75. "Well, I think that (rule/ability that your character revolves around) should work this way...
76. Before the game starts, "The DM is god."
Search Posts
The text for portable hole does seem, to me, to support your view. However, I would say that there would be a handkerchief sized piece left over, mostly because if you can pull the entire portable hole inside with you, you would be trap and unable to escape/access the portable hole without some manner of transplanar magic. If no portion of the portable hole remains on the material plane, that it cannot be reopened onto the material plane. If I was the DM, and in a playful/foul mood, I would have it be recursive. You open the top and see yourself openning the top.
It's better than reading it "the orcs are not genital captors"...There was a Dungeon adventure in I think 2005 in which a sentence read "the orcs are not gentile captors." I was imagining yarmulke-wearing orcs with payot....and I just read that as "the orcs are not gentile raptors." "We will spare your worthless lives and make slaves of you, but certain...'things' must be left behind."
Since crafting an magical item generally implies that the base item is of some high level of quality could you not simply consider a Handy Haversack to be a masterwork backpack as well? I know that it doesn't really make sense, but it is an easy solution to such a minor problem.
There was a Dungeon adventure in I think 2005 in which a sentence read "the orcs are not gentile captors." I was imagining yarmulke-wearing orcs with payot. ...and I just read that as "the orcs are not gentile raptors."
I have to agree here. I just don't see why having a single (or even multiple) 18 or 20 is a gamekiller.
The most "reasonable precautions" in the world don't erase the fact that there really are mean, and/or totally clueless GMs. Exactly. With some Dungeon Masters it doesn't matter one lick what precautions you take. Your spellbook will get stolen, you will get ambush, you will get lost, your pocket will get picked, your stronghold will fall, allies will always betray you, and the bad guy will always be ready for you. That's not to say that you shouldn't take such precautions, I take many of them my-self especially for spellbooks, it just that all the precautions in the world won't stop a 'bad' Dungeon Master. That being said, I'm enjoying this thread so far. I often have to warn my players about their selection of companions and how civilization friendly they will be. No taking Dire Tigers into that small hamlet. Here's a big one from my homebrew campaign; don't expect everyone, everywhere to speak your language because they won't. The more languages you can speak/magic up, the better.
Why is any craft skill considered a core class skill of a fighter? A non-rounded fighter doesn't have any of those. He probably has stuff like knowledge (dungeoneering), climb, swim, intimidate, perception, and acrobatics before he even considers craft or profession skills. That's an int 14 human with favored class skills before I'd look at craft (weapons). Perhaps it is personal thing, my Fighters always have at least a few ranks in Craft (Weapons), Craft (Armor) or a related Profession for equipment maintaince if nothing else. I suppose that has more to do with the Dungeon Masters I have played with than general concepts. However, it mostly has to do with how I feel that Fighters would almost always take Craft (Weapons/Armor) over any other Craft choice, for the game benefits over the roleplaying benefits I'm trying to promote. Even moreso now, what with the Mastercraftsman feat. It hasn't really been an issue in truth because most of my players take Knowledge skills with their extra points since I'm a big pusher of using them.
I pretty much do the same. Each character gets a bump up of two points but the two extras must be spent on Craft, Knowledge, Perform, or Profession. However I do add that they can't be spent on core class skills since the idea is to create more well-rounded and realistic characters with some background. For example; a Wizard can't use them on Knowledge (Arcana), but is free to take Knowledge (Nature) and the Fighter can't use them on Craft (Weapons), but could take Craft (Painting). I also make sure to make the skills useful in the course of game, otherwise the whole thing is a moot point anyway.
- A really bad Dungeon Master does this until the players refuse to make any connections to Non-player characters and expect every one of them to betray the characters. As for the main topic of discussion; when I get a chance to play I try to intergrate my characters into the world as best I can. However it can be a difficult balancing act to have a nice full background that doesn't step on the Dungeon Master's story. So, I tend for the character to be coming from a far away country so as to avoid story confict and also to allow for a stranger in a strange land style interaction. I like to have personal motivations for my characters beyond the quest for treasure and monster killing, and encourge my players to do the same when I Dungeon Master. The kind of motivations that can be worked into a campaign without to much difficulty if the Dungeon Master wishes to do so.
