Gygax brought a lot of the Mormon Church's old prejudices into the game without really intending too or thinking about it. The tendency of creatures with dark skin or visually unappealing features (being what we call ugly) being evil is a bit ridiculous.
I think the correct denomination for gig ax is Jehovah's Witness.
Gygax brought a lot of the Mormon Church's old prejudices into the game without really intending too or thinking about it. The tendency of creatures with dark skin or visually unappealing features (being what we call ugly) being evil is a bit ridiculous.Gygax was ** spoiler omitted **
And that segues nicely over to Tolkien's fantasy writing. Ugly = Evil there too? Maybe, but...
In place of a Dark Lord, you would have a queen! Not dark, but beautiful and terrible as the dawn!And then there's old Annatar, described here as "fair" to look upon.
But, yeah, Morgoth, Ungoliant, etc. were pretty ugly as a matter of course.
But gym ax wrote about not celebrating Xmas because he was a JW. No bias, just feel it's correct
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see a lot of amish luddite in his fighter class design.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
And that segues nicely over to Tolkien's fantasy writing. Ugly = Evil there too? Maybe, but...
In place of a Dark Lord, you would have a queen! Not dark, but beautiful and terrible as the dawn!And then there's old Annatar, described here as "fair" to look upon.
But, yeah, Morgoth, Ungoliant, etc. were pretty ugly as a matter of course.
Don't forget that when trying to decide if they could trust Strider, a comment was made among the hobbits (I think Frodo said it?) that if Strider were a bad guy, he (Frodo) would have expected him to "look fairer and feel fouler".
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Current pet peeve:
Never having enough time to actually roleplay my character, because we're playing an Adventure Path with six players. We're too busy following the AP script to stop and have any character interaction time.
I'd like to at least have enough time to dramatically describe my character's actions, instead of just saying, "I cast 'fireball'." But we're always in a rush to get to the next player's turn.
Yes, I know, I should be happy I get to play at all. But I want to play every week *and* have time to flesh out my character.
...
I'd like to at least have enough time to dramatically describe my character's actions, instead of just saying, "I cast 'fireball'." But we're always in a rush to get to the next player's turn.
...
With some groups it helps to start small. Have your words ready when your turn comes. "A roaring inferno envelops all 6 of the gnolls." I don't think too many people will be upset about 18 seconds instead of 7 seconds. Once one person starts consistently describing, sometimes others will join in.
But it doesn't always work. Some people just don't like to do that.
|
Current pet peeve:
Never having enough time to actually roleplay my character, because we're playing an Adventure Path with six players. We're too busy following the AP script to stop and have any character interaction time.
I'd like to at least have enough time to dramatically describe my character's actions, instead of just saying, "I cast 'fireball'." But we're always in a rush to get to the next player's turn.
Yes, I know, I should be happy I get to play at all. But I want to play every week *and* have time to flesh out my character.
Why would you dramatically describe your actions? It just slows down combat and annoys other players. Critical hits could be roleplayed. Roleplay out of combat, or say things.
Dramatically describing stuff gets old fast.
Current pet peeve:
Never having enough time to actually roleplay my character, because we're playing an Adventure Path with six players. We're too busy following the AP script to stop and have any character interaction time.
I'd like to at least have enough time to dramatically describe my character's actions, instead of just saying, "I cast 'fireball'." But we're always in a rush to get to the next player's turn.
Yes, I know, I should be happy I get to play at all. But I want to play every week *and* have time to flesh out my character.
I want to keep hitting + on this.
I want to keep hitting + on this.Current pet peeve:
Never having enough time to actually roleplay my character, because we're playing an Adventure Path with six players. We're too busy following the AP script to stop and have any character interaction time.
I'd like to at least have enough time to dramatically describe my character's actions, instead of just saying, "I cast 'fireball'." But we're always in a rush to get to the next player's turn.
