Daniel Gunther 346's page

I'm good with moving on if Gothic and Katie are.

I've seen a decent amount of posts on this board about how anything above 15th level doesn't matter because no one ever plays at those levels, is that actually true in general?

I know my group does, but maybe we are in the minority. Why don't people play at high levels?

I have seen many arguments that many players feel like the game breaks down in the "high-level" gameplay arena. It depends on the GM and players. I've been told that my best games are those run in the higher levels (anything above 10th level). I always approach high-level play as the arena in which the PCs choices and actions have far reaching results, almost as though they are the "Justice League" or "Avengers" of the game. They don't just save people, they save the world. It can be taxing. It all depends on ones perspective. I think the fun levels as a GM exist in the 10 plus range, while as a player its 10 and lower that I enjoy.

Can you trip a riding person? Trip is a combat maneuver to knock a target prone. The target is riding, meaning sitting down. You cannot trip the person who is riding. Tripping their mount, provided it is an animal and not more than one size category larger than the one attempting the trip is a possibility. The rider would then be allowed a ride check to land without harm and not fall prone. Of course if the person riding is being an idiot and standing in the saddle, trip away.

Of course, all of this is dependent upon the GM.

I have never been the type of player to do dump stats just to maximize a "key" attribute. Then again, I don't optimize my characters with what many would see as feat ideal combos/builds, focusing instead on playing organic characters with feat selections that feel right at the time. Makes for some interesting builds. That said, I've seen players max everything out. It is all dependent on what you feel is going to give you the most fun from gaming.

Not a fan. Can get too heated no matter how up front about things being PvP from the get go. Too easily to be taken personal.

I agree with some of the article. I am in the minority, possibly very small minority, in that I had no problem with Save or Die (or Save or Suck as it was dubbed at one point). I also had no problem with roll 3d6, you get what you get. Yes, it forced me to look at something I may not have considered or initially wanted. I always reconciled that as, just like in real life, you are what you are, who you are, despite what you may want. You may WANT to pursue a science education, but no matter how hard you try to grasp the science, it just doesn't make sense for you because of not being smart enough. Yes, it is possible to overcome one's own inherent "deficiencies", but not easily, and not without an extraordinary amount of hard-work and effort. And let's face it, most people are creatures of convenience that seek the easiest path. Mind you, that's my own view and what works for me and does not apply to anyone else.

To this day, when leveling up, I don't feel the same sense of accomplishment as I did in the early days of gaming. I never felt like it was guaranteed. Today, leveling is just another part of the game that gets tedious for me after awhile, because I KNOW it's going to happen, almost as though it is something player's are entitled too more than something to be earned. This is my own small perception, one for which I have yet to find anyone who shares it. So take it for a grain of salt.

I define old school as a rules light game, in which the rules don't bog down the game. Where it is the story is more important than the rules. Combats are fast, fierce, and cinematic, not pigeon-holed into 6 seconds. Where everything is done Theatre of the Mind, no maps, no grids, no minis or tokens. Again, that's me, and by no means indicative of anyone else.

To this day, as a GM, I still rely on my own judgement more than the innumerable rules. I have house/table rules when I run. I do so judiciously, and if my players are any indication, with an acceptable level of consistency and fairness.

To each their own. As long as everyone is having fun and enjoying the game, whether its old school lethality or more modern day paradigm of being less lethal (no more save or die), it just doesn't matter.

I have always preferred DC over Marvel. That said, I have loved what they have done with Marvelverse.

As for the upcoming Man of Steel sequel Dawn of Justice, I have a lot of concerns that they are using it as a launching point for a Justice League movie. Cameo appearances by Wonder Woman, Aquaman, and Cyborg. However, I must admit, I agree with the OP. I think the casting of Jason Mamoa and the look they have given Aquaman are great. No, he's not the blonde haired, fair skinned, cheesy sonar calling Aquaman of the Comics. Quite honestly, for me, anything they could have done would have been better than the Aquaman of the comics, at least for me, ymmv.

Let the chips fall where they may. They chose to play those characters. Be fair, but don't make special considerations just because of their choices. Resource management will be key. There are potions and other items to offset their lack of diversity. They will need to be very intelligent with how they approach their Dragon prey.

MacGuyver pulling out duct tape and a cotton swap!

I don't have the 5E PHB, only the Basic Rules PDF. Here's what it comes down to for me (by no means indicative of anyone else: It's just another set of d20 mechanics, mechanics removed, changed the focus to be less numbers driven in some aspects, but it is still d20. If you want the gaming with extra crunch, play PF...if you're looking for things to be less crunchy, play 5E. In either case, there is fun to be had, which is the only thing that really matters.

