Damian Magecraft's page

Damian Magecraft wrote:

we have found the opposite to be true...

Well, you clearly have some very odd players.

Then again, people multi-classing in 2nd Ed were passing up all those single-class kits, some of which were distinctly cheesy.

It could be we don't approach character design as some kind of mini-game that needs "solved."

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Dual-classing is nothing like multiclassing.

And triple classing is simply 3 classes. Possibly 2 core and one prestige. If you want to suggest that no prestige class should have more than one core class as a prerequisite, ok.

But no multi or prestige classes has pretty much been voted down.

I was unaware that my personal house rules were up for a vote. The op simply asked what house rules we have implemented that have made the game better for us.

Damian Magecraft wrote:

in my 40 years of experience

You must have a time machine, since you were playing this game system 25 years before its original release. Of course I can take you seriously after a preposterous claim like that.

you do realize this system is an evolution of 3.x which in turn is an evolution of multiple iterations of D&D?

My Mileage Does Vary.

which is why I did say in my experience.

Every argument for a multi-class concept that has ever been presented to me inevitably boils down to "I want x powers in addition to y powers and I want to avoid z built in downsides while doing it."

There is no secret set of complex rules.
Just the one simple one.

1: Don't be a D***.

This makes much more sense to me than the "run wild in the candy store" mentality Paizo endorsed in its rules.

This is the part that is bothering me the most...

ArmoredSaint wrote:

I still don't see any good reason that acquisition of new spells should be automatic. I miss the days of mages having to roll to learn each new spell they got; it helped rein in their power somewhat. I wish the rule hadn't been discarded in later editions...

I would have hated that rule. I played second edition so I dont know if it was taken out of that version or my GM just ignored it.

It is not always easy, but it is better to play with like-minded or flexible individuals who play within the optimization range you like to play on.

your Gm ignored it.

My "fixes" for the linear/quadratic issue:
.
.
.
.

I utilize all 3 EXP Tracks for the classes:
Fast Track
barbarian, fighter, monk, rogue, cavalier, ninja, samurai
Medium Track
bard, paladin, ranger, inquisitor, gunslinger, magus
Slow Track
cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard, alchemist, oracle, summoner, witch

Feats scale with level progression (Now that twice as many feats as everyone else actually means something for the Fighter).

All classes get +2 additional skill points per level and Class skills do not require a skill point to gain the +3CS bonus. (This expands the out of combat capabilities of martials).

And lastly: Some Spells are revised to scale back the power disparity.

Damian Magecraft wrote:

I May even have to toss in a cult of a slumbering cthonic nightmare of a god for giggles...

Frsrs you said you didn't like Carrion Crown what gives

no... I said I do not like canned adventures in general. And that I doubt I would like Carrion Crown. Meaning I have never read it.

I am starting up a new campaign and the first 4 players just showed up (the remaining 6 will show up later after they get off work... *grumble* stupid life getting in the way *grumble*) with their character concepts. I was not expecting this mix of characters I must admit.

(The setting is a home brewed version of the Palladium Fantasy World using a house ruled Pathfinder rules set)
Current Party:
Half-orc Paladin of Rurga (Goddess of Truth)
Half-Elf Cleric of The Dragonwright (Dragon Gods)
Dwarf Oracle of Stone (Tongues Curse: Terran)
Human Inquisitor of Utu (THE Death god)

All the challenges I had set up did not take into account this level of divine help...
This is going to be an entertaining campaign.
Any suggestions on where to take this since the original story (Undead Horde) is going to need heavy revisions?

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Ascalaphus wrote:

If a suit of armor includes gauntlets, and you refuse to wear them, should you really be getting the full AC from the armor? You're not completely wearing it.

I think it's reasonable to say that gauntlets are armor that can be used as a weapon. Just like shields and armor spikes, really.

No it's not. They're not on the Armor table, so it's not armor. They have zero armor quantifications. That claim has no justification other than "it includes them," which has no grounds in both RAW and RAI.

Just because something includes stuff doesn't mean it's a requirement to wear the included stuff in addition to the base items.

If I told you that every 50 dollar order comes with a 10 dollar gift card, your logic dictates that I must use that 10 dollar gift card with the 50 dollar order or my 50 dollar order is automatically damaged and doesn't work properly.

