Place Your Rant Here


Gamer Life General Discussion

1 to 50 of 3,910 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

We all need to vent sometimes, but it's often hard to find the right thread to let that pent up anger out in. So, that's what this thread is for: letting off steam about your pet peeves about the games, players, DMs, whatever. I just want to preface thjat I, at least, harbor no bad feelings for anyone in my group; still, there are certain things they do that drive me crazy. If any of you in my group read this, I'm not angry at you as players, just at the status quo of our games.

SOMETHING IS BROKEN. The troglodyte priest I built buffed himself out the wazoo with spells and such, to have an AC of 30, and they couldn't hardly miss! Give: We're talking about a bear warrior PrC crossed with barbarian and fighter levels, but they couldn't hardly miss the damned thing! Something is wrong with the attack bonuses, but I can't find it. Should that be possible? They're only 8th LEVEL; I've no problem with really epic feats, but only when epic characters (and by that I mean 13th-15th level +) are doing them! If they can pull this crap off now,w hat do they have to look forward to later?

Maybe its the rolls. The system I use is quite generous: 4d6, drop the lowest, roll 3 full sets, take the best. I did this because the first campaign we ran, two players had enormous abilities, while everyone else languered in normalcy. So, I made a system that should even everyone out. But, those two STILL get super stats, even using that system, often with more than one 18, and everyone else, though super powered, can't match them. It's gotten to the point where if you don't have at least one 18 or two to three 17s, your character is considered useless! I thought they were cheating, but when I watched, they rolled the same things!

So, I try to switch to point-buy. Only one person in the group supports me, and even he bails after trying to make a character using it and not having enough abilities (using 28 points) to build his character as he would like (which is to say, to the Siperman standards of the group). So, I switch back to avoid player revolts. Now, I bring a total newbe to the game, and he rolls a normal set. Not good. He has to roll 6 sets just to get to the point where he isn't totally trumped by the others in the group.

The fact that the two players in question are immense braggarts that take every chance to let everyone know how awesome they are over you doesn't help, either. I've no problem with them taunting me about how great they are against my monsters that I throw at them, but leave the other players out of it! That's not fair or fun. Plus, I shouldn't hav to make everyone Superman just to keep up with them. Now, I have to calculate XP as if they were a level higher than normal, and throw encounters of an EL equal to party level +2 at them on a regular basis! I want to run a campaign where a character with one 17 as his highest stat is acceptable. Right now, I have two players whose LOWEST is 14. Not to mention, the constant haggling they inflict upon me at the game table over DM rulings while I'm trying to run calculations in my head and keep track of movement, tactics, spell durations and effects, over a ruling they don't quite think is totally realistic. Like jumping up a 20 foot creature and running down his back without getting hit is realistic?

That's the other thing- all that haggling makes me drop the DCs of things so that they're way more possible than I think they should be; not that it matters much, the party can hit DCs of 50 or so with only moderate luck and spell prep time, at 8th LEVEL! What gives?

Again, I'm angry at no one, though I would advise the two players in question to stop taunting the fellow players, but I'm tired of having to do all reworking just to make sure I present a challenge to them. It's time for a stat-generation crackdown, me thinks.

One last thing. DMs, if you like to design adventures with your party in mind, make sure you impose a deadline on character ideas, after which no changing is allowed. I designed the last adventure with a monk, spellthief (Complete Adventurer), Illusionist, Druid, and one unknown in mind. Then, game day comes, and I have en Evoker, Bear Warrior, Frenzied Berserker, Druid, and Bard/barian (effectively a Skald). Needless to say, they blew the stealth parts I had designed for them to show off in, and trounced the combats that had meant to be challenging. One might say that's a fair trade, but the stealth parts they blew resulted in combats that SHOULD have been difficult but do-able, but they simply blew straight through them. Not to mention, the insane stats they have make DCs for enemy spells and such laughable.

/rant over


You are the DM... you're the one who spends prep time, and you make the call.

If they think the DC should be lower, that's fine... they don't get to make the call.

Ask for copies of their character sheets and do the math... figure out what the issue is. If it is ability scores, consider magical diseases that will reduce them, or creatures with ability drain.

If it is magic weapons... rust monsters and disenchanters are your friend.

If it is munchkinness.... simply don't tolerate it. Give players who are clearly just being argumentative a -10 "you pissed off the DM" circumstance bonus until they start being reasonable.

Always roll behind the screen.

Don't tell the PCs the AC they need to hit, or what circumstantial modifiers you're using.

Vary your tactics drastically from usual, or have the characters get trounced by a creature they CAN'T argue shouldn't be able to do it (Demon, Devil, Dragon, what have you).

Alternatively... quit and require one of them to DM... After having to truly prepare for an adventure once or twice they might value the work you do more.

- Ashavan


I don't know if it will make you feel better, but I agree with you. My next 3.5 campaign will have a much tighter ship, mainly because I want the players (and the DM) to enjoy those low to mid levels longer.

I think what D&D needs is a game mechanic that allows lower level monsters to still present a reasonable threat to higher level characters, especially in large numbers.


Oh... and for PCs who always hit everything... concealment is your friend... if they always hit an AC 30, even under concealment, something really is broken.

- Ashavan

Paizo Employee Managing Developer

farewell2kings wrote:

I think what D&D needs is a game mechanic that allows lower level monsters to still present a reasonable threat to higher level characters, especially in large numbers.

It's called tactics. Combat options. Something like that.


Daigle wrote:
farewell2kings wrote:

I think what D&D needs is a game mechanic that allows lower level monsters to still present a reasonable threat to higher level characters, especially in large numbers.

It's called tactics. Combat options. Something like that.

Oh, I hear you--but those things only go so far when the power curve is stretched too far. I'm a big advocate of tactics, myself, but even the lowliest 2nd level orc barbarian needs some help now and then....plus there are many that say that monsters with low intelligence shouldn't be allowed to use innovative tactics....I don't agree with that, but....

Here's a feat that I use in my campaign to help balance things a little bit and give a bunch of low level monsters a fighting chance. It's probably similar to something already out there in some supplement, but I just made this up myself for my campaign.

Team Fighting +2 competence bonus to flanking attack rolls, making them +4 total. If the creature or team member who is also flanking the target also has this feat, each team member also gets a +2 bonus to melee damage rolls.


I think that it's also important to take away the items from time to time.

A lot of the higher levels rely on the items a character carries. But not every encounter has to happen with everyone decked out in their full plate mail and +3 dancing long sword.

The last campaign I played I was the only character that took their armor off ever. We camped for the night and she removed her full plate in order to sleep. Every other player told me I was crazy because we could get attacked during the night. I responded and said that no person could sleep in armor and be effective the next day. But since our DM never gave any penalties for NEVER removing armor it seemed strange to the guys I game with.

Sure enough we were attacked during the middle of the night and she was pretty beat up but it was memorable.

I remember a story from the Cormyr series that has a young Azoun fighting a lycanthrope but having only a set of silverware to defend himself.


