Fork away!
I call it: Fork-Fu.
|
oh pet peeves, well the two main big ones (appart from what has already been said):
1) players complaining when the DM (me) tries to even out the party because they are no longer the strongest/most munchkin/glass cannon with a forcefield in the group (especially when they are by miles...)
2)the party taking 3 hours discussing battle formation to rescue their fallen comrade and start fighting each other over who should enter the room first especially since it wouldn't really matter (only 1 monster that is slowly killing their team mate)
unfortunatly it happens enough to become an issue :(
|
uh, ponies...yeah..
back on topic from the creepiness...
The player who takes out his anger on the DMPC by stealing from said DMPC for his own character losing a gem in an illusion. "DM take from me, I take from DM's PC" The other three people at the table looked at him in disbelief. I mean, he's an ass, but..really? ...for one thing, it was only a 200gp gem and we were 12-13th lvl in a game with lots of loot.
(I was another player)
That's so much cooler than swordchucks!*applauds*
<elvis> thankyouthankyouthankyouverymuchmumblemumble </elvis>
Not only can I stab an opponent, I can eat dinner too. Simultaneously. I just got to make sure I have that BAB +6 and the appropriate TWF feats.
*swish* *twirls* *stabs* *chomps*
|
|
That's so much cooler than swordchucks!*applauds*
<elvis> thankyouthankyouthankyouverymuchmumblemumble </elvis>
Not only can I stab an opponent, I can eat dinner too. Simultaneously. I just got to make sure I have that BAB +6 and the appropriate TWF feats.
*swish* *twirls* *stabs* *chomps*
** spoiler omitted **
Form, fashion and function, all in one Exotic Weapon Feat!
The player who takes out his anger on the DMPC ..
That reminds me of another one. DMPCs. Especially ones that are more powerful than the PCs are allowed to be. As an NPC, for one small set of encounters, relevant to that NPC's story, sure, bring him along. We could use the help. But playing a character in his own game makes me think less of a DM/GM in nine cases out of ten. You better be a damned good DM to make it work.
That reminds me of another one. DMPCs. Especially ones that are more powerful than the PCs are allowed to be. As an NPC, for one small set of encounters, relevant to that NPC's story, sure, bring him along. We could use the help. But playing a character in his own game makes me think less of a DM/GM in nine cases out of ten. You better be a damned good DM to make it work.
The player who takes out his anger on the DMPC ..
Yeah, especially when its the GM's pet character who he writes terrible 'is so awesome fiction' about, then has him be around double the party level. But, oh, you should have seen this GM's face when a girl we were playing with, who was new to the game met this GMPC, and decided she had better things to do, because he was kind of a lame a@%@*!+.
Magnificent! The game fell apart a little bit after that.
When players want you to run (GM) yet again but wont
a) stick to your suggested character type/ campaign theme
b) do any reading (of the game system or the setting information which you purchased / made)
|
|
I have to write in favor of DMPCs. I personally cannot handle one, but I have seen it effectively done a few times, by one specific DM.
The DM does not have another DM to run while he is playing. He usually nerfs his character by multiclassing, essentially filling roles that aren't filled by the PCs.
In runelords we needed a rogue & a healer, so he made a rogue/cleric/divine trickster.
In second darkness we needed a fighter type and a more rounded arcane caster (I was playing a enchantment sorcerer). He ended up making a barbarian/wizard/eldritch knight.
His characters almost NEVER shine and are basically constant npcs who get a share of loot. Since he multiclasses into prestige classes, he doesn't get access to the highest level spells and doesn't do the most damage.
DMPCs in his game get less XP than normal (staying a level or two behind), and only take loot that is very useful to that character.
Actually NPCs that really pull their weight often get the last pick in loot. Most NPCs don't get loot, or only get one small item.
Now, I can not pull off a DMPC. Being a new DM, I have a hard enough time with NPCs, let alone my own character. I'm running Council of Thieves, and I just let the more experienced players run one of the npcs (children of westcrown).
