Fighter

Jandrem's page

743 posts (2,455 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 18 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 743 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The things I find the most fun about being a DM is exercising creativity(whether it's good or bad, just getting it out of my head), and seeing the player's smiles and seeing them genuinely enjoy themselves. If the players aren't having a good time, neither am I.

I have a weird way of running games, and it's taken me many years to put together a group of like-minded players who enjoy my style. I finally feel like I've got just the right group, and we're having an absolute blast. I get to create backdrops and scenery for their characters to live in, and in turn they get really into character, and give me lots of inspiration to build off of. It's a cycle of fun and inspiration, and at the end of the session, we feel exuberant and satisfied.


captain yesterday wrote:

Yup, the GM got cold feet at the last moment.

You probably hit all the triggers for putting him down permanently, but yes, you've still got to take him out.

Unless I missed something, but I doubt I missed THAT. :-)

Thanks for the info. Man, that's really disappointing. We're all decades-plus RPG veterans, and our characters are 9th level. There are 6 of us PC's. I even openly stated that this was pretty much on us, since we're this far along, and get trapped by a single wall. That's on us for not being better prepared.

I'm a story addict. I'll gladly sacrifice my character for the good of the story. Heck, it worked out that way in the game, til the DM got cold feet. Worst part is, we found a solution, and the DM STILL robbed us of our chance for success.

Anyway, thanks again. I don't want to clutter up this thread with too much more. I might start a new thread(with no spoilers) over in Gamer Talk.


My group just finished this last night(I'm a player, not the DM), but I think we got hoodwinked. Bamboozled. Deus Ex Machina'ed.

Spoilered because I've never posted in a GM reference thread and I'm not sure what the protocol is for this kind of post. Adventure's over, and I would like some answers...

Spoiler:

We placed the four nanite cocoons in the door with the four domes, entered, found the android body and Xoud's, battled the big metal monstrosity with the force field, and Xoud shows up to the fight. He closes the door to the room off with a Wall of Force, and casts Cloudkill(for like, the 3rd time this adventure).

We're boned. Nobody has a means of getting through the Wall of Force. With only a few rounds left til our CON is gone and we're dead, one of the player's remember they have a few potions of Gaseous Form and ask if there's a means for gas to escape. DM says yes. Player only has enough castings to get all of us out but one(me, I decide to stay let the party live).

All of a sudden, DM has Furkas Xoud just let out a yell and disappear. Wall of Force gone, Cloudkill gone, all the lights in the tower go out. He says we "enacted a series of forces that effectively put Xoud to rest..." So basically, we figure out a possible solution to the Cloudkill/Wall trap, and the DM just hands us victory.

Is this how it's written? Does Furkas Xoud just up and fade away after 6 rounds? It really seems like the DM pulled a Deus Ex Machina on us. Which if so, sorely disappoints me; we're all veteran players, we don't need hand-holding.


the Lorax wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
I believe that the true essence of a tabletop roleplaying game is making choices, such as designing characters and chosing how to tackle an in-game problem, and seeing the natural consequences of the choice. But for the consquences to be that the farther the players stray from the railroad the more the rubberbands pull them back is not natural. It invalidates the choices.

Absolutely this.

Well put Mathmuse.

The "rubber bands pulling them back" really got me thinking about another analogy... DM'ing is sort of like being a GPS with the players driving a car; when the players go off of the routed path, a good GPS can quickly reroute and still get the players to the destination(if the destination is still even a goal at that point). I liken railroading to being like a GPS forcing the driver back on to the previous routed path, not bending to reroute, maybe even going as far as invalidating the current situation a retconning to force the original route into place.

Also, after some thought, I think I made the mistake of likening linear AP's with railroading. Linear adventures are not railroads; they simply provide a structure for adventuring. It's when the players do something the adventure didn't account for(like killing an "essential" npc) and the DM refuses to "reroute," does it become a railroad.

I've seen this firsthand, and it sucks the fun right out of a game. My group was doing an AP, and at some point we just got tired of being dragged along by the DM. Half of the game was us metagaming and just trying to do what the book says we should do, not what we actually would do. At one point, we were supposed to sneak into a heavily guarded city, that was populated with intelligent magical beasts. Instead of sneaking in, we simply attacked the front gate. After killing multiple powerful spellcasters and magical beasts, we eventually fell back and retreated. Our faces were well-known, and we should've had a massive army hunting for our heads, but instead, the DM forced us back onto the route and had us sneak in just like we were "supposed to" initially. That felt railroady as all be.


thejeff wrote:
Jandrem wrote:

I'm not a fan of railroading, but a lot of people I play with are. The main group I gamed with for years used to homebrew campaigns in different campaign settings, but for the past few years they just do PF AP's, which are very railroady. Well written and beautifully illustrated, but still railroady as hell.

The convenience of a pre-built campaign is nice, but I find it extremely boring as a player. Knowing that my PC's influence in the game will have zero effect on the outcome of the game, sucks the creativity right out. Some ready-made campaigns out there do actually take the time to plot out variations on the adventures and different possible outcomes(Drow Wars was really good at this), but, these are few and far between. Most modules and AP's I've seen are terribly linear.

I prefer homebrewed campaigns, where the overall direction is a mix of player actions and DM resolutions, where anything can potentially happen. I loved being surprised, especially as the DM. I like to use a variety of one-shot modules mixed with homebrewed adventures and plot points, to build an overall narrative with the players.

Not everybody has the time for that, and sometimes I goof stuff up, but it just feels like a more satisfying game experience, if we all contributed to the story. AP's lately just feel like "go here, do this, turn to page 23 and read the grey box."

It's really hard to put too much in the way of options in a published adventure - especially in a campaign length one. Far too easy to spiral out of control or have to build in dozens of different sections by the end of the campaign, only one of which gets used by each group.

Using individual, unconnected modules can avoid at least some of that, but at the expense of having much less cohesion to the narrative.

Homebrew's always worked best for me too, but it's a lot more work. It's also certainly possible to have homebrews even more strongly railroaded than most APs - or just badly done in other ways.

I agree, and I've been in some seriously heavy-handed homebrew, railroad campaigns. I quit one that involved an actual train, like it was a sign of things to come, lol.

Different groups have different wants and needs. I'm in no way saying AP's are wrong, they just don't tickle my fancy. The guys I know who do nothing but AP's, all they really want to do is hang out with friends and roll some dice. Not every DM needs to satisfy creative expression and amateur acting hour through a glorified board game, lol.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not a fan of railroading, but a lot of people I play with are. The main group I gamed with for years used to homebrew campaigns in different campaign settings, but for the past few years they just do PF AP's, which are very railroady. Well written and beautifully illustrated, but still railroady as hell.

