1) It is the DM's game. If the group wants a new DM, the DM loses his players.
In other words, it's the group's game and the DM only wields power because the group chooses to give it to the DM.
The DM and the players are a group of friends. Equals. Compatriots. The DM is not her friends' better merely by right of being DM.
2) You put forth the effort when you entertained the interpretation of the player, but if the player doesn't accept it the DM shouldn't cave to the bad player.
Ah, the Bad Player myth. If he doesn't bow to DM, he must be a Bad Player! All hail DM almighty! Brand anyone who annoys you as a Bad Player, that you may be justified in bestowing whatever douchery you wish upon them!
Working with your players isn't bad. It doesn't mean you're caving to some Bad Player. The DM and the players are supposed to work together. The DM isn't some brutal tyrant. The DM and the players are friends, who want to work together and help make sure everybody has fun.
3) He clearly violated RAW by wanting to combine Cleric and DC levels for Domain power purposes. The DM ruled correctly by RAW.
He asked for a houserule and then whined when he didn't get it. That's not a mortal sin. And in this case, it's a perfectly reasonable houserule to ask for; after all, Divine Crusader is all about this one domain, it's not unreasonable to ask that Divine Crusader actually advance the abilities of that one domain (which is distinct from saying the DM must allow it). And if you're out making a Divine Crusader on your own and you have Divine Crusader advancing that domain, it's a perfectly logical assumption to make, even if it is in violation of RAW; it's a mistake, not cheating, and that the guy feels shafted when that gets taken away is perfectly understandable, though admittedly it seems he doesn't express it in a socially acceptable manner. Which is a case of communication problems, but that's no reason to throw the guy out of the game.
4) E.S. is T.O. if you use it to violate RAW and add spells to your spellbook that you can't cast because they are not on your class spell list. E.S. doesn't allow you to add Heal to a Wizard and asserting it does is T.O. as much as Chuck.
Theoretical optimization is all about the rules as written. It may massage meanings a bit, but breaking it outright means it ceases to be optimization of any form. You may find some aspects of Pun Pun at his zenith, dubious, but the fundamental premises are undeniable in RAW and can perfectly legally get a kobold and a familiar with arbitrarily high stats.
If you're flat breaking rules, it ceases to be optimization of any kind, theoretical or otherwise.
5) T.O. and other incorrect interpretations of RAW don't always break the game but they are always in the same room. They are all in the same room of reading more (or less) from the RAW than the RAW says or just willfully (intentionally) interpretation the rules in a way to get your desired interpretation.
...
Do you even know what these terms you keep throwing around even mean?
6) By my RAW it is implied.
That "W" stands for "written." That which is not written is not a part of the rules as written, by definition. RAI incorporates implication and intent. RAW does not.
I know what power-gaming is, but what is munchkining?
I suggest listening to the authority on the matter. Preliminary banter goes on about seven minutes, and touches on the difference between min/maxers, powergamers, and munchkins. They get to powergaming and munchkins around 19:30, though it's more useful in the context of the episode as a whole.
Nice posts Viletta Vadim! I'm glad to see someone arguing your point of view. I'm also glad to see that the OP has decided to try talking with the player.
The problem with deliberately killing a player character is
1. It's unfair
2. It's dishonest
3. It makes you a bad DM
I have to agree with this. I think too many DM's have forgotten, you are not running a game, you are HOSTING a game. The game is as much yours as a party at your house is. Its not about you, get over it. Should players appreciate the work you put in? Ofcourse. Is it worthy of praise and admiration to go through the headach a dm does? Absolutely. Are you more important then your players? No.
In this case the player is being foolish, and a little whiney. But the dm is being downright childish. Its like the little boy that breaks the toy he and his classmate are fighting over so nobody can have it. Nobody is going to win here, and you end up looking really petty.
Viletta, I think you are missing a major factor. At some point, it seems this game became unfun for either the player or the dm. regardless of the rules, it wasn't fun. The player proving he is right on his interpretation or the dm being right based on nothing more then I am dm therefore I am right. In the end, it really doesn't matter. The 2 have come to a place they feel they have irresolvable issue with each other. If the player backs down, he will always fell he was cheated and attitudes between them will get worse, and in the end there is a good chance this issue could break the game. Sadly, the same is true if the dm backs off his stance at this point.
As far as an authority goes, there is no authority over our group above the decision made by our group. We know what works for us. We keep it fair to the spirit of the game we want to play.
You have the right to your opinion. Just remember, when it comes to someone else's game, your opinion has no value unless that group chooses to to give it validity. So far, your argumentative approach merits you nothing in my eyes. Of course, that too is just an opinion.
So I've decided to kill one of the characters in my ongoing game.
Hey, these things happen.
Viletta, I think you are missing a major factor. At some point, it seems this game became unfun for either the player or the dm. regardless of the rules, it wasn't fun. The player proving he is right on his interpretation or the dm being right based on nothing more then I am dm therefore I am right. In the end, it really doesn't matter. The 2 have come to a place they feel they have irresolvable issue with each other. If the player backs down, he will always fell he was cheated and attitudes between them will get worse, and in the end there is a good chance this issue could break the game. Sadly, the same is true if the dm backs off his stance at this point.