My experience with crafting requiring a laundry list of ingredents has been as such: DM: "In order to craft the potion of potionness you'll need W,X,Y, and Z." Player: "...okay. Can I get them at the market?" DM: "W,X,and Y, yes. Z however is extremely rare and you'll have to engage in a two month (real time, not game time) quest to find it!" Player: "Ah, nevermind. What do I need to make a potion of potionishness?" DM: "Well, that will take..." I cringe whenever a Dungeon Master starts to explain that they don't like the abstraction of crafting because everytime it's been used as a way to prevent item crafting without actually having to say no. I'm not saying that all Dungeon Master will behave that way, just my experience. Additional, I'm not a huge fan of excessive fluff. A little bit is fine, but when I buy a core book I buy it for its' rules. I can, and will, supply my own fluff. I would annoyed if valuble space was spent describing the exact manner in which a wizard rolls a ball of guano. Of course I run my games pretty much only in my own homebrew world, so a list of Golarion herbs would be of little use to me.
[irony]So, conversely, a BBEG could splurge on a handful of wands of protection from evil and then retire to the comfort of his dungeon's torture chamber to expend as many charges as is necessary to relieve any burden of guilt/evil weighing on his soul; thereby switching his alignment towards Good. It's RPG version of buying Indulgences.[/irony] That's one of the main problems I have with alignment in Roleplaying games. If you're good or neutral using an evil spell/item or doing an evil act makes you evil, but rarely is the converse true for evil characters. Of course that's pretty much true in real life as well. You could saving a dozen people from a burning building, donate millions of dollars to charity, and be the nicest guy that anyone's ever meet, but you kill one baby... Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Logically, I don't believe that certain people have a better chance of rolling good or bad, or that some dice are cursed or blessed (through they might be damaged or worn) and that it's all just a part of the gaming culture. If you get a reputation of rolling either way you start to remember when you roll well (or poorly), but not when you just roll average. However I must admit that despite my logical beliefs I do find that I roll extremely well. I once kept track of my rolls for several sessons, switching up dice every so often, and found that my average was roughly a 16 on a d20, with a surprisingly high number of 18's. I even got one of those big inflatable dice so everyone can see what I've rolled and avoid the accusations of cheating. Of course that's only a good thing in Dungeons and Dragons and other high success roll games. In game where you want to roll low my characters can't put on their shoes without shooting them-selves in the face.
For the most part I would say no, it's not a good idea. It's difficult to pull off properly and find that sweet spot where the character is a real part of the group, rather than a cardboard stand in, but doesn't overshadow them. However, I've done it my-self. If the party is short on numbers I've played a character, generally a support character such as a Bard or healing focused Cleric. I've also had the players ask for a certain character class for the party, such as a wizard when no one wanted to play a magic heavy class but they still wanted to have access to magic item creation and utility spells like teleport. If the party needs or wants another member I'm more inclined to give a willing player a slightly water-downed version of Leadership than have to play my own character.
My first thought: Sports. Why do certain types of books, video games, the internet and what have you get blamed for the actions of clearly deranged individuals but sports get a free pass. Sports lead to things like physical violence, gambling, going hand in hand with substance abuse, and leads to regular city wide riots in some places. People who can barely afford food will spend money on sport merchendise. My own experience in education has been that normal rational people will go nuts at children's game, threatening people, yelling profanities (at children sometimes), and getting physical. So why do we, as a lawful and organized society, allow this cancer that is sports to go on? It makes no sense to ask the question about the social effects of vampire books after the actions of a single person (who doesn't seem to have meantioned it him-self), but turn a blind eye to sports. This isn't to say I'm opposed to sport, not a fan either, but rather about the unequal treatment of media and entertainment types.
I roll in the open and if my players want to guess at the possible total than that's fine. I also do as TriOmegaZero does and just lay the entire map out for all to see, with the expectation that no one will metagame. If they do, oh well... Is it so hard to imagine that a mid-level character, a combat character especially, would have a fair understanding of how skilled their enemies are? If you're a fighter that's decked to the nines in armor and magic and the monster is slapping you around like you forgot to get dressed in the morning or if the enemey fighter almost stumbles (rolls a 2) and still tags you I would think that you'd have a good idea of how outclassed you are. Same thing if the enemy can barely mount a defense against your attack and your not breaking a sweat to hit them. You'd know that you can be more careless with your attacks. For magic I think a wizard could see how easily an enemy avoided taking damage from their magic, or how easily they overcame a mind/body influencing effect. Same for magic affects against them, an experienced character could likely judge how powerful a magic user was based on how effective their spells were. I would think there is a noticable diffence between the spells of a low level wizard and an Arch-Magi.
