Brinymon DeGuzzler's page

Doug Miles wrote:

Everyone says that they are open-minded until criticism begins.

You noticed that too, huh?

I welcome any sort of feedback system; what you proposed looks fine to me. In fact, I'd be happy to have it at local Game Days (where I do most of my GMing) so I could get some good feedback. I try to figure out my own strengths and weaknesses, but it's hard to be both specific and reliable for yourself without outside input. For all I know, I might be doing fine with something I think is a major issue for me, or I might be doing far worse with something than I thought, or there might be an element of my style that I'm not even aware of that players have strong (positive or negative) feelings on.

I think that it would great to have a way to evaluate the GMs. Too many that I have played with have easily bruised egos and I could use a non-confrontational way to give them pointers or feed back without having to fear the backlash.

My story is from the other side of the table. GM'ing to a group of D-Bags. Right out the starting gate they start attacking and killing friendly NPCs that were obviously vital to the plot line. So, being the nice guy that I am I let it slide and just introduced more powerful NPCs to keep things moving. What happens then? They complain that the CRs are to high and they still didn't get it that it is wrong to attack an 8 year old girl for defending herself with an iron skillet after they broke into her house... (that is just one of many instances) needless to say the campiagn ended abruptly with the goal never even coming close to being accomplished.

intent is everything.

Clerics that specialize in Channeling are the BeesKnees. You can nerf Wisdom (if you don't care for spells) and boost Charisma and Channel like a mofo.

Vicon wrote:

When you read between the lines, he's chiseling for a mechanic to change memorized spells on the basis of your character knowing better -- which he himself admits is completely whack, because such casters don't need any help being more powerful than they already are. The pungent scent of gorgonzola pervades.

I took it differently. I figured the point was that a Wizard could prepare a whole lot of specific spells because out of game he knows they will be helpful, while in game its debatable whether the caster would know to prepare those.

It gets harder and harder not to "meta game" the more experienced a group is. I mean your asking a group to basically play dumb when they come up against something they know about but their characters have never fought. This goes against our basic nature and is hard to balance.

Normally I ignore it as a DM unless its a blatant use of out of game knowledge that the character would have no knowledge of. Stuff like Fighting a Red Dragon and knowing to use cold should be a pretty easy check for instance, because every Bard in every Inn probably has a story or two of how the heroes of old killed so in so dragon. Knowing what to do against a Black Pudding though... I don't see a ton of Bards singing an epic tale about a Black Pudding.

Shows what you know.

Brinymon DeGuzzler wrote:

Zark wrote:

Brinymon DeGuzzler wrote:

You can be an Atheist cleric

Not if your GM says no.

There is also the 'No Devotion' option.

Not if your GM says no

Then the GM is a dick and those kind of restrictions would be why nobody plays clerics.

In essence creating your character is "metagaming" by your definition. So, if you want to remove "metagaming" completely, then only use pregens.

Hmmm... How about turn undead? That is effectively torture to sentient undead, isn't it?