Actually it is more like this:

With every 50 dollar order (full plate) you get a 10 dollar gift certificate (+9 AC).
Failure to order 50 dollars (not wearing the full ensemble) nets you no gift certificate (the +9 AC).

You're kidding, right? Not wearing gauntlets equates to losing +9 AC? That example is not only stupid, it makes no sense, especially since gauntlets by themselves don't grant +9 AC, nor by RAW do they reduce or increase any armor bonuses.

I'm done arguing this point. Point out where in this section that either A. Gauntlets are even remotely treated as armor, and B. Gauntlets grant or increase an existing Armor bonus to AC. Until you can do that, which I am 100% sure you cannot, you're simply stating houserules. Not to mention, this is starting to get highly off-topic.

**EDIT** I bet you goobers would have a field day with trying to use Hand slot Wondrous Items and Gauntlets at the same time.

I believe the person who first brought up the issue of the no gauntlets and no helmet was wondering why there was no reduction in AC and stating that perhaps there should be. Not insisting that one does exist.

Me? I was pointing out the absurdity of your analogy (use a poor one and it will get turned around and used against you).
I have no horse in this race since I refuse to play PFS for the very reason this thread exists (arguing minutia seems to be the order of the day at every single PFS game I have had the "pleasure" of witnessing).
IMO this issue is one of the many reasons why the GM exists in the first place.

What happens if your DM is Captain Tantrum?

you walk away from his table and either GM a game yourself or find a new game and GM.

Warn them of the threat. That fighter played. That was her choice to play a character of tier.

You all convince me further that I would still be upset if played at that table. WHy even roll dice? Just describe to my table how we win sign my chronicle and let go home pretending I earned it.

I would have warned the player that I roll on the open table and everyone can see. If you play this adventure you could seriously die. Heck that is not the biggest threat in the adventure means. I would have said there is a noticeable chance these things can kill you in one hit even playing defensive. If all the other characters twice the level were that weak, I honestly think you are lying.

I have run other adventures when I have players unsure what to play or do.

I am sorry it is wrong of me to expect an honest DM. It is wrong of me to want to earn my win.

That is sad.

nothing wrong with wanting a "honest" GM...

Also: if you think rolling in the open makes the GM honest? You are naive.

kinevon wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

When I think about it, I think wow if I were playing there I would have had my game wrecked.

You gave an example where a player is making bad choice after bad choice and you have to lower the bar to keep them playing.

I am sorry your example does not appeal to me only firms my stance. I want that challenge and threat. If I were you, I would have advised the player against the actions that could have caused that. As a DM of new players I say often hey I would advice against X and here is why. So they learn. You taught them they can play reckless with no threat. Again let them know when they are playing up how deadly it is, the threat involved. Say a pregen may be a good idea. If you really wanna play up, you NEED to play smart. Going toe to toe is a bad idea. You failed him letting a newbie walk into hat threat ignorant

wow...

"Somewhere beyond the scorched gable end and the burnt-out buses

there is a poet indulging
his wretched rage for order-"

Derek Mahon

The 'wretched rage for order', the 'I must have control in order to express myself', the 'I am in competition with my fellow gamers', the 'a low stat I did not design is a sleight', etc, etc, etc...

Some like 'free verse' whereas some prefer 'formal structures', I just wish there was a common definition of fun.

Wish granted

World English Dictionary
fun (fʌn)

— n
1. a source of enjoyment, amusement, diversion, etc
2. pleasure, gaiety, or merriment
3. jest or sport (esp in the phrases in or for fun )
4. facetious , ironic fun and games amusement; frivolous activity
5. informal like fun
a. ( adverb ) quickly; vigorously
b. ( interjection ) not at all! certainly not!
6. make fun of , poke fun at to ridicule or deride
7. ( modifier ) full of amusement, diversion, gaiety, etc: a fun sport

— vb , funs , funning , funned
8. informal ( intr ) to act in a joking or sporting manner

Neon Sequitur wrote:

I'm inclined to agree; prestige classes should encourage character growth and reinforce setting tropes. Pathfinder's approach discourages the random cherry-picking of levels from this and that PrC just to power up a character, and I approve.

