Wow. Brain unfreeze. I'm pretty sure I remember playing the actual Moon Eagle now.
The game I was talking about was called Cosmic something or other... I think. It was like Galaxian but with supremely fatter graphics and the color were much more vibrant.
Speaking of arcade memories: I recall that when Tron came out, years later, with its five games in one, it was a revelation.
Mine eyes had seen the future!
Those games didn't suck back then, that's for sure. But who would play them now for more than just a few minutes when there's games like WoW, DDO, Battlefield 2, etc.
(oh wait...my wife....she'd totally still play those games...and feather her hair, for sure)
Those games didn't suck back then, that's for sure. But who would play them now for more than just a few minutes when there's games like WoW, DDO, Battlefield 2, etc.
(oh wait...my wife....she'd totally still play those games...and feather her hair, for sure)
Down in Orlando there's a building called Disneyquest and one of the floors has a bunch of the old games. They're fun to revisit. I get the retro collections for the new systems and got an extreme blast out of playing Atari's ADVENTURE (dragonslaying and treasure grabbing and castles etc). Unfortunately there used to be an easter egg (the first I'd ever heard of) in that game that seems to have had its code stripped.
Speaking of old games:
Didn't learn until I was 26 that I had this preternatural gift for air hockey, a game I had practically never played as a kid. Now there's a marketable skill. Keep your manly cues... I've got my lil plastic paddle. Awwwwr.
MY WIFE THE VIDEO GAME FAN-GIRL FOUND IT!
http://cgi.ebay.com/EAGLE-VIDEO-GAME-BY-CENTURI_W0QQitemZ250017942508QQcmdZ ViewItemIt sold on ebay for $99, which, ironically, is about what I used to feed the original in quarters in a month.
The link didn't take me to it. Drat to the power of drat.
When it prints the response on the board, it adds a space to the address that shouldn't be there. So reply to a message with the address, copy that one, and paste it in address and it'll work.
Heathansson (writing War 'n' Peace the Chimpanzee way).
or just remove the space.
Dude. THAT'S the GAME! That was my absolute favorite. I can't believe I finally learned its name. Thank you.
edit: That's the game I thought was called cosmic something or other.
Director of Narrative
|
I hate it that my home computer has decided to stop functionning lately. It takes me anywhere from three to ten tries just to get it started, and even then it lasts only about one to ten minutes before it either freezes, restarts or just plain shuts off by itself.
I also hate the fact that I'm not very good with fixing computers (I have only two ranks, lol).
Ultradan
Whatcha got? I mean what's yer 'puter's stats. It takes some finesse to keep some older machines running. Sometimes crummy software or malware can do the same things that old/bad/dirty hardware can. Feel free to email me adamwdaigle(at)yahoo(dot)com.
|
Director of Narrative
|
I hate that I had to go to San Antonio and bust my rear working for a few days.
I hate that a few days away from here and conversations get too far back to feel okay about responding to.
I hate that I don't respond as much as I want to either because I know I don't have all my facts straight at the time - or - don't have the time or energy to contest or respond to something that seems pointless to argue/discuss anyway - or - feel like I'm hogging the place by posting a wave of posts at the one or two chances I get a day to relax here and read and contribute to this wonderful forum of great DM minds.
I hate how that was such a terrible run-on sentence and I didn't even care.
|
Director of Narrative
|
.......trust me when I say that there are things about both parties that I don't like. Therein lies the overriding problem in our process. BOTH PARTIES. 2 friggin' choices. The lesser of 2 evils. Meanwhile people who would be great candidates are overlooked or don't get the air-time to express their views because they don't have Democratic/Republican party backing and/or funding.
Screw the Electorial College. I want to hear the top 5-10 candidates views equally.FH
I could've sworn I was ranting about this a week or so ago.
Something to keep in mind is that our instant and convieniant society here shortens our patience. Any intrusion into the two puppet - oops - I mean, two party system is going to take both time and numbers. I have voted for third party candidates since 1994, which is to say as soon as I could vote, just to further the cause and awareness of a more inclusive system. In this age of "choice", which seems only to affect people in the consumer aspect of their lives, it seems to me absurd that we don't demand more choices in our governing bodies. The two parties have the plateau of time in power and money to either play to the masses with contradictory stances on issues or to simply yell louder and longer about their way to "solve" the people's concerns, while any alternative must jump through a much more complicated and expensive maze just to be heard for 2 minutes on "The Daily Show" or some such media outlet.
No major change or paradigm shift in history has ever been easy, and it is up to the people to cause a critical mass to enact any change in this most disruptive of worlds.
Guess I'll add one of my own rants to this...
Why is it that I can never encounter anyone who can roleplay a Ranger properly? It never fails: I get confronted by players with characters that are supposedly servants and guardians of the beauty of nature, yet they'll burn down an entire forest to get away from the rampaging orc patrol without a second thought! They are supposedly the best archers out there, but insist on melee even when the group is already packed with melee combatants!
The dudes that play Rangers at MY table are often only in it for the Favored Enemy bonus, which is always against either evil outsiders or dragons. The players that frequent my table know that I like to involve devils a little more than most, so that's fine. But whenever I ask them where they would learn how to become proficient at hunting down fiends while they were busy defending the forest, they say "liek omg the player's handbook lolz!" If I tell them that answer isn't acceptable, they give me the player's classic "it's in the book, it should be allowed!" as if Rule Zero didn't exist. I tell them that having a proficiency at fighting fiends is fine, provided you have a reason or purpose in your character's backstory for doing so. I get a ten-minute b****fest about the virtues of being a fair DM. Five words: "Take it or leave it."
Also, they are never satisfied with having an ANIMAL companion around. Nope, it's gotta be a half-dragon psionic paragon kyton. And they ask for these things (which I have calculated to be about CR 25) as soon as they get the Animal Companion ability (which is what, 6th level?)