Thank you for the posts. I do roll behind the sreen (or propped up book in my case) and don't tell them information. I make calls that "you can't do this," or, "You'll have to hit this DC," but if they don't like it, which is generally the case, they can get rediculously stubborn. I do plan on hitting them with their weak spot, but what got me angry was that I spent so much time preparing for just that, then one person changed his character three days before the game, which set off a chain reaction that caused almost the entire party to switch their classes between then and game day, neutralizing a lot of the work I had put into the adventure (more than enough to make most DMs see red; I'm fine with them not taking hte bait and going off on their own, but when they just can't give me anything to work with, I get angry).

However, I wasn't originating this thread with hopes of responses to my problem. I already know what to do- crack down on the rolling system or enforce a slightly higher point point-buy system, as well as setting a deadline before the start of a campaign to have one's sheet filled out.

What I started this for was to create a place where DMs and players alike could come and vent about their issues, whatever they might be, with the game as they have experienced, as a form of anger management. So, please, if you wish, rant away! That's the intent of this thread.

EDIT- Oh, and as for quiting and letting them DM, that wouldn't work, though I'd love to do it. One of them already does DM (and is a great player and DM, I must say), but the two in question have actually tried to DM before, but never actually put anything together, with the exception of one adventure that I was not able to attend. All my stepping back would result in is no D&D for a while except in my friend's campaign, which wouldn't solve the issue.


My rant is this:

Why do so many D and D gamers take it personally when someone does not like the 3.x system. I have played the game in one incarnation or another for going on 24 years now. I play other systems as well.

I do not take it personally if people do not like the rules set I use, yet on some boards (usually not these) it is considered heresy to dislike 3.x. And if you have an opinion on the rules that they do not agree with then you must just not understand how things are.

I enjoy the game.
I am, however, starting to actively dislike some of the personalities who participate in it. Ironically, it is usually these same people that complain that the gaming industry is on a downward trend.

This is not meant to offend or start a flame war. Do not take it personally as it is not aimed at anyone in specific.


Use the point buy system and just let the barking and braying to over your head. Forget about it. Players with stats like that, a whole group of players, take away from the enjoyment of the game.

If they are always hitting, lie to them. "Your swing missed and he counters for....19 damage"

Dont tell them the DCs of anything. They roll and you respond with a succeed or failure.

In a recent session a player argued that he should receive a circumstantial bonus to something he was attempting. I told him that if there were any bonuses or penalties he would not know them and I would be modifying the DC, not his roll.

Players will test the limits of our patience and imagination. Keep going, Saern,


My rant.

I hate the book of exalted deeds, I hate the eberron campaign setting, I hate psionics, I hate playing late into the night with only half of the group still interested/awake and the other half rivited and reluctant to quit, I hate almost all the new weapons and armor from supplements, I hate races and monsters that are nothing but a cool monster completely stripped down so it is weak enough to play as a standard race, and I hate dark chocolate with a vengance.

I'm a paladin with a choice. I can torture the evil sorcerer into tellling me how to stop the device that will destroy the city, or I could keep my purity and let the device detonate. The right thing to do is commit the evil deed and torture the info out of him. Not according to the book of exhalted friggin deeds. According to them a paladin would not be able to sacrifice his own purity and the right thing to do is pray or some bull crap. Oh and poisons are evil, and using evil means to kill evil creatures is not justifiable. But poisons that only affect evil creatures are OK. Why should evil clerics get all the undead, lets make it "good" to make "good" undead so that good is as awesome as evil.

Hmmm..... how can we make a new campaign setting for a fantasy game..... Oh I know! lets completely mimic everything in the real world, make it glow, and say that it's powered by magic! Yippee! Oh and don't forget the half-constructs, half-dopplegangers, and half-lycanthropes! DRAGONS ARE COOL lets make the world a dragon, and people draw dragons on themselves, and we need a ton of dragon gods, and dragon worshippers, and dragon spells and armor and weapons and everything will either look like a dragon, be a dragon, or will turn into a dragon in a few levels.

I want a mana system, not this strange spell per day stuff. After all there are no video games out there that can teach me how to use it. So I'll ressurect some of the old psionics stuff, completely change it, and create a new set of spells. All I have to do is change the names and no one will even notice that there is absolutlty no difference between a psion and a wizard. Sure they both use their massive intellects to warp the fabric of reality in an almost identical fashion. But hey once I turn spell to power, cast to manifest, and invisibility to psionic invisibility you can't even tell!

New weapons? Who needs new weapons when you have perfectly good old ones to screw with? Just take all the old swords and axes, add the word "great" AND THEN make the damage dice or threat range one step better and say it's too large to use without "proper training".

CHOCOLATE IS AWESOME BUT I ALWAYS WANTED TO SELL ANIMAL FECES TO PEOPLE! I'LL JUST WRAP SOME OF THESE MONKEY TURDS UP AND HIDE THEM IN THE ASSORTED BAGS SO THERE IS NO WAY ANYONE WILL BE ABLE TO SEE THEM IN TIME!

As Searn said it is a rant post if you feel differently fine, I respect that, but another thread, another time perhaps.

Now if you will excuse me I need to go mutilate something.


I think the reason Saern's rant turned into the discussion that followed was because Saern's rant was so close to home for many of us.

Saern's rant might as well have been my rant.

SexiGolem--thanks for making me chuckle today!

My rant--I hate the way WotC sells their plastic miniatures. I love them for their practicality and light weight, but it really pisses me off that they become collector's items just because they decided to only mold 4,700 rares.

I would spend way more money on miniatures if I could buy a medium sized miniature for $1.50, $3.50 for a large, $6.00 for a huge, $8.00 for a giant, etc....

Do they honestly think I'm going to buy 47 booster packs in the hope of getting the one miniature that I want? Pardon my English, but f*** that sh**. I'm not pleasantly surprised and chuckle to myself when my set includes another lemure or scythe wielding commoner...I'm just pissed off that I got another crappy common to add to my Orkin army of crappy commons!

Who the hell needs 23 lemures? I'll buy 2-3 booster packs from each set. If they sold them like normal companies sell miniatures, I'd probably spend four times as much money on them as I do now! Who really gets rich off this miniatures scheme? WotC and those few "entrepeneurs" who buy up tens of thousands of miniatures and then trickle them out on E-bay like it's crack sprinkled froot loops!!!

...and Paizo....you need the money like any business, I know, but I hope that if anyone pays $50 for that huge red dragon from the Giants of Legends set that you guys have for sale you include a referral to a good psychologist for the guy that shells out $50 for a plastic dragon that looks like it was painted by my 3 year old.

(there is one good thing about all those useless duplicate miniatures)

...last night I ran the riot scene from The Demonskar Legacy and I had enough miniatures on hand that I didn't need to simulate the crowd....HAH!!!


My Rant?

I am sick of how optional rules in supplement books make players feel like they have the god given right to take them for their characters. If I as DM disallow a race, class, feat or what-have-you, the player throws a temper tantrum or pouts in the corner the whole game because "its in the book, I should be allowed to take it".

Don't play with people like that you say? That isn't a choice for me. If I kick people out of the group, there is literally no one left to replace them. Gamers are severely limited in my area.

