Lex Talinis's page

You guys rock, there are some great ideas here! Thank you! I think I'm definitely going with a minus to dex, the sheep seems limiting to movement.

And, she's never played a monk or ninja, so I'm hoping she won't try one now >.<

So I was watching Kung Fu Panda with my daughter today, and she asked me why there are no turtle folk she can play in pathfinder. So I have decided to work on this. I'd like to keep it core as possible and in the standard or low advanced range (no higher than 15 RP) and so I am turning to more creative minds - you. Can anyone help me build a turtle folk race?

Lex Talinis wrote:

Well, D&D was the first to introduce the armor as DR in unearthed Arcana (IIRC), Pathfinder just made it actually useable. That red dragon is going to reduce so much damage that even if hit on anything other than a natural 1 the entire party is in full panic mode. Which is as it should be against a dragon. To me, and this is just a personal opinion, in moving armor to DR — I feel as though I have recaptured the feeling in combat that I want the PCs to have - some creatures just can't be taken head on with a sword - and now they have to be more creative and work together more. It enhanced the game at our table.

Just read the pathfinder rules for Armor as DR, there pretty similar to 3.5 rules. I might give them a try though largely they still seam kinda complicated compared to simple AC specially in the since that flatfooted flanking and other such attack bonuses become much weaker while damage bonuses become more needed. It does resolve the issue of always or never hitting specially at higher lvls, in your experience how well does it work at lvl 15-20 ?? does ti lend well to dex based races? I imagine with a higher focus on damage dodge based creatures might have a better chance of dodging. feats like power attack would pretty much always be used course most often they are always used anyhows.

Any other players try using the armor as Dr method?

At high level play it's still very effective, however dex based races need to rely on enhancement to the defense rating, through magic or items. But I have seen some good defense ratings that had me missing on rolls of 12 or less at 17th level. If those character add blink or mirror image to themselves.... Well it's a much harder to hit target. And many bad guys after missing a couple of times will opt for easier to hit targets.

Wizard damage is still relatively easy to mitigate being limited in number per day and normally offering a save for half, greatly reduced or no effect.

a Mage caste Scorching ray a pretty mean spell no save targets touch Ac and deals decent damage. So the mage at lvl 20 deals 12 D6 we will say it's even a maximized and enhanced to deal 12D6 +50% maximized or 108 damage.

Gunslinger at lvl 20 with +1 speed revolver deals on the lower end 72 damage. But on the higher end 114+ damage. then there is of course DR to reduce the end damage and Sr to negate all effects. Dr is the easier of those 2 to bypass I might add. Wizards not so strong now unless they get lucky and there top spells don't get resisted or saved against.

I haven't looked into pathfinder Version for DR as armor I kinda messed with 3.5 version of it but found it clunky and not really useful. I might have to study up on the new version see if pathfinder smoothed it out much.

*Edit: The players was dealing more damage all-be it with more effort when he was using the double barreled firearms before I allowed the revolver, least this way he gets less attacks per turn even if he don't suffer as bad of misfire chances, again a 5-10% chance of misfiring happens amazingly rarely even after a few hundred rolls. And I watch his rolls closely waiting for it to happen.

I get that you're trying to give the player creative freedom, but, I highly suggest limiting guns in your setting to "emerging." You'll retain the flavor you want to preserve, and the balance of the guns might feel better for you. And with that you might not have to feel forced to move to the DR system. Just remember it (armor as DR) is a option, so is limiting it to emerging guns, or combining that. As much as I am the first one to point out DM fiat, I have also found that the players feel less cheated (I know that's not your intent) if you go with an option in published work than if you "nerf" mechanics via house rule. In some cases the DR can be be too much for players who don't lean more towards balanced to optimized classes. Another good thing is to bring this concern to your table, and present them with a list of proposed solutions (to include armor as DR) and let them decide which solution they are most comfortable with.

Wizards are still better than Sorcerers in a vacuum, but they're close enough that player skill will have more to do with power level than class choice.

Exactly - and classes do not exist in a vacuum. The player has a lot to do with it, as you pointed out. Also, for players who don't enjoy utility casting, the wizard is far less of a draw.

Care to support your opinion with data?