If things have stopped being fun, that means there is a problem. That does not mean the problem cannot be resolved, nor that either side has even attempted to resolve the issue.
And the, "Burn the heathen! Kick 'em out!" mentality is a poisonous mindset that is a plague upon the community. It fosters this mindset that conflict is bad, and it's better to kick someone out than try to work with them, to resolve the actual conflict. It stifles communication and sidelines utilization of those basic interpersonal skills that gamers so desperately need to hone.
It's always of vital importance that you actually attempt to resolve the problem first. Due diligence and all that rot. What makes the situation most fun for everyone involved? Actually coming to a conclusion that allows everyone to play. If you kick PiQ out, he's not playing, and you're losing whatever contributions he has to the game.
And do note, odds are the guy is making real contributions to the game, and has this handful of practices and modes that grate on folks' nerves. Address the practices and modes, and all that remains is a contributing player.
If things don't work out, they don't work out, but you have to put forth the effort, you have to try to work together, to understand each other, to see eye-to-eye. The entire process isn't about backing down or being right or breaking anyone. It's about working together to create a game that works for everyone. There is such a thing as a win/win scenario. The key is actually looking for it, discussing what each side really wants out of the game long-term, and finding that common ground. It's a basic aspect of life.
DO NOT TALK TO THE PLAYER.
Let the other players talk to Mr. Hole.
You are already in an adversarial relationship with Jack about your game (talking down to you, whining, etcetera).
If you talk to him, as soon as the first mildly objectionable word comes out of your mouth, his defensive walls will go up and you'll get abso-[CENSORED]-lutely nowhere.
Oh, you should be there. But as a mediator.
Let the other players explain how Jack Hole is ruining their game.
You should just be there to keep things civil.
It makes it a lot less adversarial and maybe he'll get the idea.
Why do I suggest this? Well, I had a game where Harrold Paul Ness was cheating (changing die rolls, altering wizard spells memorized on the fly, reading Savage Tide while we're playing it, that sort of thing).
This went on for a while (he's another player's brother). I talked to all the other players about how ole Harry P. was playing.
Nobody else liked it. We agreed that they would all be there while I talked to Mr. Ness.
The fateful day came, I started talking, Harry got defensive and all the other players left the table (because, they told me later, they get uncomfortable around confrontation), leaving me to hash it out.
Other than D&D, Harry was a good friend. Harry hosted the party where I met my wife; that's how good a friend.
Harry hasn't spoken to me since that night.
I should have let the others do the talking.
And so should you.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
You may find some aspects of Pun Pun at his zenith, dubious, but the fundamental premises are undeniable in RAW and can perfectly legally get a kobold and a familiar with arbitrarily high stats.
That "W" stands for "written." That which is not written is not a part of the rules as written, by definition. RAI incorporates implication and intent. RAW does not.
you have Divine Crusader advancing that domain
RAW is not some thing in a vacuum that just because you say it means X does not prevent it from meaning Y.
Please don't insult me by throwing in RAI which is irrelevant to this discussion.
Rules as Written means the rules can be read to say something. What words are emphasized change the meaning of the paragraph, since every book has imprecise language. About the only things where RAW can never be debated are mathematically things (such as a Medium Longsword in the hands of a Human naked deals 1d8 damage on successful hits.)
Things like Extra Spell depend on interpreting the RAW and the meaning of the rule depends on your interpretation of the rules. This has nothing to do with intent (RAI) but if the DM cares about the "spirit" of the game he may entertain RAI. This belongs in a game at a table, but not on these boards. The only thing that matters here is the rules as written.
Unless I misread, he wanted the DC levels to advance both the DC domains and the Cleric domains. By my RAW the DC would advance the Domain powers of the DC's domains (such as taking Contemplative for a bonus domain) for every DC level he takes. But levels in Cleric/Contemplative/RSoP/etc wouldn't advance domain powers of the Cleric levels or the DC levels.
I will never understand the idea of the DM is boss, and if you don't like it go home.
I will not play in a game where any player debates the DM. I resent it. I don't want to waste my time listening to another player be rude. So I can never understand the idea of "I'll be rude until I get the DM to let me do anything I want" mentality. I run 1 game every other week. I play in 3.5 games a week as a player.
I will never understand the idea of the DM is boss, and if you don't like it go home.I will not play in a game where any player debates the DM. I resent it. I don't want to waste my time listening to another player be rude. So I can never uunderstand the idea of...
Who said anything about being rude? Now if the player is being a jerk because he does not agree with you, that is one thing, but to think another person can't offer their opinion as to why you may be incorrect is another thing altogether.
If you were not saying you would bounce a player for questioning you(at the right time*) I misunderstood, but as of now it seems like you are saying it is your way or no way at all, no questions asked.
*this varies from situation to situation
Please don't insult me by throwing in RAI which is irrelevant to this discussion.
Except it's all you're talking about. If you're talking about my sister's cherry allergy but keep saying blueberry, it's not an insult to correct you and say it's cherries.
Rules as Written means the rules can be read to say something. What words are emphasized change the meaning of the paragraph, since every book has imprecise language. About the only things where RAW can never be debated are mathematically things (such as a Medium Longsword in the hands of a Human naked deals 1d8 damage on successful hits.)