I hate how the old standby, Rule Zero, has been ignored by WotC in favor of pushing character options. New players have no idea that a DM is assumed to be able to pick and choose options for his game. I actually had to show Rule Zero in the 2nd editon books to a couple of people in my 3.5 group before they realized that I was 'allowed' to disallow options. Most new players come to tabletop games from videogames these days. In a videogame, the whole idea is to build the best character possible with all the options available. These are the players that get ticked when someone else makes an 'arbitrary' decision that effects their character options.

The game did a 180 somewhere. Until 3.0, D&D was always much more DM choice than player choice. The DM decided what options were right for his game and the players lived with it. Don't like the way a rule works? Change it, it probably won't affect the rest of the game in a negative way because not much was tied together in the rules. Now, if a DM doesn't like a small aspect of the game, like the default amount of assumed treasure give out, he can't change it without it affecting a bunch of other 'subsystems' within the game.

Experience awards are tied to Assumed Treasure by level, which is tied to character power level, which is tied to the Monster CRs, which is tied back to experience awards. If you raise or lower the amount of treasure that you give out, you just voided the other tools that were put there to make a DM's life easier. Ok DM's, you have to adjust fire. Got it! Does the DMG give any advise or optional rules to help you do this in a timely manner or with less work? Of Course not. They would have been better off just leaving the whole system out, because most DM's probably don't or can't use it as written anyway. So instead of writing adventures, I'm screwing with the CR system to make sure things are balanced. When nothing is ever balanced, why have a system that claims it can be?

Oh, and why the heck did it take until DMGII before WotC started giving out general advise on how to create a better game experience? Monte Cook wrote the 3.0 DMG. He wrote that book as an actual Guide for the DM. He actually included rule zero in there towards the front and gave you advise for making the game your own. The reasons behind creating prestige classes; the optional witch variant to give examples how to make your own classes; subraces; etc. The suits at WotC/Hasbro didn't like that. They figure that if DMs make their own options, they won't buy their option filled books! So three years later some one else revised the core books and the 3.5 DMG mysteriously lost all the good stuff that Cook put in there and either diluted it or replaced it with extra prestige classes and summaries of the Manual of the Planes and Epic Level Handbook. Oh, and they made it harder to find stuff in many cases too. Thanks for that one WotC.

I long for the days when I could run a low powered, low magic fantasy game resembling Dark Ages Europe using only the PHB/DMG/MM. Try that now and see how the flavor turns out. The designers have been reading too much of their own mostly sub-par fiction novels and lost sight of the true genre.

The game 'feel' has changed from the old editions to 3.0/3.5. The art, the options, everything has changed from a psuedo-historical medieval fantasy game, to a superpowered, comic style mish mash.

D&D was inspired by classic fantasy. Tolkein of course, but also Howard, Leiber, and other fantasy authors. After WotC took over, the inspiration seemed to turn into some kind of modern/Sci-fi comic game with swords and armor. The game is no longer inspired by classic fantasy. The mantra shouted out today is "The world must fit the Rules!" not "The Rules are there to help describe a world." Notice I capitalized 'Rules', as they are obviously omni-potent creations that must not be trifled with...unless a spell needs revision in four different books...thats ok...

I like D&D because I can remember playing the old editions. When we tried to play in a rich, vibrant fantasy world. Somewhere that was lost in favor of finding the best character build options.

Agree with me if you will. If not, thanks for reading.


I guess I'm getting old. I like roleplaying, and it doesn't bother me to make PCs stick with the old 4d6 in sequence, reroll one and swap two (or to play such characters, even if everyone else is playing a half-warforged psio-gestalt-ninja-warmage with six 18s). Usually no one gets stuck with anything below a 9 or 10 this way, and usually no one has more than one 17 or higher. As long as you start this way and stay this way--and maintain your rule zero DM prerogative, things usually don't get out of hand, and if they do it's because you threw something hard at them, and you've got to fudge rolls to keep from slaughtering people, rather than the other way round. (It's always easier to fudge DM rolls down than up, whether behind the screen or not, since usually players have a slight inkling, at least. And half the time I don't do math for my DCs before I roll dice, let alone give them out to the players.) I don't do psionics, and I don't do gestalt, and if it's my homebrew campaign, you have to convince me how your prestige class or Eberron race or whatever videogame-comic-steam punk-hybrid character concept you came up with fits the campaign world. I try to make up for the lack of munchkinesque rules options by making the campaign world interesting to explore and interact with--not just a series of video-game style combat challenges to hack apart. I don't like killing PCs, but sometimes my monsters and NPCs can't help it, especially if you don't figure out that teamwork is essential to victory. And be careful of those lowly orcs--you might find they're all two levels higher than you with a power-gamer prestige class combo and they're going to clean your clock if you try to be Mr. Superstar on Steroids.

So, Saern--I think you should tell your players you're not having fun anymore the way you're playing, and you want to get back to the baseline. Have them roll up characters the old fashioned way or on a point buy--they don't want to do this now because you're having them do it one at a time, so the other guy has a better one than they do. (You'd be annoyed too). Tell them the challenge of this game should be to survive, not to come up with the most unstoppable powermunchkin character that they can imagine from their stupid video games. (I don't play them--they rot your brain.) Then throw challenges at them that require a balanced party, teamwork, and good roleplaying. Reward the guys who take on support roles with challenges that put them in the limelight.

Yes, the gripes are all valid ones--and they're essentially the same ones we see in other fields. Baseball? Is Barry a munchkin? Real Estate? Try shopping for a house in the Bay Area lately? I teach college, and grade inflation and whiny students are par for the course. And of course, back when I was a kid, we never tried to manipulate our professors into giving us higher grades ;) You just have to be firm but fair, and don't let yourself do anything you're not comfortable with. You'll never get rid of all those un-playtested supplements that are coming off the presses faster than Chiang Kai-shek printed money, but you won't get screwed if you don't take them at market value.

And yes, WotC has taken marketing lessons from Intel and Microsoft--make sure your product is useful but full of small bugs and becomes obsolete every few years, and you'll force everyone to keep buying new stuff, especially if all the supplementary stuff is programmed for the newest edition. I've got about a big enough collection at this point to skip 4e whenever it comes out and still keep playing for a decade--but it's doubtful whether anyone will want to keep playing with me. (I may still do it. My car is approaching its 18th birthday, and I usually manage to get five years out of my computers.) Welcome to the 21st century.

OK-this has turned into more of a ramble than a rant, but the bottom line is, it is possible to have fun playing a first level wizard, and it's our job as DMs to teach 'em that lesson.


Saern wrote:


EDIT- Oh, and as for quiting and letting them DM, that wouldn't work, though I'd love to do it. One of them already does DM (and is a great player and DM, I must say), but the two in question have actually tried to DM before, but never actually put anything together, with the exception of one adventure that I was not able to attend. All my stepping back would result in is no D&D for a while except in my friend's campaign, which wouldn't solve the issue.

Hmm - your friends campaign ... thats interesting, is he a player in your campaign as well? ... does he have the same problems as you? have you tried talking with him?