Well I can understand the GM PC, especially when I kept getting drafted as GM and never got to actually play. Never ran one though; I had my hands full with everything else going on.
But then, there is the flipside where all the players want to be warriors and arcane casters, and no one wants to be the rogue or a cleric/druid. Or in Shadowrun, no one wants to be a decker/rigger/hacker. And don't get me started on the loyal, useful, and save-their-ass NPCs who get whacked/denied healing by the PCs.
Well I can understand the GM PC, especially when I kept getting drafted as GM and never got to actually play. Never ran one though; I had my hands full with everything else going on.
But then, there is the flipside where all the players want to be warriors and arcane casters, and no one wants to be the rogue or a cleric/druid. Or in Shadowrun, no one wants to be a decker/rigger/hacker. And don't get me started on the loyal, useful, and save-their-ass NPCs who get whacked/denied healing by the PCs.
To be fair, at least in Shadowrun 2nd Edition, Deckers and Riggers sucked. Your basic equipment was astronomically expensive, which meant that you had to take resources as your top priority to have just plain decent gear. Morever, your skills and money basically all went into your deck and using it, so when it came to combat, you had poor attributes, weren't terribly good with weapons, and generally wound up going last in any given fight. If you made a decker augmented to be better in combat, you often wound up sucking as a hacker. Very often, you wound up being essentially the payload on the way to a gig, until you could find a place to jack into the system, at which point the rest of the team had to cover your ass while you did your bit, then you hid behind them again on the way out.
Riggers? Well, basically once the rest of the team went inside the building, you were either just hanging around in the vehicle and playing lookout, or were tagging along.
Of course, a lot of that was because I felt vehicular combat sucked in 2E as well.
Or in Shadowrun, no one wants to be a decker/rigger/hacker.To be fair, at least in Shadowrun 2nd Edition, Deckers and Riggers sucked. (more salient points)
Yep, but it thankfully got a lot better under 4th edition. Vehicular combat still needs work though. And if the rigger saves his chummers' hoops with an expensive tricked-out ride, chummers should pony up a percentage to maintain and repair it.
And the PCs should treat their PC clerics/druids as more than endless med packs, and their rogues as more than simple trap disarmers.
|
|
I guess my concern with GMPC is that GMPC seems to carry some baggage in and of itself.
To me, there is a significant difference between:
A) An NPC that's a fully evolved character that fills an equal role with the PC's when there aren't enough players.
and
B) A GMPC which is All Powerful, All Knowing and game breaky as b@#$&$~s.
My Beloved Spouse (Kobold chorus: "We love you!") plays many of a) and none of b)
Yeah, especially when its the GM's pet character who he writes terrible 'is so awesome fiction' about, then has him be around double the party level.
Yeah, in fan fiction, that's called the Mary Sue, and I've seen it a few times. I played in a GURPS game that had been running for years with a revolving cast of players, but the GM had been playing his same GMPC since day one. When I joined, I brought my 100-point character into this group where the GMPC had something like 300 points. And the GMPC had the same name as the GM.
Yeah, in fan fiction, that's called the Mary Sue, and I've seen it a few times. I played in a GURPS game that had been running for years with a revolving cast of players, but the GM had been playing his same GMPC since day one. When I joined, I brought my 100-point character into this group where the GMPC had something like 300 points. And the GMPC had the same name as the GM.
Yeah, especially when its the GM's pet character who he writes terrible 'is so awesome fiction' about, then has him be around double the party level.
Well that's sad...
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Yeah, in fan fiction, that's called the Mary Sue, and I've seen it a few times. I played in a GURPS game that had been running for years with a revolving cast of players, but the GM had been playing his same GMPC since day one. When I joined, I brought my 100-point character into this group where the GMPC had something like 300 points. And the GMPC had the same name as the GM.
