chance of surviving a dip in lava is all the more reason to roll it out. Because if they do it will be a story to remember.There is something to be said about the Rule of Cool. Watching a tough-as-nails dwarf barbarian fall into lava and then get up to deliver one last swing at the bad guy is pretty nifty.
I am ALL ABOUT the Rule of Cool!
In the Fiery Sanctum, against Moltenwing, the monk was bullrushed into the lava. He survived by airwalking out. When the fighter was subjected to the same thing, he rolled high and Moltenwing rolled low. Dude was using a greataxe, so he stopped a dragon's bullrush with his face.
My epic level VoP monk saw the party NPC get grappled by a blackstone gigant. (Six-armed construct that petrifies on slams.) Grabbed a ring of freedom of movement from the party stash and proceeded to climb the monster to hand the ring off.
Same monk, fighting over a massive pits, another NPC gets thrown into the void. Using epic climb speed to dart down the cliff face, I had her then leap across the chasm, snatch the character out of midair, and land on the opposite cliff.
Even before epic, my standard tactic was to stealth up to the ceiling in order to dragoon down on the enemy. Same monk was used in OOC arena battle against Dozekar, a CR 36 dragon from Everquest D20: Monsters of Norrath. Managed to win thanks to Touch of Golden Ice and a natural 1 on the Fort save.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Judging by the way he portrayed both racial minorities and homosexual characters (in horibly offensive negative stereotypes) and heavy religious (if misguided) influence I don't suspect any positive intent behind his ruling. Female characters (both PC and NPC) were highly sexualized as well- he asked for percentile rolls to determine breast size upon character creation.
Daharr. And what be wrong with Table 36-D: Random Bust Sizes? You new fangled players and yer Point-Bust systems! Why don't ye try role playing for once?
Daharr.
Out of curiosity, how does being bigoted against gays make one 'sexist'?
I mean, yeah, he was sexist as well. But you said that being homophobic was the evidence. :P
Enemy speeches an monologues can not be interrupted. You have to let them finish before you can take an action of any kind. To him, talking is a free action no matter how long it goes on for, unless the PCs do it.
Even if you sneak up on an enemy that is totally unaware of you...
Wasn't that a rule/guideline in the Champions RPG. My GM in the Champions game we were running at the time, who I still game with, called it the "villain soliloquy". In fact, I use the rule too when I GM sometimes. Not so sure about the sneaking bit, but sometimes we do that.
MD
I looked at the stats and asked him why I needed knives at all. Knives looked pretty crappy to me. He told me, "You can hide them. And they're good against ogres." So I bought 10 knives.
Uhm... What? "Oh, a ten food giant. I better put away my sword that has a realistic chance of harming this monstrosity and break out the cutlery. They must think I'm insane and run away!"
Doesn't work on ogres. They're too stupid for this.
Lo and behold, I came upon a room of 4 ogres. But the room was trapped so when I entered, the ceiling started descending. My DM told me that I had 7 rounds before the the ceiling crushed us all. I was still first level for this encounter. I started throwing knives at the ogres, and the DM was having them do double damage. But even with that double damage I was not going to kill them all in time. It got down to 2 rounds left, and I had 3 ogres left to kill. So my DM told me that any damage that I did beyond what was necessary to bring an ogre to 0 would carry over to the next ogre. (I guess my DM was ahead of the curve and was creating a proto-cleave rule.) With this little help, I was able to kill the 3 ogres with two knife throws.
I don't quite follow: The room was trapped to crush you - the bigger monsters first, I might add - and you stuck around? What about just getting out? Or offer a truce to the ogres to make sure you're not all killed?
In 2e, I seem to recall a round lasting 1 minute, so we're talking about a trap that took 7 minutes before it finally crushed anyone. Brilliant.
To be honest, that belongs to the "Crazy rules right out of the book" thread.
It made all kinds of no sense. The time some things took.
Heh, I use that same rule; put your hand on the head to mean you are speaking OOC.
Too many opportunities for awesome lost with that.
Like the other day, in Kingmaker, with the King about to hold second watch. The player said he'd pass the time with his Queen. Since they were holding watch over a nearby lake for ghostly apparitions, he thought that doggy style facing the river would not preclude watching out for threats.