We have lost a true genius. He had a rare talent, a gift to bring joy to so many people. It is truly a sad day for all. My condolences to his family and friends.

I'm a little late to this conversation... My brother and I received the red box on 80 or 81 for Christmas from my dad. He was cool with allowing us to play, thought it was a great way to hone our imaginations and foster creativity. Well, as soon as that happened, my Grandmother and Great Aunt Catherine started pummeling my brother and I with Catholicism, terrified we were going to end up becoming satanic. They even went so far as to burn the red box in the fireplace and made us watch. That put the breaks on regular gaming until 2E came out in 88 or 89. My mother didn't mind it. Once again my grandmother and aunt started in about it being satanic. I countered with that it was based on real world myths and fantasy, such King Arthur, Merlin, Norse and Greek Mythology. They didn't talk to me for a year and then gave up trying to save my soul.

Maybe I am a traditionalist or old-fashioned. I have mostly played the "Boy Scout Do-Gooder Hero". It fits into my personal perspective about fantasy being the age old battle between good and evil; there is no moral ambiguity, you work to better the world or you don't. I'm not talking stupid good, but the type of good that always grants the benefit of the doubt...orcs are not slain, just because they are orcs.

I have played morally ambiguous characters, but they are a rarity, and a tiresome endeavor. Real-life is filled with grey, hell, with the exception of Superman, even comic books have become all about moral flexibility and flawed heroes willing to make the tough choice in the name of the greater good. I call it the Dark Knight effect.

Gendo wrote:

Freehold DM wrote:

Gendo wrote:

Just found out that a woman who misses a ton of work for "stress", has been caught sleeping on the job, and never takes responsibility for her fouls-up got one of the top ratings and raises. Hmmm...I must have a different standard for what one has to do to get a good eval and raise...like work, don't slack off, meet and exceed all goals, don't miss work, don't treat work like it's a social event, go the extra where possible whenever possible.

we talked about your job in a now locked thread. I'm sorry to hear things haven't improved, but I'm also concerned about how you go about your job. Something is up with either how you describe yourself or how you describe your coworkers or the job itself if this is going on.

I just had a sit-down with my Supervisor over this. The gist of what I was told is that while I do an "exceptional" job - his word not mine, my lack of social interaction beyond purely what is needed puts me on the bottom of the "plays well with others" section of reviews. He even showed me some complaints about my terseness with my coworkers. My response, "Thank you for showing me that my efforts of the last 6 years are completely meaningless." I got up and went back to work. I am in the process of seeking new employment.

I'm glad you're looking for another job but I still maintain that this(socialization) was something I mentioned to you in the last thread.

You did. It had a ring of truth when you said it. It became a 16-ton weight dropped on my skull when my supervisor brought out that the complaints.

Gendo wrote:

Just found out that a woman who misses a ton of work for "stress", has been caught sleeping on the job, and never takes responsibility for her fouls-up got one of the top ratings and raises. Hmmm...I must have a different standard for what one has to do to get a good eval and raise...like work, don't slack off, meet and exceed all goals, don't miss work, don't treat work like it's a social event, go the extra where possible whenever possible.

we talked about your job in a now locked thread. I'm sorry to hear things haven't improved, but I'm also concerned about how you go about your job. Something is up with either how you describe yourself or how you describe your coworkers or the job itself if this is going on.

I just had a sit-down with my Supervisor over this. The gist of what I was told is that while I do an "exceptional" job - his word not mine, my lack of social interaction beyond purely what is needed puts me on the bottom of the "plays well with others" section of reviews. He even showed me some complaints about my terseness with my coworkers. My response, "Thank you for showing me that my efforts of the last 6 years are completely meaningless." I got up and went back to work. I am in the process of seeking new employment.

Gendo wrote:

I must have a different standard for what one has to do to get a good eval and raise...like work, don't slack off, meet and exceed all goals, don't miss work, don't treat work like it's a social event, go the extra where possible whenever possible.

Sucker.

Too much evidence to support your statement.

...when you sit down at the table and the GM tells you he doesn't use maps and minis, going with theater of the mind games.

...when the GM explains that his planning equates to two or three sentences, wings the entire session and you have an enjoyable session.

...when GMs does not allow tablets, smart phones, or other widgets to be used during the session except for emergency purposes...ie injured family member or the like.

...everyone plays the same class.

...GM provides pre-gen characters that are solid, but are far from optimized.

...When the GM states that story is more important than detail.

...Anytime the GM states that the only you can do when a PC dies is to look through there pockets for loose change and other loot.