Yeah, especially when its the GM's pet character who he writes terrible 'is so awesome fiction' about, then has him be around double the party level.
Amusing story in reverse. When I ran a long campaign, I had an NPC known as the Blue Dragon. Insanely clever, planning smug, was always ahead of the party, often conned them into doing his work for him. They hated him with a passion of 1,000 suns...
When our Greyhawk DM took over, I approached him with Shadrach. I explained, "Yes, he's lawful evil, yes he has godhood as a potential goal. Everyone's fought the Blue Dragon, now I want to see if he can become the Blue Dragon." He was also "Matt with all the safties off". By looking at my supervillian as what he could become, it made my first level PC a very interesting challenge.
*sigh* I miss him.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Players who shopw up every week and ask "so which character am I playing?" Seriously, it's one thing when you have memory problems, which one of my players does, but the rest of them just do it to piss me off I think.
I actually had a similar problem like this once, but to be fair, I was playing in 4 weekly games at the time, 2 of which were run by the same DM, and which campaign we played depended on who showed up that day... so yeah, there was actually a good reason to ask that question. :)
|
Some of mine (yes I know that some were already mentioned but I am vetning as well):
1) The player who picks skills and feats without any ryhme or reason just because the rules allow it. I had a player who played a fighter that he dumped a lots of bonuses into "Spellcraft" without any logic as to why (other thean the rules allow for it). I decided to secretly give him a "minchkin penalty of -20 which left him scratching his head as to why the party's Wizard with a lower roll on his spellcraft roll figured out the magic ritual and his character failed.
2) The player whose concept does not fit logic. Same player played a sorcerer with a very high Charisma score but (as per the player's description) refused to bathe because he was a fire elemental Sorcerer and water is fire's enemy yet he was trying to play his character as a "lady's man". He then wondered why his character could never "score" with female NPCs. I explained to him that logically his character's foul body odor; (probably) jacked up skin; and crtitters that stick to dirty skin crawling all over his character's skin, hair and clothing from lack of bathing would turn off anyone. He argued that his character's CHA could overcome all of that. On a personal note I think the player's exposure to dating etiquette (and women in general) was what he saw on porno flicks and Axe Body Wash commercials.
3) Player's who try to play a "non-traditional" character but then try to weasel thier way into traditional roles. One player wanted to play an elf who was raised in a human village and was a Bararian. When he tried to do "traditional elven stuff" and I pointed out that he said that his character was raised by humans, he then said something like "his parents were in the village with him so he could learn the traditional elven stuff" I then ruled that since it takes a villiage to raise a child then he would learn more human stuff than elven (which is why I did not let him multi-class into Wizard when his first level was Barbarian). You see, to me, multi-classing has to make sense!
Anyway that is all that I have time for now!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some of mine (yes I know that some were already mentioned but I am vetning as well):
See, I would tend to side with the players in your examples.
#1 was completely within the rules in making a fighter with ranks in Spellcraft. It was a decision that probably disadvantaged him often, and when it would actually come into play, you punished him for not optimizing.
#2 made a flavor decision that had no real impact on the game, and he got punished for that as well (although not in a mechanical sense).
#3 also made a flavor decision. He was using his PC's background to explain why he was a barbarian. Then you smack him down when he wants to take an action that you disagree with? And you prohibit him from choosing a legal class to level up in? It sounds to me like you're punishing this player for putting some thought and flavor into his character's background.
I'm with Jagyr on this one. It's not good for a DM to too easily get annoyed at player decisions. One who then (ab)uses his authority to punish the players for his own reaction to their choices...?
Thirded. Sorry Kevida but I'd call you the one out of line in those three examples.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
While I agree that the arbitrary penalties are unnecessary and harsh, I would have worked with the players to make sure their concepts made sense. Yes, your fighter can put ranks in Spellcraft. He probably trained as a guard for some mage's school or something and thus needed to learn the workings of magic so that he could tell when something went wrong.
