Kassata

firefly the great's page

Organized Play Member. 184 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 184 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Claxon wrote:
Experiment 626 wrote:
Fumble rules are obnoxious. If there's a confirmation roll in place they're slightly easier to tolerate, but still aren't conducive to playing heroes. If people want to play, "Life Sucks" they can probably just go about their daily business and not bother with games of make-believe and dice rolling!
If people want to play a game of Life Sucks we can just go play Call of Cthulhu. I think I've only seen one game of CoC where the players actually won. Every other time somebody goes mad and starts killing their team mates.

I thought that was winning for CoC?

Seriously, though, just point out that critical failures happen on average once every two minutes *at least*, more often as you gain additional attacks. In real life, I think most of us would reconsider letting somebody like that near the sharp objects.


Roanark wrote:
I think I'm going to stick with the oracle build posted above. The downside, is that he probably won't have any AoE's, and I don't think the Magus can have them period. So we'll probably have to stock up on alchemist fires. (Bag of holding ftw!)

There are AoEs on the magus spell list (burning hands, fireball, etc). The question is only whether the person playing the magus is someone who will just prepare a bunch of touch spells because they are theoretically optimal for magus, or if he's someone who wants to be prepared for contingencies.

I think the spell recall ability encourages the magus to avoid preparing shocking grasp (or vampiric touch, at the appropriate level) in every spell slot.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Which is what I said.

Oh, and I was only referencing races because we were discussing Charisma. No, Charisma is not about physical attractiveness. That's just one generally small factor.

I really don't see how testosterone is a negative to charisma then. If you want to be making announcements, issuing commands, generally getting big groups of people to listen to you, having the deeper voice that comes from testosterone is a tremendous advantage.


Because giving a charisma bonus to females has nothing to do with goblins and orcs, who as far as I know are both humanoids and therefore have two sexes. It also has nothing to do with "judgement". There's a reason why there are three mental stats, and CHA has the *least* to do with judgement. It has the *most* to do with physical attractiveness, and we have already had a thread of thousands of posts full of hetero guys saying women have an absolute monopoly on physical attractiveness.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I honestly think a bonus to Charisma or Wisdom makes a bit of sense, if only due to the reduced levels of testosterone clouding the character's judgment. I don't think it's intended to be sexist.

Umm, how does charisma relate to judgment? I really can't see it as any more than the self-centered hetero-male idea that orientations are for women and a few weirdos, because *they* have the objective truth.


I think if I tried adding romantic interests to my game, my players would kill them. It's just what they do.


The Crusader wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Firefly equated it with homophobia and said it was wrong and bad to do it.
Well, if you were banning the PLAYER for being a furry, without giving them a chance to play without using those themes, I would say that was wrong and bad too.

This is a different scenario.

Any player is (or should be) welcome at the table. If that player becomes disruptive, or is unwilling to play in the system the DM/group is using, then that is a different story.

Being a furry is not the same as playing a furry. And neither of those equates to, requires, or justifies, being a Kitsune. The DM is under no obligation.

OK. What if a gay guy wants to play a female character in a game, and the GM says "No, I don't want you to do that, it will make the other guys uncomfortable. You can be in my game, but you can't play a female. Also never mention your boyfriend. Just sit around here while we talk about Kate Upton for the first hour and never say a thing because gay people are icky." That's what I hear when I see kitsune banned because "furries are silly".


The Crusader wrote:
Trying to spin this to demonstrate that the DM had no legitimate reasoning or rationale means, once again, Entitlement and Self-Centeredness.

I treated the player's statements differently from the OP's statements because they are second-hand information, and there have been many cases of second-hand information on this forum that have been shown to be highly distorted when other people from that game have appeared. There have been cases where I personally could have done so with games I have been in, but I have chosen not to do so because there is very little to gain from it.

So that is the reason why I don't assume that the issue is anything other than a GM who doesn't want kitsune, given the reasons he has stated and a player who wants to play a kitsune, with all other statements about said player being conjecture at best.


ciretose wrote:


Thank you for explaining that as a GM, I have to allow furries into my game or I am having wrongbadfun.

Yes, if your fun means acting in a close-minded, prejudicial way towards other people, that is wrong and bad.