Yes, I know, I should be happy I get to play at all. But I want to play every week *and* have time to flesh out my character.
Unfortunately, this sort of thing can be quite unavoidable, depending on the block of time you and your group have set aside for yourselves. It's especially the case if you only have a 4-hour period for getting the group together and playing.
|
I want to keep hitting + on this.Current pet peeve:
Never having enough time to actually roleplay my character, because we're playing an Adventure Path with six players. We're too busy following the AP script to stop and have any character interaction time.
I'd like to at least have enough time to dramatically describe my character's actions, instead of just saying, "I cast 'fireball'." But we're always in a rush to get to the next player's turn.
Yes, I know, I should be happy I get to play at all. But I want to play every week *and* have time to flesh out my character.
As long as one does not get too carried away with it. At a convention I played pfs at in 2013 will be marked by a few things for me. One thing was a girl who played pfs all three days as well and seemed to roll play the one pc she played on a heavy scale with her voice being squeaky and loud. On Friday, it was cute because it was different. By the last game on Sunday, it was nails on a chalkboard times a million.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another one is the DM boyfriend/girlfriend whose significant other is untouchable or blameless. Despite his or her behavior at the table. Like Ulden Death Squad I had to game on a regular basis with a later who spoke in squeaky doll like voice every game. It got so bad that I had to keep a smile or neutral look on my face at all times. When I and other players mentioned it to both the DM and offending player. The DM kicked is out. He tried hiding the reason why trying to feed us a load of BS but we knew.
The socially handicapped gaming group. What I mean by this is take a gaming group. Who have not played with and new members for years. Suddenly recruiting new blood. Then expecting everyone to act and behave like them. It's so damn hard and annoying to game with such a group. As I r never knows what may or may not offend such a group. I get that playing with familiar players makes some groups more comfortable. Yet why recruit new players in the first place.
The DM who dislikes certain magic items yet includes them in the game. Then curses them. When every magic ring that we find other than a Ring of Protection is cursed. Well a pattern begins to emerge. There a reason after awhile that even if it means leaving them behind the group does not take let alone cast Detect Magic on some items.
|
|
Ah I forgot. Someone comes with a character. I kid you not.
Quote: I'm playing a gay/lesbian/bi elven druid who loves nature is a vegan and his animal companion is vegan, hates filthy meat eaters and wants to....
Yeah. Every once in a while someone comes up with this...thing.
And not because they think playing an LGBT nature loving character would be cool. But because they want to force their own ideas onto others.
Needles to say that such people don't get a second invite from me.
|
|
Quote: I'm playing a gay/lesbian/bi elven druid who loves nature is a vegan and his animal companion is vegan, hates filthy meat eaters and wants to....
I'm almost tempted to ask if this really happened. Then I remember the player who accused the DM of being racist because he wanted to play a Drow and expect no racism towards him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is just another reason I'm thankful I don't have to put up with new players. My veterans will do just fine.
|
|
Playing with new players may also be something someone has to do. At one point I wanted to game with a new group. I had become tired of playing with the same group of people over and over and wanted to meet new members of the hobby. As well as new friends. Long story short most of the older gaming group either moved away. No longer game. Or I simply no longer want to deal with anymore. Both in and out of gaming.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I've just been very lucky, blessed, fortunate what have you. Most of my players and I have been together for nearly 30 years. Sure, there have been times when one or more of them weren't in the group, but that was because of distance, jobs, other real life things. And even now there are a couple who barely get a chance to play, but there's a core of about 4 of us who've steadfastly hung together. Others have come and gone, as well, but we're all still friends and if 'twere possible we'd all game together all the time. All of us.
Well, unfortunately I got fed up with my old group and am currently searching for a new one that is good. Playing in a few games and screening a few players while I do that.
I've seen others make similar statements. At the risk of derailing the thread, what about a group causes you to get fed up and leave?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stagnation. Sameness. Boredom. Unwillingness to do new stuff. Complacency.