In regards to my Rant - we'll these days I'm being annoyed at the Diplomacy skill. In some ways I have the opposite problem that you do - I've got a player thats fey touched and has maxed out diplomacy - so now its obscenely high. She wants the towns people and everyone wealthy in the land to start donating to a just cause ... namely herself. I find myself thinking, OK so if she takes 10 she has a diplomacy of +30 ... but WTF does that mean? Just how likely are wealthy people going to be to give up some of their wealth? and just how much would they likely be parted with.

Rich Burlew has maybe the best article on the topic but even here I face problems - for example it would appear from his example that my arsitocrat has a better then even chance of giving up his mansion and all his worldly possessions for a dirty piece of string - the negitive modifiers in this article just tend to seem to low - or more accuratly they don't really take scale into account. Its a horrible deal for you to give me nothing and I give you $20. But one would suppose that its actually even more improbable for you to give me nothing and for me to give you my wife for keeps (presuming here that one likes ones wife and would preffer to have her around of course). The problem with Rich's article is that it does not really address this - both are really bad deal -10 modifier ... well if your diplomacy is racked up enough and the person your bartering with is fairly low level and has not put much into diplomacy beating that -10 modifier is just not that tough.


Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
Saern wrote:


EDIT- Oh, and as for quiting and letting them DM, that wouldn't work, though I'd love to do it. One of them already does DM (and is a great player and DM, I must say), but the two in question have actually tried to DM before, but never actually put anything together, with the exception of one adventure that I was not able to attend. All my stepping back would result in is no D&D for a while except in my friend's campaign, which wouldn't solve the issue.

Hmm - your friends campaign ... thats interesting, is he a player in your campaign as well? ... does he have the same problems as you? have you tried talking with him?

In regards to my Rant - we'll these days I'm being annoyed at the Diplomacy skill. In some ways I have the opposite problem that you do - I've got a player thats fey touched and has maxed out diplomacy - so now its obscenely high. She wants the towns people and everyone wealthy in the land to start donating to a just cause ... namely herself. I find myself thinking, OK so if she takes 10 she has a diplomacy of +30 ... but WTF does that mean? Just how likely are wealthy people going to be to give up some of their wealth? and just how much would they likely be parted with.

Rich Burlew has maybe the best article on the topic but even here I face problems - for example it would appear from his example that my arsitocrat has a better then even chance of giving up his mansion and all his worldly possessions for a dirty piece of string - the negitive modifiers in this article just tend to seem to low - or more accuratly they don't really take scale into account. Its a horrible deal for you to give me nothing and I give you $20. But one would suppose that its actually even more improbable for you to give me nothing and for me to give you my wife for keeps (presuming here that one likes ones wife and would preffer to have her around of course). The problem with Rich's article is that it does not really address this - both are really bad deal -10 modifier ... well if...

A NPC, even a low level NPC with an average intelligence is not stupid. They have common sense. I wouldnt care if a PC has a diplomacy of 90 and decided to take 10. She wouldnt be able to convince a person to give up anything for nothing. Its no feasable. That is the problem with skills, though. The rules never cover 'what ifs' and variables and a modifier to the DC is generally not enough.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

OK, my ranting time... (from a players point of view)

I hate it, when my DM stops in the middle of a description, a fight or whatnot, picks up his module and starts reading what happens next.
Short re-reading is fine, but I hate to make my half-elf barbarian stop in the middle of his mighty swing with his axe for about 10 minutes, just to wait for my DM to read if my characters foe has DR or not.
If I am DM I look at it this way: I owe my playerys a good time, because they sacrifice so much hours (sometimes a whole day) to listen to my ideas, play in my world and have fun with my adventures (or adventures, worlds and ideas of others ;).
So all you DMs out there who think you can just stop during play - pay heed to the 6 "P's"

Proper Pre-planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance!!!

And yes - the Miniatures strategy of WotC so da.. Su..s!
I, as well, would have spend a lot of money in order to get the minis I want. But hoping for this one Umber Hulk for my Demonskar Legacy Encounter, and buying one set after the other... What the hell do you think we are? Stupid???
We are no longer those 10 to 12 years old, playing D&D who got the stuff as a gift at Xmas or birthday. We have to pay it ourselves and we know (mostly) how things work and what you're aiming at with those fu#+&% booster packs! I feel ashamed realizing the minis strategy only after I've bought two sets...

End of ranting time (for now!)

Oh, and PAIZO...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

YOU GUY'S SO ROCK!!!


Sounds good. I want to have my rant of the week posted here as well...

I played D&D yesterday (was a player this time) and I hate it when our inexperienced DM lets a minor fight drag on for 4 hours real time because he found it necessary to back us up with 4 crappy NPCs who he is slow to play on the battlefield (and are agressively making claims on our spoils afterwards)...

If he can't design proper EL 2 encounters and needs to back us up with sideliners who steal our thunder (and spoils) he should not be DMing.

And what is this crap with him believing that a CR3 opponent is a valid encounter for a single level 3 character?? Told us he understood that to design an encounter you take as many creatures as players, and all of them of the same CR like our average level. So: three lvl 3 characters should be pitched against three CR3 critters for a balanced encounter... And if a lvl 3 character is separated from the group and treading alone, it is ok to have a random EL3 fall on his head... Great reading of the rules. Now he realised his mistakes and "will have to rework his campaign".

And to make things more challenging for us, he has designed most of the encouters around EL6 (we are ECL 2!!!), but gives us some support in the form of these pesky and annoying NPCs.

Luckily two of them died yesterday in the fight. We're just stuck with the uptight Cleric of Kelemvor, but I think I will push him over the ledge next time we do some mountaineering. My LN Tiefling feels his evil background coming back to the surface...

Bocklin

Scarab Sages

My rant...here it goes.

I hate Eberron! I hate the just-because-they-would-be-cool-to-play sentient constructs. I hate the half-lycanthropes, I hate the is-it-magic-or-technology. I don't care if I offend those who like it. If I hurt your feelings, too bad.

I hate the overabundance of magic, prestige classes, feats, weapon descriptors, templates, and new PC races. Enough already. I don't want to play a chimeric, half-illithid, half-displacer beast, fighter 6 /sorcerer 4 /dragon disciple 3 wielding a keen, silver, god-bane masterwork two-handed sword., and Power-cleaving everything in sight. Just let me be a Dwarven fighter or Elven wizard and have done with it.

Oh, and just to finish up, I don't care whether or not Ed Greenwood is Elminster. Why should that matter. He created a world that was really cool at one point, but is now just too well defined and overplayed to be exciting anymore. Ed is yesterdays news.

I hate that Greyhawk fans are whining that their world doesn't get focused on anymore. I like Oerth just as much as the next guy, and respect it a great deal, but get over it already. If WotC doesn't have the creative ability to revive a campaign long since gone stale, then do it yourselves.

Anyway, I've probably got a lot of people crying by now that I'm some big meany, so I'll go sulk in the shadows with the rest of the insensitve cavemen.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens Subscriber

While we all are at ranting, I´m not going to be left out. :-)

Encounter Balance: Even "professionals" don´t get that right even all the time. I remember playing in a Living Greyhawk game shortly after 3.0 came out, and the adventure featured a ghast, which is CR 4 - in an adventure for four 1st level PCs. Add to this that the very unexperienced DM was not able to change that seeing that we were just two players, and out came a TPK. That put me off LG and made me think twice about 3.0 even longer. I was positively steaming at that ocurrence, and normally I´d say I´m a relatively quiet type (although my girlfriend says otherwise when I´m driving...).
Figuring CR and EL is still a mystery for me, especially if you got more than one critter, perhaps even different ones.