I've lucked out for the most part as players go, but here's a few I've encountered: As already said: the smelly one. The Mood Killer: Wants to be a goof ball in a dark game, is all business in a light hearted game. The Storyteller: Has a story/comment for everything. The Self-entitled: Asks for special treatment from the Dungeon Master. The 'Role-player': "Hey man, I'm just playing my character!" The Former Dungeon Master: Tends to have lots of 'helpful' advice about how he would do things. The Next Dungeon Master: Talks about how great their campaign is going to be, but it never seems ready to go. The Pervert: Starts slow and builds to disturbing. Surprisingly I've gamed with more women Perverts then men and it's just as bad, if not worse. The 'In My Last Group, We...': Wants things done the way they were in his last group, no matter how bad the houserules were. The Non-Reader: Refuses to read a single bit of the rules. The Forum Troller: Shows up with character builds he got from a forum. The Leech: Contributes nothing to any aspect of the game but gets offended if this is pointed out. The Nitro: Has no middle ground between calm and furious. The slightest offense, real or imagined, sends him spirling into anger. The Back Stabber: Smiles in your face during the game and then talks trash about you when your not around. The Bad Cheater: If you're going to cheat, please try to at least hide it.
I've never used a screen before and most likely never will. I wasn't even aware that Dungeon Master screens exsisted until about two years ago when I was a guest at another Dungeon Master's game. The concept that he would want to hide his dice rolls from the players blew my mind. Of course he turned out to be one of those Dungeon Masters that rolls the dice just to hear the sound it makes, demended rerolls if he didn't see a player roll their dice (or pretend to not see) and would just smirk at you if you rolled well. So, naturally, it didn't make a good impression upon me to take up any of his Dungeon Mastering habits. I've never had any problem with rolling in the open and my players seem to prefer it, especially those that came from the other Dungeon Master. However I'm not above jiggling the results in the players favor if it seems like it would be better for the game and they know I'm doing it. No one wants to lose their character because the nameless goon got lucky.
Craft Wondrous Item. Edit: Also, Leadership
Leadership. I also allow it, always have, and with no additional restrictions. If a player wants it they can take it and they get to build their own cohort. I guess I must be a terrible Dungeon Master. I think that high level characters should be able to recuit people to their cause with ease and, while I do try to making it a Roleplaying based advancement, I find the feat is a simple way to represent that. In all my time as a Dungeon Master I've only had one time where Leadership was a problem and it was because the player was a problem, not the feat. It annoys me when people blame a feat or rule for the abuses of players and Dungeon Masters.
When I saw that they require more than one person to take them to use them, I skipped to the next section without really reading them. I just can't imagine taking a feating that doesn't work unless someone else also takes it. I could maybe see if I was playing a fighter and there was another fighter in the party, since they have a couple of feats to spare, but any other class is too hard up for class related feats. Also if the other person's character dies and they choose to make a new character I'm either sitting on worthless feats or begging the Dungeon Master to let me retrain. So, I'm not saying their bad, just not my slice of pie.
If the Wizard wants 75% of market value, the fighter can either pay, or not pay.Of course, this could have some ramifications on the Wizard as well. Perhaps the next time the party runs up against a construct, the Fighter simply walks away and leaves the Wizard to his fate. Or he could begin to charge the Wizard a bodyguard fee. For a couple of Wizards that I've played: if the Fighter started to walk away from a fight because he wanted to teach the Wizard a lesson for not being his willing craft slave, he would find him-self on the recieving end of a Hold Person spell as the Wizard walked/flew/teleported away.