I am, generally, a player friendly GM. By that I mean that if my players want something in game, I am pretty flexible with what is allowed. When it comes to encounters I let the die fall where they may. If it means the group breezes through an encounter that was designed to be challenging or get their butts handed to them in an encounter that is supposed to be a walk-through, that's just how things end up. One thing I am very unforgiving towards is the attitude that just because you're an adventurer does NOT instantly validate a character as a hero amdtherefore should be able to emerge victorious from every encounter just because. Success in games I run are earned, never given...which by no means indicates that the same is not true for anyone else. If my group makes a stupid decision or the die are being unkind to them, that's just the way it is. I've been running games for the better part of the last 23 years, with various groups and have never had anyone complain...at least nothing has been brought to my attention.

Not sure how many know about this, but apparently in the late 60s or early 70s, there was a mandate in the US to switch to the Metric system. Until I moved to Reading, PA in '83, metric was what I was being taught in school, with enough Imperial/US Standard to figure things out.

I don't know why it wasn't enforced more rigorously. Funny thing is, it's been my experience that a bulk of the STEM based jobs deal almost exclusively in the Metric system. It is a much easier system than US Standard.

shallowsoul wrote:

Someone on the boards found it funny when I discussed characters being heavily involved in the story and advicating arbitrary death at the same time. Where is the problem with this? Why can't I spend a lot of time on my character, have him heavily involved with the story and at the same time, accept that things happen and characters die by that lone trap or that lucky hit from a monster?

I do this with each of my characters and I don't see why it would be funny.

Because, I daresay for most people, the more heavily invested they are in their character the more painful it is to have that character die, because it feels like they are losing that investment. People typically don't like to go through painful experiences if they don't have to, so people tend to not like having their character die, especially when the circumstances make it feel as though the death was unnecessary or meaningless.

This isn't a difficult concept.

Actually I am a unique bird in that I find the above concept really odd. For me, by no means anyway else, if there is no chance of death, whether it is seemingly meaningless or it is some sort of martyed act of sacrifice, what is the point of playing. Again this is me. I've never understood vehement loathing of the Save or Die and other similar mechanics. It is genuinely befuddling to me no matter how many times it is has been explained.

I liked the action in movie 1... But:

-The story was horrible.
-The science was too crazy even for Star Trek. (goo that makes black holes?!)
-It violated what we already know about the Star Trek universe.
-They blew up Vulcan...

Far more bad than good.

Sadly it seems people who didn't like it are in the minority, so the new one should do just fine in the box office.

The bolder part caught my eye. How can anyone complain that it violated what was already known about Star Trek. Abram's used established Star Trek continuity to ALTER Star Trek continuity through the use of time travel and the much more scientifically plausible idea that changing an event in the past will change EVERYTHING to a lesser or greater extent.

As for the crazy black goo, well that is no more CRAZY than out of control grey goo...otherwise known as a nanoswarm. Read Michael Chrichton's novel PREY and take a look at the bibliography in the back.

Regardless of my counter picks, three of your reasons for disliking the revolt (story NOT being the exclusion) I have heard from others. Incidentally, after how Vulcan's were portrayed in the Enterprise TV show...I couldnot have been happier to see there planet kablooied.

Due to the fact that hospitals can not turn away patients who need emergency care.

For the vast majority of people little to nothing will change. What the intent of the program is to change how costs of the uninsured are handled.

The only sane method to deal with this problem is to get everyone on board. To make insurance available for the uninsured and get these costs more evenly balanced out.

I can say with certainty, from own experiences, that hospitals can AND will turn you away without insurance. So please stop using that as a fact. I have been turned away twice while uninsured BUT employed and capable of paying for services rendered.

Play monsters smart and clever - tactics. Everytime I've done this, it scares the hell out of my group.

lalallaalal wrote:

I don't understand how the OP thought it was ok to dig into the host's fridge every session because it they said it was ok that one time. I don't even dig into my parents' fridge without asking every time.

Not to diss on your parents, but this is very unusual. The OP may or may not be guilty of imposing on his hosts, but some hosts really are glad to share their bounty with guests. I think GrenMeera will back me up on this one.

Anecdotally, I've never met a parent who wanted to be asked permission from their own children to help themselves. Unless it's a young kid making a mess, or a high kid with the munchies clearing the whole fridge out. In fact I have friends with parents who would laugh at me if I were to ask permission to grab a drink or whatever. "Since when do you need permission? Haha!" This may be atypical too, but it's not rare IME.