D&D 3.X is chock full of combat rules, depending heavily on miniatures to represent all tactical details. To hell with that, I say! If I want to play a tabletop game, I can just buy Warhammer, Scalemail or whatever. I just can´t remember all those rules anyway, and I sure as hell don´t want them and don´t need them. Make ´em optional, if you absolutely have to include them. The game doesn´t get any more "realistic" just by having it stuffed with rules minutiae.

How is a DM supposed to keep up with PCs abilities if they advance like written in the rules ? Not even the players get that straight if they have a new level with "kewl" new abilities every second time we´re gaming. I like the idea of a unified experience table, but advancement is waay to fast. I have trouble keeping up with the challenges they face, and real exotic creatures can be a pain in the a** if you start juggling raging barbarians, sorcerers casting boosting spells, shapechanging druids, jumping monks and then the monsters with three different ACs, spell like abilities, regeneration and what have you. Oh, and don´t forget spell resistance on top of it. I think the game has grown to a complexity level where you need two DMs to handle it all, one for the story and one for bookkeeping. When playing Rolemaster, thats ok, but D&D used to be a lot simpler, or do I miss something ? (Perhaps I should dig out, say, CoC/Runequest...)

And don´t get me going on wagonloads of prestige classes, feats, spells and more in every new book or magazine. I definitely had enough of that, especially if these new playthings don´t seem to get playtested thoroughly. I surely can and will do without. Same goes for all those fancy races and half-something races. I just don´t want to imagine how say a half-dragon/half-pixie should have come into being, and if I hear one more time that the whole explanation is "a kind of magic", then I´m going to have a nervous breakdown or kill somebody.

Enough for now. I still like the game, but sometimes I get the feeling that it becomes a manga-style superhero game, with magic becoming either some handy utility or a videogame style bonus. I would like my game somewhat more down to earth. In Lord of the Rings, there is no one casting half a dozen spells before each combat, and magic items are few and far between, and surely not sold on the market side-to-side with apples and fish, and it still is one of the most compelling fantasy stories written. This background does not work well for a game, and most story backgrounds do not, but D&D sometimes goes over the top.

Stefan


Great thread!!

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
farewell2kings wrote:
Great thread!!

Right you are, F2K!

And while I'm at it...

The feats and PrC's...
Man, I don't know if WotC really think that writing on the back of a product "Inside you'll find 20 new feats..." would help in getting it sold?!
My players already get this little smile, when they read something like that.
While feats help to make every single PC a bit more unique, I am pretty sure we all have enough of them by now!

One thing I loved recently:
One of my players came to me with a character concept (a written document) where he had written what happens at every new level. Which feats to take, which classes, skill point selection and so on. Man, what a great thing to plan and prepare a new campaign...


As a DM:

I hate keeping up with every new feat, ability and skills that seem to come out every other week. I also hate published adventures that exclusively use new monsters, races, or NPCs with new feats, abilities and skills. (I just can’t keep up with them!)

I hate day-long preparations for a single fight. I also hate preparing my big fights four sessions in advance only to realise that the PCs have risen two levels each before they get to that fight.

I hate it when we schedule to play two weeks in advance and a player just doesn’t show up. I also hate it when a player tells me, when we finish playing, that he might not be there for the next game because he just might go to his uncle’s birthday.

I hate three hour-long tactical battles against two brown bears. I also hate three round battles against a room-full of big NPC bosses that ends up being a total massacre by a too powerful PC party.

I hate sushi. I also hate tomatoes.

I hate high-level games (over level 10). I also hate the CR/EL system (or the whole Experience-Party-Level-Cross-Reference-Tables that take twenty minutes to decipher how much points to give out after a battle).

I hate dragons because they’re so damn hard to handle in a fight. I also hate that damn Improved Something feat that renders a PC totally invulnerable to dragon breaths!

I hate the fact that commoners make about three copper pieces per day but can all afford houses, food and livestock. I also hate the fact that when the PCs kill their first gnoll, they can sell the battleaxe he was holding for more money than a commoner makes in a year.

I hate the fact that some players will never want to play something simple, like a human fighter. I also hate the fact that some players will ONLY play human fighters.

I hate the idea of prestige classes. I also hate the idea of a first level Paladin (defender of the church indeed!).

I like this thread though!

Ultradan

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

I hate DM's that fudge rolls. I hate when important rolls are made behind the screen so that the DM can disregard the result. I hate house rules. I particularly hate house rules that exist for no other reason than to implement a DM's idiosyncratic views of how things "should" work.

I hate treasure and magic items. I wish they could be easily expunged without massive tinkering (see my hatred of house rules above).

I hate the paladin's warhorse. I hate the paladin generally. The class is too focused and a pain in the butt with its lawful goodness.

I hate forum discussions about what is or is not good/evil lawful/chaotic. I hate when people present their arguments on these topics as if they were based on objective facts. About a million philosophers have spilled words on the topic of whether you can torture for an extremely good cause, and so far no one's really come to a consensus. You do not have an answer, and should not bother asking the question.

I hate when people say they have a right to freedom of speech against private parties. The First Amendment only applies to governmental action. You have no such right against private parties, the best you can do is sue for defamation (and good luck with that).

I hate Dragonlance. I hate the books, I hate the setting, I hate everything Margeret Weiss/Tracy Hickman have ever written. I hate that they use steel for money, that they color code the alignment of their wizards ("look at me! I'm evil! You can tell cause I wear black robes!") and I hate kender. It's not that I've never seen them played right. It's that it is impossible to play a 10-year-old kid hopped up on meth as anything other than extremely annoying.

Rants are fun.


Sebastian wrote:
I hate house rules. I particularly hate house rules that exist for no other reason than to implement a DM's idiosyncratic views of how things "should" work.

Amen to that brother!

Ultradan


Sorry Bros, but I have the feeling that I did not fully exploit the full potential of this Thread yet. So please bear with me:

I hate it when the lazy player at our table (who's been playing D&D for 3 years) grabs whatever die is closest to him to roll his attack (usually a D6 or D8). Or, when when he rolls for initiative and name his roll without adding his initiative modifier. We chipped in to buy him the PHB 2 years ago. Never read it, never bothered learning from those at the table. Still claim D&D is ace, but is silent most of the time at the table so he is clearly not in for the roleplaying either.

I hate it when (because the other players censor themselves properly and we do not speak when it is not our turn) the same stupid player forgets to bring his character in flanking position because he ALWAYS forget. But it's not my turn, so I shut up and suffer silently. By the way, he plays a rogue!

I hate "Vow of Poverty". I allowed it once and it ruined my game. Blame me, but I still hate it.

I hate the GP per level table and the whole Wealth by level system which never seems to work or add up properly for me and my players.

I feel deep annoyment at the mention of "Three Faces of Evil".