Generally I charge between 55% and 75% for interparty item crafting, depending on how my character feels about the asking party member, how long it takes to makes the item (I'll crank out +1 sword all you want for cheap, but a Robe of the Archmagi, that's going to cost you.), and the nature of the item versus my character's nature. Additionally I include any secondary costs, such as having to scribe a new spell into my book. For the most part I deal with the matters of price In Character. If the Fighter comes up to my wizard and wants a +2 sword made then I give him an estimite of what it's going to cost him In Character. So unless the Fighter has some ranks in Spellcraft it leaves him little room to haggle or complain, and he can't really compare my prices to other merchants because I'll always be the cheapest and easist. On the subject of the Item Creation feats and Wealth By Level: If you're not going to let me have the benefits of the feat (spending less money to aquire more magical items) or give me time to use them, than please tell me at the start of the game so I won't take them. I agree for the most part with Ashiel. While it may not be completely impossible to control Wealth by Level with crafting feats, it's just mean to the players that spend their feats on them. Of course I'm the kind of Dungeon Master that hands out lots of money but little magic items and encourge my players to take item creation feats so they can custom make their equipment. I also tend to blow past the Wealth by Level and like my players to have nice stuff, not quite Monty Haul but prehaps close.
Would be useful for some non-player characters. I would just like to ask that it not boil down to 'They give really cryptic clue about the plot but nothing more that, no matter the Player Characters' intimidate/diplomancy check'. I find that very agitating.
I just realized that one of the reasons I don't care about Jade Regent is that I don't care about Ameiko. I never played Rise of the Runelords and I've only read some of it, so she's nothing more than a name to me. I think if I had played it, I would be much more excited about seeing what happens to her and more motivated to play Jade Regent in spite of the fact that the East Asian thing holds no interest for me. I wonder if I'm the only one having this reaction, given how Pathfinder has exploded in popularity since RotRL? Because of the way she was played during our Rise of the Runelords campaign (stuck up valley girl is a close idea), it would be very difficult to get my current group interested in an entire adventure built around her. Plus we got Shalelu killed because she was coming across as a GMPC. Of course we didn't care for Sandpoint in general either and almost let it suffer it's fate. Nothing against Rise of the Runelords, it was a finely crafted adventure path, just the way it was run. So I if were to run this adventure I would most likely just make up a brand new set of characters.
If my group ends up doing this one we'll have the opposite problem. She was so whiny and annoying in Rise of the Runelords that it will be difficult not to leave her in the middle of nowhere at the first chance and try to claim the throne our-selves.
If in the case of the train you choose to do nothing and allow the train to kill the five people, that someone else tied to the track, you are at most partially responsible, and while I'm not an expert at law I would imagine that legally the blame would lay almost completely on the Mad Philosopher. However if you chose to flip the switch and divert the train at the single person, then you are one hundred percent responsible for that person's death. Moral and, I imagine, legally. The single person was by the nature of the experiment never in any danger of death until you chose to interfer. Thus if you divert the train, you have willingfully comitted murder. It is no different to me then the 'Fat Man' experiment. By the logic of the experiment it would acceptable for hosipitals to kill perfectly health people for their organs because one person can supply replacement organs for many other people, saving their lives, and thus it is for the great good. Yet how many people would consider that acceptable? The scales of life are for no man to balance.
In the district where I taught, the claim that "tracking is bad" was integral to how things worked. The philosophy was that smart kids will learn even if no one bothers to teach to their level, but slower kids need a lot of help to reach par, and therefore ALL efforts and resources should be devoted to the slower kids, without exception. For brighter kids, it meant boredom, insane levels of frustration, and a feeling of being ignored and/or discriminated against. This has been my general experience as well. Absurd amounts of time and resources are spent to get the E students to a D- just so they can move on to the next grade and hopefully out of the public school system. Meanwhile the gifted students are essentially left to their own devices. Personally, I firmly believe that college is not for everyone (however, Lord help me if I ever suggested that a child not go to college), and I'm becoming more and more convinced that even the higher grade levels of public education are not needed for a large segment of students. It seems such a waste to keep pushing students forward that are barely scraping by, hate being in school, and you know are not going to cut it in college. I would like to see what would happen if students graduated at grade eight rather then twelve. Start up an intensive work study program and evaluation system to get student ready for work force and into job they might be good at. I could be wrong, but I don't imagine that most people will need twelve grade english or algebra to be functional adults. If at the end of eighth grade your scores are good enough and you're interested in attending college then you keep going with college level prep course and whatever else. Of course this would require a fundamental change in the way America views education and success. Businesses would have to stop demending a four year degree in jobs that don't really require them and the social stigma of not attending college would need to be cast aside. I think it would be a positive change overall, but I could be mistaken. Are we going to talk about the hypermasculinization of the US? Because that's a legit interesting topic. Hmmm, it was my belief that the United States was going the other way. That things that relate heavily male were being weaked and seen as inferior. In what ways do you think the United States in becoming hypermasculined?