Things like Extra Spell depend on interpreting the RAW and the meaning of the rule depends on your interpretation of the rules. This has nothing to do with intent (RAI) but if the DM cares about the "spirit" of the game he may entertain RAI. This belongs in a game at a table, but not on these boards. The only thing that matters here is the rules as written.
Absolutely not!
Rules as written are about the written words. Nothing more, nothing less. The letters on the page, taken as literally as possible. That's what RAW means. Nothing more, nothing less. The words on the page are the absolute extent of RAW. If it is not a word on the page, it is not a part of RAW. If you are drawing on words not printed in order to make your own interpretation, that is not RAW. By RAW, you can have two kobolds with Assume Supernatural Ability grant each other all kinds of crazy superpowers and godly stats, but that's not an interaction that was ever meant to happen.
RAI is extremely relevant in this case, as it's what you're talking about. RAI is rules as intended, or rules as interpreted. This is where you say, "No, these abilities are not meant to interact this way." "No, this constraint is not actually stated, but I believe it to be implicit."
And if it's implicit, then it cannot, by the definition of the very word "written," ever be a part of RAW. RAW is the explicit portion of the rules. There is no, "my RAW," or, "your RAW," or, "her RAW," or, "their RAW." There is one and only one RAW. That is the fundamental purpose of the term RAW. There are debates on what, precisely, might be RAW, as often the precise language can be vague, however, in this case, the RAW itself is unusably vague and only interpretations can exist. A case where the written rule is quite clear, but is missing a clause or constraint that you think should be there does not change the very clear words written on the page.
Going back to Extra Spell, the feat allows you to learn one spell up to one level lower than the highest level of spell you can currently cast. That is the entirety of the written constraints on Extra Spell. Heal is a level 6 spell. A level 15 Wizard can cast level 8 spells. For a level 15 Wizard, Heal is one spell up to one level lower than the highest level of spell the Wizard can cast, therefore, by RAW, the Wizard can use Extra Spell to learn Heal. It meets every single written requirement in the feat. It's undeniable, by RAW.
If you claim that it is implicit that the extra spell can only come from your class's own spell list, that is a statement of designer intent, that is an interpretation, that is RAI. It is entirely possible to make a case that Extra Spell was only intended to apply to spells on your class spell list, but again, that's interpretation. The written text does not explicitly include that clause.
RAI is in no way inferior to RAW, and to state that an interpretation is RAI is not RAW is not an insult. Playing by the strictest RAW is likely to end very badly, as RAW removes that intelligent, human regulatory element. RAI is an absolutely necessary thing, but it is vitally important to understand that your interpretations are not a part of the paper on the page. It is important to understand that what is written and what you believe are two completely separate things.
Unless I misread, he wanted the DC levels to advance both the DC domains and the Cleric domains. By my RAW the DC would advance the Domain powers of the DC's domains (such as taking Contemplative for a bonus domain) for every DC level he takes. But levels in Cleric/Contemplative/RSoP/etc wouldn't advance domain powers of the Cleric levels or the DC levels.
RAW, in this case, really doesn't matter; the player was asking for a houserule and got whiny about it. Whininess is not a mortal sin, mind. Just an annoying habit that can be addressed.
I will not play in a game where any player debates the DM. I resent it. I don't want to waste my time listening to another player be rude. So I can never understand the idea of "I'll be rude until I get the DM to let me do anything I want" mentality. I run 1 game every other week. I play in 3.5 games a week as a player.
If the DM decrees that the troll eighty feet away on the narrow bridge with three armored soldiers in between manages to reach out, grab your crossbow, and break in two without a single attack roll, attack of opportunity, sunder roll, or anything, the player has every right to object then and there. In fact, you are not rude to do so, and you're practically morally obligated to object because the DM just blatantly screwed you over without basis. In this case, the DM is wrong.
There are times when it is perfectly acceptable to call the DM out. There are times it is perfectly acceptable to debate the DM. And there are times when it's perfectly acceptable to negotiate, to barter, to debate, to analyze, to perform any of a thousand basic elements of logical discourse with the DM. Working together and trying to hammer something out is not being rude, or argumentative, or pestering the DM until she caves. It's a basic aspect of communication.
It only reaches the point of being rude and pestering... when it reaches the point of being rude and pestering.
And if you are not emotionally equipped to handle a game where communication and logical discourse occur, where the DM realizes she is not the almighty god on high handing down unimpeachable decrees from above, that sounds like something worth working on. The ability to work out a disagreement in a more mutual and sophisticated manner than, "Shut up and listen to God," is a vital life skill.
Going back to Extra Spell, the feat allows you to learn one spell up to one level lower than the highest level of spell you can currently cast. That is the entirety of the written constraints on Extra Spell. Heal is a level 6 spell. A level 15 Wizard can cast level 8 spells. For a level 15 Wizard, Heal is one spell up to one level lower than the highest level of spell the Wizard can cast, therefore, by RAW, the Wizard can use Extra Spell to learn Heal. It meets every single written requirement in the feat. It's undeniable, by RAW.
Nope. I see nothing not a single thing written that says you may select something not on your list. You are adding words that are not there. Unless it states you may select a spell not on your caster list then you have no access to spell made for another caster class, so this is not gonna happen. By RAW is never says you may do this, Your GM may allow it but it does not say you can.