I hate Drows, SM priestess in domina suits and rebel figures with two scimitars all the same.

I hate it when my players (I sometimes DM, sometimes play) completely black out about the names of the NPCs, even though they got a table from me summarizing all key NPCs and the said NPC is key to the story. "Smenk? Who is Smenk?".

Bocklin


I hate in-depth discussions on why one game system is better than another. I really don't care if levelling up "isn't realistic"... it's a game, for Pete's sake! Reguardless if many of the rules seem to be realistic and others aren't... it's just a game!

Some of the conversations I've had (or have heard) about D&D being unrealistic remind me of one of my friends complaining about the movie Independence Day: "The movie is so unrealistic! I mean, they use a normal computer virus to disrupt alien technology... COME ON!!!" and I said "The fact that there are aliens attacking the Earth didn't make it seem unrealistic to you?"

(NOTE: I said "in-depth discussions on why one game system is better than another." I like learning about new games, I just don't care for the conversations on why everything out there is better than D&D rules or something.)

I hate Krispy Kreme donuts. Yes, even "hot off the grill," or such nonsense. "Hate" might be a little strong here, after all it *is* a donut... just not a very good one. Give me a donut with substance!

I hate it when I forget to use the ultra-cool, intesely deadly, you're-not-going-to-believe-your-eyes special attacks from a monster, only to have it go down like a sack of potatoes, leaving me going "D'oh!"

I do, however, like Grumpy Smurf.


Bocklin wrote:


I hate it when my players (I sometimes DM, sometimes play) completely black out about the names of the NPCs, ... "Smenk? Who is Smenk?".

Bocklin

I totally agree.

Scarab Sages

I hate that the drow have been overdone. I won't just blame Salvatore for it, however. In my opinion, the whole FR campaign setting is at fault.

I don't really like that they made halflings look like nothing more than mini-elves. Everyone is so determined to say "Look at me, I'm anti-Tolkien". Its stupid.

I wish that Robert E. Howard's Conan was moer widely known. That stuff came well-before hobbitland, and it was (and still is) great. Those stories are a great reminder that you don't need to have a magic item in every hand and a spellcaster behind every tree for good fantasy.

And maybe its just me, but I've always disliked the idea of the whole metallic/chromatic/gem/and now planar Dragon issue. Just give me one kind of dragon - the kind thats breathes fire, eats sacrificial virgins, and gets thwacked by the knight in shining armor (or the PCs, whichever gets there first).

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Bocklin wrote:

...I hate "Vow of Poverty". I allowed it once and it ruined my game. Blame me, but I still hate it.

...

Don't worry too much - I allowed the PC with the VoP to get a Saint template as well. Now think of how I feel about that!

As I play with two players only, this might be fine, but in a 4+ group, I'ld never ever allow it!!!

Scarab Sages

Big Jake wrote:
Some of the conversations I've had (or have heard) about D&D being unrealistic remind me of one of my friends complaining about the movie Independence Day: "The movie is so unrealistic! I mean, they use a normal computer virus to disrupt alien technology... COME ON!!!" and I said "The fact that there are aliens attacking the Earth didn't make it seem unrealistic to you?"

Our group has talked about this movie as well -- but our problem is not that it was a "normal" computer -- it was a Mac. Macs are mostly NOT compatible with ANYTHING else, but somehow it was compatible with an alien's computer system in space...

I hate basically two things.

I hate people who talk about roleplaying as though it is real life. (On a related note, I hate the same thing about science fiction and comic books -- both of which I enjoy.) This is meant to be a bit "fantastic".

I really hate people who complain about things that they have never really tried to do themselves -- especially DM. If a person hasn't been a DM for a campaign, they have no appreciation for the work that a DM goes through and the decisions that they have to make. It is always so easy to criticize a DM when you have no idea what is going on in their mind.

I also hate people who have to order a hamburger at Red Lobster.

Just a few random thoughts.

Bill

The Exchange

OK you asked for it...
I hate that some punk newbie, with a kids cartoon character for an avatar, can just hop online and inject 2 cents to tell me that I don't know what a "challenging" scenario is because they hate to see a "poor" dragon get killed. Wah! I played original tomb of horror, Isle of dread, etc and have gamed since 79 but some lil' B**ch gets to have their say too and ruin a good thread.
I Hate WOTC for taking a great game and taken all the imagination from it and made it into something that the whole Pokemon set is into.
I absolutely hate Ebberron!
I really hate Anime'. If your sword is 6+ft long, has a blade 12-16" wide, and you weild it one-handed, you better be a f**king giant or titan.
I hate the prepack minis (see above reference to Pokemon set). Gotta catch all!! F-ing Idiots!
I hate that to have a fun, rewarding, challenging campaign, you have to use 20+ house rules, alternate stat generation, and severely limit player income.
Most of all I hate that WOTC couldn't care less what anyone thinks of their rape of a game that is dear to so many long time fans. Let D&D live!! I wish nothing but failure on WOTC because maybe if they had to sell off D&D to another party, maybe someone who cared about it would have a chance to let this once-great game shine again.

I Love Paizo! A Shining gold piece in the pile of dung! Well worth fishing out!

If I offended anyone in the Pokemon groups, then too f**king bad!! Bring your complaints in person so I can smack you about the head and neck! Then when your mother swings by to pick you up, you can cry to her. B***hes!
aaahhhhh sweet therapy!

FH


Fake Healer wrote:

OK you asked for it...

I hate that some punk newbie, with a kids cartoon character for an avatar, can just hop online and inject 2 cents to tell me that I don't know what a "challenging" scenario is because they hate to see a "poor" dragon get killed. Wah! I played original tomb of horror, Isle of dread, etc and have gamed since 79 but some lil' B**ch gets to have their say too and ruin a good thread.
I Hate WOTC for taking a great game and taken all the imagination from it and made it into something that the whole Pokemon set is into.
I absolutely hate Ebberron!
I really hate Anime'. If your sword is 6+ft long, has a blade 12-16" wide, and you weild it one-handed, you better be a f**king giant or titan.
I hate the prepack minis (see above reference to Pokemon set). Gotta catch all!! F-ing Idiots!
I hate that to have a fun, rewarding, challenging campaign, you have to use 20+ house rules, alternate stat generation, and severely limit player income.
Most of all I hate that WOTC couldn't care less what anyone thinks of their rape of a game that is dear to so many long time fans. Let D&D live!! I wish nothing but failure on WOTC because maybe if they had to sell off D&D to another party, maybe someone who cared about it would have a chance to let this once-great game shine again.

I Love Paizo! A Shining gold piece in the pile of dung! Well worth fishing out!

If I offended anyone in the Pokemon groups, then too f**king bad!! Bring your complaints in person so I can smack you about the head and neck! Then when your mother swings by to pick you up, you can cry to her. B***hes!
aaahhhhh sweet therapy!

FH

Holy Crap!!!

Am I glad you're on our side!

Ultradan


Bill Hendricks wrote:
Our group has talked about this movie as well -- but our problem is not that it was a "normal" computer -- it was a Mac. Macs are mostly NOT compatible with ANYTHING else, but somehow it was compatible with an alien's computer system in space...