Also, some Rangers just do not understand what their role in combat is. One group that didn't last long consisted of a Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger and Bard, meaning there wasn't a whole lot of magic to go around. The fighter was great, and had a pretty unique setup of skills and feats that definitely fit the feel of his character's personality. The barbarian was pretty run-of-the-mill but role-played brilliantly, from accent all the way down to smacking a wand in a magic shop on the counter repeatedly in a futile but hilarious attempt to get it to work. The bard acted as the party strategist and tactician, albeit a little overbearing, and knew his character quite well. But there's always one cracked nut in the bowl...
The ranger insisted that he wanted to go up and get into melee despite the fact that there were already two melee combatants in the group and no archers. And the ranger had ranged feats and had chosen the ranged aspect for his weapon mastery thingy, as well as having only 12 Strength and 6 Constitution. When I asked him why, I got "I wanna be like Aragorn!" Great. Another Tolkien worshipper. I told him that his character had very low HP (only 8 at 2nd level) and that he shouldn't wade into melee needlessly, he didn't wanna hear it. I told him his character had ranged feats and skills, he didn't wanna hear it. I finally told him that he was more akin to Legolas than to Aragorn. This almost broke through, but in a classic display of ranger pride, he ignored me and wandered into melee with the lemure. So, I let him have his two rounds of action.
When he died, as most characters with no idea what the heck they're doing usually do, the party was at a loss as to what to do. Resurrections weren't an option: we're talking about 2nd-level characters here, with no way to really pay for a Resurrection. The ranger-guy abjectly refused to a Reincarnation or to rolling up a new character. He just packed up his things and went home, making room for another player/PC that was actually a pretty awesome sorcerer, which is JUST what the party needed at that moment.
The one thing that makes Rangers utterly annoying is the fact that, for some reason, the gamers where I live immediately equivocate the word "ranger" with the adjectives "arrogant", "smug", and let's not forget "overbearing". Every ranger player I've met MUST have the spotlight 24/7 during games. When he obtains said spotlight, he usually uses it to spout LotR quotes or engage in pointless "I'm better than you at everything" monologues with either the team's melee combatant or the nearest druid/adept. I swear, shouldn't being around nature for so long humble you, or at least make you see just how big the world is around you? All it seems to do to rangers here is make their heads bigger than nature itself and make them the undisputed masters at ticking off other PCs. And the DM. And that's never a good mix.
I am proud to say that I have not struck upon a munchkin as a DM. If I do, I will neuter his abilities so fast he won't have time to say the word "nerf". As a player I was forced to sit alongside one, but I removed myself from that game as quickly as possible (the DM allowed player's to commit suicide with a strength check and a Will save) to spare myself the grief. When said munchkin went home, the DM, myself, and one of my good RP friends engaged in a cool double-character session that lasted about eight hours before we were finally too tired to do much more.
Well, there's my rant.
That's a damn fine rant, Treima!
Thanks. I figured that I really needed to say this, and I am almost certain that a ranger-oriented player here is going to flame me for what I've said, but I needed to put it out here, otherwise I was likely going to say these things somewhere where it would have come out rather loudly and with much less eloquence. Like say, the game table when I see that the team's ranger's name is Aragorn or some variation like "Aragom" or "Arogorn", as if I won't see the obvious...
Thanks. I figured that I really needed to say this, and I am almost certain that a ranger-oriented player here is going to flame me for what I've said, but I needed to put it out here, otherwise I was likely going to say these things somewhere where it would have come out rather loudly and with much less eloquence. Like say, the game table when I see that the team's ranger's name is Aragorn or some variation like "Aragom" or "Arogorn", as if I won't see the obvious...
I'm not a ranger-oriented character but I feel the need to interject. You should let a player play or do whatever he wants to do with his character. Bad character choices aside, it is his character to do with as he pleases. I dont think a DM should ever question a players choice in anything they do, even if they question the logic behind it.
That's a damn fine rant, Treima!
Agreed! Damn fine rant!
"Tolkien worshippers" - I likes that one. Can I borrow it?
Every time I've played a ranger, I've always taken aberrations as my favored enemy - do they not corrupt nature with their foulness? Do they not leave an unnatural stink about a place?!?! Or constructs. Such mechanical monstrosities are the products of an egotistical spellcaster and have no place in my land!
Er, um, sorry, got a bit carried away there.
|
Every time I've played a ranger, I've always taken aberrations as my favored enemy - do they not corrupt nature with their foulness? Do they not leave an unnatural stink about a place?!?! Or constructs. Such mechanical monstrosities are the products of an egotistical spellcaster and have no place in my land!
I have a Xvart Ranger in an on-line game - he was the huntsman for his clan. I took animals as my favored enemy...he liked to kill animals and bring them home to his hungry xvart cronies. Plus I have no idea where the adventure is going to go over the course of several levels, so I took what made the most sense for the character.
Thanks. I figured that I really needed to say this, and I am almost certain that a ranger-oriented player here is going to flame me for what I've said, but I needed to put it out here, otherwise I was likely going to say these things somewhere where it would have come out rather loudly and with much less eloquence. Like say, the game table when I see that the team's ranger's name is Aragorn or some variation like "Aragom" or "Arogorn", as if I won't see the obvious...I'm not a ranger-oriented character but I feel the need to interject. You should let a player play or do whatever he wants to do with his character. Bad character choices aside, it is his character to do with as he pleases. I dont think a DM should ever question a players choice in anything they do, even if they question the logic behind it.
I have to respectfully disagree with you on that. Though it may be possible in the rules to build a ranger that has favored enemy (evil outsider) (and, by the way, I don't have a problem with that at all, but I completely agree with Treima's point of view), it's also possible, by the rules, to build a half-vampire fiendish awakened gorilla psionic and play it as a character. I would not allow such a thing, and this falls under the same heading of "What does the DM allow?", which seems to be a section under Rule Zero, to me.