When I was in High School there were three cases of men wearing dresses to school: The first was a guy that had been living as a woman since middle school and after he turn eighteen started the process to have his gender changed. He wore tasteful make-up and dressed in women clothing at all times, not just dresses or skirts, but other clothing cut for women. His parents were to the best of my knowledge supportive and I'm sure that they had to fight tooth and nail that he be allowed to wear women's clothing to school. One of the guys I was friends with showed up in a dress one day during our senior. A full dress, shoulders to knees. When I asked him why, he told me all the rest of his cloths were dirty, he didn't have time to go to the laundrymat and he didn't want to skip school that day. He was a bit strange all told and I have no doubt that was why he wore a dress to school. He got suspened for a week. The last was when all of the sports teams decided for senior prank to wear dresses to school. We had football, soccer, lacross, basketball, track, and baseball. So that was a lot of guys in dresses walking around all day. Not a single one got more than a hard look from the school. Take from that what you will. As for the United States public education in general: I work in it and while I'm still young enough to have hope, I have to agree that it's pretty damn awful for the most part. We're operating with a school system and structure that was developed during the industrial revolution and refuses to update unless it's dragged kicking and screaming. That it's in such a terrible state is used more as a tool for personal gain and power than as a rally cry for reform and honest inprovement. Polictical forces stand on it's broken back for reelection and spending while draining it's life blood, parents use it as a excuse for their children's poor behavior, and the teacher's union works to increase their strangle hold. The worse part for me is that you really have no choice. The setup of the American education system doesn't really allow for true innovation or differences of opinion. "You'll do it this way because we think it's the best way to do it." Yes, it's better than nothing but that's no excuse. As for the children, I see the school system as a blind metalsmith widely hammering on his anvil. A lot of children are lost as slag, most are simply bent and beaten, but every so often a strong and well forge pieces emerges. Also, a pet peeve of mine, I'm already paying taxes for the school I shouldn't have to buy cakes or pizzas or raffle tickets or whatever else every month to support it. (Though, I do love those pizzas)
I have a house-rule that the player can take the average HP for his hit points each level (rounded down) instead of rolling. In the end, it only accounts for a few HP difference one way or the other, but it's something I feel comfortable offering (there's nothing worse than getting a '1' on HP rolls two levels in a row). Off the top of my head, this and double the first level hit points are pretty much the only house rules I use. However I may use Thazar's hit point rules in the future, if he doesn't mind.
Plastic Surgery, without the plastic. Polymorph a person in the same person, but with whatever changes they want. Undue the negative effects of aging. Polymorph someone in a younger version of them-self. Make a fortune touching up the upper classes.
As has already been said; if it's something that's my fault as a Dungeon Master then I will adjust the encounter/sitution to prevent a Total Party Kill. Hopefully I can notice that things are going sour before it becomes a clear case of Deus Ex Machina and make the needed adjustements, but I've had times when I just went "Sorry, guys. I don't know what I was thinking when I put this together. Pretend that didn't happen and let me makes some changes real quick." In general I tend to shy away from killing off all the characters as I like very character focused campaigns, which makes it hard to pick up with a new party. So while I'm also a 'let the dice fall as they may' I do my best to prevent Total Party Kill with some careful adventure planning before the game starts. Of course if the party does something beyond stupid, they get what they get. However I won't punish the entire party for the poor decision of one player/character. Lucky I have experienced players that make good use of tactics, resources and planning, so it doesn't come up very often.
I would be hard pressed to better state how I feel about high-level play then this. I also agree with Mr. Risner in that I have to wonder if many of the people who have issue with high level play have in fact played at high levels. I have known people that complain about how unbalanced and out-of-control high level play is, yet have never truly played in a high level campaign, rather they simply read or hear about the possible issues and dismiss it out of hand. Personally I think the rules are fine more or less how they are and would be wary about any major changes to how the game works at higher levels. However I wouldn't be opposed to some more opinions for higher leveled characters. At first level there is a great deal of opinions for character development and play style, but it seems that as you get higher and higher level the opinions get fewer and fewer. Prehaps it just me but it seems like the closer one gets to level twenty the more the game forces characters into the 'one true way' to maintain a stable mechinical party dynamic. Let it be known that I am a fan of prestige classes and would like some more of those. Maybe something like was done in D20 Modern were there are special classes just for really high level (15+) characters. So, overall I guess I'm for option 1. I wouldn't object to some minor tweeking of the rules but I wouldn't want anything drastic. Also I don't think the classes need to be anymore 'balanced' then they already are, so I would be against that.