It just proves that Steve Jobs is an alien. I think that's how the last ID4 debate ended :)

The Exchange

Behold the Power of the Dark Side!! Muuuhaawaaawaahaaa!!


Fake Healer wrote:

Behold the Power of the Dark Side!! Muuuhaawaaawaahaaa!!

"Fake... I am your Faaatherr."


I hate that the bulk of a roleplaying evening is taken up by fights. 5 PCs and 7 monsters make a fight last an hour. Am I flanking? Can I cleave? I want to tumble. Am I able to sneak attack? Does that provoke an attack of opportunity? Speaking of attacks of opporunity and cleave: followin the rules in 3.5 you could make, aside from your normal 4 or 5 attacks in a round if youre level 20 with dual wield, you could attack another 3, 4 or 5 times? Its not possible within the expanse of a few seconds.

I hate, like others, the f**king miniature situation. Why cant I pick and choose the ones I want?

Manga? Parents need to censor that crap...keep their children away from it. It kills the brain, makes the kid annoying.

I hate parents that use a Playstation to raise their kids. Those kids like manga. See above.

I hate that a player in my party thinks its funny to have names like Elfy McElfington and Strom Thurmond. I hate that a player in my group asks if he, as a barbarian, can multiclass to fighter so he can, "have access to more feats" To many, 3.5 is no longer a roleplaying game. It is, as others have stated so eloquently, a munchkin system devoid of imagination.

I hate how politicians lie.

I hate stereotypical gamers. You know, the loud, annoying ones. The ones that laugh for no effing reason. The ones that laugh far too loud. The ones that quote rules to you.

I hate kimchi.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Big Jake wrote:
Bill Hendricks wrote:
Our group has talked about this movie as well -- but our problem is not that it was a "normal" computer -- it was a Mac. Macs are mostly NOT compatible with ANYTHING else, but somehow it was compatible with an alien's computer system in space...
It just proves that Steve Jobs is an alien. I think that's how the last ID4 debate ended :)

Does this mean I can slip in a Mac rant? My wife belongs to the Cult of Mac and every single time that stupid computer breaks, or the ipod software doesn't work right, or their much praised music store is non-responsive and unhelpful and I think about their whole mantra of "we're mac! we're different and easy to use!" I want to personally insert that ugly iLamp into Steve Job's iRectum.

This thread sure is cathartic.


Savaun Blackhawk wrote:

I hate kimchi.

*Makes gagging sound* I know how you feel. If I want fermented cabbage, I'll stick to sauerkraut. Preferably draped over a brat. Accompanied by some beer.


I am moving to the ISLE OF DREAD.


I'm not sure if i've ever hated anything in my entire life. Hate is a very strong word and i think has been hijacked by some of the other feelings that you all have described here. I'll do a quick find/replace for hate and replace it with dislike and other such verbiage. In the vein of being malcontent, here goes:

I dislike a general lack of education for players and DMs.

I am not fond of pride or selfishness, both of which contribute to ignorance.

I distain using laziness as a justification for anything. Laziness breeds stupidity.

I take exception to any other system of tabletop governance other than Democracy. A DM is not a dictator and the sum of players is not greater than the DM...Unawares DMs or players will consistantly encounter problems in their games.

I abhor generalizing (in general), unilatarilizing, typing, grouping, or "body of working" for answering any rules-related question (stat-block related). This is otherwise recognized as narrow-mindedness.

And finally, I can't stomach refusing to or failure recognize one's own faults. Placing blame for anything that you can control yourself (by whatever means necessary), suggests any one (or more) of the following: ignorance, pride, selfishness, laziness, poor governance, and narrow-mindedness.

As ever,
ACE


Wow. I'm surprised this took off so well. You're welcome, everyone! Looks like there are a lot of angry D&D players out there. Here's a few more from me.

DMG: Remember, you should severaly limit the number of PrC in your games, and the best ones are those you make yourself. That's why we're going to release 50 bazillion new PrC in every book. No longer is a cavalier a guy on a horse with a lance. No, now they have to be at least 8th level and invest in this PrC which is the real cavalier. A barbarian isn't crazy enoug- no, we're going to make a frenzied berserker that, while vulenerable to dying AFTER the fight, can totally demolish anything the DM plans out in one hit, and whose "frenzy" stacks with "rage", and can pull a TPK on his fellow adventurers if he rolls bad on the Will save to come out.

Another thing
Me: So, how in the world did you end up with that class/race combo?
Player: What do you mean? I just did?
Me: No, but how on earth did you end up coming up with that bizarre, extreme stereo-type busting selection?
Player: I took levels in it.

Get the drift? See, what I'm asking for here is a STORYLINE as to how the elf become a hexblade/whatever. I will allow it, but only with a STORYLINE.

Player: I don't know.
Me: How about being cursed by a demon or something?
Player: Sure

See, what I'm trying to do here is stimulate him to do something. Not just say that and it be a static piece of information that never comes into play again and has no bearing on his character. Is it really that difficult a situation to read into?

Another gem- the barbarian has 14 Int, yet the player wants to say that he barely speaks common. Uhmmm...... hmmm.... NO! You're a freaking genius compared to the Joe onf the street, who speak perfectly well himself. So, no, you speak common just fine.

Another thing
Me: No, I'm not going to allow that.
Player: You can't do that! (hey no perfectly well I can, but somehow arrived at the idea that being an ass is somehow fun)
Me: Uh, yes I can- I'm the DM
Player: No, that's what you think
Me: Look, we can just sit here and argue endlessly and never do anything, or you can just take the ruling.

At this point, the player literally lets out a quasi-bestial yell into my face, like that's supposed to prove his point or stand as a testament to his mental prowess. WTF?!?!

Another thing
The next time I hear someone call my game "gay", they just won a one-way ticket to the DM's chair, right there at that session. We'll see how they like it. I'll be sure to insult everything they do, since that's apparently their idea of "fun."

Oh, I've got more, and it will come as soon as I can remember it....

EDIT- Got one! Players who have to look through EVERY BOOK to find just the right spell; even the planar handbook, the completely wrong Complete (such as Complete Divine for a mage), etc., and takes 30 min just to say, "no I didn't find anything."

I try to be lenient, so that they will still have fun. The gloves are coming off, I've had enough. The new campaign is going to be called, "You've Pissed the DM Off One Too Many Times." All stats start at 5, you get 2 points, total, to increase them with. Encounter One: Your old, munchkined-out, Superman complexed characters. And they want to kill you...

ONE MORE THING- WHAT IN HELL is up with this? The player makes his wizard VENERABLE for the mental stat boost, no intent on roleplaying it very much that I was aware of (he changed the concept before play started, but was prepared to carry it out). But, the real problem is the ROLLS. You KNOW the system you use is broken (and yes, that's totally my fault and why it is changing with the next character rolled) when the player can do that and still have decent physical stats for a wizard! HE still had a 9 in Con, 8 in Str, etc., but a PLUS NINE BONUS from his Intelligence at EIGHTH LEVEL.