Seconded. As well as personality clashes and some unacceptable behavior for a adult. For example I recently asked two players who were brothers not to show to the game anymore. They had to go to a BBQ and not show up to one of my games. All fine because sometimes one wants to do more than just gaming. Except the week of the game when I hold my games on Saturday they decide to tell me they can' show Friday night. Again sometimes stuff like that happens at the last minute. They knew the Monday of that week. Instead of telling me before they told me at the last minute because they have self imposed internet days. Which was a load of BS because outside of work all they do is play MMOS for hours on end. Why not take 10-15 mins to send me a text or email before the hours long mmos sessions. Then acted to not understand why I and the rest of the players were angry and unhappy.
Another player kept using his mental illness as a excuse for bad behavior. After a point mentally ill or not one can only take so much. Espcially when the player is getting the right amount of help and the proper meds. It reached a point where we wall walked on egg shells because none of knew what would set him off. It all came to a head one day when he had a huge hissy fit because he wanted to pronounce the word sensei a certain way which was the wrong way and we tried to tell him the right way. Stomping off slamming the door as hard as he could on the way out. After again not his fault it was the illness. H also had the bad habit of trying to cause situations in game if he was not the center of attention.
The player who wants to play a race with a negative reputation without having to suffer from the reputation. Then accuses the dM of being racist.
There a point where whatever the reasons good, bad or even valid one does not want to deal with old members of a gaming group.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gonna go with player who argue with the GM over foolish things. Like how the monster should behave or the setting. I had a player argue with me about how the 'law' in a town wouldn't do something relevant to my plot because the nation was overall a NG nation and this act in a tiny little town was clearly evil.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another pet peeve. What is it about Wealth By level that annoys so many dms. It makes sense that by a certain level a player should have a certain amount of treasure and gold. Unless the character is roleplaying a Vow of Poverty.
If I'm starting at level 10. I sure as hell wan more than a rusty dagger and a codpiece. At the very least a good in game reason. And no because as a dm he or she does not like it is not good enough. I'm willing to play the poor adventurer between levels 1-5. After that I want more than just starting money. I try to talk it out with the DM. If that fails I leave. I don't play in games designed for characters to commit siucide when confronting the enemy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another pet peeve. What is it about Wealth By level that annoys so many dms. It makes sense that by a certain level a player should have a certain amount of treasure and gold. Unless the character is roleplaying a Vow of Poverty.
If I'm starting at level 10. I sure as hell wan more than a rusty dagger and a codpiece. At the very least a good in game reason. And no because as a dm he or she does not like it is not good enough. I'm willing to play the poor adventurer between levels 1-5. After that I want more than just starting money. I try to talk it out with the DM. If that fails I leave. I don't play in games designed for characters to commit siucide when confronting the enemy.
For various groups there can be various reasons.
1) Some GM's try to keep the wealth closer to the NPC levels.2) Some GM's are stuck in old editions of the game. They expect your gear to be pretty randomly what was found instead of what is idea for your build. Or even expecting you to start at first level with nothing.
3) Some are assuming the new PC is taking the gear of the PC being replaced so they don't want you to have double WBL.
4) Of course, it is always possible that particular GM is just a jerk. Unfortunately that happens too often.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dr. Deth, quick question, what do you mean each paladin should have a Phylactery? Not sure how that would be useful/reasonable/logical…probably being dense here ,but please enlighten me…sorry to derail ya'll
If a Paladin has a Phylactery, and the DM thinks that their action will result in their falling or similar, then the Phylactery will warn the PC and Player. Whereupon if the PC continues, the DM is well within his rights to have the Paladin face consequences. There's never a surprise or argument.
Beholders, one of the reasons i stopped gaming for 17 years
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a Paladin has a Phylactery, and the DM thinks that their action will result in their falling or similar, then the Phylactery will warn the PC and Player. Whereupon if the PC continues, the DM is well within his rights to have the Paladin face consequences. There's never a surprise or argument.