My problem with the Monk is a personal one; I can't bring my-self to play a character that has an eight or lower in intelligence and charsima. Since the only time I get to play Pathfinder is with a Dungeon Master that uses fifteen point buy (and begrudingly at that) it makes it nearly impossible to play a monk that isn't mentally deficient. Even with higher point buys it's hard to get by without dropping down intelligence or charsima. Also most Dungeon Masters I've ever known, my-self included, would start to have a problem if every major villian in the game gets put in a headlock and noogied to death. Once every so often is fine, but if every combat devolved into a grapple the villians would start wising up pretty darn quick.
Personally, i would be very annoyed by players luike that... Same way for me and parts of my group. The excuse 'because I said so' doesn't fly. However I can respect the need to keep players on the path, at times, but at least try to hide the tracks. Related to the central topic is players that know the Dungeon Master is running a premade adventure and do their best to screw up the story line. I've never experienced this as the Dungeon Master, but during a Rise of the Runelords game I was playing in one of the other players was purposely trying to derail the plot. I had to fight the urge to berate the other player for the clear attempts to fight the module and make the Dungeon Master's life harder. Personally I'm the kind of Dungeon Master were if I was running an adventure path and one of my player's characters decided to leave the plot line for some reason (the earlier player want to go to Numeria) I would tell them; "Sure, your character leaves for far away lands and distant adventures. Now roll up a new character that wants to help with this adventure."
What GM in their right mind would allow any alcohol on the gaming table? Except of course cleaning alcohol to wipe the table. Some people argue that beer is ok, but i explicitly forbid any form of drinking on my sessions. Forbidding pot or other narcotics goes without saying. Ever tried to play with a baked GM/Players? Not fun. In the least bit. I agree for the most part. I don't mind if a player drinks a beer or two, but since we play at my house and I don't drink at all, they have to bring it them-selves and take it with them when they leave. Related to that is that I don't have any beds for drunk people, so don't think you can get smashed and expect to sleep it off at my place. We almost always end at the same time, which mean that the drinkers will have a rough idea of when to stop drinking. Since it is my house I don't allow anything illegal to happen there, so no Pot. I don't care how stupid people think the law is or how harmless pot smoking is suppose to be, if I suspect that someone is high or planning to get high they are told to leave. I teach for a living and the school system tends to be less than approving of teachers getting arrested for drug use. Also I'm a total Narc and have called to police about a former player that kept talking about where he would go to get drugs. Needless to say I don't host many parties. However on the main topic; My biggest pet peeve is when a player makes a character that run directly counter to the stated theme or mood of the game. Nothing quite ruins the dark and gritty mood I'm trying to create than the loud mouth gnome. Also the player that comes to me when no one else is around and asks for special treatment or additional character opinions drives me crazy. If you want something ask in front of everyone else. I don't play favorites. I haven't had much trouble with electronic devices at the table but I can imagine how agitating that would be.
I don't like to play the 'I was here first' card too much, but this a sitution were I would. The necromancer was there first, by a wide margin it would seem, so the returning player shouldn't have chosen a Paladin and more importantly the Dungeon Master shouldn't have allowed it. If you had both made your characters at the same time then it would differant, but you didn't and as such the conflict should be resolved out of character and in favor of the necromancer. Of course I also agree with Ævux in that I don't generally care for Paladins because they general ended up dominating the party and trying to force other into playing their way. It's my feeling that in order to play a Paladin you should have the approval of the rest of the group beforehand.
This is in essence my entire philosopy on being a good Dungeon Master. If I wouldn't want to play under a certain rule or style than why would I think my players would? Yes, there are things that as a Dungeon Master I would like to do that as a player would make me less than happy, but I don't do them. A Dungeon Master needs to have at least some respect for their players.
I enjoy weather/enviromental mechanics. My experience is that few people use them, but I find that they help shape a scene in important ways and make them more memorable. Few people remember the fight in the ten foot by ten foot stone room, but many will remember the pitched battle atop a crumbling stone bridge in the mist of a raging blizzard.