But I just can't quite take anyone who uses the term "forced down my unwilling throat" seriously. Sorry, OP. I think it's safe to say you are in no danger whatsoever of needing a stomach pump from reading a book.

Yeah, the OP went with the old "Stop liking what I don't like" shtick with the first post. While I do not really like archetypes myself, I don't accuse people who do of ruining my experience. I do blame them for contributing to it by accepting the direction that Paizo had chosen to take. If more people demanded PrC's with a good balance of crunch and flavor, Pathfinder would be much better off IMO.

I was never a fan of PRcs (not even in 3.0).

Snorter wrote:

But one would think that any player wanting to play a Summoner would have the common sense to carry out those preparations?

You would think so, but sadly that's often not the case in my experience... not dealing with summons, as the only summoners I've seen played have been done by experienced/considerate players, but spells.

I'm having flashbacks now to the people who play casters and refuse to write down the general details of what their g#&*$%n spells do. Ever session this one guy who was playing a Bard would try to use the cantrip Lullaby to put enemies to sleep in combat. And then we'd explain the spell does not do that. And then he would try it again. And again. And he would never use Inspire Courage on our mostly melee party. I don't know why this sticks with me, but the unreasonable anger it inspired in me lasts.

Another guy playing a blaster... each time we ask for his DCs he has to stop and stumble and we have to ask his casting stat, do you have these feat, what about that item, and oh my god just write it next to the spell. Move over I'll do it for you! Just don't waste 5 minutes on this ever again!

I feel a little bit better now.

This is an issue?

Diego Rossi wrote:

I am fairly sure that if there wasn't a screen a good percentage of the players would spend most of their time trying to fathom the to hit bonus and the saves of the NPC. Probably missing key part of what is happening.

Then you'll be happy to hear that in fact, that is not what a good percentage of the players spend their time doing when there's no screen. I have in fact found that the absence of a screen typically has no ill effects on player behavior, so you can rest easy. :)

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal...

Well yes, in a controlled environment such as point buy people will generally use the spreads that are good. I don't see that as a bad thing though, it allows for much greater player choice in what you want to build compared to rolling and potentially getting stats unsuited for the character you want.

When the fighter/rogue/mage/cleric/bard in game A has the same exact stats as the fighter/rogue/mage/cleric/bard in game B and the fighter/rogue/mage/cleric/bard in Game C and the fighter/rogue/mage/cleric/bard in game D, Ad nauseaum...

The difference in point buy vs Random Gen?
Diversity.
In point Buy I see the same stat arrays used incessantly.
I do not see that in Random roll.

Granted its anecdotal evidence...
But after witnessing it for the last 15 years from a pool of close to 5000 players in 25 states I would say it is rather telling.

Personally, I'm the opposite. I like the idea of a high magic world where everyone with a bit of disposable income can buy magic brick-a-brak.

IMO in a world where people can cast a spell like Continual Flame, there should be street lamps using it. Especially when there are people who have it as an SLA and can cast it once a day for free. All you need is one cast, and to compensate the caster, and it makes sense to me.

Stuff like that.

In a world with utilizable magic, magic should replace technology, which is how many settings do it.

I see a magic item shop as being no different from Ye Olde Radio Shack, with the more high end stuff being more along the lines of high end suppliers of custom made to order whatevers. Except instead of million dollar computers and custom Lamborghinis they roll out +10 equivalent weapons and armor, Staves of the Master, and whatnot.

I have GMed and PCed in a couple of games like that in past. They lost their fantasy appeal for me rather quickly though.

But as others have said...
If everyday magic is the game you enjoy and the game you play then you are doing it right.
If rare magic is the game you enjoy and the game you play then you are doing it right.
Neither way is wrong.

So I guess the question here is what is a 'standard' magical item and what's a 'rare' magical item?

I'll admit, weapons and armor tend to fall into the latter for me, while rings and cloaks (and most wondrous items) fall into the former. Do you make then quest for every item? I mean personally the Talisman (which takes the amulet slot, which is murder to most characters) is a passive bonus, something that's pretty quickly forgotten.

If I want to make an item a 'quest' item, I'd do it for a weapon, and after they had their starter concept weapon (unless this was a low level game), since I'd want them to be functional. Maybe they get their +1 sword from a bandit leader, and eventually get a +4 Frost Devil Bane sword from a demon warlord.