As for the "Axe commercial sorcerer," that's a good flavor idea! Did he have prestidigitation in his spell list? He could use that to clean himself on command. If not, then bear in mind that, as a fantasy-medieval setting, common women are not apt to be turned away by dirt and grime. Most commoners in medieval times were lucky to bathe one or twice a YEAR because plumbing is non-existant.
And for the elven barbarian, it's perfectly reasonable for his parents to have taught him elven tradition that just didn't really take until he finally decided to buckle down and become a wizard. The choice of being a barbarian probably came from his interaction with the humans in the village, particularly in response to maybe being bullied as a child for being "different."
Of course, the level of magic in your particular game world will determine relative levels of cleanliness. For example, a high-magic world where magic hot and cold running water and plumbing, a town sewage system that uses magic to filter and purify the water, etc, would have much higher levels of hygiene than standard. Likewise, charms of prestidigition, even the equivalent of "stylists" who are low-level wizards or sorcerors who can use Prestidigitation as a method of magically cleansing people would be sought after.
|
|
Some of mine (yes I know that some were already mentioned but I am vetning as well):See, I would tend to side with the players in your examples.
#1 was completely within the rules in making a fighter with ranks in Spellcraft. It was a decision that probably disadvantaged him often, and when it would actually come into play, you punished him for not optimizing.
#2 made a flavor decision that had no real impact on the game, and he got punished for that as well (although not in a mechanical sense).
#3 also made a flavor decision. He was using his PC's background to explain why he was a barbarian. Then you smack him down when he wants to take an action that you disagree with? And you prohibit him from choosing a legal class to level up in? It sounds to me like you're punishing this player for putting some thought and flavor into his character's background.
I really didn't have time to explain to well because I am at work. I'll go into more detail later but the bottom line was munchkining and "roll"-playing (as opposed to "role"-playing) was happening but if you allow it in your campaigns...okay. For the record I DO allow AND reward original thinking (for those of you who want to make rash judgments about me without all of the facts)!
|
|
I really didn't have time to explain to well because I am at work. I'll go into more detail later but the bottom line was munchkining and "roll"-playing (as opposed to "role"-playing) was happening but if you allow it in your campaigns...okay. For the record I DO allow AND reward original thinking (for those of you who want to make rash judgments about me without all of the facts)!
I'm not trying to slam you, because as you said I don't have all of the facts, but I'm not sure how the first example you provided could have been "munchkining." Since Spellcraft is a cross-class skill for fighters, it costs two points to buy one rank, so he should already have been penalized for doing it by the book. Most munchkins I know wouldn't be willing to take that penalty.
the bottom line was munchkining and "roll"-playing (as opposed to "role"-playing) was happening
The fact that you talk about those things as if they're mutually contradictory says something, though.
the bottom line was munchkining and "roll"-playing (as opposed to "role"-playing) was happeningThe fact that you talk about those things as if they're mutually contradictory says something, though.
I'd say ease off a bit and give him a chance to explain. While I do think he went overboard(especially in the case of #1), but he may have had a good reason, especially since there is a chance that the player from examples 1-3 may have all been the same guy. Flavor is VERY important, but let's not go bleeding heart on it- a thinly-veiled grab at power(or whatever you want to call it) makes the game harder for everyone involved. I've certainly been there before, at least in terms of situation #3.
|
I'd say ease off a bit and give him a chance to explain.
I say the exact opposite. He's had two posts to explain why he was messing with his players choices for no other reason than spite. He chose to get huffy because we didn't crow and pat him on the back for how he handled his ebil munchkins. While I agree on some points with him, I find other parts of his strategy to be dishonest. And if he doesn't have time to write out a proper explanation (cause he should be working. :P ) he should say he'll explain fully when he has more time.
The fact that you talk about those things as if they're mutually contradictory says something, though.