Bill Dunn wrote:
Nit pick ahead: Most APs are pretty agnostic on the topic. They don't typically "specifically allow for it" with any races outside the main PC races. Rather, they don't specifically discourage any.

There is a campaign trait tailored around not being from Varisia. That's what I was referring to. It isn't specific to any one race but it does seem to exist primarily to allow "unusual" backgrounds into the campaign.


The Crusader wrote:
Deciding that you have the right to play this, just because you want to, is the very definition of Player Entitlement. This is almost by definition out of place in most settings. Simply refusing to acknowledge that shows a remarkable amount of self-centeredness.

I said he has the right to ban a race, but I don't think we should ignore that 1.) there is no special dramatic plot reason to do so, because he's running an AP that specifically allows for it and 2.) he specifically stated that he doesn't want to allow it *because he doesn't like furries*.


ciretose wrote:
firefly the great wrote:
_Cobalt_ wrote:
I've tried just a flat "No, I don't want this to become some silly furry game. Shattered Star is grim."

A lot of the people I've played Pathfinder with are furries, so honestly I don't like the idea of saying "NO FURRIES IN MY GAME" It's like saying "NO GAY PEOPLE IN MY GAME"

Are a lot of the people you play with literally fox people?

No.

So saying there are no fox people in a game isn't the same thing.

I mean it's a part of who they are, and being a furry is about more than sex just like being gay is about more than sex. It was the OP who specifically said he didn't want "a silly furry game" you don't have to guess at his motivations it's right there.

Plus it's not like you can even say "there aren't kitsune in his setting" because it isn't even his setting, it's an AP, and the AP materials actually specifically allow for player characters to come from somewhere other than where you start the AP.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
_Cobalt_ wrote:
I've tried just a flat "No, I don't want this to become some silly furry game. Shattered Star is grim."

A lot of the people I've played Pathfinder with are furries, so honestly I don't like the idea of saying "NO FURRIES IN MY GAME" It's like saying "NO GAY PEOPLE IN MY GAME"

Plus Shattered Star is about Pathfinder Society. One of the campaign traits is specifically for a Society member who isn't from Magnimar. You really don't have a justification here except for "I don't like it." You can say "I don't like it" as a GM but don't pretend you have any other justification, because you don't.


Piccolo wrote:


This might seem peculiar, but over the years, I've noticed that Barbarians have a tendency to NEED those huge hit dice. It's as if they get pounded on so much that every last hp is needed. Yet, Paladins and Fighters don't seem to take that much abuse. I dunno why. Only guess I have is that those few points of AC really make a difference.

A few points of AC can make a huge difference. Much better to avoid damage than to soak it in my opinion. I don't think barbarians make very good tanks for that reason. Paladins will have more AC and higher saves which make them very good for that type.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There's no reason you can't remove multiclassing. All the classes are built to be good 1-20 options. I don't think it will accomplish what you hope to accomplish, though. Single-class characters can be extremely optimized, and I see multi-class used for RP more often than for optimization.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Swashbucklersdc wrote:
I would guess with all the rogue hate on these forums, the rogue...

Least played among people on the forums, maybe. Plenty of people love the idea of the rogue no matter how weak the class is.

I'd probably say cavalier, because of the number of campaigns that restrict mounts (except for small characters). Also gunslingers seem to be banned in half the games out there.


Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:
Use it to your advantage, have your attackers blow right past the front line and hit their squishies.

Yeah, this is the real issue. There needs to be *something*. In GURPS you don't have AoO, but you have shorter movement and you have facing -- if you go past the fighter, you put your back to him, and he can stab you in the back where you can't defend yourself.


Hama wrote:


A very weak argument, or poorly chosen. It's not challenging at all. A challenge is something that forces you to spend some of your resources, more challenging, more resources spent. I don't like to have a near TPK every other fight, but sometimes, it is pretty good to take the kiddy gloves off and make the PCs sweat bullets to accomplish their goal. If it's all easy, what's the point? Unless, of course, you like to breeze through encounters...