The convenience of a pre-built campaign is nice, but I find it extremely boring as a player. Knowing that my PC's influence in the game will have zero effect on the outcome of the game, sucks the creativity right out. Some ready-made campaigns out there do actually take the time to plot out variations on the adventures and different possible outcomes(Drow Wars was really good at this), but, these are few and far between. Most modules and AP's I've seen are terribly linear.

I prefer homebrewed campaigns, where the overall direction is a mix of player actions and DM resolutions, where anything can potentially happen. I loved being surprised, especially as the DM. I like to use a variety of one-shot modules mixed with homebrewed adventures and plot points, to build an overall narrative with the players.

Not everybody has the time for that, and sometimes I goof stuff up, but it just feels like a more satisfying game experience, if we all contributed to the story. AP's lately just feel like "go here, do this, turn to page 23 and read the grey box."


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Gaming these days draws influences from a LOT more pop culture than it did in the 70's and 80's. There's just more crazy stuff out there, and fans of all that tend to bring stuff into their games.

Classic medieval adventuring just isn't in style right now. Material is out there, but it's sort of been relegated to "been there, done that." Eventually people will get tired of Dragon-riding Fox Ninja's with rocket launchers built into their cybernetic limbs.


ProfessorCirno wrote:

I can't really comment on 1-3, but for 4 and 5...

4) Think old school. I know, I know, 4e, not old school, etc, etc. The thing is though, it really is as far as roleplaying goes. What you can do is not limited by your character sheet. In 3e there was/is a big rush to codify everything. In 4e, what's codified is, broadly speaking, "being a heroic fantasy adventurer." Wanna say your guy is a weaponsmith or a dancer? Go for it! My monk is a dancer and I didn't have to spend cross-class points on perform: dance to do it ;p

*edited and streamlined for cross-over appeal*

On topic:

Hama, I'm glad you gave it a go and had fun with it. Don't let anyone argue with you over your opinions, because they are your opinions. If you feel like a RPG reminds you of Pac-Man for Atari 2600, nobody is going to tell you differently. You had fun, and that's what counts.

My issues aside, I have never told anyone to not play a game, regardless of edition. Sure, I'll rip on it plenty, but if someone else genuinely has fun with it, then they have my full support. My best friends play 4e and I don't, and I'm fine with that as long as everyone is having fun. It does make game conversations a little awkward sometimes, I'll admit.


Name Violation wrote:
Pally Dan the Paladin

I saw a warforged once "Steely Dan"; the player's name? Dan.


Studpuffin wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:
Don't be a dick.
QFT

Best of luck, I'll try to tone it down myself a bit.

I look at other gaming mediums who've undergone similar instance of edition change ups, etc, and really I haven't found anything more venomous and spite-filled than the D&D edition wars.

For example, I play Final Fantasy XI: Online. Last fall, FF XIV was released and got horrible reviews. I'm unable to play it due to insufficient PC specs so I can't say firsthand. Point being, here we have the 8 year old FFXI, and the brand new(and very shiny) FFXIV. The FF community disagrees here and there as to the quality of the game, but I've seen little to no evidence of any sort of attacks on fellow gamers and such elitism. The worst I've seen looks like:

P1: "Dude, FFXIV is garbage! The engine is terrible! Square-Enix is going to go bankrupt!"

P2: "Nah, I kinda like it."

P1: "Whatever, lemme know when they fix it."

That community spends more time ripping itself apart over choices made in the same game than they ever would with a "edition war." In this community alone, all I have to do is say "4e" and in come the defenders ready to wage war. Real-life relationships with decades old friends of mine were even damaged by this mess.


Evil GM wrote:

Use 10 point buy. Snicker with glee when your monk player begins to cry.

Use the slow experience progression.

Use only materials out of the core rulebook (no advanced blah blah stuff).

Start at level 1.

Cut character WBL by half. (And the corresponding wealth given per CR's worth of treasure.)

Welcome back, comfort zone >:)

I love that this was the second post, immediately following the OP, and answered the OP's query with a solid suggestion using the OP's rules system of choice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To the OP:

It sounds more like DM fatigue and just a lack of variety in challenges than an actual problem of being "outdated". I know groups who play 1e to this day and have a blast, so if you don't want a new edition, try just changing things up and climb out of your comfort zone. A new campaign or reworking with some monster templates can do wonders for spicing things up.

To some of you guys:

Try your best to offer advice within the guidelines the person asking you presents, and if you can't help them in that way, then don't. But flat out offering exactly what they do not want, is a little jerkish. They explicitly stated they weren't interesting in a different edition however, and yet the different edition was sort of suggested anyway.

It pretty much reads like this:

"I need something to zing up my potato salad, but I'm allergic to pickles!"

"Hurr durr, try some pickles."

" >.< "


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The thread I believe you're referring to, it sounded more like DM fatigue and just a lack of variety in challenges. A new campaign or reworking with some monster templates can do wonders for spicing things up. They explicitly stated they weren't interesting in a different edition however, and yet the different edition was sort of suggested anyway.

Try your best to offer advice within the guidelines the person asking you presents, and if you can't help them in that way, then don't. But flat out offering exactly what they do not want, is a little jerkish.

It pretty much reads like this:

"I need something to zing up my potato salad, but I'm allergic to pickles!"

"Hurr durr, try some pickles."

" >.< "


Troy70 wrote:
If 5e comes out, I plan to stick with Pathfinder for a long time. 3.5 is a good system. Paizo just made it better with Pathfinder.

If 5e comes out and I find it a good, fun game, I'll gladly play it alongside PF. I don't see any reason to dedicate one's self exclusively to one game(finances permitting). We played Star Wars Saga Edition for years right alongside 3.5/PF on different nights.


Uchawi wrote:
I agree Hama, and I would expect the same if I was playing GURPS, 4E, or similar systems, because it would not be courteous to the players or the DM if you keep on stating you really like another game (including a MMO). Everyone would question why you are at the table. But I would also add RPGs have to adapt and try to evolve just like MMOs. So as long as the RPG community keeps on introducing new ideas, and remains innovative, there is hope.

Our main Pathfinder game has players who actively play several MMO's and 4e on different nights. All are welcome who want to participate!


sunshadow21 wrote:

Going into a maintenance mode does seem more likely than 5E this close to the release of Essentials. That or the formal release of the VTT and a greater focus on DDI now that all of the tools are more or less in place.