Granted, DMs can abuse Rule Zero, just as player's can try to violate it, but I will also say that my perspective is based around the statments made in Treima's rant. The depiction of the player was that of a typical munchkin, for lack of a better word (please don't start a flame war on that...), where as Treima made a post using excellent articulation, spelling, and grammar, and expressed points that most people on these boards feel very similarly towards and consider to be core to the spirit of the game. Therefore, I am inclined to trust that Triema is being fair in this regards, while the player is the one with the onus of being irrational and demanding.
Oh, and yes, that was one of the best rants in days, Treima!
Thanks. I figured that I really needed to say this, and I am almost certain that a ranger-oriented player here is going to flame me for what I've said, but I needed to put it out here, otherwise I was likely going to say these things somewhere where it would have come out rather loudly and with much less eloquence. Like say, the game table when I see that the team's ranger's name is Aragorn or some variation like "Aragom" or "Arogorn", as if I won't see the obvious...I'm not a ranger-oriented character but I feel the need to interject. You should let a player play or do whatever he
wants to do with his character. Bad character choices aside, it is his character to do with as he pleases. I dont think a DM should ever question a players choice in anything they do, even if they question the logic behind it.
Including play their character badly and getting the character killed for it.
I've had character concepts, names and histories in my game so bad they were embaressing to be in the same room with. One of them was so legendary it has become the group's label for anything utterly stupid and unlikely and annoying. "That's SO Chaosblade..."
Thanks. I figured that I really needed to say this, and I am almost certain that a ranger-oriented player here is going to flame me for what I've said, but I needed to put it out here, otherwise I was likely going to say these things somewhere where it would have come out rather loudly and with much less eloquence. Like say, the game table when I see that the team's ranger's name is Aragorn or some variation like "Aragom" or "Arogorn", as if I won't see the obvious...I'm not a ranger-oriented character but I feel the need to interject. You should let a player play or do whatever he wants to do with his character. Bad character choices aside, it is his character to do with as he pleases. I dont think a DM should ever question a players choice in anything they do, even if they question the logic behind it.I have to respectfully disagree with you on that. Though it may be possible in the rules to build a ranger that has favored enemy (evil outsider) (and, by the way, I don't have a problem with that at all, but I completely agree with Treima's point of view), it's also possible, by the rules, to build a half-vampire fiendish awakened gorilla psionic and play it as a character. I would not allow such a thing, and this falls under the same heading of "What does the DM allow?", which seems to be a section under Rule Zero, to me.
Granted, DMs can abuse Rule Zero, just as player's can try to violate it, but I will also say that my perspective is based around the statments made in Treima's rant. The depiction of the player was that of a typical munchkin, for lack of a better word (please don't start a flame war on that...), where as Treima made a post using excellent articulation, spelling, and grammar, and expressed points that most people on these boards feel very similarly towards and consider to be core to the spirit of the game. Therefore, I am inclined to trust that Triema is being fair in this regards, while the player is the one with the onus...
I agree completely with Saern on this one. Bad characters can destroy the game for everyone else. Insisting on playing Arogorn or Stryder or Chaos Blade, when it makes the rest of the game less fun for anyone involved is pretty damn selfish. In the same vein as "oh I kill your character and loot his body since it says CN on my sheet."
That does apply to the DM. Maybe it ESPECIALLY applies to the DM. The DM is putting a lot more work into the game than everyone else (even considered collectively). A character is the result of a partnership between a player and DM (with the DM standing in for the other PCs in many cases). It takes compromise. Sometimes what you want fits. Sometimes it doesn't. Be creative and make up something else and keep the game fun for everyone.
Oh yeah, players who cheat are one notch further down the "selfish" scale than the petulant fit-throwers who want to play, what was it Saern?, some fiendish undead gorilla or girallon thing.
Saern, Callaway; I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. What I meant was within the realm of reason. I was pointing out the fact that he kept questioning why the player was playing the way he wanted. If a person fancies Aragorn and perceives him to be made a certain way then who am I to question it?
Anyway, respectful disagreement is good. :]
My rant: virus writers. God, how I hate those guys. Youre killing babies, man. Im a network tech for 4 hospitals in Las Vegas and a worm just made it in to our network from our corp. office in PA. I'm not sure what ticks me off more: the fact that some users are waiting until there is an hour left in the day to report a major problem or that our corporate security team is way behind when it comes to this sort of thing.
EDIT: Callaway, "I agree completely with Saern on this one. Bad characters can destroy the game for everyone else. Insisting on playing Arogorn or Stryder or Chaos Blade, when it makes the rest of the game less fun for anyone involved is pretty damn selfish. In the same vein as "oh I kill your character and loot his body since it says CN on my sheet."
Whoa, whoa, whoa. If a character chooses to play Aragorn, or Smeagol, or whomever else they choose, how does this disrupt your game? Your insistance that they play something that pleases you is more along the lines of selfish.
Bad players can destroy a game but that is outside the scope of our discussion. A player's choice of character, and how he employs that character, unless done in a malicious fashion purposefully meant to disrupt the enjoyment of others, should in now way impose upon your fun.
I'm not a ranger-oriented character but I feel the need to interject. You should let a player play or do whatever he wants to do with his character. Bad character choices aside, it is his character to do with as he pleases. I dont think a DM should ever question a players choice in anything they do, even if they question the logic behind it.