I don't want to breeze through encounters. If you read my previous post, I want the freedom to throw high-CR encounters and appropriate tactics at my players without killing a player every other combat. That's why I give players tools like hero points that reduce randomness. Otherwise I would end up with either an *extremely* deadly game, which reduces party cohesion, or a world where all their enemies are inexplicably less competent than they are.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
firefly the great wrote:
kmal2t wrote:

Would anyone argue that DnD isn't already drifting toward easy mode? You get max HD to start. You get better powers. You get more options and abilities. You can't die unless you reach negative constitution etc. This doesn't even include 4e and second winds.

The thing is... there are a few ways to increase the challenge of an encounter. I think randomness is a cheap, lazy way to do it. I try and give my players tools to reduce that randomness so that I can be confident in using encounters that may be a higher CR and opponents that have decent tactics.
What's the point of the dice then? Do away with them, gather round once a week and tell a story...freak accidents and stupid deaths happen. More often to people who takes risks.

I don't want to do away with die-rolling, I just don't want it to be a focus. It's enjoyable to deal a lot of damage even if it just means, hey, we ended this a round earlier, maybe we don't need to use as many charges on the CLW wand.

I could just as easily flip your question around, why bother playing Pathfinder at all? You could just play tabletop Russian Roulette. Roll a d6, on a 6 you die. Wasn't that fun? It has a higher mortality rate than most games, so obviously it's *challenging*.


kmal2t wrote:

Would anyone argue that DnD isn't already drifting toward easy mode? You get max HD to start. You get better powers. You get more options and abilities. You can't die unless you reach negative constitution etc. This doesn't even include 4e and second winds.

The thing is... there are a few ways to increase the challenge of an encounter. I think randomness is a cheap, lazy way to do it. I try and give my players tools to reduce that randomness so that I can be confident in using encounters that may be a higher CR and opponents that have decent tactics.


Detect Magic wrote:
To expand what I've stated in my aside, I think the term "little person" implies that you're not normal. If you were, you'd be called a "person". Thus, the adjective "little" implies abnormality. "Dwarf" on the other hand doesn't imply anything of the sort. You can be a "dwarf" and also a "person".

It's not a perfect term, but the etymology of "dwarf" is from mythology. So I think it carries more unfortunate baggage with it than "little person".


I would expect that most gamers understand that being a fantasy race is different from being a little person, but I've been surprised before, by Game of Thrones fans who don't understand why comparing Tyrion to Gimli is just ... absolutely, sbsurdly wrong on so many levels.


zefig wrote:

Make the pit party compulsory by guiding their friends in with an Aqueous Orb.

Hehe. This was a signature move for a group I was in. We had a Earth Wizard who would make a pit and my druid would catch them in the orb.


thejeff wrote:
Unconscious and dying after a normal blow, but still with several rounds in which you can be healed or stabilize on your own, is not comparable to going from full hp to dead in one shot, which can easily happen with a two-handed critical.

Someone with a strength of 18 wielding a greatsword deals 2d6+6 damage, or 2d6+9 with Power Attack, so a maximum of 18 or 21 without a critical. A sorcerer or wizard with a CON of 10 would be killed outright from 16 damage (17 with favored class bonus).


Seraphimpunk wrote:

Calling it a Young Roc breaks the polymorph restriction on templates. But Wild Shaping into a Huge Roc , a Medium or Large Roc is perfectly legal.

Just look at Medium Rocs Druids can select as animal companions. They're not Extremely Young Rocs, they're just medium Rocs until 4th level or 7th, whenever they turn large.

Except there are no Huge Rocs, Medium Rocs, or Large Rocs. Beast Shape is based on bestiary entries, not animal companions.


Celestial_Chameleon wrote:
Bbauzh ap Aghauzh wrote:
Eagle Shaman is the only archetype with this problem. All the other shaman archetypes don't specifically list an animal that is too big to be wild-shaped into.
Essentially the templates are just used to recalculate size and its related effects. All other stats are moot. Dont need to worry about the other stats as beast shape etc replace tgem anyway. You could have a huge wolf with 30 strength with any number of templates etc, but you still only get the mid from beast shape added to yours.

The point is that the eagle shaman description specifically references wild-shaping into a roc, except the roc is gargantuan and you can't wild-shape into gargantuan creatures. So it's up to the GM to interpret that and decide whether to allow eagle shamans to wild-shape into a Young Roc.