I know what power-gaming is, but what is munchkining?I suggest listening to the authority on the matter. Preliminary banter goes on about seven minutes, and touches on the difference between min/maxers, powergamers, and munchkins. They get to powergaming and munchkins around 19:30, though it's more useful in the context of the episode as a whole.
Ah, yes. I definitely know a few "munchkins".
As a matter of fact, I've got one in my group right now...
Going back to Extra Spell, the feat allows you to learn one spell up to one level lower than the highest level of spell you can currently cast. That is the entirety of the written constraints on Extra Spell. Heal is a level 6 spell. A level 15 Wizard can cast level 8 spells. For a level 15 Wizard, Heal is one spell up to one level lower than the highest level of spell the Wizard can cast, therefore, by RAW, the Wizard can use Extra Spell to learn Heal. It meets every single written requirement in the feat. It's undeniable, by RAW.Nope. I see nothing not a single thing written that says you may select something not on your list. You are adding words that are not there. Unless it states you may select a spell not on your caster list then you have no access to spell made for another caster class, so this is not gonna happen. By RAW is never says you may do this, Your GM may allow it but it does not say you can.
As written the feat is very vague, but that could be said of many feats. I think VV is playing devil's advocate with this interpretation. This question and many others from the book of heavily debated topics was finally answered. If it matters to anyone they ruled this feat was still limited to the class in question.
I don't remember if they answered these questions on the on only the site or if they actually put them into the F.A.Q pdf.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Nope. I see nothing not a single thing written that says you may select something not on your list. You are adding words that are not there.
Um, seeker, the feat description doesn't have to explicitly state spells not normally available, any more than it has to explicitly give permission for the caster to select spells that begin with the letter "T", spells from a source other than the Player's Handbook, or spells with a material component. It allows the caster to select a spell, and Heal is a spell.
Nope. I see nothing not a single thing written that says you may select something not on your list. You are adding words that are not there.Um, seeker, the feat description doesn't have to explicitly state spells not normally available, any more than it has to explicitly give permission for the caster to select spells that begin with the letter "T", spells from a source other than the Player's Handbook, or spells with a material component. It allows the caster to select a spell, and Heal is a spell.
Yet is never says you may select a spell not on your list. If it does not come out and state that then, they way I read it is you may not
Under the logic of it just says spell well so does the wizard section it never says you may only pick new spells off only your list. It says "At each new wizard level, she gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that she can cast"
So by RAW either 1. It must state you can take it off another list or 2. A wizard has never been limited to only his list as it's using more or less the same wording.
Like I said it's a GM call and is NOT spelled out as some think it is
|
Under the logic of it just says spell well so does the wizard section it never says you may only pick new spells off only your list. It says "At each new wizard level, she gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that she can cast"
Except that 'wizards cast spells from the wizard's spell list', so it is spelled out what 'she can cast'. That the Extra Spell feat doesn't have that restriction means you can select any spell. Now as RAW you could say 'yes he can add it but it is not on his spell list so you can't cast it' but that's just being obtuse.
Yep but no where does it say in the adding spells you may only gain them from that list. Which was the point. The wording is nearly the same but the class spells out what type of spells you may cast so By RAW no you can not take heal, unless your GM bypasses that rule
Just to be clear
Wording from extra spell
"You learn one additional spell at any level up to one lower than the highest level of spell you can currently cast. Thus, a 4th-level sorcerer (maximum spell level 2nd) gains a new 0-level or 1st-level spell known with which to expand her repertoire."
Wording from gaining spell 3.5 PHB
"At each new wizard level, she gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that she can cast (based on her new wizard level) for her spellbook"
If you notice it never says it's limited to your spell list. Yet one (which as almost the same wording) is assumed to be limited to just that yet the other is not.
So either they both are limited or nether one is limited as no were does it say your new spells must be off your class list. Mostly as they prob did not think they needed to spell it out
Anyhow I am done, I just get tired of seeing it over and over yet zero proof other they the way some folks Choose to read it
I sometimes vette new players by doing character creation with this:
It does a very good job of weeding out the people I *don't* want to play with, and gives everyone else an interesting and mutually acceptable concept to build towards if we switch systems. (About 2/3 of the time, we don't - we have enough fun with Minimus that it's become our 'no real effort required' RPG')
This looks amazing. How does it actually play out? I'm not sure I can wrap my mind around it; so much would seem to be done on the fly. Does it just descend into chaos?
|
|
Anyhow I am done, I just get tired of seeing it over and over yet zero proof other they the way some folks Choose to read it
Are you seekerofirony now, because that seems to be equally appliable to the entire thread. :P
For the record, I would have no problem making the cleric need a prayerbook, and have his spells limited as the wizard does. And then abolish the spell list divisions.
Most threads really :) kinda why ya have GM's someones got to make the call. The more ya got always from 3.5 core the worse it seemed to get with stuff being vague and unclear. It happens
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Yet is never says you may select a spell not on your list. If it does not come out and state that then, they way I read it is you may not.
That's fine. That's "the way [you] read it." That's a good interpretation. That's a sensible position.
But it is not rules-as-written. Rules-as-written would have specified one way or the other whether the new spell has to be on the caster's spell lists. It doesn't say one way or the other, so you have to use your judgement and decide how you want your game to run. That's what makes it an interpretation, rather than rules-as-written.