One of my other players recently worked out a way to get +9 to his illusion spell DCs, and actually came to me and asked me if I wanted to change it to make it more reasonable! He didn't ask for anything in return. He just wanted game balance! I was floored and ecstatic. Then, the above mentioned monstrosity came about.

Ok, I lied, there's another thing, but it's short: Get your damned character sheets finished before the scheduled game time!

The Exchange

theacemu wrote:

I'm not sure if i've ever hated anything in my entire life. Hate is a very strong word and i think has been hijacked by some of the other feelings that you all have described here. I'll do a quick find/replace for hate and replace it with dislike and other such verbiage. In the vein of being malcontent, here goes:

I dislike a general lack of education for players and DMs.

I am not fond of pride or selfishness, both of which contribute to ignorance.

I distain using laziness as a justification for anything. Laziness breeds stupidity.

I take exception to any other system of tabletop governance other than Democracy. A DM is not a dictator and the sum of players is not greater than the DM...Unawares DMs or players will consistantly encounter problems in their games.

I abhor generalizing (in general), unilatarilizing, typing, grouping, or "body of working" for answering any rules-related question (stat-block related). This is otherwise recognized as narrow-mindedness.

And finally, I can't stomach refusing to or failure recognize one's own faults. Placing blame for anything that you can control yourself (by whatever means necessary), suggests any one (or more) of the following: ignorance, pride, selfishness, laziness, poor governance, and narrow-mindedness.

As ever,
ACE

I hate people who go into the world as passive little lambs.

Say what you mean.
I HATE people who throw as many overly large words into a conversation as they can possibly think of. It doesn't make em sound smart just smart-*ssed.
Right along those lines, I hate Thesauruses, thesaurusi, whatever!! The book with all the words;)!!
I hate Bush(George,not the important one)!!
I hate that EVERY RADIO STATION PLAYS HIP-HOP!!!! Even the christian station!!!WTF!!!!!
AAAAOOAOAOOOOOOOOUUUUUURRRRGGGGGGGGG!!!

FH


I hate making high-level NPCs in 3.X. They take so long to make, and are around for only 3 to 5 rounds normally.

I hate trying to keep up with every D&D book that comes out. My players read the books for the feats and spells, and memorize choice selections to aid there character. I need to look at monsters, setting info, races, PrCs, NPCs, et al. I don't have the time to memorize the minor things that the players can, and thus my NPCs may not be up to par with the PCs.

I hate that I feel bad when I restrict books for the players to use, even though I know I have every right to.

I hate that when I am GMing, I forget so many of the basic rules that I normally remember.

I hate that I have never had a character reach a level beyond 9th since I started playing 2ed, and even then, it was only 1 PC. I hate how every campaign I've played in has major restrictions on characters, especially when it comes to magic. For instance, no divine casters, or no arcane casters, or humans-only, or all three of the above. I hate that I am the only GM that uses traps or locks. I hate that other GMs do not declare that they will NOT use traps or locks, so when I (or someone else) plays a rogue and places many skill points in Disable Device or Open Locks, they are totally wasted. I hate that I have only been a PC in three campaigns that reached a conclusion, rather than the GM dropping the campaign. And of those three campaigns, the highest level I reached was 9, and the lowest level I reached was 4.

I hate how I spend several days preparing adventures and few other GMs I play with do this. I hate that most GMs I play with do not read the adventures before they begin to run it when they are using the published adventures.

I LOVE having a kobold as my avatar. :D


Saern wrote:

EDIT- Got one! Players who have to look through EVERY BOOK to find just the right spell; even the planar handbook, the completely wrong Complete (such as Complete Divine for a mage), etc., and takes 30 min just to say, "no I didn't find anything."

I try to be lenient, so that they will still have fun. The gloves are coming off, I've had enough. The new campaign is going to be called, "You've Pissed the DM Off One Too Many Times." All stats start at 5, you get 2 points, total, to increase them with. Encounter One: Your old, munchkined-out, Superman complexed characters. And they want to kill you...

Wow...that was hillarious!

Heres another one based off of your comment about the character sheets. The guy I mentioned in another post that calls himself Strom Thurmond didnt have any character information put on his sheet aside from stats and name. No skills,powers, feats, nothing. I finally had to fill it out for him. I have him skills I knew would annoy him, like tap dancing, and crafting wooden dolls. :]


Dryder wrote:
farewell2kings wrote:
Great thread!!

Right you are, F2K!

And while I'm at it...

The feats and PrC's...
Man, I don't know if WotC really think that writing on the back of a product "Inside you'll find 20 new feats..." would help in getting it sold?!
My players already get this little smile, when they read something like that.
While feats help to make every single PC a bit more unique, I am pretty sure we all have enough of them by now!

I suspect your right - I just finished compiling all the legal feats for my hombrew including referencing where they came from and a brief description. Basically I made a single table thats 92 pages long. The alphabetical table of contents at the begining of the table goes for something like 5 pages in three columns.

Interestingly I actually compiled the table to help shut up some of the whining from a number of players with fighters that could not find a prestige class that suuited them from the list of ones I allowed - so this was something of an underhanded way of saying 'be a f$#&ing fighter' - their actually really great. Unfortunatly just before I finished with the list a Troll up and killed the fighter with some lucky rolls and that nasty Rend ability so the whole issue became moot.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Ok, just a short one....

If I give you experience points enough to level up at the end of the session, FOR THE LOVE OF HEXTOR level up your F*$cking character BEFORE the next session. I, and the other players don't want to wait 45 minutes for you to decide if you want to select sleep or fear as your bonus spell this level...WE WANT TO PLAY!!!!


MeanDM wrote:

Ok, just a short one....

If I give you experience points enough to level up at the end of the session, FOR THE LOVE OF HEXTOR level up your F*$cking character BEFORE the next session. I, and the other players don't want to wait 45 minutes for you to decide if you want to select sleep or fear as your bonus spell this level...WE WANT TO PLAY!!!!

oooh, this one is very true. I also feel the same way about shopping for your character.


Saern wrote:
Ok, I lied, there's another thing, but it's short: Get your damned character sheets finished before the scheduled game time!

I have this problem as well - I know the players are busy in real life and all but your not just holding me up at this point - your holding up 6 other people - if your the neophyte then you've got something of an excuse - though I wish you'd arrange time with me or any of the other players to resolve this, the vets however should just know better.

Oh yeah and I hate the strange monster that eats my important notes on a NPCs or level 27 of the dungeon of mega-death so that I'm left looking vainly through my campaign binder holding up the gaem right when the players are about to enter level 27 of the Dungeon or worse yet have finally gotten to the climatic encounter of the adventure.

Nothing more annoying then knowing you printed out this stuff and being pretty sure its in the campaign binder but not being able to find it at that critical stage (admittedly I've found that taking good notes and having an inventory system and tabs for tracking adventures and NPCs seems to foil the foul beast and keep it away from my precious villains).


farewell2kings wrote:
Who the hell needs 23 lemures?

You have 23 lemures? You really should look up Monte Cook's A Paladin in Hell - there is a scene in that where the clock runs out and 10,000 or so lemures attack. I've been re-reading it and wondering were the hell I'm going to get 25 Lemures from.

1 to 50 of 3,910 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Place Your Rant Here All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.