That's kind of what I'm thinking too. 4e isn't that old at all, it's barely 3 years old. They just brought Essentials out not too long ago, so that right there was the "directional change", I don't see them doing that again so soon.

I'm all about a 5e coming, but I'm not deluded enough to think it'd be anytime soon.


Scott Betts wrote:
Uninvited Ghost wrote:
so I hope Wizards sticks to the WoW type editions
Let's not do this, shall we?

You love it and you know it.


Scott Betts wrote:
Jandrem wrote:
The comparisons I see are more with the mechanics, which aren't a far stretch from previous editions either. The Daily, Encounter, and At-will use of powers is easily comparable to a bunch of abilities you get in Final Fantasy Online for example, with cool-down timers and frequency of use.

My characters in Mass Effect have cooldown timers, too - guess 4e must be video gamey! Or, maybe, Mass Effect must be MMO: The Video Game!

My characters in 3.5 have daily powers! Those are like cooldowns! Must be an MMO!

The issue is not with the fact that mechanical similarities exist between tabletop games and certain video games. That is beyond dispute. The issue is with the idea that this is unique to a particular tabletop game, or that the mechanic is unique to MMOs.

You can't call 4e MMO: The Roleplaying Game without applying that same standard to other roleplaying games, and other mediums of entertainment. The entire comparison crumbles under any kind of close examination. It's a meaningless way of comparing things, and the worst part is that it's usually used to make a certain game appear in a negative light while ignoring the ways that the same comparison could be used to make the speaker's game of choice appear in that same negative light.

We can really, really stop drawing meaningless comparisons like this. It's not hard. There are other things that actually merit discussion.

Scott,

I mention several different video game RPG's/MMO's, and I even make several mentions of other editions. I didn't even say anything negative about 4e; in fact, I said several things it does well. Tone it down or I'm flagging your posts. The rest of us are having a conversation, you're getting all up-in-arms over nothing.

Scott Betts wrote:


We can really, really stop drawing meaningless comparisons like this. It's not hard. There are other things that actually merit discussion.

Read the title of the thread. Stop looking for implied edition wars where there are none. If you can't handle a non-4e fan making even the slightest mention of it, or anyone not portraying it as the gift of the gods you think it is, then you are incapable of having this discussion.


sunshadow21 wrote:
The whole 4E=MMO is bound to come up because the basic structure of the powers and the focus on DDI make it the easy comparison. Nothing more, nothing less. Actual accuracy usually has little bearing when such correlations are made. 3.5, and D20 in general, didn't make any comparison easy, so the topic never really came up. If there had been an easy comparison to connect that system to some other product out there, I gaurantee it would have been made, and I'm sure that some people still tried to find comparisons even though none were encompassing enough to stick with the whole community.

I think it's just a matter of timing more than anything. 3.0 D&D was out before WoW, and even though other MMO's existed at the time, they didn't have such a huge draw and household name like WoW did. 3.0 might have had a tiny bit of influence from MMO's, but in it's first incarnation the two were mostly unaware of each other.

4e conception just happen to be at a point in time when WoW is up and rolling, with millions of subscribers. 4e would be here regardless of whether WoW existed or not, but in our timeline they just happen to co-exist. Maybe the developers of 4e were spurred to action by having a glance at the sheer money-making power and media influence WoW has, but maybe not. They just happen to co-exist.

With 3.0-3.5 resurrecting the D&D brand from the bankrupt TSR, it helped make the brand a household name about the same time WoW was gaining mass popularity. The two were destined to collide at some point; again, see the WoW 3.0 campaign setting for proof.

As I mentioned above, video game RPG's and table-top RPG's have been evolving alongside each other for decades. When I play Ultima Exodus or the original Final Fantasy on my NES, I see winks and nods to D&D scattered throughout the games. Heck, Final Fantasy even had Mind Flayers, just renamed as "Wizards".

My play style as a TTRPG gamer has been absolutely influenced heavily by video games. To see TTRPG's in turn influenced by video games is truly a sign of the times. We could all stand to expand our gaming lingo a bit, just as old-schoolers learn what DPS and Tanks are, new schoolers can learn about Munchkins, CoDzilla's, etc.


Evil Lincoln wrote:

Do we really need this to be about 4e?

Even if, in some way, the MMO-like aspects of 4e are on-topic... this is the thread of inclusion.

People should be every bit as open-minded about 4e as they are about MMO terminology.

Let's grow up a bit, and stop deriding games because of an imagined opposition to the product we chose to buy. That opposition is in your head, children! Paizo and DnD are friends.

Can't we be friendly community instead of reverting to tribal warfare at every imagined slight?

I've been comparing the correlation of MMO's and RPG's in general. Talk to the 4venger up there. My only real mentions of 4e come form the fact that it's the first edition of the "world's most popular role playing game" that acknowledges MMO's and sought to get the attention of that crowd. Table-top RPG's and video game RPG's in general have been building off of each other in small ways since the 80's.

Anything else I've written has been a reaction to biased prodding and claims of badwrongfun.


Scott Betts wrote:
Jandrem wrote:
I can see that, and honestly I don't understand why 4e fans get so upset when someone makes a comparison between the system and MMO's. Maybe because the term is used in a degrading way, but really, it's true, and it's not really a bad thing. It's funny, because I have a very close friend who is a HUGE fan of 4e, gets completely insulted by the MMO comparison, and the guy has never played a MMO in his life. He can't see the comparison because he has no idea what to look for, all he knows is he thinks something he enjoys is getting made fun of, when it's not.

I play the crap out of WoW, and I play the crap out of 4e. They are nothing alike on anything more than a superficial level. One is an MMO, one is a tabletop game. They are both roleplaying games, but are at very different points on that spectrum.

Did 4e learn some lessons from WoW? Absolutely. More tabletop games should have learned these lessons. Did learning those lessons transform 4e into MMO: The Roleplaying Game? No, absolutely not.

Opinions, man. The hilarious part is there is a WoW 3.5 game, literally World of Warcraft the RPG, and nobody got all in a tiff about it.