Lex Talinis wrote:

I run armor (and natural armor as DR) as per the rule set in UC. Because of this I find guns to not be a problem at all as written.

Against a dragon a brilliant energy weapon has a leg up on firearms with this method, so I find it well balanced. I've had several gun slingers in my campaigns and never once did they outshine the others and in the shackles campaign I'm running now, the gunslinger actually is being way out shined by the barbarian.

I have actually considered using armor as DR method specifically because of issues such as these. Just doesn't feel like D&D though. but failing a commonly acceptable solution on how to handle firearms I might just give it another chance.

I just don't see using armor and allowing a weapon that never needs to roll and has unlimited uses as acceptable.

Well, D&D was the first to introduce the armor as DR in unearthed Arcana (IIRC), Pathfinder just made it actually useable. That red dragon is going to reduce so much damage that even if hit on anything other than a natural 1 the entire party is in full panic mode. Which is as it should be against a dragon. To me, and this is just a personal opinion, in moving armor to DR — I feel as though I have recaptured the feeling in combat that I want the PCs to have - some creatures just can't be taken head on with a sword - and now they have to be more creative and work together more. It enhanced the game at our table.

I run armor (and natural armor as DR) as per the rule set in UC. Because of this I find guns to not be a problem at all as written.

Against a dragon a brilliant energy weapon has a leg up on firearms with this method, so I find it well balanced. I've had several gun slingers in my campaigns and never once did they outshine the others and in the shackles campaign I'm running now, the gunslinger actually is being way out shined by the barbarian.

I second hero lab, not free but worth every penny.

Open office runs it just fine, that's what I use too.

And yes you download them :)

Reality? Is he bald?

Lex Talinis wrote:

Caedwyr wrote:

Also, doesn't vow of poverty allow you to have one high-priced item? Just check with the GM and add all the various item properties you want onto the single item. I seem to recall that is the way the developers intended it to work... which strikes a lot of people as odd, but that was the suggestion as I remember it.

yes it does - and with wise choices, this could be and item that keeps you doing amazing things.

The thing people forget about the monk is that it's not supposed to "out dps" a fighter. In fact, my monks are never built to do that. The way I build my monks are all about battle field control and play to the strengths, not the weakness, of the class.

By battlefield control I assume you mean combat manuevers? Those are going to be hurt by lack of items too.

Not nearly as much with tetori or maneuver master - you can caster hate and create general disruption quite easily without much of anything. Are there fights you'll have to think outside of the box on? Yes, but all classes have that. All of them.

It simply my opinion that people expect the monk to be something it's not, I for one am very satisfied with how it is. I know that puts me in the unpopular minority - but I am there already. I don't min/max all my characters, I build around a concept or story and make my build decisions on what will be more fun and help me RP my character concept the best. I have never felt like I couldn't contribute to a combat as a monk, ever. Sometimes it has taken creative thinking to get there but that is half fun for me. Easy is boring. :)

Also, doesn't vow of poverty allow you to have one high-priced item? Just check with the GM and add all the various item properties you want onto the single item. I seem to recall that is the way the developers intended it to work... which strikes a lot of people as odd, but that was the suggestion as I remember it.

yes it does - and with wise choices, this could be and item that keeps you doing amazing things.

The thing people forget about the monk is that it's not supposed to "out dps" a fighter. In fact, my monks are never built to do that. The way I build my monks are all about battle field control and play to the strengths, not the weakness, of the class.

johnlocke90 wrote:

Thymus Vulgaris wrote:

With danger of sounding judgmental, if you don't want to play the Vow of Poverty, why did you take it?

Because it gives him a massive ki pool

Because it seemed like a cool idea at the time and I did play for 7 levels and 6 months, the character concept was that the monk was sending all the money he earned back to his family. We have now got to the point that my monk makes an acrobatic check on the first turn to jump up somewhere high so he can have a good view of the fight and shout encouragement down. The gm even keeps sending the pc gifts from his family (equipment) in a not so subtle hint that a pc who can't hit his opponents on anything lower than a 15 (on his first attack of a flurry) isn't contributing much.

sounds like the GM is giving you a way to RP giving up the vow of poverty. Take it since you're not happy with it.