My bottom line was, the ranger-in-question had 12 Strength, 18 Dexterity and 6 Constitution, had chosen two ranged feats at 1st level (Point Blank and Precise Shot), and had a masterwork longbow and only a mundane dagger for close range. The guy had his character MADE for ranged combat and decides to wade into melee. I didn't antagonize him for it. I only casually said "Are you sure that's wise?" and had him look over his character sheet. The answer I received, "I wanna be like ARAGORN (spoken in adequate fanboy shouty-ness)!" does three things:
1. Breaks verisimilitude.
2. Discourages creativity and originality amongst the other PCs, and
3. Makes other Tolkien worshippers engage in long-winded word-for-word quoting sessions with the other characters (which brings you back to 1 and 2).
Certainly you can see why these would impose on a DM's game, right? I never told him he couldn't be Aragorn, I let him have his way and take his lumps. Instead, I am ranting about that here. I want to run Dungeons and Dragons games, that is what I am equipped for, that's what I've bought $350 worth of books for. I am not running Lord of the Rings: Battle for Middle Earth on paper.
EDIT: Let's put this into another context. Let's say I was running a D&D session and somebody comes along and decides he wants to play Darth Vader. He wants the cyborg suit, the force powers, the lightsaber, everything. Am I expected to allow that? NO, because I'm not playing the Star Wars tabletop. Or how about a D&D session with some munchkin playing a character named Rand al'Thor? NO, because I'm not playing the Wheel of Time tabletop (although I may let it go once or twice as long as he doesn't start engaging in monologues about how he's the Dragon and whatnot). And, as much as I love him, anyone who comes to my sessions thinking they can be a carbon-copy of Iuchiban outside of Legend of the Five Rings is crazy.
My point is, I like to reward my players for being original. My very best friend in the whole world has a problem with being original because he reads manga a bit more than he should and likes to quote Vash from Trigun. No matter how low their Wisdom scores are (one character had a whopping 3 in this regard) or how immoral, his guys like to engage in those long-winded rants about morality and the difference between right and wrong, much as Vash does in the manga. Do I punish him for it? No, but I do make him aware that he should be a touch more original, and he has been making progress in that direction. Do I reward him when he shows this progress? Yes, usually with an extra magic item or a little XP boost, because that fosters good role-playing and originality.
I understand that D&D--no, all medieval fantasy--borrows immensely from Tolkien's vision. I understand that Aragorn was probably the first fictional character that defined rangers into what they are, much as the hobbits do for halflings and the orcs do for, well, the orcs. But it doesn't hurt to at least act like you have a clue what good roleplaying is, reject your inner munchkin/fanboy and make up an original character that isn't seeking to "pwn n00bs" and get "fat lewt", one that you will eventually foster a love for playing. Did I mention the Aragorn-guy was a WoW player?
If all you can do is imagine yourself being LotR characters, then play Battle for Middle Earth, where you can meet others who accept that and may be similar in that regard. But by all means don't expect me to show you any mercy if you think Aragorn had 6 Constitution and 12 Strength. And fought with a mundane dagger.
I disagree that a DM should never question what a character does. If a DM does not question why the newbie paladin is deciding to surrender his paladinhood (or is it paladinate?) simply because he wants to team-kill his brother's PC, what is left then? If a DM does not question why the dude with the Vow of Poverty is about to sacrifice his feat so he can have flamboyant and expensive noble clothes, then what? A DM is not just the narrator of a story and the arbiter of the rules; occasionally he has to intervene or at least warn when a player is doing something that he will without a doubt regret later. Unless, of course, that DM wants them to do something they'll regret...
And in closing, Savaun, I disagree with your statement that the way a character decides to play cannot possibly impede upon my fun. If I have a nice little adventure set up in the lovely town of Idletree, and the PCs are all Lawful Good on their character sheet, and then at the last second one of them says he's going Chaotic Insane and burns down Idletree, I'd say that ruins everyone's fun, even if ruining the fun was not his intention, right? The analogy is pretty obvious: I have a lemure for you to kill, or at least it wants to kill you. You have created a character with ranged everything and two effective melee combatants alongside you. You have 6 Constitution. What more incentive do you need to not act a fool and decide that you're going to be "like Aragorn" and jump into melee, effectively sentencing your character to gurgle on the end of the lemure's claw? I'm sure Tolkien is smiling down on you from heaven *sarcasm*, or more likely he blessed my d20 to make the lemure hit you with a critical for disgracing Aragorn. All these things are the ways that characters can ruin the DM's fun, even if they are not aware of it.
It is the DM's duty to question stupid decisions at the game table, much as it is a boss's duty to question his employees when they are making stupid decisions at the workplace. Much as a boss is occasionally held accountable for mistakes his subordinates make on the job, so is a DM accountable for his players' fun and progress in the story. A PC dying slows down the game for everyone, makes encounters harder, and forces the other PCs to spend thousands of gold to get them revived. It also forces the players with living PCs to be subject to the dead player's whining, which is no fun no matter how you slice it.
So, to recap:
No fun = Bad DM.
Arbitrarily slow game progression = No Fun = Bad DM.
No Fun + Arbitrarily Slow Game Progression = Doubly Bad DM.
I don't wanna be a bad DM, and I can't think of anyone who does.
EDIT: Callaway, "I agree completely with Saern on this one. Bad characters can destroy the game for everyone else. Insisting on playing Arogorn or Stryder or Chaos Blade, when it makes the rest of the game less fun for anyone involved is pretty damn selfish. In the same vein as "oh I kill your character and loot his body since it says CN on my sheet."
Whoa, whoa, whoa. If a character chooses to play Aragorn, or Smeagol, or whomever else they choose, how does this disrupt your game? Your insistance that they play something that pleases you is more along the lines of selfish.
Bad players can destroy a game but that is outside the scope of our discussion. A player's choice of character, and how he employs that character, unless done in a malicious fashion purposefully meant to disrupt the enjoyment of others, should in now way impose upon your fun.