After a second to just stare at him, disbelievingly, I asked him whether that was IC and OOC (though I was quite sure it was OOC). The player decided to let his dice decide.
You can guess how that worked out.
Since the queen is a cohort and they're under my nominal control when it comes to intra-party interaction and so on, she wished him a nice night sleeping outside the tent.
What is worse (for him - for the rest of us, it was more along the lines of hilarious for the rest of us), he was teased by the apparition. It would appear, shining a light, and when he roused the others, it would wink out so he looked the fool.
At one point, he just had it and went out to confront it.
Had the party magus not seen behind the apparition's antics and looked through his half-closed eyes, so he saw him walking away alone.
I might add that it was also at this time when the exchange I started with happened, and the magus might just have looked on to see if she went along with that...
Still, he saved the guy's life, as he roused the rest and they snuck after him. Good for him, too, as that thing would have murdered him.
Still, good times.
Another DM said that dwarves were too dense and couldn't use swim, regardless of their modifier in the swim skill. Of course this information wasn't offered at character creation, rather players of dwarf characters learned about this rule when it became applicable in game.
I'm all against racism, sexism, and homophobia, but any story where dwarves drown unexpectedly is just hilarious. I think I might adopt that rule.
The other guy is clearly wrong, since there are gay paladins on Golarion.
My personal take is that the Lawful gods prohibit homosexuality
(and in that sense, many paladins are mandated to be straight). I really don't do this to make any claim that homosexuality is unlawful... I do it more to emphasize the authoritarian and conservative attitude of Lawfulness in my campaign.
Crap like that gives the alignment system a bad name.
If it is written down on your character sheet, it is part of your character no matter what. This came up because, since we started playing pathfinder I would pick a random player and write down "cake party" under special abilities. This was a joke which I said can only work when the adventure is completed. Last week he had one of our old character show up as an NPC and fill the room with cake. I asked if he was kidding and he said this officially happened since it was written on the sheet. After he said this, I told him I am writing down that I have ten million platinum and a ring of unlimited wishes with no negative effects. Gonna see who breaks first.
Have two rings. And a potion that lets you beat up GMs.
Crap like that gives the alignment system a bad name.
My personal take is that the Lawful gods prohibit homosexuality
(and in that sense, many paladins are mandated to be straight). I really don't do this to make any claim that homosexuality is unlawful... I do it more to emphasize the authoritarian and conservative attitude of Lawfulness in my campaign.
Eh.
If you lived in the states, maybe you would understand it as social commentary rather than cramming ideology down my players throats. I have never gotten complaints about how I handle alignment, because I don't really use it to mess with my players. The aforementioned policy is something players would have to discuss with me ahead of time, before I sprang it on them.
|
|
Your first interpretation. Missing by 1-4 you hit the creature getting in your way. 5+ your attack went wide or bounced off armor, etc.Do you mean that if your d20 roll is 4, 3, 2, or 1 off of the target AC that you hit your friend, and if it's anything 5 or more off you just went wide all together? Or that if you miss, regardless of how badly, that you shot your friend. Cause I don't think I could get on board with that.On topic, like most DMs I have my house rules. Most are pretty benign like using a d10 for initiative instead of a d20. My groups don't bother with confirming crits. etc.
But the one that I like to use that can cause some grousing is shooting into combat. If you miss your target, because of the -4 penalty your friend imposed for being in melee with your target. You shot your friend.
(friend is just for the example. it could be any two creatures fighting. You aim for one and miss because of the -4, you hit the other guy.)
That's actually an optional rule from the original 3E Player's Handbook.
I don't quite follow: The room was trapped to crush you - the bigger monsters first, I might add - and you stuck around? What about just getting out? Or offer a truce to the ogres to make sure you're not all killed?
That's what I would do today, but I was a youngin' at the time. Nothing we did in our first AD&D games makes sense in retrospect.
I had one player who consistently shot his own teammates. In fact, the very first fight he was in he shot the wizard in the gluteus maximus (look it up), in the first phase of the fight. Then, 3 turns later, he shot the same wizard in the back of the head with an energy ray.