Oh come on lawful is the alignment of technicalities, lawful means you obey the letter of the laws because the laws are sovereign. To quote I judge I met "Court are places of law not justice." If you are true lawful then you would obey the letter of the law over the spirit of the law because you do not have the authority to judge the spirit of the law as that is a task for those with the right to rule.

Lawful with low wisdom, then yes... But a monk should never have low wisdom, wisdom allows one to not be blinded by the letter of the law and see the spirit of the law. This is why it is applied to a sense motive check ;)

You've been caught red handed sir. Just roll with it and perhaps we could help you find a monk build you will enjoy playing within the confines of the rules both as written and intended. :)

You can pick up both weapon focus and deadly aim via the ninja tricks :) so this should work out fairly well. That will improve chance to hit and damage output.

Check out Ogre Sheets, I've found it to be extremely usefull.

But off the top, unless your GM runs the armor as DR variant rule in UC, I'm not a huge fan of clustered shots, I'd trade it out for deadly aim (basically power attack for ranged weapons) and try to squeeze in weapon focus.

Class? Stats (point buy, rolled?), race, what's allowed as building material and what's disallowed? Such details will help give a much better critique.

Works fine for me on chrome and safari.

All the monk tag means is you can flurry with it as a master of many styles he is giving up flurry - so who cares? And since when is 1d8 plus special enhancers (including ac) not "good?" Really?! lol I swear.

Lex Talinis wrote:

You can flurry with a meteor hammer - it is a reach weapon - given this much thought?

not much time for commenting tonight, but i don't think meteor hammer is a monk weapon, so i'm not sure how i could flurry with it. is there something i'm missing?

You can flurry with a meteor hammer - it is a reach weapon - given this much thought?

coordinated maneuvers and tandem trip seem like they would both be well worth the investment :)

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Black_Lantern wrote:

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Alchemist needs to write.

Urban/Savage Barbarian with the Dervish Dance feat, or focus on natural attacks and pick up an Agile Amulet of Mighty Fists.

For awesome flavor, be a devout follower of Lamashtu.

Why does it matter if they have to write?

Most goblins believe writing steals thoughts from your mind.

Yeah I know, most do think that. However adventurers aren't most people.

Becaue I specifically stated that I'd like to retain that for flavor and RP. That should be reason enough ;).

Gunslinger is a "no-go" we already have one in the party and I'd feel like I was stepping on their toes.

Gabo - you have me dying over here boggarting the wizards spell book. Hahahaha! You are welcome to play a goblin at my table anyday :D I think the implant on the fam/companion is simply some of the best shenanigans ever. Can you imagine the look on the other PC's face as their buddy explodes in a giant ball of flame?

BBT - he's mounting the dog to establish "dominance" ;). The real trick is "dominating" a horse....

Black_Lantern wrote:

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Alchemist needs to write.

Urban/Savage Barbarian with the Dervish Dance feat, or focus on natural attacks and pick up an Agile Amulet of Mighty Fists.

For awesome flavor, be a devout follower of Lamashtu.

Why does it matter if they have to write?

Most goblins believe writing steals thoughts from your mind.

Indeed, and I wanted to keep the superstitious flavor alive. It should make for some unique role playing :)

I would also like to thank everyone who contributed to this thread, you have given me some great ideas to work with. You are much appreciated!

Okay so far I have an urban/savage barbarian at uses dervish dance
A memory inquisitor
And an alchmist pending GM approval

Keep them coming :P

Hahahaha out to save the long shanks from the dangers of the scribble! Maybe he uses a brand to write on them? Definitely potential there!

Ninja'd lol

If I was going to go with unarmed I'd probably end up taking the feral gnasher archetype, though.

bites the long shanks ankles - spits - "too boney!"

I was looking at the alchemist, but don't they have a notebook of extracts, etc like a wizard?

The urban barbarian sadly doesn't work with my concept - he's pretty feral and not a fan of large urban centers. But a dervish dancing goblin would be pretty funny :P

In an up coming campaign I'm wanting to play a gobin to provide some comedy and chaos to the adventure. We're a group of six, so I can pick basically any class.

The problem I'm having is I want him to still hold to the idea the writing steals thoughts, but I'm not sold on a combat class either. I really don't want to play the sneaky backstabby type either. Any thoughts?