Hmmm.... I think we are getting into a subject that gets attention on here a fair bit. A player chooses what to play. But there is an outline within which that choice should be made.
If you want to use Aragorn or Smeagol or Rand al'Thor or Jack Burton from Big Trouble in Little China, all to the good. It's not a bad thing to know what you want. It's a good idea to use the rules to make an appropriately powered version of the character. It's a bad idea to play the archetype relentlessly even when it is inappropriate. It's probably even a bad idea to NAME the character Aragorn if say, you are playing a chronicle based on an Asian theme or an Arabic theme or even on a theme where the DM makes up his own history, cultures, languages, maps (a la Tolkien) when your character and his history don't fit.
Of course, the DM and player can take the archetype and work with it to suit the game. There can be an Arabic or Asian Aragorn. That is why Aragorn appeals. He has become archetypical, iconic even.
But there seems to be a camp that feels that any player should get to play anything they want from any book, so long as all the rules requirements are met. I don't want to group you in there Blackhawk if that's not where you are. Since it has come up in this and other threads, I guess I (and I doubt I am the only one) get my hackles up when I see it start aparating.
I am NOT in that group. I believe in Rule Zero. I believe in the coherency and integrity of a game world. I believe both give the DM the right (duty?) to say "no" to a character that s/he believes won't work. I also believe that the DM and player should try to make the concept work. But some concepts won't and I think changing the world for the sake of one character is selfish. Just think of the howls if someone wants to play a warforged in your average FR game....
Of course, my ranting on this is partially predicated on the fact one of my players is holding everyone else hostage while he "considers" if a new campaign idea is acceptable to him. No character creation, no campaign creation. We are all just waiting. Consensus is necessary in keeping a gaming group going, but real consensus only works when there is an equal and opposite belief in the value of making sacrifices in the name of cooperation.
And you are right, bad players (e.g. those who cheat, munchkins, attention hoggers, etc.) are beyond the scope of the discussion of character choice. But I will also hold, based on experience, there is definite overlap between such groups.
You can have players who disrupt everyone's fun without any malice. I have had to kick out a player who had hygiene issues. After several very earnest and awkward attempts to address the problem.
That's a damn fine rant, Treima!Agreed! Damn fine rant!
"Tolkien worshippers" - I likes that one. Can I borrow it?
Every time I've played a ranger, I've always taken aberrations as my favored enemy - do they not corrupt nature with their foulness? Do they not leave an unnatural stink about a place?!?! Or constructs. Such mechanical monstrosities are the products of an egotistical spellcaster and have no place in my land!
Again, thanks! As someone who is probably going to pursue a career in journalism, comments like that make my day.
See, your reasoning is PERFECT. That's what I'm looking for when I see a class ability like favored enemy on somebody's character sheet, or anything that involves choices. I always tell my players "Don't think about what choices YOU would make. Think about the ones your character would make." I've seen that this leads to much more flavorful characters, and it makes the players happy when I let their character's choices shine in combat (like pitting your group of PCs against a gibbering mouther or some other aberrant critter).
Again, thanks! As someone who is probably going to pursue a career in journalism, comments like that make my day.
No problem!
See, your reasoning is PERFECT. That's what I'm looking for when I see a class ability like favored enemy on somebody's character sheet, or anything that involves choices. I always tell my players "Don't think about what choices YOU would make. Think about the ones your character would make." I've seen that this leads to much more flavorful characters, and it makes the players happy when I let their character's choices shine in combat (like pitting your group of PCs against a gibbering mouther or some other aberrant critter).
I hate having to spoonfeed players (at least as far as certain character aspects are concerned). :P
I hate having to spoonfeed players (at least as far as certain character aspects are concerned). :P
I agree. Initially that was the reason that I made players do this: doing so FORCED them to either come up with character backstory or be the most generic character of that class anyone can possibly think of. I do the same for feats gained at 1st-level, and I make players go out and actually seek someone from which to learn any additional feat they gain. This not only forces the character to consider his backstory, I've found it cuts down immensely on munchkinism in its many ugly forms. The reasoning behind it is simple (a munchkin is desperate for lots of power and gaining power takes more effort than most munchkins are willing to exert) but nevertheless effective.
I ranted about this before, but I agree about the spoonfeeding thing. Last gaming session, the campaign was coming to its climax. The party took advantage of an opportunity to try to do away with an arch-enemy that had been plaguing them since level 1. One of the creatures guarding the archenemy was a fiendish battletitan, about CR22 I think. The party is 13th level. Well, many months ago in game play they recovered the fiend's embrace cloak from Steve Greer's excellent adventure from Dungeon #121. This cloak would allow them to sneak past the battletitan because the battletitan would not attack someone who was carrying the cloak due to a long backstory that is unimportant to this post.
Party attacks arch-enemy's stronghold and is held up by four bad ass wartrolls. During the fight, the battletitan comes out and sniffs with interest towards the party.
Clue #1: It didn't attack, it sniffed with "interest"
Clue #2: The patron NPC carrying the cloak told the party "don't worry about that thing, that's what I have THIS for" (holding up the cloak)
Clue #3: I specifically reminded the player that THIS was the creature that the cloak was supposed to help them sneak around.
So what does numbnuts player do next turn?
"I cast holy storm on it....so that IF we do have to fight it, it'll be whittled down some." (paraphrasing his exact quote)
(This particular player has been playing D&D since 1976 or so)
Well, dumb s+@+....by attacking it he negated the power of the fiendish cloak. The dinosaur attacked and the party had to flee to avoid getting wasted. Archenemy lives, life gets a lot more complicated for the allies.
The player has the audacity to b+~#* about this!! "My character would have known not to do this" "I'm an experienced player, I would have never had my character do this had I known all the facts!!" (NO S$~+!!!!)
I'm very liberal about allowing players to backtrack a little bit if their character would have reasonably known something that might have caused them to act a little bit different.