I really like sorcerer for damage because of the flexibility that you might know some utility spells, but since you cast based on spells per day, it doesn't have to take away spell slots from your blasting. Plus a lot of bloodlines have some associated attacks that are decent for low level.


The "D&D is satanic" thing was kind of a fad in the 80s, I guess, the very few people I know who buy any of that are much older, there are Christian groups now that play D&D, self-described fundamentalists even. High school isn't as segregated as its portrayed, really it's a bunch of people and 90% of them think that they're total outcasts and the people with the most money and highest charisma do a bit better but that's about it.

Most of the "jocks" at my school were all around high achievers who took advanced courses and cared about their GPA because their parents pressured them a lot to get into a good college. If they weren't playing D&D it's because they were busy getting in enough studying and extracurriculars.


Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:

I also don't like it, but know many people that do like it. The odd thing is that it is mostly players that like it.
My response has always been, "Do you realize the GM rolls about 3 times as many attacks as you do? So it is three times as likely to happen to your single character instead of you instant killing some 2 HD mook. The odds are even worse for it to happen when you really need against a powerful creature."
I usually just get blank looks.

People still go to casinos, too. Clearly our educational system needs to focus more on statistics and probability.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DeathQuaker wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Female dm's aren't real. They're mythical creatures like unicorns or the Dutch. :-)

Am I more like a unicorn or more like the Dutch?

I'm 1/4 Dutch, what do I win?


One of my groups right now has 4 PCs and the other has 5. Much bigger than that and everything takes sooooo verrry long and you will lose the attention of the table.


I've played with gaming groups that tend towards chaotic characters and groups that tend towards lawful characters. I enjoy variety but I have found over time that I do poorly at lawful characters (and also at evil characters) so I usually play neutral good, chaotic good or true neutral.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Big Lemon wrote:
firefly the great wrote:
Big Lemon wrote:
I'm gonna be That Guy and make the comment about how physical sex and gender identity are not the same thing.
OK, maybe I'm over-thinking this because it came directly after this comment, but why do you feel a need to say this? In what way is it relevant?
I think it's relevant enough when talking about female GMs and stereotypes that do/don't apply to them to think about how female is actually defined, but this is a subject of specific relevance for me so I'm quick to jump on it when it presents itself.

The thing is, I know that there are a number of cultural issues where I am much closer to the masculine stereotype than to the feminine. But I don't see myself as masculine or even androgynous. I don't appreciate the amount of gender absolutism that comes along with saying "Well, you could identify as any one of these other genders..." No. I don't want to. I want to be a woman who likes rules and tactics.


Big Lemon wrote:
I'm gonna be That Guy and make the comment about how physical sex and gender identity are not the same thing.

OK, maybe I'm over-thinking this because it came directly after this comment, but why do you feel a need to say this? In what way is it relevant?


Buri wrote:

I'll post this quote and be done with the gold pieces bit. There's a 1,000 or so post thread where the FAQ got filled that I'll link to.

Equipment wrote:

Wealth And Money

Each character begins play with a number of gold pieces that he can spend on weapons, armor, and other equipment. As a character adventures, he accumulates more wealth that can be spent on better gear and magic items. Table: Starting Character Wealth lists the starting gold piece values by class. In addition, each character begins play with an outfit worth 10 gp or less. For characters above 1st level, see Table: Character Wealth by Level.
Thread

Table: Character Wealth by Level lists the amount of treasure each PC is expected to have at a specific level. Note that this table assumes a standard fantasy game. Low-fantasy games might award only half this value, while high-fantasy games might double the value. It is assumed that some of this treasure is consumed in the course of an adventure (such as potions and scrolls), and that some of the less useful items are sold for half value so more useful gear can be purchased.

Table: Character Wealth by Level can also be used to budget gear for characters starting above 1st level, such as a new character created to replace a dead one. Characters should spend no more than half their total wealth on any single item. For a balanced approach, PCs that are built after 1st level should spend no more than 25% of their wealth on weapons, 25% on armor and protective devices, 25% on other magic items, 15% on disposable items like potions, scrolls, and wands, and 10% on ordinary gear and coins. Different character types might spend their wealth differently than these percentages suggest; for example, arcane casters might spend very little on weapons but a great deal more on other magic items and disposable items.