Sometimes they are. Mr. Fishy understand powergamers, Mr. Fish isn't one but Mr. Fishy is an accepting fish.
Mr. Fishy is a not understanding of munchkins Mr. Fishy hates munchkins, (MUNCHKIN- Jerk that writes a character to disrupt, annoy or break a game or rule.) MR. Fishy had a player who took a cursed item accepted the curse and then wanted to ditch the character when the bachlash is greater than the gain. IT WAS A CURSED PLOT ITEM... Mr. Fishy ask that you play with in the spirit of the rules not hide behind them. If you have to use a rule to defend your point then your DM has a right to call you on it. That does mean that Mr. Fishy will punish a munchkin with penalties or a horrible death, no Mr. Fishy will out munchkin you and embarass and torment your munchkin butt.Mr. Fishy is a vengeful fish.
I'd say ease off a bit and give him a chance to explain.I say the exact opposite. He's had two posts to explain why he was messing with his players choices for no other reason than spite. He chose to get huffy because we didn't crow and pat him on the back for how he handled his ebil munchkins. While I agree on some points with him, I find other parts of his strategy to be dishonest. And if he doesn't have time to write out a proper explanation (cause he should be working. :P ) he should say he'll explain fully when he has more time.
So....in other words, you want to give him a chance to explain?
Again, I do think he went overboard, but I think he was within his rights to remind everyone that they did not have the whole story(truth be told, it's interesting this thread has gone so well, we're all going with only one version of events here), just as others had a right to call him on poor behavior in those situations. Anyway, the ball is in his court right now.
No DMs are people too this guy might have tweaked his DM one time too many. Mr. Fishy has emotionally abused a character because of munchkinism. That cursed item turned you into a grave touch ghoul the character was a druid, ghouls powers undead immunities not a single
druidic ability. He was warned. Mr. Fishy don't bluff.
He always has the chance to explain. No one has to 'give' him that. Just as no one 'makes' us listen.
I suppose I should have only quoted the 'ease up' part of your post. I see no reason to cut him any slack, as no one has put anymore pressure on him than is reasonable.
You got a little bit of drool there...
And that is no more helpful a response than his 'but if you allow it in your campaigns...okay.' snipe.
If that was aimed at me, then I was just trying to get you to calm down a bit and perhaps crack a smile. We're all friends here, and there's no reason to get heated over something like this, which is all I was trying to say. If it wasn't, then I'm just confused.
My biggest peeve? People not calling when they can't show up.
This is one that bothers me almost more than anything else.
|
|
If that was aimed at me, then I was just trying to get you to calm down a bit and perhaps crack a smile. We're all friends here, and there's no reason to get heated over something like this, which is all I was trying to say.
You're placing anger where there is none. Maybe the blunt tone makes it seem that way. And I wasn't exactly sure what you were trying for either. Heaven knows my humor gets missed more often than not around here as well.
Some of mine (yes I know that some were already mentioned but I am vetning as well):
1) The player who picks skills and feats without any ryhme or reason just because the rules allow it. I had a player who played a fighter that he dumped a lots of bonuses into "Spellcraft" without any logic as to why (other thean the rules allow for it). I decided to secretly give him a "minchkin penalty of -20 which left him scratching his head as to why the party's Wizard with a lower roll on his spellcraft roll figured out the magic ritual and his character failed.
2) The player whose concept does not fit logic. Same player played a sorcerer with a very high Charisma score but (as per the player's description) refused to bathe because he was a fire elemental Sorcerer and water is fire's enemy yet he was trying to play his character as a "lady's man". He then wondered why his character could never "score" with female NPCs. I explained to him that logically his character's foul body odor; (probably) jacked up skin; and crtitters that stick to dirty skin crawling all over his character's skin, hair and clothing from lack of bathing would turn off anyone. He argued that his character's CHA could overcome all of that. On a personal note I think the player's exposure to dating etiquette (and women in general) was what he saw on porno flicks and Axe Body Wash commercials.