Hello, I'm a perent who expects my kids to ask permission to help themselves to something. My kids are 3, 4, and 6. I DO EXPECT and reqire them to ask to go into the fridge, even the 6 year old.

Why is someone with no knowledge of the rules being the GM?

Everyone who GMs the first time screws up somehow, someway. It's the nature of the game. Ok, so that GM confused a rule. BFD. Talk to him outside the game without cornering him, clarify how it works as stated in the book and go with it.

I've been GMing for most of my 20 years of gaming, and I readily admit to missing rules. I don't care. My player's will either point it out during the game or in between sessions it'll be discovered. No harm, no foul.

My perspective as a GM: Rules are guidelines to be used, discarded, or modified as suits the needs of running the most enjoyable game possible at MY/YOUR tables for my/your players.

Personally, as to the OP, I'd just go with it and be done, especially if it keeps the game moving.

The character that is the 'everyday Joe' type that gets pulled into events beyond what he has ever experienced - such as Bilbo Baggins from The Hobbit or Frodo Baggins from The Lord of the Rings (as he evolved in the books not the movie).

...So, the reasons cited were:

1. Forgot to pay my share for Pizza.

...

2. I was not chipping in for snacks.

...
3. Drinking the host's milk.

...

4. Cursing.

1. If you didn't chip in, don't partake of the grub.

Rules for my group:
1. Whoever is hosting the game allows the use of glasses, utensils, and other eating implements, use of toilet, unlimited water. Guests are still expected to ask for permission, as a courtesy and to be respectful of spouses/significant others.
2. The Host does not have to chip in for grub (we rotate from session to session who hosts the group).
3. Guests who don't chip in for grub DO NOT partake of grub.
4. Bring your own snacks.
5. No cursing. We all have kids.

Failing any of these will get you kicked to the curb.

Personally, it sucks you got booted, however I'd say you were a poor guest. It has always been my understanding that as a guest, while the Host has certain expectations about providing a friendly, welcoming environment, the burden is on the guest to be overly polite while being a guest, EVEN when it is someone hosting that you've known for years and have developed a close friendship. I'd have booted.

I've never run into the 15-minute adventure day at my tables or those where I've played. The 15 minute day, at least to me, is a game where the GM maybe doesn't have a decent enough grasp of what's challenging for the group.

Besides, any fight where the 12th level Wizard is using their most potent magic has companions that are quite handy with there weapons, ALL OF WHOM ARE CONTRIBUTING TO MAKING A HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE CLAMOROUS RACKET!! - Fireballs/Lightning Bolts/Cone of Cold/Ice Storm/Shout are NOT quiet; swords and axes slamming into other weapons/shield/armor are NOT quiet; People who fight in mundane ways are NOT quiet in combat. It's bound to draw attention for other things in the area with just the noise, the smell of blood will draw other predators, not necessarily monsters. Also, if the PCs are showing themselves to be a threat to the BBEGs plans, they will either allow them to come to them in there well defended and PREPARED LAIR or they will move against the PCs themselves striking when they're at their most vulnerable - after they've been softened up by an encounter and undoubtedly have some way to prevent the PCs from fleeing or have the ability to pursue.

Now, unless a fight is occuring within the confines of a Silence effect, something is bound to notice what is going on, IF anything else is in the area.

To Vote, simply *favorite* one of the *Two* posts below:

.

POLL: Which Party Will Win the Next Presidential Election ?

.

Neither one. Both parties are full of crap. Until the two-party system is destroyed, I will continue to vote 'No Ticket'. The last decent president this country had was well before I was born - Lincoln. Everyone after that has been garbage plain and simple.

This is my own perspective on kill vs coddle, and by no means indicative of anyone else:

I don't try to kill the PCs. On the flip side, I won't go out of my way to not try to kill the PCs. Their characters will live or die based upon the choices they make and the randomness of the die roll. Making them think they're character can die only to have them pull through by scaling back the challenges mid encounter or fudging die rolls is a false sense of accomplishment/success. An oppoprtunity for success must countered with an equal opportunity for failure.

I still have level disparity in my groups. If you don't show up, your character gets relegated to background non-participatory scenery, and you get no XP. If you just sit there, don't participate more than to just roll dice, you get 3/4 the XP of everyone else. If you decide to play around with your iPhone, iPod, laptop, tablet, or keep texting/twittering/facebooking during a session - your character meets a messy GM induced death (long story behind this, but in short, digital devices are banned from my gametable, other than a cell phone for spouse to contact you in case of an emergency).