We have a ulfen male barbarian (invulnerable rager)
An ulfen male sorcerer (boreal)
A tien male orical of life
A tien male Druid
And a drown female ninja

So far they work well as a group :)

Expeditious Retreat Press has a whole line of 1 on 1 adventures

Count me as another recommendation for ERP 1 on 1's they are very well done.

I know you covered rogue, but I do think that Ninja deserves its own blurb, there are enough differences to make the approach different than a standard rogue.

With that said, I admit gnome is probably my favorite race in PF. I also suggest giving more attention to the feats and traits found in the Gnomes of Gol. Supplement. Also instead of just passing on a feat, explain why you don't like it. Other than that it seems to becoming together.

blahpers wrote:

I'm considering getting Hero Lab even though the price is pretty prohibitive. I've used PCGen up until now and I like it, but I'm starting to hit its limits and they're taking way too long (on the order of years) to release data sets for even the most high-profile sources. Furthermore, there are some things that are just plain difficult to write in when making custom data sets.

How difficult is it to make, e.g., custom feats or archetypes in Hero Lab and have it figure them into its calculations?

This is purely my opinion but I believe herolab is an uneeded tool. It lacks the flexibility that a regular character sheet grants you. For example in my game I grant all classes an additional 2 skill points per level to increase versatility in the group but herolab lacks the ability to make simple changes like these

As a program it cant adjust to the wide variety of games, it can only write a sheet for RAW. Thus, for me, its a worthless tool even if it was free and the price tag only adds another reason not to get it.

NOTE: It has been several months since I tried herolab so my information may be out of date now

Your information is out of date, you can add feats, additional skill points, bonuses to certian skills, etc. it is found in the personal tab under the permanent adjustments section.

Hero Lab. This will solve the leveling problems you are having as well as account for the bonuses... It even annotates conditional bonuses. Looking up rules, use the PRD, you can type in, say "grapple", and then select the one that comes up in the PRD to view the full text.

Regarding number three - does the "why" impact your enjoyment? Are you asking it because you need more narrative from your GM? Are you asking it because your wondering why higher ground equals a +2 and not a +3 or +1? If the former, an out of game conversation can solve that. If the latter, then we delve into a whole new realm of ga,e design and balance that in the end boils down to, because that's what the devs thought to be appropriate.

So, we have a player who is very good at making unhittable characters. His 8th level ranger/monk has an AC of 46 - legally (unless he's surprised or unprepared, but how often does *that* happen in PFS?). One would think this would make him less capable in other areas, but since he is a focused trip-monkey, he has a huge effect on the scenario without needing to do huge amounts of damage.

(Somewhat off-topic: this player is also a huge rules lawyer, arguing every call made by every GM and driving people bonkers. I may wind up uninviting him for this reason, but I'd like to know how to solve the main issue anyway.)

So, is there a way to challenge him? Are there scenarios which would reduce his effectiveness enough to put him at risk, or at least give him something different to do? In a campaign I could deal with it, but I'd like to find a way in-game to challenge him.

Count me as another request on this breakdown for the AC, I'm skeptical. But in this situation, this is exactly why attacking the saves is a good option, as. Is environmental control, how well will he do when hit with grease and set ablaze? Save or Suck spells and further set them up for Save or Die spells...

Incorporeal opponents should be very difficult for him to trip, same with swarms... Also, live by the Combat maneuver, die by the combat maneuver... Surely his CMD is lower than his AC.

But without seeing the character, It's all speculation.

Just a note on Fantasy Grounds - The map building/execution made me want to bludgeon my own skull in. However you can import maps so if you have a mapmaker you like - use it and import.

Let's assume you were a dwarf for the time being (since you are considering it.), endurance is an absolute, after that I would take great fortitude, since you stated you wanted to focus on survivability and durability before combat and damage. I would absolutely pump ranks into survival for several levels - Once you can pass a 15 dc with high success then it becomes less important. So from level 2 to 4 I would consider how things are playing out before investing in improved great fortitude or skill focus survival. If you have a hard time making the check, then the skill focus might be more important. It just depends on how it plays out.