Dr. Deth, quick question, what do you mean each paladin should have a Phylactery? Not sure how that would be useful/reasonable/logical…probably being dense here ,but please enlighten me…sorry to derail ya'll
You are a genius!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another pet peeve. What is it about Wealth By level that annoys so many dms. It makes sense that by a certain level a player should have a certain amount of treasure and gold. Unless the character is roleplaying a Vow of Poverty.
If I'm starting at level 10. I sure as hell wan more than a rusty dagger and a codpiece. At the very least a good in game reason. And no because as a dm he or she does not like it is not good enough. I'm willing to play the poor adventurer between levels 1-5. After that I want more than just starting money. I try to talk it out with the DM. If that fails I leave. I don't play in games designed for characters to commit siucide when confronting the enemy.
Basically what ElterAgo said above. Lack of level appropriate gear isn't "designed for characters to commit suicide when confronting the enemy", if the GM (or the players) takes it into account when deciding who to fight.
Though a rusty dagger and codpiece might be a bit much - unless you're starting deliberately stripped for some reason, in which case there's likely gear available.
Better that than a dagger and a rusty codpiece...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
they want to force their own ideas onto others.
I've never liked that phrase - it could be applied to anything anyone says or does.
Imagine if you turn up to a group and your character starts barbecuing the dire boar he's killed. The rest of the group suddenly starts saying things like, "Let me guess - you're playing a white male alcohol-drinking heterosexual too, right?" "Yeah, really ticking all the boxes there, aren't you? Not that I'm prejudiced, but why do you have to be forcing your own ideas onto everyone else all the time?"
(Although in the example you gave of a character who 'hates filthy meat eaters', I would agree that someone who starts out by creating a character who is going to hate everyone else in the adventuring party is not going to fit in well.)
Another pet peeve. What is it about Wealth By level that annoys so many dms. It makes sense that by a certain level a player should have a certain amount of treasure and gold. Unless the character is roleplaying a Vow of Poverty.
If I'm starting at level 10. I sure as hell wan more than a rusty dagger and a codpiece. At the very least a good in game reason. And no because as a dm he or she does not like it is not good enough. I'm willing to play the poor adventurer between levels 1-5. After that I want more than just starting money. I try to talk it out with the DM. If that fails I leave. I don't play in games designed for characters to commit siucide when confronting the enemy.
My dislike of WBL tables comes from my experiences as a player. In a couple games, the other players felt like they were being shafted by the DM, saying things like "The WBL table says we should have this much by this level and we only have this much", and using it as a DM's worthyness measuring stick. "The DM hasn't given us as much stuff as the WBL table says we should have, he's a s@#+ty DM." That sort of stuff.
The above was (except for the "s#*&ty DM" part) actually said in a game. While we were technically under WBL for our level (level 10 at the time), we were also a party of 9 (started out with 12 PCs...).
Basically what ElterAgo said above. Lack of level appropriate gear isn't "designed for characters to commit suicide when confronting the enemy", if the GM (or the players) takes it into account when deciding who to fight.
And just how does a GM take that into account when half the party is martial and half casters? Cause only the martials are seriously screwed by that while the casters are minorly inconvenienced.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
In general, 90% of my pet peeves stem from simply not thinking of anyone but oneself. "I want to have fun, so I'm going to do X." The thought that X will make anyone else unhappy/irritated never even crosses their mind. Troublesome characters, nasty DMs, most can fit here.
Outside of the selfishness, here's one I have't seen yet (or maybe just missed): Not being able to die.
I participated in a campaign once where it became apparent to me that no one was going to die. Ever.
To test it out, I started doing some risky behaviours just to see. Simple things, like standing just out of healing range during a fight. Not healing after a battle. Liberal use of charge when faced with multiple enemies. "Forgetting" about AoO.