The comparisons I see are more with the mechanics, which aren't a far stretch from previous editions either. The Daily, Encounter, and At-will use of powers is easily comparable to a bunch of abilities you get in Final Fantasy Online for example, with cool-down timers and frequency of use. FF has "powers" that can only be used once every 2 hours, some once every 10 minutes, 5 minutes, 30 seconds, etc. An average encounter with an Even Match(challenge designator) monster might go 1-2 minutes, so blowing your 2-Hour ability is fairly close to using a Daily Power, An Encounter Power has a similar cooldown to maybe a 5 minute ability, etc. Even 3e has similar special ability usage frequencies, they're just spread out a lot more and unique as opposed to being balanced and standardized. To say they are "nothing" alike is just sticking your head in the sand.

And don't get me started on the forced roles of classes. Defender(tank), Striker(DD/dps), Controller, etc. These designations have existed in every edition of D&D, but in 4e they feel much more forced. Note, I said "feel", as in my opinion, not fact. Earlier editions allowed for a lot more flexibility in filling party roles in my opinion. Heck, in our old Age of Worms campaign(3.5), the party Assassin/Rogue was our main healer by use of wands and scrolls with UMD. Optimal? Hell no. But, it worked in a pinch with no other healers around, and lots of wands available.

Older MMO's like Ultima Online weren't so blunt with class selection, you simply skilled up what you wanted to be good at, as long as you kept it within a certain amount of skill points by the end. 4e, just like most modern MMO's, streamlined this by whitewashing the gray areas and stamping a role on each class's front page. This certainly makes class selection smoother and easier, but sort of takes away some of that flexibility. I personally like the flexibility better, but I've played with lots of players who prefer seeing a class spelled out as to what it's purpose is up front. By the end of 3e, there were lots of new classes we simply didn't know what to do with, whether they were there to heal, tank, deal damage, etc(Ardent? Binder?).

You can remove the MMO and TT prefixes, but you still have RPG at the end. Flat out denying any connection is a cop out.


A friend of mine had a Warforged Artificer who owned a magic item shop named Shiny Silverman, as in "a shiny, silver man".


Aazen wrote:
DM Wellard wrote:
I play LoTRO and find it suits me fine as I can solo for most of the time granted you need to be in a fellowship to do the arc plot but generally I've had no problems..and yes I have heard MMO language used at the table but usually in relation to 4e which almost begs it
Thats because 4E is really MMO: The Role Playing Game. The CCG is coming out next week.

I can see that, and honestly I don't understand why 4e fans get so upset when someone makes a comparison between the system and MMO's. Maybe because the term is used in a degrading way, but really, it's true, and it's not really a bad thing. It's funny, because I have a very close friend who is a HUGE fan of 4e, gets completely insulted by the MMO comparison, and the guy has never played a MMO in his life. He can't see the comparison because he has no idea what to look for, all he knows is he thinks something he enjoys is getting made fun of, when it's not.

I play MMO's. I enjoy them. To say a certain edition has elements of something I enjoy is not an insult, to me at least. If anything, I'm a prime candidate for D&D's advertising campaign; I'm just not into what they're selling.

I love to eat sushi and I love to eat pizza, but sushi pizza just doesn't sit well with my gut. If someone else happens to enjoy it, then that's great! If this particular kind of pizza opens a few minds about sushi and brings some new fans over, all the better.


Scott Betts wrote:
Jandrem wrote:

You're exactly right. Why bother with thematic ideas, experimental builds, or characters whose backgrounds have prevented them from being an elite super-soldier every time. No underdogs allowed! Adhere to the status quo or be punished; no free thinkers allowed! Everybody just roll a wizard, cleric or druid and hit the "I Win" button.

Edit: Addendum: I see what you're getting at, but 90% of the time in FFXI, you're just cleaving through waves of non-lethal easy targets. And for table-top gaming, some groups aren't all about min/maxing and power-gaming, so do what you will.

Right. I'm just saying that complaining that optimization isn't "realistic" is probably wrong. If real life were like D&D, everyone would optimize to the best of their ability because if they didn't they would stand a higher chance of suffering a grisly death.

So you can certainly complain that this sort of laser focus on optimization isn't fun, but it's a lot tougher to make the argument that the optimization is preventing you from playing your character "realistically".

My character swings a great axe bigger than a coffee table and casts magical spells. I have a Moogle living in my house and I carry entire arsenals for multiple jobs in my backpack. Realism isn't one of my concerns when I play a MMO, lol.

I also understand the time-old argument a lot of MMO players give in that if you aren't 100% optimized at all times, you are slowing them down and wasting other people's time and money. Fair enough. I typically gear the best I can for whatever role I'm asked to fill, but I refuse to spend real-life days at a time camping a spot, waiting for a monster to appear who drops some powerful item but only has a 2% drop rate. No thanks, I'll make do with what I have access to. Anytime my play involves the success of other people, yes, I do come to the table ringing whatever is expected of me, but I'm just get tired of getting ridiculed for thinking "outside of the box", even when I play solo.

In table-top RPG's, the challenges that face the group are much more adjustable, given that you have a living DM, and not a computer program. I like playing with unusual class combos and making them into something effective that no one saw coming. I once retired a Shadowcaster/Warmage because it was annihilating anything the DM threw at us, and those 2 classes are typically seen as a joke.


Scott Betts wrote:
Jandrem wrote:
In my experience in MMO's, unless you are playing exclusively solo or with close friends, then you are expected to min/max to MAXIMUM efficiency at ALL TIMES, or you will be brutally punished(made fun of in groups, avoided or banned from participating in events, basically driven from the game, etc). "Role-playing" has nothing to do with playing out your character's life, it means playing a "role" in whatever group you are in to accomplish tasks with maximum efficiency(tank, damage dealer, healer, etc). These games turn into little more than a rat race of grind xp, get better loot to grind better xp, to get better loot to grind better xp, repeat ad nauseum. You are not your character, you're a cog in the machine. If your class happens to use Great axes the best, guess what? You're going to use a Great axe, like it or not. If you're not wearing the most 1337 gear and e-peening, then "urdoinitwrong." Individuality and play style preferences outside of the status quo are taboo. Do I sound bitter?
Let me tell you, if I were in a fantasy world and my life depended on whether my fellow party members and I made smart decisions in our training and outfitting, you bet I'd be upset with one of them if they were relying on training or equipment that is less than optimal.

You're exactly right. Why bother with thematic ideas, experimental builds, or characters whose backgrounds have prevented them from being an elite super-soldier every time. No underdogs allowed! Adhere to the status quo or be punished; no free thinkers allowed! Everybody just roll a wizard, cleric or druid and hit the "I Win" button.

Edit: Addendum: I see what you're getting at, but 90% of the time in FFXI, you're just cleaving through waves of non-lethal easy targets. And for table-top gaming, some groups aren't all about min/maxing and power-gaming, so do what you will.