I don't know how I can be clearer on this.
That's fine. That's "the way [you] read it." That's a good interpretation. That's a sensible position.
But it is not rules-as-written. Rules-as-written would have specified one way or the other whether the new spell has to be on the caster's spell lists. It doesn't say one way or the other, so you have to use your judgement and decide how you want your game to run. That's what makes it an interpretation, rather than rules-as-written.
I don't know how I can be clearer on this.
Then by RAW a wizard may pick any spell of a level he can cast at a new level,. Same wording.
Your interpreting it as much as I am BTW
That's fine. That's "the way [you] read it." That's a good interpretation. That's a sensible position.
But it is not rules-as-written. Rules-as-written would have specified one way or the other whether the new spell has to be on the caster's spell lists. It doesn't say one way or the other, so you have to use your judgement and decide how you want your game to run. That's what makes it an interpretation, rather than rules-as-written.
I don't know how I can be clearer on this.
Then by RAW a wizard may pick any spell of a level he can cast at a new level,. Same wording.
Your interpreting it as much as I am BTW
I think the issue is the feat says one spell not normally available or something similar, so it was taken as "I can choose any spell I want". 3.5 had a bad habit of not separating fluff from crunch.
edit:edited for clarification
I agree, you need to double check that stuff.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Who said anything about being rude?
If I as a player question the DM's call, present my case, and the DM declines to change his position then I am being rude to continue the issue.
Except it's all you're talking about.
Rules as written are about the written words.
RAI is extremely relevant in this case, as it's what you're talking about.
Going back to Extra Spell ... It's undeniable, by RAW.
I am not talking about RAI, and if you persist in saying I'm talking about RAI, I shall ignore those references. I only discuss RAW on boards unless I'm making a comment about what a DM might do in a game (such as entertain RAI.) I am not making a reference to how a DM should rule in this thread, only to how the rules are written.
RAW is limited in scope to the words written on the page, and as words have meanings (no English sentence can be understood without interpretation of the meaning) you end up with the meaning of the words printed on the page.
The fact that you choose to interpret the rules (like the Extra Spell issue) by inserting words into the page (like for instances "from any class list") doesn't help prove that you are not interpreting the rules as written.
This question and many others from the book of heavily debated topics was finally answered. If it matters to anyone they ruled this feat was still limited to the class in question.
I don't remember if they answered these questions on the on only the site or if they actually put them into the F.A.Q pdf.
They didn't put it in the FAQ (as they had already stopped publishing FAQ when they posted this last batch to the website.)
WotC answering this question in the FAQ (or website) is going back to RAI.
Technically, by RAW there are two answers.
You can take Heal as a Wizard if you choose to ignore the rules in the Wizard's class writeup (that he can only cast spells from the Wizard spell book) or
you can not take Heal as a Wizard if you choose to enforce the rules in the Wizard class write up (that he can only cast spells on the Wizard spell list and since Extra Spell doesn't say the spell can come from any class list it can not come from any class list.)
Pick one, but if you then you just interpreted the rules as written.
This is why I always wished WotC had published the FAQ as errata or publish more errata. It is sad that text has multiple interpretations, but it is more sad that the publisher doesn't address these issues in a way that makes the RAW unambiguous.
It doesn't say one way or the other, so you have to use your judgement and decide how you want your game to run. That's what makes it an interpretation, rather than rules-as-written.
No, that is what makes it Rules as Written. Since there is no such thing as a rule that which is not interpreted. The DM must read the rule and interpret the meaning of the not. Not "how he wants it in his game", but the actual meaning of the rule.
You can't assert that your interpretation is any more valid than another, without being stubborn. You also can't prove that your interpretation is the only way to read the text.
Since there is no such thing as a rule that which is not interpreted.
"Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200."
HEY PEOPLE!
HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEY!
Get the hell back on topic!
You are hijacking this thread with a discussion belonging on the WotC rules section.
Have some consideration for the OP.
HEY PEOPLE!
HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEY!
Get the hell back on topic!
You are hijacking this thread with a discussion belonging on the WotC rules section.Have some consideration for the OP.
Agreed!
Go project your issues with your DM elsewhere! The OP has already responded! To kill players or not...
there was on page one anyhow
There have been a few occasions where a player's character was purposely killed in my games. These were planned out ahead of time with the player, never done in spite. Usually the player tells me about a new PC they want to run, and we come up with a way to lose the old one. Sometimes, it just makes sense in the story, and "needs" to happen to reinforce the threat of the bad guys. This has made for some really fun and interesting plot changes in the games (my games are very story heavy) and keep the others players on their toes.
The only time I've seen players get killed are in 3 situations:
1) The party completely ignores a major role/capability and I build my adventure to assume they have that role.
2) The players make a ridiculously poor decision that, after the game, everyone agrees that their character deserved to die.
3) The players face an extremely dangerous/deadly encounter. It's usually expected that a character or two will get killed by this. . . but that's no surprise.
In the case of 1, this is more or less bad DMing. Why build an adventure to exploit the party's weakness?. For instance, I ran a 3.5 one-shot where the players built their characters in secret from each other. I just happened to make a BBEG that the players simply could not deal with (a beguiler ghost) given their party makeup and character design choices. Moral of the story: don't allow players to build characters in a vacuum -- the DM should always be a part of the character creation process.