3) Player's who try to play a "non-traditional" character but then try to weasel thier way into traditional roles. One player wanted to play an elf who was raised in a human village and was a Bararian. When he tried to do "traditional elven stuff" and I pointed out that he said that his character was raised by humans, he then said something like "his parents were in the village with him so he could learn the traditional elven stuff" I then ruled that since it takes a villiage to raise a child then he would learn more human stuff than elven (which is why I did not let him multi-class into Wizard when his first level was Barbarian). You see, to me,...
For #1, I can't really envision a way in which taking a cross-class skill is munchkining. It's EXPENSIVE and fighters don't get many skill points. As a DM, instead of imposing a penalty on his legitimately purchased skill, I would bring up situations where his lack of skill points in traditional party-role skills would cause him difficulties. If it was a flavor decision, he should be perfectly willing to accept the down side of that flavor.
But as a player, if the wizard and I both made the same roll, and I got a 27, the wizard got a 22, and the DM told me I knew nothing and the wizard succeeded, I would pack up my stuff and go home.
For #2, I'd have to see how the player was running the character, but I'd be inclined to agree with you. But I would try to work with the character and say that a high charisma doesn't necessarily mean you're a ladykiller. I can envision an unwashed slumland or countryside prophet drawing a cult of followers on personal magnetism alone. But if seduction were his goal, he would know (because of his charisma) how to achieve it, and that would include a modicum of personal hygiene. Someone suggested the Prestidigitation spell as a good alternative, and that WOULD make bathing unnecessary. Character concept upheld, seduction accomplished.
#3 is tricky. Being a barbarian/caster doesn't really give you a lot at the same time. You're either being one or the other in a given round. And I believe the rage rules specifically state that you can't cast spells while raging, and if not, I would add it. But I don't have a crucial piece of information that you have, and that is: what did he expect to get out of it? Buffing up before going into a fight? Really a function better served by having the party caster buff you, for efficiency. Unless your players aren't that good at working as a team, in which case he's giving up a round of fighting for every spell he casts on himself. So, it seems like a fair trade off, mechanically, and it sounds like a distinctive character concept.
Isn't there a prestige class for barbarian casters? Spellrager or something? Maybe he was trying to work toward that and didn't explain it adequately to you ahead of time? If that were the case, his background seemed a legitimate back story for such a character. But that might not be what he had in mind. That's just a guess.
the bottom line was munchkining and "roll"-playing (as opposed to "role"-playing) was happeningThe fact that you talk about those things as if they're mutually contradictory says something, though.
They may not be mutually exclusive in theory, but in my experience, they are. I accept that others do not share my experience.
|
Isn't there a prestige class for barbarian casters? Spellrager or something? Maybe he was trying to work toward that and didn't explain it adequately to you ahead of time? If that were the case, his background seemed a legitimate back story for such a character. But that might not be what he had in mind. That's just a guess.
Elven teenage rebellion = Barbarian levels
And you are thinking of Rage Mage, a fun PrC IMO.
When males players role-play female PC's badly.
When males players role-play female PC's badly.
Thanks for leaving male GMs playing female NPCs out of that. :)
They may not be mutually exclusive in theory, but in my experience, they are. I accept that others do not share my experience.the bottom line was munchkining and "roll"-playing (as opposed to "role"-playing) was happeningThe fact that you talk about those things as if they're mutually contradictory says something, though.
You don't use dice to determine the outcome of events involving an element of chance? That's OK, if you enjoy that sort of thing, but as a referee/DM/GM, I like to abdicate some of my Godlike authority to chance, and occasionally let people ROLL for what happens, instead of declaring it by divine fiat. Otherwise the whole thing is story hour: you're not playing Pathfinder, or Hero System, or GURPs, or D&D; you're just making up a story with input from the so-called "players."
You don't use dice to determine the outcome of events involving an element of chance?
Really, Kirth? I am surprised.