Exploring: 2
Perhaps a social/interaction modifier, to compliment the combat, as well? To measure how much important interaction with non-player characters they would like. Social: 4
Of course not. I'm sure that like most things the vast majority of Dungeon Masters fall in the middle. However the squeaky wheel gets the grease so to say. A distrubingly, to me, large number of posters on gaming forums (not just this one) seem to either get rolled over by their players or have a god complex. Niether is an acceptable way to run the game in my opinion.
A Dungeon Master that demends something from their player and brooks no hesitation or questioning and answers it with raised voice or claims of godhood is likewise as unstable. Just my opinion. You let the players cheat and meta-game with the HP, fine. Others won't be walked all over. Honestly, I can't remember ever asking for a character's Hit Points. I do recall asking how the character was doing so often with the expectation to recieve a vague answer such as; fine, badly injuried, and so forth. Of course I also don't know the character's saves on spells or armor class, rather I tell them what the target rolled or the total attack and they tell me if it's successful. I find that my players enjoy it more than if I simply said 'he saves' or 'your hit'. As for being walked all over; if someone happens to step on your foot it doesn't require you to punch them in the face. Maybe that's just me. I want to play a serial rapist. If there are female players playing female characters, I want my character to rape those characters. I want to describe the act in great detail, looking that woman - or, better yet, girl - in the eyes the whole time. No Dungeon Mastering style will make up for poor/immature/mentally ill players. I count my-self lucky that I have a group of mature and generally well-adjusted players that are every bit as invested in playing a good game as I am in running it.
I agree. However on the otherside are Dungeon Masters that make no accommodations for their players and are equally as prickish.
I suppose it would help if I said that my definition of cheating for this purpose is 'to be deprived of something expected'. When I sit down to play a game with rule book in hand (one that I paid good money for), a rule book for a game that the group agreed to play, I expect to play by the rules that are written in that book. I understand that modifications need to made to rules sometimes because no game is perfect. However when I'm told (as I have been in the past, to my face in no uncertain terms) that my character automatically fails at something because the story requires it, well gosh-darn it I feel cheated. When an enemy gets to escape despite all the effort the group put into stopping him, I feel cheated. When a large part of my character concept and build relies on the rules functioning a certain way and the Dungeon Master decides suddenly that they don't function that way, I feel cheated. When said Dungeon Master tells my we can discuss it after the game, then after game tells me there will be discussion of the subject and that their judgement is final, well, I feel cheated. At the start of the game a social contract is formed to play the game a certain way and and all houserules or modifications should be made clear at this point. Despite what Rule 0 may say, that is the one rule that the Dungeon Master can cheat at. Again that's just my opinion.
As much as I enjoy a livily discussion, we can stop here. There is no middle ground for us to meet upon. Our concepts of what a Dungeon Master are and should be are just too alien to each other to make it worth our time. No matter how much I may disagree with your style, if you and you're players are enjoying your-selves then you're doing it right.
It's amazing to me to see the wide range of difference on the role of Dungeon Master. I've always seen my-self as more of an Intermediary between the players and the game world rather than a Dictator of the all the game that many of you seem to prefer. I run a very democratic table where everyone gets an equal share in how the game plays out and Rule 0 has not been welcome for some years. The concept of telling an otherwise fine player to leave the table because they asked if you would roll in the open is mind-boggling to me. The same with getting agitated because they wish to keep their current hit point total secret for fear I might meta-game. Of course I live in an area where finding a replacement player is major work, but still. I like to have an gaming enviroment were it's all open and everyone is free to have the experience they want to have, which is why I normally turn a blind eye to the occasional bit of dice fudging from the players. To me the Dungeon Master's role is to craft an enjoyable game for the player and I try to have a very hands off approch in doing that. I guess I would prefer to be the silent puppetmaster gently pulling strings as opposed to the director that gives direction to the actors on stage. Also I agree with the idea that even if a Dungeon Master couldn't cheat because they control the rules, that breaking the social contract that binds the group together can leave the players feeling cheated. If the players feel cheated than they lose trust in the Dungeon Master which just makes it harder to have fun. Building trust is, like many thing, very hard to do but oh-so easy to destroy.