The point I'm trying to make is 'earned' is subjective, and making everything painfully special (quest worthy) is a quick way to change magic shop into a game of finding the rumor for the latest magical swag, which honestly doesn't sound too heroic to me unless every time it coincides with the main story.

The problem more stems from an immersion aspect for me.

Actual Magic Items found in the shops are of the consumable variety. With the odd "permanent" item here and there. The other source of income for these shops is the recharging of "disposables" like wands.

I tend to plan out my characters simply because of the existence of feat chains. When you gotta take five feats to get to the one you really want, you want to make sure you're going to qualify for all of them.

Yeah that does get a tad annoying... I like the concept of feats. I think the execution was poor however. (They should have scaling effects) heck you only get 10 or so over 20 levels. And giving Fighters one every level is pretty meaningless if 3/4 of them are dedicated to obtaining the 1/4.

I actually wonder what the real meaning of 'earning' an item is here. It keeps being brought up, but it's never defined. It's not like the Magic Shop adventure party is playing in a punch clock world where they slay goblins from 9-5, and then eventually cash in for a Holy Avenger.

So much of this seems more like "As GM I determine what the party gets, so they have to make sure I'm happy."

At the end of the day, making sure there's a +1 Furyborn Greatsword in the treasure of the dragon is important if your player wants it. Not sure what more they have to do to 'earn' it unless you're just admitting you want absolute control of all magical items in your game.

That's cool if that's how you want to run things, and everything like that is a gift from the GM, but having an item centered around one item isn't a bad thing (Agile sword/AOMF), and it doesn't make it a bad build. Make them 'earn' it if you must, but still give it to them if it helps them have more fun.

Speaking as a player not a GM now...

I want A Tale of Glory that justifies the item.
Not a "this old thing? Five ninety eight at Franks Magic Emporium, got it on clearance."

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Weapon/Armor Enhancement bonuses (sword +3, dagger +1 etc...) are non-magical in nature but instead reflect superior workmanship/quality.

I like this one. The less screwed martial types are by dispels/anti-magic effects the better.

The real fun comes in when you realize that Masterwork Armor can now achieve a DR x/-.

In my games I put a maximum limit on how high the masterwork bonuses can go. (Armor DR 10/-) (weapons +5). But also included a new type of bonus: Artisan.
Different racial artisans can impart unique bonuses to weapons.
Examples:
Orcish Bloodletter Blades grant an Artisan bonus to damage. (Max +5)
Dwarven Hammers grant an Artisan bonus for bypassing up to 5 points of any DR
Elven Bows grant an Artisan bonus to accuracy (max +5)
etc...

Select Named Artisans such as Hatori Hanzo (no he does not exist in my games) can impart Artisan bonuses (typically unique to that Artisan) as well.

Anyway, I find Damian's story entirely acceptable as a certain style of play - a good one, even - and I think it's entirely in-keeping with black dragons' potential characteristics to feel that way.

That said, I can see the opposing points: if played on a "higher difficulty" setting, the dragon could have been substantially more difficult. Beyond that base premise, though, we don't know how the GM had played the creature, what it's personality was, or what had happened up until then in the campaign, so...
*shrug*

... seems like an awful lot to go through for one guy's story.

Well; as I had stated in the explanation this was the Tenth time we had interfered in the Dragons plans. It was also the first time we took direct action against him. Yes I had said he was "cross with us" I meant that as levity. He was royally ?!$$ed at us.

Damian Magecraft wrote:

swoosh wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

False premise.

Items are a part of the game true enough...
But, expecting a specific item just because you happened to think of build that relies...

Expecting to have a functional character and not be screwed by a spiteful DM seems like an entirely reasonable thing to be "entitled" to.

Wait...

Not handing the player exactly what they asked for when they asked for it is being spiteful? What ever happened to earning what you want?

Good thing I didn't say that (hell, no one did!). Refusing to allow a player to pick up an item to keep him competitive is though, yes. Leaving a fighter gimped because allowing him to upgrade his exotic weapon would be too "unrealistic" or making sure the monk can't pick up his amulet has nothing to do with "earning" anything (because, again, no one even brought up the idea of doing otherwise).