The next game, he shot the paladin with an arrow, and then hit the NPC they were supposed to be rescuing the combat after that.
I used to play with a guy who had the worse die-rolling luck in the world. In one D&D 2E session, he rolled 5 "1"s in a row. In a row! The odds of that are 1 in 3.2 million.
In another session, I was a Fighter and he was playing an Archery Ranger. I got into a battle with an enemy fighter, and my friend fired his bow into the melee, fumbled, shot me and knocked me unconscious. The DM told him that the enemy Fighter was giving him a confused look. My friend, knowing he screwed up and trying to cover his ass, tells the DM "My character reloads his bow, aims at the Fighter and says "You're Next!"."
"You're Next!" was a running joke in our group for a long time.
My PC goes both ways, can I still be neutral? - I would have to ask the GM just to hear his response.
BWAA HA HA HA HAAAA!!!! (Or ROFLMAO if you're less demonstrative). I would pay money to be there when you asked the question, for the same reason you stated.
Thanks for that; it's been a long week, and I needed a laugh.
Anyone can take a 5 foot step at any time during their turn, even if they used up all their movement. This totally killed the point of getting attack of opportunity with reach weapons.
Exploding dice for d20s. "Confirming a crit with a nat 20 is double crit, then triple crit, then instant kill, then wiping out genetic line, then erasing them from history."
A wizard can use up all the energy for their remaining spells per day to cast a spell that is higher level than their class allows as long as it is in your spellbook, and you pass out afterwards.
Paladins don't have to be lawful good because sometimes they may not agree with what their deity wants. This rule really made me mad and we still argue on it.
Natural 20 on a saving throw can let you stomp out a spell like a flaming sphere.
You are always talking in character and everything you say you do, you actually do. This does not apply to the DM making jokes like someone popping out from under your bed to make a witty pun. He can metagame and make jokes with no impact on the game but you can not.
If it is written down on your character sheet, it is part of your character no matter what. This came up because, since we started playing pathfinder I would pick a random player and write down "cake party" under special abilities. This was a joke which I said can only work when the adventure is completed. Last week he had one of our old character show up as an NPC and fill the room with cake. I asked if he was kidding and he said this officially happened since it was written on the sheet. After he said this, I told him I am writing down that I have ten million platinum and a ring of unlimited wishes with no negative effects. Gonna see who breaks first.
Enemy speeches an monologues can not be interrupted. You have to let them finish before you can take an action of any kind. To him, talking is a free action no matter how long it goes on for, unless the PCs do it.
Even if you sneak up on an enemy that is totally unaware of you...
This guys sucks. I would never play under your GM.
I do have to ask, are there no other games in the area?
I am sure you can steal some players. I do not know how much money you have but buying things slowly over time may be an option. I have no solution for the venue problem though.
|
I have a rule that if your character sheet is not filled in properly then any data that is missing that we need to know is counted as an automatic fail.
For example. If you haven't filled in how much you weigh and someone is trying to carry you then you weigh too much and can't be lifted. I will take this to extreme lengths if necessary: 4 foot tall passageway which is restricting movement by medium creatures? Playing a halfling? Fine, but if you have not filled in that you are small and 3'6" tall then the universe (i.e. me) will assume that you are the world's first 6' tall halfling. Encountering a magical effect that only works on (say) female characters? Not filled in your gender? Then you are either counted as female or male (depending on whether the effect was beneficial or not) regardless of your obvious gender.
The reason for this is if one of my players can't make it to a session then one of the other players rolls for that character. However if the missing player hasn't filled in their character sheet properly then that causes a headache for both myself and the player who has been kind enough to run that character for the evening. I will not sit round whilst we work out encumbrance or CMD because someone has been too lazy to fill in their sheet properly. It may create a few odd situations but a blanket ban of this type means that my players fill in their sheets properly so it's easier for their GM and fellow players.
This rule has almost led to a character death in absentia because said player hadn't bothered to fill in his CMB and CMD. Auto grapples are nasty...
I never fill out the totals of my skills, though I write down the bonuses. It seems redundant. How would that work by your house rules?
If you lived in the states, maybe you would understand it as social commentary rather than cramming ideology down my players throats.