Star Wars WEG d6, playing a human Jedi. Ran off of a perfectly sound building in order to land on a speeding YT:1300 freighter that had the son of one of his friends. Thanks to a large number of 6s on the wild die, I not only made the leap successfully, I managed to grapple a hold of the ship and maintain my grip. Fortunately I had the ultimate can-opener.

2E DnD, our group got teleported to the top of a Mountain. We had a couple axes, a few picks, and some swords. Everyone was trying to figure out what to do, so I made a wisecrack about cutting down a tree and use it to make a toboggin so that we could ride down the mountain. I knew it was ridiculous when I said it, yet everyone started going with it. It wasn't long before we had our toboggin and were careening down the mountain...past the 7 or 8 sessions worth of planning that the GM had arranged. He should've just had the thing crash, but went with it as well.

2E, I was playing an Elven Thief, Cidorne, that had a knack for getting the group into trouble way over their heads. Why did they keep him around? Because I would come up with these ridiculous plans that would work despite everything to the contrary - OK, they amused the GM as muchas anything else. Like the one time we were exploring what we thought was an abondoned temple to our homebrew God of Spells and Research - Rubidium. As it turned out, a tribe of Gnolls had taken up residency in the halls and caverns beneath the temple. My brilliant plan to deal with the Gnolls - trick them into thinking I was Rubidium. The cleric/mage and fighter/mage had to protect me from Fire as best as they could. Then when I got into position, they were supposed to each cast a Fireball that overlapped with me in the Middle. I manage to find a place where my display would be seen by many and none would get hurt. It worked awesomely. This was also the same thief that confounded a Dragon with riddles in return for not killing him and his companions - we thought it was asleep.

Playing a cleric of Mask (with some weird kit/specialization stuff) in a really long running Forgotten Realms campaign.

The more I play, the more the system shows its limits. Non-weapon proficiencies are cluncky and unrefined, spells are horribly unbalanced or sorely lacking, even the combat round structure has way too many grey areas.
The DM isn't happy either, but the stuff he'd have to change updating the whole game to a later edition is honestly way too much.

If by clunky and unrefined, you mean that they were not described with the same degree of crunch - er - clarity - er - this is what you can do with said skill and that's that - then yes, they are unrefined and clunky. Refreshingly so for me. NWPs were never meant to be used like a skill system. They meant to cover a broad smattering of interelated skills without having to have everything spelled out.

Spells are horribly unbalanced? Every edition has had that problem. It's the nature of magic.

The combat round structure has too many grey areas? Yes, in that it is not a tactical 6 second round, it's a cinematic, story oriented one minute round.

Gendo wrote:

To answer your question: NO. If someone is stupid enough to follow the horrible advice that is put in that book, then that someone is responsible for their own choice and actions. Charging the pastor and his wife for the actions of another, regardless of their 'expert' (not really) opinion on child rearing being put to print, from my own perspective feeds the "I'm a victim and don't have to take responsibility for my actions" mentality. The same mentality that allows people to sue for getting injured playing sports, getting fat for eating fast food, or accepting a cup of coffee from a drive-through employee and stupidly placing the cup between your legs, and much more.

Oh, I fully believe that those who did the actual killing should be executed. Granted, some have already been sentenced, so that isn't going to happen, but if there was ever a case that called for lethal injections, it's this one. What I'm asking is if the pastor and his wife should be charged alongside the killers, not in place of them.

No. This is the other side of the coin of Freedom of Speech/Freedom of Expression. It's the crappy side. They are expressing are much detailed explanation of "Spare the rod, spoil the child". Is their work heinous and a travesty? Yes. Should they be punished for it? Even as accomplices for the horrific actions of others? No.

To answer your question: NO. If someone is stupid enough to follow the horrible advice that is put in that book, then that someone is responsible for their own choice and actions. Charging the pastor and his wife for the actions of another, regardless of their 'expert' (not really) opinion on child rearing being put to print, from my own perspective feeds the "I'm a victim and don't have to take responsibility for my actions" mentality. The same mentality that allows people to sue for getting injured playing sports, getting fat for eating fast food, or accepting a cup of coffee from a drive-through employee and stupidly placing the cup between your legs, and much more.

...Or even a good Future-based RPG that's not Star Wars. I love Star Wars and more importantly SW:Saga but I need something new, seriously...

Two words: ECLIPSE PHASE. It's a far future/post-apocalyptic RPG, based in our own solar system, in which death is a curable disease...your body is broken or destroyed...no problem, just upload a backup of yourself into a new "sleeve". Check it out. It is a hard sci-fi setting, detailed, rich, and completely different enough from other settings as to be original. It's got it's own system, so don't expect more of the same overdone d20 class-level mechanics, it's a percentile roll under skill-based system.