What would you call this "I'm going to make sure the loot you find doesn't help you and that you can't buy it either" mentality if not spiteful?

And who said that?

Damian Magecraft wrote:

False premise.

Items are a part of the game true enough...
But, expecting a specific item just because you happened to think of build that relies...

Expecting to have a functional character and not be screwed by a spiteful DM seems like an entirely reasonable thing to be "entitled" to.

Wait...

And the Dragon didn't just use his Breath Weapon and fly out of range of your attacks with Fly-By Attack while laughing at your puny pinpricks because...?

See this is the problem with "Well I'll just use tactics". It doesn't work when the monster you're fighting, who has the power advantage, also uses tactics.

Dragons are arrogant, quick to anger, vain, etc...

We did not try to fight the thing toe to toe for one thing.
We used hit and run tactics in the forest surrounding the village it was currently harassing.
This being the 10th time we had run afoul of the beast (the previous 9 times we had foiled its machinations); needless to say he was quite cross with us.
The Archer started with those annoying clustered shots of his. when the dragon would move to assault the Elf, the Barbarian would open up with his "dwarven crossbow" (hammers for those who do not get the euphemism) from another direction. I would open fire with my own crossbow. The Spartan Brothers (the two fighters) would use javelins. (all of our attacks were called shots; eyes, wing joints, etc...)
We did this as an attrition and annoyance tactic. We moved the fight to a point of our choosing by striking, fading into cover and reappearing to strike again. Once we maneuvered the fight to the spot we had picked then we opened up with the melee tactics. The Barbarian raged, The elf did his archery thing, The Twins did their 300 imitation, and I did my immovable rock impersonation.
It was not an easy battle that was over in less than a minute but it was a not a forgone conclusion that the dragon would win either.

strayshift wrote:

You see there is where we are different. I don't really like high level play and prefer the 'reminder of mortality' low level play has. I can lose interest in a character if they get too powerful very easily.

Just play a rogue. Problem solved!

Let the hate flow through you... give in to your anger... give in to the dark side.

I wouldn't even want to play with such a DM. I don't play with jerks. That's why I want the DM to list his houserules. So I can say "Uh, this isn't a game from me, I'm gonna bow out. Bye."

I won't even mention the fact that it's NOT his game, but OUR game... but it might become HIS game and HIS ALONE, because he would be alone, without players.

Oh it is to laugh...

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

past level 5ish. the Players are generally assumed to have bonuses from the big 10 Factored into their bonuses with weapons specifically tailored for their build, even if not the best bonus per se.

generally because monsters will have such high stats you need that gear to survive

That has yet to be proven.

It ASSUMED that the books assume such.
Combat is NOT the only means of overcoming an encounter (it is just the default of most players).

the reason it is assumed that the books assume such is that at level 5 and after, there are a lot of monstrous opponents a party of adventurers just cannot defeat with a series of magic items, at least not with the consume 20% of party resources guideline.

and a lot of the ones from that range or even before, are bound to slaughter a party whom lacks magical equipment

i mean, magic items make up anywhere from +1 to +20 of your total armor class. there are simply encounters you won't be able to survive past level 5 if you don't have the gear

even though combat isn't the only means to stop things, the system devotes a disproportionately large amount of it's rules to combat and well, it started as a wargame called chainmail in the 1960s. i don't see how a game with wargame roots can really not encourage combat as its primary solution, especially when like 90 percent of the published rules have a connection to minature figurine based wargame style combat.

if you look at the wealth by level chart. that alone is proof that PCs are to have so much wealth in adventuring magical gear to fight encounters with.

if PCs weren't assumed to have magic items, or to be able to craft, commission or purchase the items their build required we wouldn't have a wealth by level chart and magic items wouldn't have price tags attached.

WBL was the absolute worst thing ever introduced into RPGs.

As a "Hardcore" Magic-user player (note the choice of name) I must say...

-A paring down of spells that obsolete skills, or a reworking of them. Spider Climb giving a bonus on Climb Checks, or a Climb Speed based on your Climb ranks rather than a flat "Yep, no reason to take Climb".

-More specialized casters. Rather than having each casting class basically be able to do everything in one build, make them choose a bit. Increase spells per day and spells known, but limit acquiring spells outside your area of expertise. Boost the less desirable magic schools (like Illusion) so this is viable.