Icyshadow wrote:
Herbatnik wrote:
Of course that there is difference between male and female GM ;P I've had two female GMs and they were excellent in describing reality and roleplaying NPCs, far more than any male GM I have encountered. And they had no problems in trumping rules when it was necessary and cut rules lawyering off-top :)

...huh, now I feel confused about my gender.

I've always focused on those things more than my fellow players have.

Heh, yeah, that is a stereotype I would rather do without. I am very rules oriented and probably not as good at RPing the NPCs as I should be. My husband is the exact opposite.

I would probably hesitate to run a game for strangers because I don't know what they'd expect, if they'd listen to me, etc. But with a group I've played with, no problem.


Cranefist wrote:


What kind of insane troll logic do you use to make you think you are entitled to the same level character? If it is your way or the door: get out. You have no entitlement. You died. You are losing. The winners - players whose characters haven't died, deserve to be ahead of you. Themsdabrakes.

That's ridiculous on its face even if you're playing a totally tactical game. A baseball manager doesn't bench a guy because he got put out on a sacrifice bunt, he pats him on the back for doing what's best for the team.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
I'm still 6" too short for all that to have done me any good at all. Me and a fair number of other men will *NEVER* be attractive to 99.9% women on that basis alone.

I'm a woman of above average height in an area full of people who are above national average for height and I've dated a couple guys shorter than me. The only thing unattractive is how they both spent their time going "HEY! I'M NOT THAT SHORT. ARE YOU SURE IT'S OK THAT I'M SHORTER THAN YOU? OMG MY FRIENDS ARE MAKING FUN OF ME FOR BEING SHORTER THAN YOU. ARE YOU SURE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DUMP ME?" It's just such a total lack of confidence, not to mention the implied sleights at my own appearance, that is a turn-off. I mean, people thought Tom Cruise was attractive before they found out he was a total whack job and he's shorter than the average American dude.


Kirth Gersen wrote:


Can appearance be changed? Not so much. Should it? Not applicable.

Appearance can *very much* be changed. Not every guy can be David Tennant, but in reality, you don't have to be. If you manage to stay within a reasonably healthy weight for your height, practice hygiene, and pay a modicum of attention to your clothing you're probably in the top 20% of men, looks-wise.


bookrat wrote:
6) Not really a house rule, but "no math or physics" was periodically mentioned. Especially when we tried to use physics or math to show that an ability would work or something an enemy did wouldn't work.

This is really a pretty necessary rule. You think rules arguments are bad given the set of Pathfinder rules, arguments that devolve into looking up physics concepts on Wikipedia? NEVER. ENDING.


John Kretzer wrote:
firefly the great wrote:
I would much, much rather play with this GM than the tons of GMs who have popped up on these boards saying "I totally ignore WBL because magic items should be *special*. Those fighters don't deserve to have continual weapon upgrades. Oh, and yes, I do tend to play casters, why do you ask?"

Um...actualy fighters and other non-casters have it alot worst than caster under such a system. I ignore the WBL so I can give the non-casters a leg up in gear that they need.

If you follow the hard limit on WBL or run a low magic game than you have better nerfed casters it even power dispairty even gets larger.

Sorry, I was unclear, that was actually what I meant. The GM that ignores WBL is probably one who primarily focuses on casters as a player, and is therefore ignorant of the extent to which martial characters rely on regular equipment upgrades.


I would much, much rather play with this GM than the tons of GMs who have popped up on these boards saying "I totally ignore WBL because magic items should be *special*. Those fighters don't deserve to have continual weapon upgrades. Oh, and yes, I do tend to play casters, why do you ask?"


Mikaze wrote:
Reminds me of a recent "player/GM horror story" on another site. One player was playing an "huaghty elf" and hated the idea of other players playing "monster races", including things like half-orcs, tieflings, most races in the ARG...

That seems like it should result in a dead elf very quickly.


Goth Guru wrote:
firefly the great wrote:
Goth Guru wrote:
If the campaign is medieval, set before the age of exploration, there are no Monks or Ninjas outside of the orient. Someone could create a bare knuckles fighter or rogue wearing black pajamas, to try to simulate those classes, but that's their issue.
A "medieval" campaign also wouldn't have magic in it, because that's not historical, either. (snip)
For future reference, unless I say low magic or no magic, magic is assumed. I don't run or play in realistic campaigns. I hate reality. Pathfinder is built for magical age of exploration. There are a few who claim to run medieval or no magic campaigns. At least one who runs a combination of the 2. That's not me. Just try to keep it straight next time and I'll pretend that post never happened.