Power Word Unzip wrote:
Jandrem wrote:
In my experience in MMO's, unless you are playing exclusively solo or with close friends, then you are expected to min/max to MAXIMUM efficiency at ALL TIMES, or you will be brutally punished(made fun of in groups, avoided or banned from participating in events, basically driven from the game, etc). "Role-playing" has nothing to do with playing out your character's life, it means playing a "role" in whatever group you are in to accomplish tasks with maximum efficiency(tank, damage dealer, healer, etc). These games turn into little more than a rat race of grind xp, get better loot to grind better xp, to get better loot to grind better xp, repeat ad nauseum. You are not your character, you're a cog in the machine. If your class happens to use Great axes the best, guess what? You're going to use a Great axe, like it or not. If you're not wearing the most 1337 gear and e-peening, then "urdoinitwrong." Individuality and play style preferences outside of the status quo are taboo. Do I sound bitter?

I've had this experience, too. When I play DDO, I do it with two of my close friends from my tabletop group and another guy who plays a LOT of MMOs. I get no end of crap from the non-TTRPG'er about under-optimizing my characters because of my feat choices, spells known, and/or class build. Often, the attitude is one of, "Your personal choices about what makes the game fun are detrimental to my performance and hence killing my fun". That's an attitude I DON'T want to see creep into tabletop gaming, and it irks me to no end to hear some people (certain posters on these very boards among them) apply the same logic to TTRPGs.

SIDE NOTE: On DDO, I have a Dwarf Sorcerer 7/Favored Soul 1/Fighter 1 that annoys the hardcore MMO crowd to no end - particularly because I'm quite effective when I play the character, and it defies their conviction that multiclassing in DDO is badwrongfun. (Add usernames Ekatheon and Agram on Thelanis server if you feel like playing!)

Most of my negative comments draw from Final Fantasy XI, and yes, I still play it. I gave up on the rate race for e-peen glory, and just play for fun with my wife, brother, and some other real-world friends. I tried DDO a little bit, but didn't really care for it. I might give it a go as long as it's free to play.


In short, table-top gaming involves friends(at least of some sort).

MMO's, you're going to run into these people most of the time, if you aren't careful. Sometimes, they show up at your game table, too.


I've seen both sides of the fence, MMO players coming over to the gaming table, and table-top players giving it up to play MMO's. I started playing pen and paper RPG's several years before I played my first MMO, but to this day I play both. I've spent several years on games like Ultima Online, Final Fantasy XI(still play), etc.

I got my little brother into D&D from him playing Ultima Online. He enjoyed that D&D had a much more involved story element, and felt much more invested with our group than his normal PvP buddies in Ultima. He left the hobby a few years later, but he gave it a genuine go for a while and had fun. He didn't go back to MMO's either, however. I blame his having a girlfriend and social life in high school, lol.

Something that I think might be causing some of the stress between the two sides is the perspectives of each other's games. The differences are much, much more severe than just that one is on a screen, one's on a table; the whole mentality is different. In my experience in MMO's, unless you are playing exclusively solo or with close friends, then you are expected to min/max to MAXIMUM efficiency at ALL TIMES, or you will be brutally punished(made fun of in groups, avoided or banned from participating in events, basically driven from the game, etc). "Role-playing" has nothing to do with playing out your character's life, it means playing a "role" in whatever group you are in to accomplish tasks with maximum efficiency(tank, damage dealer, healer, etc). These games turn into little more than a rat race of grind xp, get better loot to grind better xp, to get better loot to grind better xp, repeat ad nauseum. You are not your character, you're a cog in the machine. If your class happens to use Great axes the best, guess what? You're going to use a Great axe, like it or not. If you're not wearing the most 1337 gear and e-peening, then "urdoinitwrong." Individuality and play style preferences outside of the status quo are taboo. Do I sound bitter?

Table-top RPG's put more emphasis on player-choice, story, and all around socialization. While there are many table-top RPG players and DM's who sort of mirror the "xp grind", the mandate of absolute efficiency is a lot more relaxed. This is mostly due to being familiar with the people at your table, or at least more personable if it happens to be a PBP game. You aren't just thrown into the mix with random strangers whom you'll never see again after the objective is reached for whatever mission, quest, xp party, etc.

I think internet anonymity adds an extra layer to allowing selfishness, e-peening and an overall jerk attitude, which doesn't fly at a table of friends and acquaintances. Sometimes these habit developed in MMO's carries over to the table-top, and horror stories and gaming urban legends are born.


Tequila Sunrise wrote:
sanwah68 wrote:
And don't forget that they are an extra-dimensional space, so any Handy Haversacks or Bags of Holdings shouldn't enter them, or bad things happen.

You just had to speak of the forbidden text, didn't you? Gods save us all from the coming rope-trick-extradimensional-spaces flame war!

I hope you're happy. ;)

This has completely slipped by me. My group never uses Rope Trick these days, and the one time we did(probably 5 years ago) we didn't take Bags of Holding into consideration. Definitely going to have to keep this in mind for my new group...


Scott Betts wrote:
Hama wrote:
So, you look at his stuff with a critical eye because he does not like 4th edition? Isn't that a little hypocritical?

That's not what "hypocritical" means, and no, that's not why.

Everyone should read everything online with a critical eye. You're navigating the untamed jungles of inflamed opinions with next to zero personal accountability. A huge amount of what you read online is probably not worth half a damn.

Yes, even this.

Go back to his website, maybe check out a few of the comments sections. There's a lot of interesting discussion there, and quite a few rebuttals of points Alexander tries to make.

My post was simply a reminder not to fall into the echo chamber trap of reading only things that you already agree with, and accepting everything said by people you agree with without so much as a second thought. The forums are already the closest thing the gaming community has to an echo chamber, save perhaps some corners of the OSR community.

Whoa, you make it sound like the guy is a politician or a cult-leader or something. As for most of what we read online not being worth half a damn, um, yeah, that's kind of obvious.

The guy writes opinion pieces. On his own website. Oh yes, let's get out the torches and pitchforks and really grill him. He's not posting on anyone else's forum, it's his own site. As far as I'm concerned, he can flame EVERY edition of D&D until the ashes disintegrate. Admit it, you're critical of him because of his opinions of the edition you hold most dear... Heck, he even writes some good things about it, too. Whether he's right or wrong is irrelevant; those are his opinions. If some people happen to agree with those opinions, that's their prerogative.