I like your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

HarbinNick wrote:

Why is there no essence?

Why can't it be agreed upon?
I mean the essence of NASCAR is hoping a car crash happens. Nobody really watches cars go in circles over and over
The essence of American Italian cooking is Basil, Tomato, and Cheese
The essence of Russian Literature is a dark brooding over moral questions, or at least serious ideas
The essence of Chinese Painting was a taoist belief system, where humans were little and mountains were big

NASCAR essence noise, remove the sound and you'll get zero tv viewers. Some people like watching the 'left hand turns'. Take away the sound and people simply walk away. Studies have been done. It's science.

They missed one... Its an easy sport to follow when you're hammered.

Because it makes sense and would be interesting character. Also its what the player wants to play and he's used his skills and creativity to make it for the campaign.

"Yes" and "Yes, but..." are really the way to roll.

AaaannnnnD fail.

I have set boundaries that all the other players have worked within.
You want to be the one person to whom those boundaries do not apply.
Justify why you should be an exception.
Claiming creativity does not work.
The other players were just as creative and still managed to follow the guidelines.
Ditto for skill.
If anything claiming this (also viewed as showcasing system mastery) only makes you look like an even bigger @$$. (no one likes a know-it-all)
Why do the rules, guidelines, and boundaries as presented long before the game ever started not apply to you but do to Steve, Jan, and Roger? That is what you have to overcome not my "power tripping" GM as GAWD attitude.

You want me to use my "Yes" & "Yes; but" tools? Fine give me an incentive to do so. So far All I am hearing is "because I want to"; and "the other players do not matter."

Kirth Gersen wrote:

AdAstraGames wrote:

We then had a long therapy session for people who are still traumatized by having a GM have too much power in their game and feeling like they always got shafted when the games devolved to "Mother May I."

Not cool, AAG. Dial the condescension back from 11 to maybe 5 or 6 and we can still talk.

Also, the whole world is not as obsessed with DungeonWorld as you are; the thread was originally talking about AD&D, if you'll recall.

Maybe the condescension is the result of so many posts dismissing his preferred style as "Mother May I" and similar things.

That would have been my first thought...

Anzyr wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

It is like this, the game assumes certain things so unless you as a GM say no, players will expect them. If you are going to ban something or make it hard to get then just be honest about why. Some GM's wont like something, but wont be honest about why so they make up house rules to make it hard to work. Sometimes they dont even know why they dont like it.

Example: Some GM's don't like Tome of Battle. They say ___ and ___ is why. I prove that is not true. They make up more reasons. I debunk those. Eventually they just say "I still won't allow it because (insert real reason). Well if they had said that up front.....

But the real reason is that they are close minded and prefer their fun over that of the other players (How does Jim being a Crusader affect the way you feel about you?) and that sounds terrible to say up front. I mean would you want to admit that upfront?

I agree, but I dont think they realize that they prefer their fun or that they are being close-minded. But if they did, I do agree they would not want to admit it.

I cannot speak for the others but the issue I am discussing is the one that comes up after I have set (and published for the players) the parameters for the game and that one lone (not the hive mind that so many are implying they speak for) player decides those parameters do not apply to him. If the other players are capable of "coloring with in the lines" why are you not? Do you not realize that by insisting that the GM bow to your every whim on this one point (and inevitably even more through out the course of the game) you are telling the rest of the table their fun is no importance?

Damian Magecraft wrote:

I am little more tolerant than you I think...

Unquestionably so, DM.

I would refrain from kicking the guy's ass, though, so that's something.

well to be fair the 5 minute thing stems from my "5 Rules of Gamemastering"...

#1: What is good for one is good for all.
Also known as the Goose/Gander rule. It basically means any Power/skill/spell/gear the PCs have access to so do the NPCS.

#2: Actions have consequences.
Pretty self explanatory... every action (even good ones) will produce some kind of result beyond the immediate. The Party Kills that NPC that had the secret information to defeat the Bad Guy? Now they do not have access to that information. The party chases a petty tyrant from a town? The tale of their good deed spreads. The town folk are grateful; etc...