26. Not sure about the year but I played 3rd edition for about a year before switching to 3.5.
Current group is pretty tight, I would say about 14-16 years at most, but I'm not sure about everyone's age. The group I was in before moving had a spread of 58 years at one point. The youngest was one guy's 9 year old daughter and the oldest was 67, her grandfather. Gaming was a family affair for them.
I agree. For the most part I think that the non primary casting classes could use some more perks epecially in the out of combat/dungeon arenas. I also think there is, and should be, a fundemental disconnect in power between those that are really good at hitting people with sharp bits of metal and those that can rip reality asunder and/or channel the power of the gods. I accept this and I also really enjoy playing fighters and rangers.
Give it time, we may find a way to cheat gravity. I still want a hover car. As for Dungeon Masters cheating; it's simply a matter of game style/perception. I'm a very by the book and as open as possible Dungeon Master. I follow the rules in the book whenever humanly possible, I never hand down rule judgements from on high, rule changes are made by group decision rather than fiat, all of my rolls are in the open are all to see, and I do my best to follow all the same rules as the players. So when another Dungeon Master changes the clearly written and functional rules, refuses to take their players' ideas into consideration when they do, acts like their Zeus on his mountain, hides all the rolls behind a screen, and gives the non-player characters special powers or excuses them for some of the rules, I get annoyed. As for fudging rolls, well if a player spent a great deal of their character resources to be good at something; let them be good at it. If the wizard spent the feats and got the magic items to have a high Save Difficulty Check and the villian fumbles their save, then congrations on feats well-spent and spells well chosen. It's also a two way street as far as enemies go. To say that it doesn't work because it would be anti-climactic or that you want to drag the fight out longer is to me the same as saying that someone can't get a checkmate in chess with a pawn because its wouldn't be as cool. I suppose for me it boils down to this: I paid for a book of rules and I would like to play by those rules. I expect things to function a certain ways and when they don't, I feel cheated. However, that's just my opinion. To each their own.
I've been in more or less the same sitution. Before allowing a character to do anything the Dungeon Master would look at their sheet and pick a number that was, in his opinion, suitably difficult. It didn't matter if you have a hundred or a zero. That is, to me, pure Dungeon Master cheating.
GMs can't cheat. It took a lot longer then I thought it would for someone to say this. I disagree to the fullest possible amount that I can disagree with something, but to each their own.
While I agree that a game shouldn't be about winning or losing, in my experience there may not being any clear cut winning conditions but there are a lot of losing conditions. So while I enjoy roleplaying and people that build their characters with a strong focus on that, I also would like their character to carry their weight in a fight. I've played in a fair number of what many would consider very Roleplay heavy games but at the end of the day the character still spent a lot of time slugging it out.
While I've experienced all three, and was a number one when I first started, I have to say the third one is the one that really gets me annoyed. The first two I can chalk up to being inexperienced with the challenge rating system or being new in general to the game, but the third is unexcusable to me. There are few things more aggitating to me then knowing that one of the non-player characters is pure evil but you can't do anything about it, having to slog through a death trap filled maze because teleport suddenly doesn't work, or not being to skip past the obvious ambush. Even more so when your character's skills and abilities should allow you to do it. It starts to play like a badly scripted video game after awhile as the plot becomes obvious but you can't do anything to short-cut it. As for Game Master Screens, I'm...wary of them. I've never used one as I feel they distance me from the players and every Game Master (and I do mean every single one) that I've played under that used them was an excessive cheater. I prefer an open table and open rolls, for everyone and for every roll.
I suppose I will agree with Majuba for the most part. Familiars are magically bound to their owners so they do what the controlling players wants them to, not matter how dumb or suicidal. Of course most people I've played with aren't willing to risk their familiar unless it's really important. A hold over from 3rd/3.5 Edition I suppose. Cohorts are about ninty-nine percent under player control. The only times I will interfer with a player's control over a cohort is when it makes no sense for the cohort to do what the player wants. I will sometimes roleplay the cohort to avoid having a player talking to them-selves, through the player can veto any actions they feel is out-of-character for the cohort. It's my opinion that if a player invested a feat to gain a cohort, then they should have say over the cohort and its actions. I would no more control a cohort than I would tell a fighter to what weapon he has to apply Weapon Focus. Animal Companions I treat like familiars but I ask the players to keep in mind the nature of their animal. |