Now if the author came here and said the same things, he'd be out of line. But that is "his yard", so like any other website out there, you take it with a grain of salt, obviously. He blasts other editions as well, my favorite edition actually, but I don't care. I'm not going to run in and warn everyone if he happens to dislike something about the game I do like. Opinions, man.


Hama wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
I agree that everyone should read some of his stuff. With a very, very critical eye.
Why a very very critical eye?

Oh, no reason in particular.


I don't see anything wrong with naming your child something different or at least out of the ordinary, no matter the source, as long as it's not too far out there, or will cause your child problems down the road.

My friend named his daughter Madrielle, after one of the Goddesses of the Scarred Lands campaign setting, and our first real D&D game. The name turns out to have real-world connotations too, so his wife ok'ed it. I think it's a very nice name, and the history of it is pretty cool. I would not, however, see fit to name a child something like Erythnul or Hextor.

I have to be especially careful when I get to name my future child, as my surname is Money. I have to be careful not to pick anything that could rhyme with a joke about Money. Blah.


Snorter wrote:
Jandrem wrote:
I've had many an unfortunate mingling of different gaming styles that just did not mix well. I like to run games with a backstory, key npc's, conflicting factions, etc. Two of my long time players want nothing but a sandbox. Any attempt to bring up a story and adventure hook is met with infuriating resistance. Hand-written adventure after adventure tossed in the can, because they went screaming the opposite direction as soon as an actual plot hook arose. Those campaigns are dead and buried.

Yes, that's a problem.

Do you introduce one hook at a time, or present multiple simultaneous hooks?

Even in a sandbox, the GM has to present some kind of events or prevailing situations that are outside the ability of the locals, and need PC involvement. Players who consider this as railroading really have no business being at the table.

I would try different approaches. Sometimes, they'd overhear a rumor of something bad happening near X place, sometimes they'd happen to be witness to some horrific crime, and I would gauge how they handle it. The only times I could really get them on board, is when something horrible and unavoidable happened directly to them. But even then, they'd hurry up and shove through the adventure just to get it over with.

One complaint I got from one of those two players, an honest to god complaint, was that we were doing "too many adventures." He complained that there was always something going on, when all he wanted to do was hang out in town and kill some time. I shook my head in disbelief, thinking back to all the adventures we didn't do, due to their running away and/or sandbagging...


Hama wrote:


A single text message is ok...but if you are constantly texting, then maybe you shouldn't be playing with us. Rather call a pause and go to the other room and call whomever you were texting, have a 5 minute conversation and then ask them not to bother you until you finish with the session.

blah text rant

Spoiler:

This drives me nuts, mostly because I've been guilty of it. I have a basic, numberpad cell, not one of those fancy ones with the built-in keyboard or touch screen. So, I hate texting. My wife? Texts her butt off on a daily basis. I'd be at gaming, and she'd send me text after text after text, dumb stuff like "I'm bored." To which I respond "I'm not, I'm busy. ttyl."

It got so bad I had to sit her down and talk to her about it. She asked me one morning after gaming "So, how'd the game go last night?" My response: "I wouldn't know! I was answering your texts all night and missed everything." She got the hint. Unless it's an emergency, I just don't respond. Worst part? She's a gamer too. She's heard my rants about people doing it at the game table, I figured she'd know better.

edit/addendum: While we're on the subject, a new kind of annoying player has sprung to mind in a game I recently started. It's sort of a reminder of how different other groups can be and the comfort zone of familiar players is. I have a new player whom I've never gamed with before, who I think I've met outside of gaming once or twice maybe(friend of a friend of a co-worker type thing).

This player just sort of does as he pleases, makes changes to his character on the fly, plays with gadgets whenever it's not his turn, etc. I didn't get on him over showing off his iPad, because those nights there were lots of side-conversations happening that were equally distracting. But, whenever a new gaming supplement comes out, he makes changes to his character to add any new options he likes, without saying anyhting to me(the DM) first, such as adopt archetypes, change feats, etc. Now, we're early enough in the campaign, that if someone wants to make a change I'd probably allow it(everyone's 2nd level), but this guy took it upon himself to simply rebuild his character on his own time. Maybe I'm overreacting, I dunno.


DeathQuaker wrote:

My only regular gripe about unappreciative players is players who do not respect their own time commitment to a game and in turn respect the amount of time a GM puts into preparing for a session. This manifests in players who constantly cancel out at the last minute or even simply fail to show. I haven't had players like this in my own games in a long time, though I'm in another campaign where some players are having trouble both managing their own commitments and in turn end up inconveniencing the other players who set aside the time to play and the GM (who has precious little time) who took the time to prepare. Why people do not have the balls to simply say, "You know, my life's really crazy right now, I'm going to have to pull out, and sorry for causing you any trouble," I just do not understand.

If you don't want to play, don't. If you don't have time to play, don't say you do.

Once a friend of mine hard me ranting about this and said, "But it's just a game."

I replied to her, "That may be, but it's 'just a game' that I spent several hours this week preparing. Can you give me those hours back?"

My friend: ".... oh."

Sort of have a similar thing going on in our current Red Hand of Doom PF game. It's a large group, and we sort of knew from the beginning that personal schedules get crazy and there'd be missed nights. Unfortunately, we've actually canceled more often than we've played, but we play when we can. Almost all of us have had things come up, and as a DM, if I'm missing more than one player, I call it for the night. I hate playing catch up, and there's too much going on to constantly fill in missing people.


I've had many an unfortunate mingling of different gaming styles that just did not mix well. I like to run games with a backstory, key npc's, conflicting factions, etc. Two of my long time players want nothing but a sandbox. Any attempt to bring up a story and adventure hook is met with infuriating resistance. Hand-written adventure after adventure tossed in the can, because they went screaming the opposite direction as soon as an actual plot hook arose. Those campaigns are dead and buried.

EDIT: And just to head people off at the pass, I do not put much emphasis on my npc's. Their purpose is to help propel the story forward, that's all. The PC's get the limelight, the action, and the rewards. The npc's are mostly nobles who orchestrate politics behind the scenes. So, when the players want no part of any kind of story, there's no reason to bother with npc's at all, except to read off what loot they had as the players run through town killing them.


Interesting topic, I've been thinking a lot about this sort of thing as well. From what I've seen in gaming over the years, I think it's just as simple as establishing a game system as a baseline, then over time more and more thing get converted to it. New edition of the game comes out, stuff gets updated, new stuff gets added.