But....at some point, I can't drop any more hints and you HAVE TO F@#@ING PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE GAME and if you do something stupid then, you have to live with it. This ain't the flame trap in the Dead Gentlemen "Gamers" movie where you get 3 chances to get it right. I don't expect you as a player to remember every detail about my campaign, but for the big plot developments, if after 3 hints you don't "get it" then the training wheels come off.
Rant over!!
What triggered this re-reant? The fact that the player had the audacity to try to make up an excuse for his f+~+ up in his post in my campaign log--go see the farewell2kings campaign log (Greyhawk CY 576) and look for El'Rohir's post. I don't care if he reads this, I've already told him all this face to face when he had the gall to complain about what happened.
BTW--next adventure I'm running them through is Maure Castle....no training wheels. Let's see if they have what it takes to play high level characters or if they're so dependent on the little safety nipple that they'll get wasted right away.
|
I've been gone from these boards for a while, but it is good to be back. Work is hell.
My rant is that because of a psychotic rat-bastard workaholic boss, coupled together with the fact that I recently moved to a new town, I am completely unable to even attempt to find a new gaming group. My wife, who is a wonderful person even though she doesn't game, just doesn't see the point in playing anything more complicated than Rummey. I've been jonesing for a good game for a very long time now, and its only getting worse. I would love to have the time and option to play some D&D, but with my current situation I would kill to even play a game of Risk. Aaarrgghh! I'm about ready to give up hope altogether.
The player has the audacity to b@#@! about this!! "My character would have known not to do this" "I'm an experienced player, I would have never had my character do this had I known all the facts!!" (NO s~!~!!!!)
You eluded to that last week. That is extremely annoying, intoning one's experience after they pull a Johnny Dumbs#$t like that.
My Rant:
So my high Charisma player wants to use Leadership to get a Cohort. Since I have basically nerfed Charisma I'm more then happy to comply. I tell the player to go ahead - he'll get a rocking animal with his phenominal Charisma and we'll all be happy.
Then the other shoe drops. Leadership is not balanced against the animal companions. In fact none of the damn 'bonus animal - mount - familiar' type feats are balanced well against each other. Furthermore the rules on using the feats are a total mess. Now I'm busy going through the varous feats trying to come up with something that will make all the players happy.
Its all so clear that these rules have been lacklusterly tacked together ultimatly creating little more then a giant mess. I hope that at some point the whole animal/mount/Familiar gets a good looking at.
Another problem very much along the same vien is how trained animals work. Can a character with enough animal handling skill build herself a zoo? If not then can a warrior ride a horse or a huntsmen have a dog? How about two dogs? How about being a Ranger/Druid with leadership for the special cohort?...and two trained dogs...and a hawk? Some where in here the whole thing breaks down but guidleines are few and far between.
F2K, if the players don't get it after three hints, something's wrong. Either your players are blatantly LOOKING for a fight (and against a Battletitan I too would not be so foolish at 13th) or they are being distracted (or worse yet disinterested) to the point where they weren't listening when you gave the hints. The guy's been playing since '78, so he can't claim inexperience. I'm with you: what gives
I've been gone from these boards for a while, but it is good to be back. Work is hell.
My rant is that because of a psychotic rat-bastard workaholic boss, coupled together with the fact that I recently moved to a new town, I am completely unable to even attempt to find a new gaming group. My wife, who is a wonderful person even though she doesn't game, just doesn't see the point in playing anything more complicated than Rummey. I've been jonesing for a good game for a very long time now, and its only getting worse. I would love to have the time and option to play some D&D, but with my current situation I would kill to even play a game of Risk. Aaarrgghh! I'm about ready to give up hope altogether.
Where are you, exactly?
Ultradan
(reminding you to never give up hope)
The player has the audacity to b*~~& about this!! "My character would have known not to do this" "I'm an experienced player, I would have never had my character do this had I known all the facts!!" (NO s~&#!!!!)
The player actually may have a point here. Under the d20 system as it is, why not allow his character an intellegence check to determine it? If his stat blocks indicate that his character is dumb (low int) then move on...if he makes the check, his character would have known better. Sound silly? Why is it any different than calling for a Diplomacy check when interacting with a NPC?
Heh, those are loaded questions as i don't actually believe those game mechanics work well for making Role Playing decisions, but some might be ok with that. After all, a PC with a high intelligence might not have made a bonehead decision like this player did...right?
As ever,
ACE
Had I not already dropped three hints in the minutes prior to this incident, I might agree with you, Ace. I generally allow INT checks and WIS checks to remember important details that a player might have forgotten, but the PC would.
...but this was the culmination of events that the whole party had been working towards for months and for a player to pay so little attention to what's going on in the game as to screw up like that is in my opinion, just plain rude towards me and shows a lack of real interest in the game.
I mean, if I allow INT checks and WIS checks all the time to let players know what the "appropriate" action in a situation would be, then what would be the point of giving out background information or having NPCs speak or give out information? I don't expect players to take down detailed notes about everything that was said, but I do expect them to pay attention to the important stuff and they do have to realize that not every mistake they make can be adjusted by a "micro time warp" that makes it all better just because they weren't paying attention enough.
|
|
The player actually may have a point here. Under the d20 system as it is, why not allow his character an intellegence check to determine it? If his stat blocks indicate that his character is dumb (low int) then move on...if he makes the check, his character would have known better. Sound silly? Why is it any different than calling for a Diplomacy check when interacting with a NPC?
The player has the audacity to b*~~& about this!! "My character would have known not to do this" "I'm an experienced player, I would have never had my character do this had I known all the facts!!" (NO s~&#!!!!)
I really agree with F2K here. How many times have I seen here and in person something like --
DM: "You REALLY don't want to make that choice".