For case 2, there's not much you can do as a DM other than give "vibes" that a decision is very poor. "Are you really sure you want to do that?" Many times characters die this way completely unnecessarily. Sometimes class/feat abilities are ignored, options are forgotten, and significant clues are brushed to the side. When a DM gives a clue, you better get it.
I think in the case of your annoying character, killing him off is the wrong way to go about it. Unless he does something particularly dumb or silly in the game, it's bad DM form. A truly evil DM wouldn't go about things this way. . .
However, a particularly crafty DM can tailor an adventure to exploit the behaviors of a player into making a dumb decision. For instance, if you know a character is going to act a certain dumb/annoying way in a given situation, you can make it a particularly deadly encounter and let the character kill himself. This is more "teaching the player a lesson" than killing off a character you don't like. As long as everyone agrees that the character deserved to die, what's the harm? (:
Legal counsel for Mr. Tarvocke is advising him to remain silent on this issue until such time as the court case has cleared.
There is also some dispute over the CR of the player he killed and whether he got enough XPs to level and take another rank in "Law".
Has anything happend in your campaign yet?
Did you talk to him?
Have others talk to him?
Kill him?
LOL
We often play with friends, or make friends of our co-players. Our friends, much like our families, have annoying traits that can really drive us nuts. And we have traits that drive them nuts. That's life.
But you can't change your friends, and have no right to enforce them to change their ways unless it's bad behavior. Even then, sometimes, it can be tough to get people to change BB. Simply telling one of them "that stuff you do, it really pisses me off" can be tough, or even kill friendships if done often enough. It's hard to find gaming groups in some places, and harder to find ones that can get together once jobs/kids/spouses enter the picture.
When a player-character is frustrating me, I concentrate on making that character the center stage for a while. I can throw good stuff at them, then pummel them in the name of plot, and feel better about it afterwards.
When a player is frustrating me, I tend to talk to them about it if I can. When I can't, I try to vent to a trustworthy friend about it to get the steam out from under the collar.
I do, by the way, protest that the DM is not the boss. My workload as a DM/GM/ST for any game I run is huge compared to the players. It's my effort by far making the game happen, so if someone needs to be final word, it's got the be the one who's put the most time in. But the group is responsible for making the fun, drama and entertainment happen, so much like an acting troupe, "we're all in this together, but the Director has the final say".
The entire munchkin problem can be solved if you have control of the character sheets...and they never ever see them...they give you concepts you flesh out the character, the stats, everything...they never get to see the magic items, hit points or feats...
Then the game becomes about storytelling and not about rolls.
This is the hardest way to DM, but pretty fulfilling.
Try it sometime...
The entire munchkin problem can be solved if you have control of the character sheets...and they never ever see them...they give you concepts you flesh out the character, the stats, everything...they never get to see the magic items, hit points or feats...
Yeah, in the same way that the problem of toys being broken can be solved with not letting your little kids play with them. They tell you what toys they want, and what the toys should do, and you play with them for the kids, who sit behind a window and call directions.
Might as well just go back to playing pretend on the school yard.
The entire munchkin problem can be solved if you have control of the character sheets...and they never ever see them...they give you concepts you flesh out the character, the stats, everything...they never get to see the magic items, hit points or feats...
Then the game becomes about storytelling and not about rolls.
This is the hardest way to DM, but pretty fulfilling.
Try it sometime...
Fulfilling for who i might ask? How exactly do the players get connected with their characters if they have no idea what they are capable of? How is a battle exciting? Hell how do you actually have a combat?
DM: You enter a room with a large ogre standing in the middle, he calls out "You will die for disturbing my chambers!"
Player: Um, I attack him with my um, sword? Do i have a sword?
DM: No you have an axe
Player: Ok I attack him with my ax swinging with both hands!
DM: Its a hand ax, you also have a shield.
Player: Oh, ok, I approach with my shield held high to protect me from the ogre as I swing my axe.
DM: Its a tower shield
Yea... lots of fun and really fufilling.... And I cant WAIT to see how the wizards turn goes. "Have I preped grease?" No. "Glitterdust?" No. "Um, fireball?" No.
The entire munchkin problem can be solved if you have control of the character sheets...and they never ever see them...they give you concepts you flesh out the character, the stats, everything...they never get to see the magic items, hit points or feats...
Then the game becomes about storytelling and not about rolls.
This is the hardest way to DM, but pretty fulfilling.
Try it sometime...
Fulfilling for who i might ask? How exactly do the players get connected with their characters if they have no idea what they are capable of? How is a battle exciting? Hell how do you actually have a combat?
DM: You enter a room with a large ogre standing in the middle, he calls out "You will die for disturbing my chambers!"
Player: Um, I attack him with my um, sword? Do i have a sword?
DM: No you have an axe
Player: Ok I attack him with my ax swinging with both hands!
DM: Its a hand ax, you also have a shield.
Player: Oh, ok, I approach with my shield held high to protect me from the ogre as I swing my axe.
DM: Its a tower shieldYea... lots of fun and really fufilling.... And I cant WAIT to see how the wizards turn goes. "Have I preped grease?" No. "Glitterdust?" No. "Um, fireball?" No.
Wow...I'm loathe to actually respond to that aggressive response...