Eventually, it turned into complete disregard for subtlety, stealth, and surprise. Kicking every door in. Randomly consuming unknown potions and liquid from mysterious altars. Instigating fights. My character became downright suicidal. And still no one ever died, though there was plenty of fudging going on.
And just so you don't think we were being jerks - we did have a conversation with the DM about the problem, not that it did much. Much nodding and hmmm-ing, followed by no change whatsoever.
Easily the most boring campaign I ever played in.
|
My gaming pet peeves?
Chaotic Neutral characters. I groan when I see a character sheet with those words or CN written in the alignment section. Every single character that has had that alignment that I have had the unfortunate "pleasure" of playing with has played it as Chaotic Evil. Every single one. Oh, an NPC says you aren't allowed to go into some area? Better kill him. The law enforcement is coming to arrest you for murdering an innocent person? Better kill them because there shouldn't be any consequences to my actions. What do you mean my character's alignment is now evil? This has a higher occurrance in games where the DM says "No evil alignments"
Sad you've been turned off of Pathfinder.
Pity you've met the wrong sort of CN characters. I have one CN character in PFS (and he was orginally not from PFS). His general responce to things are
1) Hit on them
2) Sleep with them (if possible
3) If unable to sleep with them hit on them more
He was rather unapologetic about it too.
In general, 90% of my pet peeves stem from simply not thinking of anyone but oneself. "I want to have fun, so I'm going to do X." The thought that X will make anyone else unhappy/irritated never even crosses their mind. Troublesome characters, nasty DMs, most can fit here.
Outside of the selfishness, here's one I have't seen yet (or maybe just missed): Not being able to die.
I participated in a campaign once where it became apparent to me that no one was going to die. Ever.
To test it out, I started doing some risky behaviours just to see. Simple things, like standing just out of healing range during a fight. Not healing after a battle. Liberal use of charge when faced with multiple enemies. "Forgetting" about AoO.
Eventually, it turned into complete disregard for subtlety, stealth, and surprise. Kicking every door in. Randomly consuming unknown potions and liquid from mysterious altars. Instigating fights. My character became downright suicidal. And still no one ever died, though there was plenty of fudging going on.
And just so you don't think we were being jerks - we did have a conversation with the DM about the problem, not that it did much. Much nodding and hmmm-ing, followed by no change whatsoever.
Easily the most boring campaign I ever played in.
Been there, done that, bought the T-Shirt, took over GMing just to make it stop happening, became really deadly, all of a sudden became a really popular GM for some reason...
Yeah I can't sympathize with people who dislike rare/exotic races, considering I've designed my own homebrew world to encourage things besides the Standard Seven. It probably helps, thankfully, that I've never had to deal with someone using their race as a crutch; the person who was notorious for playing bland, featureless characters in my groups was also the one who refused to play anything but humans.
Honestly I run into "I need to be human because I need that bonus feat" more than "I am playing X class, what race gives +Y to stat Z?". Far, far more often.
I suppose for me the problem plays more into expectations vs. actualization. If I enter into a game that has a setting that encourages the less common races, I certainly won't have any issue with a plethora of oddities. And I don't really have a good reason why it annoys me. I think it all falls back to the whole "justification personality" where someone will really stretch why a xenophobic race found primarily in one small part of the world is gregariously engaging in a festival.
Maybe part of it is that I love it when people tie their characters in with the setting, and I see a lot less of this with the rare races.
Currently recalled pet peeve is people who refer to certain RPG systems as 'almost unplayable' or 'barely playable' or otherwise. One example I can recall involved calling D&D 3.0 a 'barely playable mess.' I'm sure I've seen second edition called similar, and various other games.
This grates me in a world with systems such as HYBRID, World Of Synnibar, and especially FATAL. Saying a good system with a few flaws is 'barely playable' is saying it's only a step or two above some truly rancid titles.
I've only heard horror stories of FATAL. I've never known anyone who personally played it.