Ultimately, you have to sacrifice feats to give you a shot at mitigating the heavy armor, if you heat stroke out, your useless in combat. We had a fighter in this campaign who ignored all the warnings, and failed the saving throw just before walking into an ambush. He died in that combat. Furthermore, if you DM is making this realistic, there will be fortitude saves a lot to resist poisons and diseases just from tromping throught the jungle.

Spend points in survival, and improve your fortitude save through feats in addition to to endurance. A three feat investment will give you a high fort save, that you can re-roll and endurance. For four you could boost you survival skill substantially.

Players don't argue because they need discipline, they argue because they want something.

Do you mean to say that because the want something that they are entitled? Even if it is unbalanced or not inline with RAW/RAI?

Just thought I'd clarify the intention behind the assertion before I respond to it.

A Man In Black wrote:

Players don't get into arguments because they're naughty children who aren't disciplined well enough. They get into arguments because they are unhappy, and grinding them under your heel as GM isn't going to make them any happier.

Be careful with your absolute statements here, AMiB.

Some of the people arguing here are hearkening back to actual incidents with naughty children, I'm sure. Both players AND GMs. That's part of the problem.

You're describing an ideal situation I agree with, but unfortunately a lot of personal immaturity has convinced 50% of us that the GM can't be trusted with absolute power, and convinced the other 50% that the GM must have absolute power.

100% of us are claiming the other person must be wrong, and that the game will degenerate into a horrible experience.

But clearly, 100% of us have also had at least one good game experience, or we wouldn't be here.

Just food for thought.

This is a false dichotomy - several here have asserted that it is more likely somewhere in the middle and that both of the opposing arguments hold merits and weaknesses.

Actually I never called 'you' or 'your group' out as anything. I was generalizing. Go back and check the context of my prose if you so wish.

I was simply pointing out how mechanically easier the game systems made it to 'munchikin' from 3rd ed and beyond. I also pointed out that its human nature to to take advantage of that and then justify choices and that I think ignorning those simple truths is naive.

You took it personally for some reason. I'll leave that up to you as to why there is significant percieved persecution and a need to defend yourself from a generalization.

You admit to generalizing and then imply that your sweeping generalizations were in no way directed at me despite being in direct response to me. Generalizations are by definition inclusive and not concerned with actuality as opposed to exclusive and concerned with specificity. Surely you don't expect people to assume exclusion from stated sweeping generalizations, unless of course you are trying to tell me that your choice of words and choice to generalize was unintentionally done. But somehow I get the impression it was very deliberate.

Defective induction is still a fallacy last time I checked. Just saying.

I think what you intended to say (see above quoted text) is far different then what you said via generalizing. Yes it is mechanically easier - and yes many do take advantage of that. But not all and perhaps not even most. Assuming that the sample group of the posters on forums is reflective of the greater base of players is still and always will be faulty reasoning.

My initial response to you was one of specificity (I was not ignoring anything simply pointing out that not everyone approches the game the way you seem to think most do and that I have and entire group of people who look for different things out of their RPGs) - and you respond with a dismissive generalization - that in and of itself is enough discourtesy to "strike a nerve."

GM = Referee isn't bad - but a referee is bound by RAW and does not have the authority to abridge the rulebook or even add to it. Pathfinder has given GM's the authority to abridge or add as they see fit.

I think when players understand that and GM's communicate clearly what they have abridged or added to the rules and provides a written reference to this a mutual respect is far easier to come by.

In the end we are all supposed to be friends sitting around a table spending time together enjoying each other and a game we love. If respect is lacking from either GM or players - then there is usually something much bigger going on.

Maxx - Thank you for continuing to work on this :) I for one appreciate it. What is good for the goose is good for the gander and a polished document introducing the nature of the player and GM responsibilities to each-other with input from multiple GMs is a noble and good undertaking. I do suggest that when, in your document, you advise a course of action that has proven to be debatable or controversial here that you include their perspectives as alternatives to the primary advice and state why it is given. :)

Ephesians 4:32 is advice to men, not advice to God about dealing with men.

Your excerpt about Yoga is pretty much the same thing.

These are examples of religion promoting unity among it's followers, not how the god must adhere to the wishes of its people.

Another analogy that can be used, the elected sheriff. You're there to enforce the rules and you get a lot of power from that, but if you abuse it you might just lose the next election.