The DM does NOT control every aspect of the character, the player still makes decisions as to what spells, equipment, etc.
Your lack of imagination in this case is stunning...
The biggest thing is keeping the "NUMBERS" secret, if a player knows they have 1 hit point left they act entirely differently than if you tell them they're bleeding profusely from numerous wounds.
Wizards still choose what spells they have. The characters still say I have a longsword...etc...sheesh!
The entire munchkin problem can be solved if you have control of the character sheets...and they never ever see them...they give you concepts you flesh out the character, the stats, everything...they never get to see the magic items, hit points or feats...Yeah, in the same way that the problem of toys being broken can be solved with not letting your little kids play with them. They tell you what toys they want, and what the toys should do, and you play with them for the kids, who sit behind a window and call directions.
Might as well just go back to playing pretend on the school yard.
Never played in a D&D game like that KaeYoss?
I said "try it" not attack it...
One of the major problems with my players not "role-playing" when there's a bunch of minis in front of them, and character sheets there, is it devolves into a tactical wargame, not a role-playing game...
YMMV
Wow...I'm loathe to actually respond to that aggressive response...
The DM does NOT control every aspect of the character, the player still makes decisions as to what spells, equipment, etc.
Your lack of imagination in this case is stunning...
The biggest thing is keeping the "NUMBERS" secret, if a player knows they have 1 hit point left they act entirely differently than if you tell them they're bleeding profusely from numerous wounds.
Wizards still choose what spells they have. The characters still say I have a longsword...etc...sheesh!
I apologize if i was overly aggressive, but to me at least your response came off a little high and mighty, the whole 'Try it sometime" implies superiority in my view. If i was mistaken I apologize.
As for my comments, you said "if you have control of the character sheets...and they never ever see them...they give you concepts you flesh out the character, the stats, everything...they never get to see the magic items, hit points or feats..."
Generally gear is recorded on the character sheet. If they never see any of that, I at least would forget what I was carrying after a while. Same thing with spells known or prepared. Especially if its been a few weeks between sessions.
In addition you said they never see magic items and feats specifically. How would a character use something like vital strike, cleave, or any other specific action driven abilities?
As for keeping the numbers secret, hit points are one thing, I have seen that kept seperately, and can make for an interesting bit of gameplay, but it does lead to alot more player death. After all who is to say what bleeding perfusely really means? I dont know anyone who doesnt bleed perfusely after being stabbed with a sword, but to a level 15 fighter it might be like a paper cut. Its hard to use something like that in a system as abstract as the d20 hit point system.
In addition I still think players should know what they are good at. While I may not know in reality what the numerical bonus of my bluff check is, or my attack bonus, I do know generally how good I am at those things. I know that i am handy with a sword, or if i am a good lier, or how strong, smart, fast etc I am. The game's numbers are an abstraction to what we already know about ourselves in real (or fake) life. The key there is not knowing the difficulty of the result. While I know my to hit bonus, i dont know the ac of the monster, so that lack of knowledge is still present, I just have a ballpark figure like i would in real life. Adding the extra ambiguity doesnt make any sense except to make things more difficult for the players, which to me is poor dming. Perhaps you have had a significant problem with metagaming or powergaming, but i would rather deal with the problem directly then take away from my players experience or connection to their characters.
And perhaps you are more capable then anyone I have ever seen dm, but it is inconceivable to me that you are able to accurately track the abilities of the whole party and all the enemies and allies in an encounter by yourself in something resembling a timely fashion. Personally I always delegate as much as I can, such as assigning a player to track initiative order (they are going to see when the monsters go anyway). If you can really pull this off, my hat is off to you, but I would never do it.
Personally I understand what you are trying to accomplish, but it is far and away from my preferenc. I wouldnt enjoy playing in your game because the mechanical parts of a character are what inspire my characters personality and behavior, especially early in their career. I would be at a lose in your game.
One of the major problems with my players not "role-playing" when there's a bunch of minis in front of them, and character sheets there, is it devolves into a tactical wargame, not a role-playing game...
YMMV
It can be a problem if players treat it that way, but in the end that is a player/dm problem not a problem with the game itself. If your players are treating it like a tactical wargame, then its because the WANT to treat it that way. Sure if you want a role play then rollplay you should try to encourage it, but in the end part of your job as dm is to take into account how your players want to play in addition to how you want to play. To take away their toys because they arent playing the way you want them to seems petty to me.
I'd also like to point out that the game we play's origins are in tactical wargaming. The game part was there before the roleplaying. It is roleplaying but it is also a game, and part of the experience is rolling the dice and the excitement the comes along with a d20 roll. The game may become more narative, but it loses all the feel of fluidity and of the players actually participating in the world instead of just observing it.
Wow...I'm loathe to actually respond to that aggressive response...
The DM does NOT control every aspect of the character, the player still makes decisions as to what spells, equipment, etc.
Your lack of imagination in this case is stunning...
The biggest thing is keeping the "NUMBERS" secret, if a player knows they have 1 hit point left they act entirely differently than if you tell them they're bleeding profusely from numerous wounds.
Wizards still choose what spells they have. The characters still say I have a longsword...etc...sheesh!
I apologize if i was overly aggressive, but to me at least your response came off a little high and mighty, the whole 'Try it sometime" implies superiority in my view. If i was mistaken I apologize.