Don't forget that when trying to decide if they could trust Strider, a comment was made among the hobbits (I think Frodo said it?) that if Strider were a bad guy, he (Frodo) would have expected him to "look fairer and feel fouler".And that segues nicely over to Tolkien's fantasy writing. Ugly = Evil there too? Maybe, but...
In place of a Dark Lord, you would have a queen! Not dark, but beautiful and terrible as the dawn!And then there's old Annatar, described here as "fair" to look upon.
But, yeah, Morgoth, Ungoliant, etc. were pretty ugly as a matter of course.Yeah, Tolkien is often oversimplified.
Morgoth and Sauron both used their fair appearance to deceive and seduce and lost it, becoming not so much ugly as terrible.
Ungoliant is a spider-monster. What do you expect, really?More generally, while it's often described as simplistic black and white, good vs evil, the history of Middle-Earth is the history of the Fall.
The elves aren't pure good, the ones we meet are literally fallen from grace, those who turned aside from the road to heaven or who were tricked and seduced by Melkor into leaving it. And their descendants of course.
The Dunedain are the last remnant of Numenor, after that land was corrupted and rebelled. Even they who were the Faithful then have fallen from what they were - kingdoms falling into ruin and strife amongst themselves. Denethor and Boromir both fall within the story in their own separate ways.
The true heroes of the story are the humble hobbits, who aren't nearly as fair and beautiful as the elves or even the Dunedain. And they have their failings, as the Scouring of the Shire shows us.
Tolkien could be very whimsical. He did have a sense of humor. Though it is a recurring theme in his works that evil can disguise itself behind a fair face, and I have heard this argument before, for a supposed "deep meaning" behind Frodo's comment, I really do believe that this was meant to be a reflection of Frodo's good judgment and a sort of in-joke that Strider is dirty and grizzled from living outdoors.
Sometimes... in fact, more often-than-not, a cigar is just a cigar.
But if we really, really have to play with it like it's something else... knock yourself out.
Currently recalled pet peeve is people who refer to certain RPG systems as 'almost unplayable' or 'barely playable' or otherwise. One example I can recall involved calling D&D 3.0 a 'barely playable mess.' I'm sure I've seen second edition called similar, and various other games.
This grates me in a world with systems such as HYBRID, World Of Synnibar, and especially FATAL. Saying a good system with a few flaws is 'barely playable' is saying it's only a step or two above some truly rancid titles.
Or Chivalry & Sorcery. whoa.
3.0 was a mess, which is why it was replaced early by 3.5. But hardly "unplayable".
Dr. Deth, quick question, what do you mean each paladin should have a Phylactery? Not sure how that would be useful/reasonable/logical…probably being dense here ,but please enlighten me…sorry to derail ya'llI believe he means this:
** spoiler omitted **
It gives the GM the opportunity to say, "Hey jerk-face the button on your shirt is pulsing red hot. Almost like it is trying to tell you something."
It also gives the player the ability to say, "I think this is fine, but are you going to be a jerk about it?"
Useful from both sides.
Honestly, I think it shouldn't be necessary and having it exist gives bad GMs cover for not clearing up assumption clashes about paladin codes (or about the situation) unless they use the item. There really aren't a lot of cases where the Paladin should fall without being well aware of what he's doing and the GM should make that clear to the player, whether or not he's bought the item.
I'd like to houserule that the paladin's holy symbol automatically functions as a phylactery. It'd save a lot of fuss.
Gygax brought a lot of the Mormon Church's old prejudices into the game without really intending too or thinking about it. The tendency of creatures with dark skin or visually unappealing features (being what we call ugly) being evil is a bit ridiculous.
Gygax described himself as a Christian, but for much of his life had been reluctant to discuss his beliefs, citing fears that he would hurt the reputation of Christianity because of his connection to the moral panic that some people associated with D&D as a reason for not having been more vocal about his faith.
I have nothing against the LDS, but where do we get Mormon from here?