I think it's literally as simple as: "Ok, so this system works for swords and shields, but what if we add magic?"

A few years later: "What if we add X(insert obscure weapon or combat style here)?"

Later still: "Ooh, that's pretty neat, but what if we add firearms?"

It's a pretty blunt explanation, but that's my reasoning behind the advances in fantasy-technology in gaming over the years; Players get comfortable with a game system, then they start adding in what they'd like to see customized, and it grows from there.

So, we started out with gallant knights on horseback, and wind up with talking robots wielding magic guns on elemental-bound airships or riding trains on lightning rails. Obvious evolution right there.


Stewart Perkins wrote:
Hama wrote:

Well, now that Marvel finances most of the movies that come from it's comics, we will not see the problem crop up that much.

Examples:

Iron Man
Iron Man 2
The incredible Hulk
Thor

The 2000s marvel films were mostly crap (fantastic four and ang lee hulk i'm looking at you), because the director and the scriptwriter thought that the comics should be used as only guidelines. You can't do that with marvel characters. It would be like directing a LOTR movie and changing the names and races of all the important characters. The last straw was when galactus was a gas cloud that devoured planets...please....

Not now that marvel has control over that, they step in and reign in any wayward director, scriptwriter and anybody else who want to screw with their stuff...and i love that approach.

Remember for now, Xmen, Spiderman, and the Fantastic Four aren't under Marvel's movie control. They liscened them out so were still seeing non marvel backed xmen in this movie. When marvel gets back the rights (They wont let them continue, thats a guarantee) then they will be rebooted AGAIN.... But you the sayings: take the good with the bad, It gets worse before it gets better, etc...

I think we've seen worse... Daredevil? Ghost Rider? The Punisher?

After the first movies failed to hit big, Marvel was able to scoop them back up. Marvel made the Punisher: War Zone sequel, and while it's not a great movie, it is canonically more accurate than any previous Punisher movie. Word is they're remaking Daredevil and Ghost Rider eventually as well. Nothing else is going to hit until after The Avengers movie is finished, all their eggs are going into that basket.


Aaron Bitman wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Aaron Bitman wrote:
Jandrem wrote:
I just can't get over how a movie about the "original" x-men, doesn't have the "original" x-men in it.
The Beast was an original. Havok and Polaris are debatable.
I can't get over how some people seem incapable of realizing that comic book movies create a new continuity.

Yes, I realize that. In fact...

(...and here's something that will get X-philes furious at me...)

...I think it's quite obvious that any re-telling of X-Men MUST have a new continuity, because most of the X-Men stories really aren't that good. Oh, they have many good IDEAS. And because of those good ideas, the X-comics provide a treasure trove for use in adaptations. That's what the X-books are to me; a treasure trove, NOT a sacred text. No adaptation should follow the X-Men comics exactly. That's why I actually find I like the X-movies MORE than the comics. And the same goes for the cartoon show from the 1990s.

(EDIT: Heh. I can't believe I called them "X-philes.")

Yeah, I sort of agree. I haven't followed the comics story-wise since probably the mid-90's. If they tried to make a Days of Future's Past movie, or any of the other bloated, confusing storylines, I would be all about trimming the fat and digging up a better telling of the story. For as many years of different writers, characters, teams, etc as the X history is made up of, it'd be impossible to be anything but confusing as hell.

It just gets on my nerves when every new comic movie that comes out is like a director's chance to see how far they can mix things up while still barely keeping tabs on the IP in question(see Ang Lee's "Hulk"). Again, I have not seen the movie yet, and I'd like to. I don't mind slight re-tellings of story history if it makes for a more entertaining story.


Kthulhu wrote:
Aaron Bitman wrote:
Jandrem wrote:
I just can't get over how a movie about the "original" x-men, doesn't have the "original" x-men in it.
The Beast was an original. Havok and Polaris are debatable.
I can't get over how some people seem incapable of realizing that comic book movies create a new continuity.

If I want a "new continuity,", I'll just read the comics. I watch comic movies to see the heroes from the comics on the big screen. I don't mind creative license, I just think I had the wrong impression of what the "First Class" was, because my X-Men #1 has a different roster than this movie. A lot of initial reports were that this movie was going to be about the "original x-men," so my bad for thinking of the Scott, Jean, Bobby, Hank, and Warren lineup.

That said, I'm still looking forward to checking it out. All my gripes are based on an ignorant first impression, and the trailers do look pretty good, so I won't down it if it is a good movie.


I think the bottom line, IMO, is if a player thinks their DM is cheating, or manipulating the odds against them in any other way, then they need to sit down and speak to their DM. No need for "Sense Motive" checks on DM's fudging dice, no need to make obnoxious demands at a table where we're supposed to be having fun.

It seems like a lot of players and DM's have been burned in the past, by some manner of terrible player/DM and they carry a chip on their shoulder into new games from it. I personally play in several completely separate groups, and I can tell you ever group dynamic is different. Leave your baggage at the door, and communicate potential misgivings. No need to lash out or be accusatory on either side of the screen.

The best games I've played in were the ones where the players and DM worked together, both sides had structure and rules, but were open minded and willing to listen to ideas and potential changes along the way. As a DM, I'll often times ask the group about amending a house rule if something doesn't quite flow right. I try to listen closely to things players say to each other that they'd like to do at some point in game, and try to incorporate those things without someone having to specifically request it. Adaptable structure, if you will.


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
wondering if Marvel Studios will just stick to the Avengers gang? is the new spidey movie by Marvel Studios? if Marv Studios ever do an x-men movie, things would feel very different IMO.

Nope, Sony still owns Spidey IIRC, so don't count on any character from the Marvel Universe outside of Spidey's to show up. Same goes for the Fantastic Four, which is why Chris Evans is both Human Torch in FF and Captain America; same comic universe, different movie studios. Not necessarily a bad thing, but goes against one of the things Marvel Studios is trying to promote; one big, connected universe of character movies that all intertwine.

We've seen S.H.I.E.L.D. agents in multiple movies, Iron Man/Tony Stark was in The Hulk, and Marvel wants to keep this up. In the comics, Spidey interacts with a LOT of different hero teams and story lines; it's almost a crime the movie Spidey won't get to do that.


Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:

I've went back and reprocessed some of the above posts.

I had been laboring under the misconception that this next X-Men movie was going to be handled by Marvel. Since it isn't, I take back any excitement I may have expressed about this film.