You're missing the entire point of my post. If you're playing in a campaign with magic, there is no reason why excluding monks and ninja is any more realistic than including them, because you're not playing a historical campaign. There is no Asia. There is no Europe. There's an entirely different world that operates based on entirely different rules.


Goth Guru wrote:
If the campaign is medieval, set before the age of exploration, there are no Monks or Ninjas outside of the orient. Someone could create a bare knuckles fighter or rogue wearing black pajamas, to try to simulate those classes, but that's their issue.

A "medieval" campaign also wouldn't have magic in it, because that's not historical, either. If the Eastern classes don't fit the feel you're going for, fine, but don't pretend that it's inherently more logical that a fantasy world should draw from certain parts of world culture and not others. You already have mish-mash of Greek, Roman, Celtic, Germanic, middle Eastern and Judeo-Christian beliefs even without the ninja, samurai or monk. You won't accurately recreate the tactics of any given era even without gunslingers and alchemists.

Again, do what you want. I banned summoners in my game, because they are frustrating and worked poorly with some of my house rules. My players didn't really question it because they still had options. I can tolerate DM fiat as long as it's laid out, but I'm suggesting to you guys as fellow DMs to take a moment and reconsider why you think something doesn't "make sense".


Only if it's well-earned. Some characters seem to exist to promote intra-party conflict, like the rogue who is stealing from party members. Not fun, just tiresome. But there's also cases where you have established characters and their motivations conflict -- that's fun.

Watching my mostly Lawful Neutral party trying to make a deal that would sell some people into slavery in exchange for getting out alive and getting the Macguffin, only to have it completely ruined when the halfling cleric (of Cayden Cailean. srsly, does anyone know any non-beer related facts about his portfolio) full-out charges the dude with her rapier. That's fun. It's a lot better than sitting back and watching your character go along with something she never would just because your GM wants everybody to get along.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
zergtitan wrote:
In my opinion the reason I like "scantly-clad" women is because they have such an awesome body in comparison to guys and can get more attention and admiration about it then men.

This is one of the most idiotic arguments in the world and I hear it all the time. You are, I assume, a heterosexual male. You find women more attractive than men. There's nothing wrong with that. But you need to recognize that you find women attractive because of your sexual orientation, not because it's a universal truth.

NOT EVERYONE IN THE WORLD IS A HETEROSEXUAL MALE.

Not everyone likes scantily clad women. I don't actively dislike them, necessarily, but they don't do anything for me. In terms of interest, they would rank somewhere above filing cabinets and below potted plants. I would much rather look at a scantily clad male, thank you very much. That's my orientation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The big issue I find is people falling back on "I'm the GM, I make the rules, stop criticizing how I play." Nobody is breaking into your house and telling you that you're playing wrong. You brought it up on a public forum.


Samurai wrote:

The impression Anita gave was "American games were terribly sexist because...", and then listed nothing but Japanese games, and ignored the efforts of American companies to change the games to suit American audiences as much as they could.

It's like talking about how terribly sexist American comics and animation are, and then showing nothing but manga and anime. Even if they have been translated into English and are for sale in the US, it doesn't mean they represent American cultural values or should be used as an example of "sexist American media"....

Toyotas are some of the most popular cars in America; many of them are even manufactured here. Toyota is a Japanese company, but they are built for Americans; they are representative of what types of vehicle Americans drive.

Video games, anime -- it's the same thing. Everything you see these days is made with Americans in mind. ESPECIALLY if you look at it and think it's sooooo Japanese, because that's what Americans want.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't have a problem with houserules or people suggesting houserules when they're relevant. I'm using a couple major ones in the campaign I'm running. But sometimes it does seem like over the course of the thread suddenly people have more and more houserules that weren't mentioned at first but mysteriously seem to pop up whenever the prevailing logic is against their decision. That really detracts from a thread because it ends up getting pulled in a million directions at once.

1 to 50 of 184 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>