#3: Events do not stagnate.
The Party chooses to ignore a plot thread? That villain is not going to wait for the heroes to "get around" to him; He is going to continue with plans. What could this mean for our heroes? The Big Bad Evil Guy might be bigger and badder than he would have been if they had followed it when it was first presented. Or it could be that another band of heroes defeated him stealing the players thunder.

#4: The GM is god (to a point).
Regardless of what some players would have you think; the GM really is god (of his game world); he controls every thing in the game universe except the PCs. Arguing with him over a decision is tantamount to telling the gods they are running the universe wrong. (see rule #2)
But GMs are human and therefore fallible. If a Player disagrees with the GM they get 5 minutes to calmly and rationally (cannot stress that part enough) present their case. This does not mean the GM has to change their mind but they do have to give it a listen and actively consider it.
Players if the you are still not happy with the GMs call; do not continue to disrupt the game; this does nothing to further your case. Instead accept the call for the remainder of the game and then discuss it calmly in further depth after the session is over.
Remember that calm rational discussion will go farther than a shouting match.

#5: Have Fun.
Do I really need to explain this?

Damian Magecraft wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

mephnick wrote:

Man, Damian and the other guy could probably be rich if they put all that effort into something useful. You should have written a book series, you might be the new Steven Erikson.

In other news, I'd hate to play in that world and I think my group would as well, but to each his own.

It really depends on the kind of experience you're looking for.

That level of detail would be amazing for a videogame, for example. For players looking for that sort of 'here we are, what's there to do GM?' gameplay, that world would be like a playground. Everything's there, you just ask and do. It strikes me as something requiring incredibly little effort on the player's part, which has a certain appeal.

I'd hate that aspect of that setting, but I can't necessarily say I wouldn't enjoy playing in it depending on how it was run.

Writing a novel? I lack the skill (and perhaps the confidence to a degree) to invent the main characters and their interactions with those worlds.

Video game? maybe... If I had invented the worlds in that level of detail in a short time? sure I would be rich.
But they got that detailed over the course of 30 years.
I started pretty much like you do Kryt.
I started with some vague basics (world map, major movers and shakers, etc...) the rest grew organically from adventures I ran in those worlds. The Players would ask questions that would get me thinking in a new direction and it would flow from there.
If I ever build another new world it will in all likely hood develop the same way.

So what you're saying is, your world started incomplete, and you allowed things to be added as they went forward, presumably some of it with player input and participation.

So why were you arguing with me about it, dagnabbit?

Because you once again are making an assumption. The only player input I have ever received is "hey, Damian, what is the major export of the Claíomh Fola Barony?

Edit: And now my post makes much less sense because I took so long to make it and Coriat already made the point on the last page.

I think Coriat is just trying to point out how impossible it sounds for someone to have planned every detail ever for their campaign setting.

For example if your players decided to leave wherever they were and ride north for 50 miles. They then ride west until they reach the first settlement of village size. Upon reaching the village they ask what the name of the village is, who the leader is, who the leader was 25 years ago (about the time human PCs could have been born), what the name of the largest tavern is and how much they could purchase it for, and what is the wealthiest family that lives there?

Do you trace that route across your map and pull out the notebook labeled villages 100-149 to give them this information that you have prepared? This is why someone claiming to have prepared every detail for their setting to be a bit ridiculous.

As a matter of fact that is exactly what I do.

Did I invent this stuff out of whole cloth when I first put on the GMs hat? Of course not...
I started out like Kryt-ryder with a bare bones frame work unfortunately, unlike he and his group, my players could have cared less about contributing to the world construction, they left it all up to my fertile, over active, obsessive imagination.
They would ask a question here or there about this or that (invariably something I had not considered up to that point) and I would make a determination on the spot (note it down and add it to the ever expanding list of World Books.
After 30 years of using the same worlds (why re-invent the wheel for a 5th time?) information accumulates.

Coriat wrote:

Simon Legrande wrote:

Coriat wrote:

Simon Legrande wrote:

as if the GM doesn't know the entirety of the world he created.

Waitasecond, leaving the rest of your post aside for a moment, since when does the GM know the entirety of the world he created?

The few times I've created campaigns from scratch I have created every facet of every world the players ended up in. Boy, I guess I'm a real sucker for putting in time and effort to build a world I know inside and out.

Every last facet, huh?