If you didn't live in the states, maybe you would understand that this is complete hogwash.
You say that all lawful deities are against homosexuality. Are those all American deities?
Homosexuality isn't universally conservative. There were cultures where not doing everyone (men, women, close family) would be positively antisocial.
And when we're talking about conservative deities and homosexuality, Erastil would not be against gay paladins, and he's as conservative as it gets.
I tried to come up with an image a cleric of Loth as a gangster rapper and it is just wrong.
Of course it is. Imagine a drow (cleric of Lolth or anyother) watching a gangster rapper.
"He speaks threatening rhymes with his mouth, but in sign language, he utters utter gibberish. 'My fish is a hippo cometh? My fish is a hippo cometh? Centre the ineptitude bluely amongst suns!!' He's obviously insane. Why was he not killed by his parents?"
My PC goes both ways, can I still be neutral? - I would have to ask the GM just to hear his response.BWAA HA HA HA HAAAA!!!! (Or ROFLMAO if you're less demonstrative). I would pay money to be there when you asked the question, for the same reason you stated.
Thanks for that; it's been a long week, and I needed a laugh.
Well, like that character, the conversation could go both ways.
|
I think what he's saying is that because a large portion of conservative society in america views it as a sin/evil therefore in game because a past society (not really, but lots of people tend to think so) would be even more conservative, therefore that view would be amplified. Thus societal views that homosexuality was evil would have a paladin that was gay believing he is committing an evil act even if he weren't in fact doing so.
I don't agree with it, but I think that's what he's trying to get across. For the record, even if I did have the culture in my game look down on homosexuality (and for the record more conservative cultures do) I wouldn't let that affect the players powers, but I would encourage roleplaying the confliction of being in said society and holding said societies beliefs while still knowing that you are getting your powers so what you're doing can't be evil in an objective sense.
I have a rule that if your character sheet is not filled in properly then any data that is missing that we need to know is counted as an automatic fail.
How many rules involving cooties do you have?
Well, KY, I'm certainly not presenting my approach as the default one. Everything you say makes sense to me, I just happen to like portraying some lawful cultures as authoritarian, and this issue works out well for that.
I want to re-emphasize that I am very much in favor of gay rights. Portraying religion as sometimes intolerant is my goal, because it reflects my personal beliefs — and what's more, the beliefs of my players (to some extent).
Each GM ought to be able to address the issue in their own way. I just wanted to highlight that making some religions intolerant of same-sex relations doesn't in all cases mean the GM is a bigot. It's not unlike how the portrayal of slavery in Golarion isn't meant to advocate slavery, but rather to encourage acts of heroism in defiance of slave-owning societies.
Well, KY, I'm certainly not presenting my approach as the default one. Everything you say makes sense to me, I just happen to like portraying some lawful cultures as authoritarian, and this issue works out well for that.
That would be fine.
You said that all lawful cultures are like that.
That basically makes it a general rule in your world.
Well, KY, I'm certainly not presenting my approach as the default one. Everything you say makes sense to me, I just happen to like portraying some lawful cultures as authoritarian, and this issue works out well for that.That would be fine.
You said that all lawful cultures are like that.
That basically makes it a general rule in your world.
I portray it as prevalent. I don't really take a "no exceptions" approach to alignment, that's just irritating.
I portray it as prevalent. I don't really take a "no exceptions" approach to alignment, that's just irritating.Well, KY, I'm certainly not presenting my approach as the default one. Everything you say makes sense to me, I just happen to like portraying some lawful cultures as authoritarian, and this issue works out well for that.That would be fine.
You said that all lawful cultures are like that.
That basically makes it a general rule in your world.
The word "usually" would have helped in the sentence "My personal take is that the Lawful gods prohibit homosexuality".
To me, it sounded like they all did.
Guess I can put this one here. My DM reduced the exp from an encounter because we did not do what we were supposed to do. It was powerful so he expected us to run. Rather, we fought and it ran away. We got reduced exp compared to what it was worth because, as he said, we should know better than to fight someone that looks that powerful and it 30 feet tall.
And yet it ran away from your party...
Would this be irony? (Not the reduced XP bit.)
Just saying...
-- C.