I like the analogy of the Sharif it is much more applicable to the role of the GM IMHO then Gygax's natural law analogy. However as stated by a poster above - if you run in a homebrew world that was created by the DM - natural law by definition would make the GM the God of that world.

I think in spirit we agree here - but I fear you are still looking at the trees and missing the forest.

Good Stuff

This sir was an excellent study and explanation. +1

It should always come down to playing what you want and running with a concept that you will enjoy. The staff magus with Dimensional Dervish could potentially be an interesting study of a magus controller. :)

I think I may have to play-test that combination now :P

This is why I encourage all players to err on the side of concept then power gaming or min/maxing. It leads to a much more enjoyable role playing experiences.

...Just because a lot of stuff on these boards is all about the DPR, it does not mean that his how most play.

Yes, most want to make good chars, but that does not mean they must all pick a cookie cutter build to do so. Is the staff magus inferior to the scimitar wielding Magus? DPR wise no doubt, but that does not make it a bad char. The build posted above is a very viable staff Magus and would be a lot of fun and very powerful AND it fits the style and concept of the player.

Any build can be optimized to work well, it's only the munchkins who care if there are better builds that can be done.

Just because you are playing with munchkins it does not mean it is the norm nor does it mean the system is the problem.

Exactly. In fact we can take this further - some groups even prefer low combat quests because they can focus more on the character and mental and/or skill challenges. RPGs appeal to a great diverse group of people for very different reasons.

Sounds like I struck a nerve. Must have been food for thought. Natural reaction really.

You did - but not for the reasons you hoped for. Your discourtesy in telling me why I and my players play this game and how we go about character conception and how I was dishonest in my statements of what we focus on was the only thing I gave thought too. And yes - it is my natural reaction to not silently stand by while my integrity is impugned without basis.

If you want to sidestep all of those discussions about whether a GM can/should be authoritarian, I suggest this rule:

Game with people you would enjoy spending an evening with even if there was no gaming going on.

This has already been stated - and by myself several times in the thread that spawned this and in others.

The idea of a GM as a tyrant is a foreign concept to me and generally inconceivable in my experiences since I play with friends and all but one of us have been friends for 15 years or longer.

If you don't enjoy your company - why keep it.

Lex Talinis wrote:

Furthermore it seems as though you may be missing the many times he encourages DM's and players to have an open and honest dialogue - but if it is not longer a value added dialogue then instead of yelling at your DM - understand that they are the final say. Sure it could be more eloquently worded - but eloquence is just as subjective from one person to the next as what people consider "good art."

This is quite on topic.

The rest really wasn't though, ergo the spoiler ;)

He encourages a GM to assert control of the group, then entertain a dialogue with the players within that framework of absolute control. The GM is in charge, and cedes control at his whim to the players, and their recourse if they disagree is to leave. That's better than the attitudes of the ironfisted my-way-or-the-highway types, but it's not the only framework or relationship to have. It's not even a healthy framework: it only functions when the GM is a dominant person willing to do most of the work or take on the job of delegating the work, and when the players are willing to be subject to that dominance. That doesn't describe all players or GMs; I would submit that it doesn't even describe most players or GMs.

I agree that it is not the only way. However, there are many ways to assert control - many are very peaceful and interpersonally correct - not draconian as so many here have assumed it to be. But at the same time it is the GM's responsibility to keep things on point so entertaining constant rules lawyering from players can and does take away from other players enjoyment of the sessions. An agreement must be made in advance of how the group will discuss disagreements and how much time will be dedicated to it. A GM should have the fortitude and humility to admit if they misunderstood a rule or misapplied a rule if presented with a proper (read respectful and accurate) challenge to the ruling. Likewise it is also imperative that players respect that the GM may have their valid reasons for a ruling or interpretation of a rule and that simply disagreeing with the GM and arguing ad nauseum is not value added and will most likely result in the loss of a GM (and for some groups this may mean the loss of a regular game) or not being invited back to play.

In all my years of playing and DMing/GMing I have only ever ended one game prematurely and by vote of the rest of the group not invited a person back. Nine times out of ten respectful discourse will solve any issue. Sometimes people will still disagree - but so long as it is not a deal breaker - people need to learn to let those things go.