As for my comments, you said "if you have control of the character sheets...and they never ever see them...they give you concepts you flesh out the character, the stats, everything...they never get to see the magic items, hit points or feats..."
Generally gear is recorded on the character sheet. If they never see any of that, I at least would forget what I was carrying after a while. Same thing with spells known or prepared. Especially if its been a few weeks between sessions.
In addition you said they never see magic items and feats specifically. How would a character use something like vital strike, cleave, or any other specific action driven abilities?
As for keeping the numbers secret, hit points are one thing, I have seen that kept seperately, and can make for an interesting bit of gameplay, but it does lead to alot more player death. After all who is to say what bleeding perfusely really means? I dont know anyone who doesnt bleed perfusely after being stabbed with a sword, but to a level 15 fighter it might be like a paper cut. Its hard to use something like that in a system as abstract as the d20 hit point system.
In addition I still think players should know what they are good at. While I...
It's a different type of game, I did type it poorly at first, I meant that the characters don't see the mechanical aspects of the game, yes, they would know they have the feats, and equipment, but it removes the number crunching...
It takes a LOT of book-keeping and organization to pull off, and I don't do it all the time...I CAN'T even run a game currently since I'm working two jobs, and my time is nil..I don't even have time to work on my combat supplement for PFRPG.
NOTE: I meant "Try it out" as a helpful suggestion, not as me being high & mighty...the internet is very good at screwing up emotional implications.
One of the major problems with my players not "role-playing" when there's a bunch of minis in front of them, and character sheets there, is it devolves into a tactical wargame, not a role-playing game...
YMMV
It can be a problem if players treat it that way, but in the end that is a player/dm problem not a problem with the game itself. If your players are treating it like a tactical wargame, then its because the WANT to treat it that way. Sure if you want a role play then rollplay you should try to encourage it, but in the end part of your job as dm is to take into account how your players want to play in addition to how you want to play. To take away their toys because they arent playing the way you want them to seems petty to me.
I'd also like to point out that the game we play's origins are in tactical wargaming. The game part was there before the roleplaying. It is roleplaying but it is also a game, and part of the experience is rolling the dice and the excitement the comes along with a d20 roll. The game may become more narative, but it loses all the feel of fluidity and of the players actually participating in the world instead of just observing it.
Oh I know, I started playing in 83, Monty Haul games of the pre-teen years...
It's a different type of game, I did type it poorly at first, I meant that the characters don't see the mechanical aspects of the game, yes, they would know they have the feats, and equipment, but it removes the number crunching...
It takes a LOT of book-keeping and organization to pull off, and I don't do it all the time...I CAN'T even run a game currently since I'm working two jobs, and my time is nil..I don't even have time to work on my combat supplement for PFRPG.
NOTE: I meant "Try it out" as a helpful suggestion, not as me being high & mighty...the internet is very good at screwing up emotional implications.
Well its not the solution I would go with, and I likely wouldnt play in the game myself, i am less inclined to advocate for your players civil rights then i was originally. If it works for you and your players go for it, but I still think you should be sure it works for the players too.
Well its not the solution I would go with, and I likely wouldnt play in the game myself, i am less inclined to advocate for your players civil rights then i was originally. If it works for you and your players go for it, but I still think you should be sure it works for the players too.It's a different type of game, I did type it poorly at first, I meant that the characters don't see the mechanical aspects of the game, yes, they would know they have the feats, and equipment, but it removes the number crunching...
It takes a LOT of book-keeping and organization to pull off, and I don't do it all the time...I CAN'T even run a game currently since I'm working two jobs, and my time is nil..I don't even have time to work on my combat supplement for PFRPG.
NOTE: I meant "Try it out" as a helpful suggestion, not as me being high & mighty...the internet is very good at screwing up emotional implications.
Agreed...but like I said, you should try it at least once...
I have tried new house rules with my players that I have dropped due to them not liking the rule, and others they love...I also like to discuss the game after the session.
Well its not the solution I would go with, and I likely wouldnt play in the game myself, i am less inclined to advocate for your players civil rights then i was originally. If it works for you and your players go for it, but I still think you should be sure it works for the players too.It's a different type of game, I did type it poorly at first, I meant that the characters don't see the mechanical aspects of the game, yes, they would know they have the feats, and equipment, but it removes the number crunching...
It takes a LOT of book-keeping and organization to pull off, and I don't do it all the time...I CAN'T even run a game currently since I'm working two jobs, and my time is nil..I don't even have time to work on my combat supplement for PFRPG.
NOTE: I meant "Try it out" as a helpful suggestion, not as me being high & mighty...the internet is very good at screwing up emotional implications.
Agreed...but like I said, you should try it at least once...
I have tried new house rules with my players that I have dropped due to them not liking the rule, and others they love...I also like to discuss the game after the session.
Sounds like a lot of work for me as the DM. That is definitely something I don't need more of. :D
The entire munchkin problem can be solved if you have control of the character sheets...and they never ever see them...they give you concepts you flesh out the character, the stats, everything...they never get to see the magic items, hit points or feats...
Try it sometime...
Assembles an angry mob to meet you for that bit of nonsense.
Edit: The mob will disperse if your players agreed to them before hand, and it was not something you forced upon them.