Player ends up doing it anyway.
This comes up in many different formats. I think that sometimes it might be learning "pains" in figuring out how this DM works as opposed to others, but a smart player would ask the DM if his character might see XXX as a good move or a bad move -- initiating a roll or at least some more discussion.
The player actually may have a point here. Under the d20 system as it is, why not allow his character an intellegence check to determine it? If his stat blocks indicate that his character is dumb (low int) then move on...if he makes the check, his character would have known better. Sound silly? Why is it any different than calling for a Diplomacy check when interacting with a NPC?
I think the second the NPC held up the cloak and said what it was for, an INT roll became superfluous. If you ask for one then, you are getting dangerously close to playing their character for them.
I read somewhere that once you have obviously illustrated the IMPORTANT FACT three times, they should pretty much be on their own. I would argue having an NPC point to the cloak, point to the monster and say "THIS protects us from THAT" you probably only need one.
|
|
I haven’t really done a good rant yet, so now I think it is my turn.
I hate stupid people.
I hate the invention of the car horn. No one seems to know what it is there for.
I hate that I need a second vehicle. I don’t need any more bills.
I hate the power of the media. My 4 year old son says that we have to get a Toyota because “the TV says so”.
I hate stupid people. Mostly because they don’t know that they are stupid.
I hate that Strong Bad hasn’t been checking his email much recently.
I hate the education system as it currently stands. One of the most important aspects in our children’s lives and we pay the people in charge of this barely enough to live on. Then the system puts training and meetings into their schedule during their “free time” keeping them from grading and preparing lessons during school hours forcing them to take their work home and end up working 10 to 15 hours a day with little to no appreciation. There is a saying – “Those that CAN, DO – Those that CAN’T, TEACH”. If we don’t want this to be true, we really need to change how we look at our education system. If I can get a job that pays more than twice what a teacher makes, with less stress and less responsibility, without being nagged by parents about things that they don’t understand… You either must REALLY like working with kids or you don’t really have any other skills. Either way, you will most likely need a second income.
I hate that there are always hidden fees. Buying a car I find out that there is a dealership fee of some kind. School – there is an activity fee, a new enrollment fee, an application fee, a lunch fee (even if they don’t eat their lunch), etc. None of this information is brought up right at the beginning. Just tell me what the total is and then break it down for me so that I am not surprised later on.
I hate stupid people.
I hate it when people don’t look at the “whole picture”. Outside of our library there was a person trying to get a petition signed.
“Would you like to sign a petition to raise the minimum wage?”
“Only if you can guarantee that inflation will not happen as a result.”
“What?”
“You are asking me to sign something that will pay thousands of people more money – correct?”
“Yes.”
“Where will this money magically come from?”
{blank stare}
I hate that my father, after being married for 30 years decides to have an affair, gets found out, wants to have both relationships, doesn’t divorce my mother, marries the other woman – AND THEN DOESN’T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND WHY I DON’T WANT HIM AROUND MY CHILDREN. His only defense is “you can’t protect them from the world.” No, but I can protect them from you.
Have I said yet that I hate stupid people?
I hate it that people ask me for advice, I give it, then they ignore me and really bad things happen to them. I want so bad to say “I told you so”, but being the nice guy that I am just sit back and watch them plunge deeper and deeper into a hole. Never once saying “Bill, you were right, I should have listened to you.” No. They blame society, the government, the weather, anything else to keep it from being their responsibility. We all make mistakes – admit it, get help, and move on.
I hate it when I get sick – it is just enough to make life miserable at work, but not enough to stay at home.
I hate being audited at work. No matter how hard you try or how careful you are, they WILL find something wrong.
I hate that the English language is becoming little more than a concept. They’re, their, there, to, too, two, it’s, its, four, for, fore, etc. all have very specific meanings that should have been taught in grade school. Figure it out and use them correctly.
I hate SATHNRMITRW (Stupid Acronyms That Have No Real Meaning In The Real World). Mostly because I am probably too old and have no idea what most of them mean.
I hate people who can’t think for themselves and have to have other people make decisions for them. Then they come to me and I have to try and fix them out of a problem that they shouldn’t have been in to begin with. “Why didn’t you check with us first?” “I didn’t know.” “Did you check?”
I hate people who think that they know more about something after reading a blurb in an article in the newspaper than the person who has been in the industry for 20 years.
Mostly, I hate stupid people.
Bill
Bill’s definitions
Stupid – someone who has absolutely no idea what they don’t know. This is the person who doesn’t ask for help – ever. They brag about things that either don’t matter, or obviously don’t have a clue about. This is the kind of person that other people around them have to work three times as hard to fix all the things he screws up, but doesn’t know it.
Smart – someone who knows what they don’t know or at least when they don’t know something. They will ask for guidance and assistance at appropriate times and will ask meaningful questions.
This has little to do with IQ and a whole lot to do with common sense. I don’t care if you can’t spell sapphire, or can’t do simple algebra – do you have enough common sense to know to ask when you are not sure about something?
(This felt pretty good…)
|
|
I've been gone from these boards for a while, but it is good to be back. Work is hell.
My rant is that because of a psychotic rat-bastard workaholic boss, coupled together with the fact that I recently moved to a new town, I am completely unable to even attempt to find a new gaming group. My wife, who is a wonderful person even though she doesn't game, just doesn't see the point in playing anything more complicated than Rummey. I've been jonesing for a good game for a very long time now, and its only getting worse. I would love to have the time and option to play some D&D, but with my current situation I would kill to even play a game of Risk. Aaarrgghh! I'm about ready to give up hope altogether.
Where are you, exactly?
Ultradan
(reminding you to never give up hope)
I'm just chilling out here in the bustling metropolis of Moberly, Missouri.