I assume I failed a Sense Motive check vs sarcasm before.

Pardon me for sometimes having an overactive imagination and being smart enough to make it all work. I know it's not the norm. When I build a world, I build the @*^# out of it.

Nothing wrong with that.

Simon Legrande wrote:

Coriat wrote:

Simon Legrande wrote:

as if the GM doesn't know the entirety of the world he created.

Waitasecond, leaving the rest of your post aside for a moment, since when does the GM know the entirety of the world he created?

The few times I've created campaigns from scratch I have created every facet of every world the players ended up in. Boy, I guess I'm a real sucker for putting in time and effort to build a world I know inside and out.

"Every facet"?

Must be a very boring world to play in, then, if the players have no say and no agency in what goes on, every tiny bit of the setting is planned out and set ins tone, with no wiggle room, no possibility of anything new ever being added since every part of the world is already thought up...

And this sounds like every player who has never GMed.

havoc xiii wrote:

I've never understood the whole "if you want this item here is an entire quest for it" thing. So is the character going to go "hey guys I know we need to save the world and stuff but I totally heard about this dwarves hero who had a really bomb shield I was thinking we could go and take it" how exactly does that work?

The whole game would just be item grinding...kill daimon awakened form until he drops a daimon claw to build your new sword...

A DM can integrate such quests though into the overall plotline. Its not like there isn't plenty of fiction out there involving characters needing to procure item x to a specific villain.

Ah... but that sounds too much like GM empowerment... We cant have that now; can we?[/sarcasm]

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

You don't need a 20 level build to have certain items that are necessary for your character to do the things s/he's supposed to do. Any Finesse fighter is a liability to the group until they get dex-to-damage in some manner; if you're not using a Scimitar, that means using an Agile enchantment. The later you get one, the more time you spend being a drain in combat, being focused on martial abilities without having the stats to be martial.

I do recognize and accept that not everyone approaches the game in my way. That's fine; if your character can survive with with whatever crap you find lying on the ground then feel free to do so. I don't think a GM should listen to a full list of items a player wants, but there are builds that are completely unworkable without certain items. It's a very small list, but they do exist and if you're not going to provide them to a player who wants to build around its existence then you should at least tell them so they can come up with a concept that will function in your game.

I would have to say if a build cannot be viable with out item x... then its not a very good build.

That's similar to saying that all strength based fighters are bad builds because they rely on the existence of Power Attack.

Enchanted items are just as firmly planted in the game as feats. I LIKE the items that you look at, you see an off-the-wall ability or just something that isn't a +2 to X stat, and think "ooh, ooh! I could build around that". It encourages creativity and a greater variety of playstyles than you would be able to get if you were limited only to the things your GM has no say in you taking.

Of course, technically a GM could ban Power Attack if he really wanted to. I think he'd have difficulty finding enough players for a table, though.

False premise.

You don't need a 20 level build to have certain items that are necessary for your character to do the things s/he's supposed to do. Any Finesse fighter is a liability to the group until they get dex-to-damage in some manner; if you're not using a Scimitar, that means using an Agile enchantment. The later you get one, the more time you spend being a drain in combat, being focused on martial abilities without having the stats to be martial.

I do recognize and accept that not everyone approaches the game in my way. That's fine; if your character can survive with with whatever crap you find lying on the ground then feel free to do so. I don't think a GM should listen to a full list of items a player wants, but there are builds that are completely unworkable without certain items. It's a very small list, but they do exist and if you're not going to provide them to a player who wants to build around its existence then you should at least tell them so they can come up with a concept that will function in your game.

I would have to say if a build cannot be viable with out item x... then its not a very good build.

Damian Magecraft wrote:

and here we see the differences in our approaches to gaming.

Dip naked in lava? I do not care what level you are... if you expect your character to survive that "because the numbers say so" move on to the next table cause that aint happening here.
PC are not gods among men just big damn heroes.

Might as well have listed that as your houserule from the start and saved us a back and forth.

It's a houserule. It works for your group, so cool.

But still, the game itself is made with that kind of stuff in mind. It's why there's rule for it to begin with.

Saying "characters above level 6 aren't superhuman because I houserule them not to be" is a bit misleading.

Because it is not a house rule. It is a Play Style. Big difference.