I assume the thread that spawned this is the "How do I discourage dipping?" thread? Because that is just a dysfunctional group. If one player was the problem, everyone can eject that player; you don't need an all-powerful GM exercising jus divinum to do that. If everyone was the problem and bullying a GM who was made uncomfortable, that GM needed to just leave, because that group was treating him like crap. Bullying the group right back wasn't going to fix that dysfunctional group, just perpetuate the same problems.

You're assumption is correct. However, if you read the entirety of that thread you see that this was not the first group to have the same set of issues with that GM at the helm. So yes I fully agree that group of players was an unfixable situation - there were some issues that repeated themselves from different groups towards the same GM. And one of the major contributors was a lack of respectful discourse, social contract regarding rules debate, and table rules easily and clearly accessed. Also since the GM is relatively new to the role - their ignorance of many rules was taken advantage of. It was a worst case senario and one that is still infuriating on many levels for me.

Again I agree about it only working if the GM is the primary workhorse - but a table where that is not the case is unappealing to me as a player - so you can infer where I stand on that. As a GM - receive a lot of personal enjoyment from preparing the sessions and presenting them. So while I delegate one task (usually initiative tracking), I simply wouldn't enjoy it as much if I didn't shoulder most of the work so that the players could focus on playing. I know it is old school - perhaps that is not what players look for now days - but it is what my group enjoys, and I'm sure many others do too.

He does encourage GM's and players to work out their issues. Gods don't do that though. Gods make decree's from on high and punish people when they don't follow them.

This is an entirely unsupported statement based upon a false premise (explained below), and is fallacious in the fact that it is a sweeping/hasty generalization. To defeat your assertion here all one needs to do is provide one example of a God encouraging people to work out/resolve/fix their interpersonal problems with each other.

Now - instead of focusing on the age old phrase "DM is God of the table" move past it. As you admit your self the GM should be the final arbiter of the rules in almost all cases (exceptions may include a band new GM who needs to defer to a more experience player who is assisting them). The point of the guide and the original statement made so many decades ago:

Most aspects of the game can be expressed numerically, from attributes like strength and health and intelligence to the power of a weapon and the probability that it will successfully connect with an enemy and the amount of damage it would inflict. But one player has to paint a picture with words: That person assumes the role of the dungeon master and describes for other players what they see and hear in this imaginary world, and what effects their actions have.

In other words, the dungeon master is God while the other players are mortals subject to natural law.

If you take exception to the phrase - blame Gygax and not the OP. It is a very old school line of thought - when SRDs were not readily on hand and it was the GM who held all the rules for reference - while the players only held one third of them.

If you focus on the trees you will miss the forest - so look at the intention and meaning of the guide instead of the entomology of a word or intention of a singular phrase used as an example to reference the views of one of the originators of our system (let's face it - no D&D no Pathfinder).

In the end I agree that a source link should have been given to the thread that started this in the original post as a prologue as it has relevance in context - but this is a rough rough rough draft by any standards - and not intended to be a final version of anything. Otherwise it would be consolidated into one post - or a PDF document on Google Docs like every-other finished guide out there.

Solution - we all work together to help the OP achieve a final and polished version, building him up and thanking him for taking the time to undertake a project we have been unwilling to do ourselves by offering suggestions based in reasoning that can be supported.

Or for those who disagree with the majority of what is said in this guide - simply write your own. Certainly there are multiple philosophies about what a GM is - some believe the GM to hold no authority at the table and must acquiesce to all player whims - even if they are disruptive on not according to RAI. Some believe the GM has total authority and can/should tell player's "no" from time to time, and many theories in-between. Each holds merit in their own right - but none are exclusively "correct" since the table is a collaborative effort. In the end - the intention was to find the most common answers to these questions and issues and provide them. With the caveat to new players that the GMs rulings are to be respected and not to detract by persistency in argumentation. That if it is truly disagreed with - respectfully talk away from the table after the game - but still be willing to accept that the GM may still not agree with your interpretation.

Lex Talinis wrote:

wordswordswords about God

I don't know about you, but I find being told to "deal with it" amid a profanity-laced tirade the objectionable part.

I take no offense to it, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. Reasons included below.