I'm just chilling out here in the bustling metropolis of Moberly, Missouri.I've been gone from these boards for a while, but it is good to be back. Work is hell.
My rant is that because of a psychotic rat-bastard workaholic boss, coupled together with the fact that I recently moved to a new town, I am completely unable to even attempt to find a new gaming group. My wife, who is a wonderful person even though she doesn't game, just doesn't see the point in playing anything more complicated than Rummey. I've been jonesing for a good game for a very long time now, and its only getting worse. I would love to have the time and option to play some D&D, but with my current situation I would kill to even play a game of Risk. Aaarrgghh! I'm about ready to give up hope altogether.
Where are you, exactly?
Ultradan
(reminding you to never give up hope)
I am so very very sorry.
There are places to work in Moberly? It must have grown in the last 5 years. And the rural Missouri school system....
I am so sorry.
A very therapeutic (sp?) rant.
I felt better just reading that. Thanks!
|
According to Bill Hendricks-
Bill’s definitions
Stupid – someone who has absolutely no idea what they don’t know. This is the person who doesn’t ask for help – ever. They brag about things that either don’t matter, or obviously don’t have a clue about. This is the kind of person that other people around them have to work three times as hard to fix all the things he screws up, but doesn’t know it.
Smart – someone who knows what they don’t know or at least when they don’t know something. They will ask for guidance and assistance at appropriate times and will ask meaningful questions.
This has little to do with IQ and a whole lot to do with common sense. I don’t care if you can’t spell sapphire, or can’t do simple algebra – do you have enough common sense to know to ask when you are not sure about something?
I think I am classified as Smart under these definitions.....YAAAA ME!!!!!!
FH (far superior to all you idiots;>)
Roll a Wisdom check Fakey! Then subtract your intelligence modifier! ~smiles smugly as I know what is coming~
A very therapeutic (sp?) rant.I felt better just reading that. Thanks!
Me too. :) He's ranted about a lot of things that get me all riled up as well. As Carlos Mencia says..."Dee dee dee!!"
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
"I cast holy storm on it....so that IF we do have to fight it, it'll be whittled down some." (paraphrasing his exact quote)
(This particular player has been playing D&D since 1976 or so)Well, dumb s*@~....by attacking it he negated the power of the fiendish cloak. The dinosaur attacked and the party had to flee to avoid getting wasted. Archenemy lives, life gets a lot more complicated for the allies.
Heh. I laugh, and yet, that's the type of thing I would do as a player. I'm a terrible player, and my philosphy tends to be "if the NPC isn't in a tavern giving out plot, he's going to die." I try to be good, but fail repeatedly.
I guess the only thing I would add is that meta-gaming in D&D makes these types of decisions a little more difficult than they should be. The players generally assume that they will encounter CR appropriate monsters. This assumption is what you use to convince them to take on challenges that would normally wipe them out ("No way are we taking on a certain worm god. He's a GOD! We will lose.")
Spoiler re: Forge of Fury follows.
A good example is the very hard encounter buried in Forge of Fury. Some play groups will attack that creature because they figure if it's in the module, it must be an appropriate challenge. Other groups will realize its too powerful and yet obsess about it anyway, creating elaborate plans to attempt to destroy it. I guess the point is that there are some players that can't leave a challenge unanswered.
Anyway, that's all an aside, and I'm not trying to criticize how you played it. I'm just explaining why people like your player (and Sebastian the player) sometimes do really stupid things like attack very powerful NPC's.
Sebastian the DM thinks your player deserved the punishment he got.
|
|
I hate SATHNRMITRW (Stupid Acronyms That Have No Real Meaning In The Real World). Mostly because I am probably too old and have no idea what most of them mean.
My life is full of Acronyms, but I have an excuse since I work for the military (Navy). I swear that sometimes I think they have acronyms for the acronyms. And some of them have multiple meanings. It's enough to drive a person crazier.
And since I'll be out of town for the next few days, I need some more (completely random) rants:
I hate the thought of going to the airport later on today.
I hate that Frank Herbert died before he gave us more books, and I hate that many of his older, non-Dune books are out of print.
I hate commercials for Old Navy.
I hate that the Abercrombie and Fitch clothing stores now seems to cater soley to the younger, we-like-our-clothes-with-holes, highschool/early college crowd. I used to like buying hats and shirts with my name on them.
I hate that, since XBOX 360 came out, they haven't made any really cool rpgs for the original Xbox.
I hate that I keep having problems with the second, upstairs cablebox in my house. I've called those a$#!$~&s out several times to fix it, and they never get it right. I might just have to cancel that box.
I hate being stalked by Coyotes.
I hate not being able to have a dog because my fiance is allergic (at least we think she is).
I hate "professional" skateboarders, although I respect them for being able to convince someone that they should be paid to skateboard. Hell, though, I guess you can say that about a lot of careers, like golf: "What, you mean you'll pay me to walk around all day, hitting a small white ball with a metal club?"
I hate weather.
And lastly (for now anyway) I hate poorly designed road systems. But in defense of civil engineers, it is kind of difficult to see into the future and tell how population density will fluctuate over a given region.
|
|
A very therapeutic (sp?) rant.I felt better just reading that. Thanks!
Thanks --
By the way, it has recently come to my attention how few people know about Strong Bad. If you don't know what Strong Bad is about, you are really missing out on some great therapy...
Strong Bad can teach you about Techno Music.
He can show you what anime is all about.
He can show you how to draw a dragon.
Strong Bad can teach you how to write a children's book, about video games, and even all about technology.
If you don't know what Strong Bad is, you should really check it out.
|
Do you use your powers for good, or for awesome?
By the way, it has recently come to my attention how few people know about Strong Bad. If you don't know what Strong Bad is about, you are really missing out on some great therapy...
Most definitely for awesome. This is the funniest thing I've seen in weeks!