Not meaning to troll, but I don't think the three X-Men movies were all that good. There were moments in each that were awesome, but overall the stories were kind of blah. I didn't see the solo Wolverine.

I still might see this in a matinee, though. These movies are always better in a theater and the summer gets hot.

I actually enjoyed the x-men trilogy(yes, even 3), but the Wolverine movie was terrible. A friend of mine got it when it leaked online(which I still say was a publicity stunt) and we watched it, I still felt cheated.


Aaron Bitman wrote:
Jandrem wrote:
I just can't get over how a movie about the "original" x-men, doesn't have the "original" x-men in it.
The Beast was an original. Havok and Polaris are debatable.

So aside from Xavier, we're at 1/5? Awesome.


Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:

I haven't familiarized myself that much with who's supposed to be in the next movie, but another thought occurs to me.

This'll make what? The fifth X-Men movie? Eventually, this shiznit's going to be milked dry. Maybe they're trying to get some more characters on screen before the franchise shuts down.

I do know Marvel was fighting like hell to get their rights to the X-Men franchise back, and the time left on the license is winding down, so I'm thinking Sony is going to over saturate the market and make everyone eventually sick of hearing about the X-Men, in hopes Marvel won't want the proprety back, or sell it off for more money. I dunno, just my hunch. They're going to beat the dead horse to a pulp before they let Marvel have it back. Same with Spider-man(hello, reboot).

After the first Tim Burton Batman came out, movie studios went crazy buying up rights to whatever comic idea they thought could make money. Sony has had the X-Men for a long, long time. Hell, they first started working on Spider-man back in like, '91 or '92 I think.


I just can't get over how a movie about the "original" x-men, doesn't have the "original" x-men in it. It's got at least 100 reasons why it should be the best x-men movie yet, but for this reason it just has me nerd-raging all over the place. I just keep telling myself it's a reboot/prequel.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just watched the trailer, and my response is a resounding "Meh."

I know Arnold didn't match up with the Conan of the novels, and I'm well aware how beyond his action-movie years he is now, but this Mamoa guy just doesn't do it for me. I grew up on the Conan movies, they are what got me into fantasy gaming in the first place. The first Conan movie wasn't very flashy, I loved the gritty realness of it. This new one looks like a 90 minute CGI special effects orgy with a little bit of story on the side. It's not fair to judge a movie before watching it, but the trailer is a real let-down for me.

I'll wait for the DVD.


Shadowborn wrote:

Yes, I know, the movie isn't going to be out for another two weeks, but with the latest trailer and more information coming out about it, I have to admit I'm a bit torn here.

The pros: Good director, decent screenplay writer. The special effects look fairly spot on for a summer blockbuster. Iconic X-Men characters making their appearance on the big screen for the first time.

The cons: Here's where my fanboy rage wants to take over. How far off the original storyline are they going to run with this movie? Mystique as an X-man? A girl with insect wings as Angel? Shouldn't she go by a different name and be in the Avengers movie? I'm glad to see other characters like Banshee and Moira MacTaggert making an appearance, but this seems like a can of mixed nuts to me. Havok, but no Cyclops? Why is Emma Frost being remade to replace Iceman?

So what about the rest of you X-Men fans? Are you going to give the movie a shot? I'm leaning heavily towards waiting for the DVD release and giving the theater a bye.

A little late to the thread, my apologies. But yeah, I'm behind you 100%. All the technical aspects of this film say it's going to be awesome, but the roster of characters has me frothing at the mouth with fanboy rage. I read down a list of who's in it(and not) and in my head I'm screaming "WTF!?!"

I can sort of understand if this is supposed to pre-date the original X-Men lineup, but why is Havok there? Why is Emma Frost and Banshee there?

As we've all seen, the X-books and storylines suffered from too many characters and continuities all over the place. At least the original X-Men team was fairly straight-forward. This movie looks like they're cramming the worst aspect of the X-Men stories into a reboot from square one(too many characters, not enough face time or development, too confusing). Seriously, chop the cast in HALF and we might get a reasonably accurate X-Men movie.

I'm smelling Mortal Kombat: Annihilation all over again(30 characters with 20 second cameos).


If there was a clear-cut definition of what DM/GM is(no, not bothering to look it up), it would have to be a simple, vague definition. From what we've seen in this thread alone, different people expect different things from their DM's. Since most groups evolve out of their own experience and preferences, not every group is going to be the same. People expect different things. Then, we bring those expectations to a thread with complete strangers and all of a sudden, expect our views to line up precisely. Not gonna happen. Leave your imaginary moral high-horse and tin foil hats at the door.

Not every DM is out to "cheat" you. If you walk into a what's supposed to be a fun, social game and start making demands, out of fear of unfairness, maybe you need to re-examine why you showed up to that game in the first place. Most games I DM, I do so from my home(access to books, mini's/accessories, and PDF's). Anyone rude enough to come into my home and start making demands, when all we're trying to do is play a game and have fun, will quickly be shown the door on the way out. Project your trust issues somewhere else.


John Kretzer wrote:
Jandrem wrote:


When a player describes what happens, I don't counter it. Not sure what you're implying by this.

If you'd really prefer the DM not describe anything and just "imagine what happens", then why play a social game? Why have a DM at all, if all you're going to do is roll dice and imagine what happens? Isn't part of the DM's job to describe what's going on?

You only put two options...and asked for the best.

Personaly I think C: Let the player describe the action in regards to his PC...with the DM taking over only to encourage and inspire the player to do so himself.

My problems with A is that you are in part describing what the PC is doing....given the choice I rather get out of combat fast so I can start playing my character again...just my opinion.

Sure the GM can...heck in great detail describe things...just not what is going on with my PC. I would even say GM who don't give the full desciption of a room...or pre combat stuff is a lousy GM.

Though there is nothing wrong with A either if given the player says he is clutching his wounds. That is much more cooperative story telling as the game is intended.

You're nitpicking. If a player describes their actions, why would I talk over them? I simply gave an example of using mechanical game knowledge to flesh out a scene, and I'm getting picked apart word for word. Change the wording. Do what you like. You've obviously already missed the entire point of the post.

Besides, re-read "A". I only described in a vague, general manner what the actual player does. I don't imply them readying a specific spell, drawing a weapon, saying something, or any other specific gesturing other than "clutching wounds" implying the player was low on HP and moving out of the way, implying the monster misses the attack.

I didn't say "You do a quadruple-back flip off of the wall behind you, making a silly face while quoting Monty Python in latin, as the beast misses you", so stop making it out like I did.

1 to 50 of 743 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>