Stop being a game warden :P
Shouldn't you be out washing your car or something? :P
EDIT: jailhouse slang for TOTP
Same here. Seems like if modern players don't get to play out their little Mary Sue fantasies without any kind of bump in the road, they go home and cry into their Twilight dolls or something...
Man!!! +10!!!!
ROTF!!!!
Yeah ... I got nothing else, but wow!!! Awesome!!
Stop being a game warden :PThe OP suggest being a vindictive ass to the players is a good thing. His suggestion serves no purpose but to annoy the players. I have seen GMs lose games for this type of behavior, and to encourage it is a terrible idea. It detracts from the overall gameplay without adding anything. If a GM I didn't really know that well did something like this, I would probably never play with them again.
And Houstonderek, I find you insinuating that only "modern" players would have an issue with this really insulting. I have been playing for 16 years, and have never had a consistently fun GM pull stupid s&!@ like this. Some bad ones have, and like I said, their games fell apart.
The OP was being sarcastic in his prologue. If he was really trying to be an intentional asshat, then I'd be inclined to agree.
It is unfortunate that sometimes things are taken a bit literal around these parts. ;)
Let's just reboot from this point and see what comes next Monday & go from there.
YOGI!
Same here. Seems like if modern players don't get to play out their little Mary Sue fantasies without any kind of bump in the road, they go home and cry into their Twilight dolls or something...For the record, I thought the OP's idea was clever. Sometimes players need curveballs thrown at them. It could eventually lead to something, or it could amount to nothing but they spend so much time trying to deal with the issue that they're conveniently sidetracked from the BBEG's minions just around the corner....
Its good that you feel people who disagree with you need to be insulted. It really drives your point home. Well played.
Perhaps it is the control freak dms that cant accept that some aspect of their perfect world is beyond their complete control that no longer need catering to? Attitudes like this lead to abuses by dms, and it breaks up gaming groups. There is no reason to promote it further with this kind of nonsense.
For the record, I thought the OP's idea was clever. Sometimes players need curveballs thrown at them. It could eventually lead to something, or it could amount to nothing but they spend so much time trying to deal with the issue that they're conveniently sidetracked from the BBEG's minions just around the corner....
First of all the OP made absolutely no attempt to display that this was an intentional distraction to promote his plot. If i am mistaking his intentions he has only himself to blame. You are giving him a very big benefit of the doubt. If the players needed distracting, an actual affliction could have sufficed, or a fight breaking out outside a tavern, or a particularly charming npc, or a million other ways to divert PC attention. So why the incurable but irritating superficial thing? Why the whole song and dance about a weekly attempt to vent frustrations on your players? It doesnt work as an explanation in my opinion. Maybe I am wrong but from what is posted I dont believe that to be the case.
if u dont like it don't use it. no need to get on here and write a novel on how this would not fly in ur group. Personally, I like dropping small no-effect circumstances on my players. And they like it. (The ice dragons breath has left your arm blue, the trap gives you a scar on your cheek, ONCE YOU DEFEAT THE DEMON A SMALL BOIL APPEARS ON YOUR SKIN)
First of all the OP made absolutely no attempt to display that this was an intentional distraction to promote his plot. If i am mistaking his intentions he has only himself to blame. You are giving him a very big benefit of the doubt. If the players needed distracting, an actual affliction could have sufficed, or a fight breaking out outside a tavern, or a particularly charming npc, or a million other ways to divert PC attention. So why the incurable but irritating superficial thing? Why the whole song and dance about a weekly attempt to vent frustrations on your players? It doesnt work as an explanation in my opinion. Maybe I am wrong but from what is posted I dont believe that to be the case.
...or the OP/DM is doing exactly what he intended to do by demonstrating it in this thread and we're endlessly debating about something that may essentially mean ... nothing.
;)
First of all the OP made absolutely no attempt to display that this was an intentional distraction to promote his plot. If i am mistaking his intentions he has only himself to blame. You are giving him a very big benefit of the doubt. If the players needed distracting, an actual affliction could have sufficed, or a fight breaking out outside a tavern, or a particularly charming npc, or a million other ways to divert PC attention. So why the incurable but irritating superficial thing? Why the whole song and dance about a weekly attempt to vent frustrations on your players? It doesnt work as an explanation in my opinion. Maybe I am wrong but from what is posted I dont believe that to be the case....or the OP/DM is doing exactly what he intended to do by demonstrating it in this thread and we're endlessly debating about something that may essentially mean ... nothing.
;)
The debate got me through a boring work day so it meant something on my end ;)
First of all the OP made absolutely no attempt to display that this was an intentional distraction to promote his plot.
K, you picked out one line of the guy's whole post to focus on, and jumped to a pretty damning conclusion. Allow me to pick out another line, the final line, and tell me if you still think the OP's point was malicious and evil.
OP said, "The objective is to give it a tiny mysterious life of its own, then cliffhang the mystery of sore until the next game just to keep the player guessing."
Sounds awfully "role play" in nature to me, man. No game effects - good or bad mechanically, and lasts long enough to be addressed in the following session.
It's totally open-ended and up to the PC's to really help shape it as, up front, beyond the random nature of the thing, the GM doesn't have much of a plan for it. But let the PC's imaginations latch on and run with it, suddenly there's a whole new sub-plot to play around with, not to mention the minor mystery of "why is it so tough?" should magic be employed to attempt to cure it, etc. It's fully a "ball in the player's court" kind of thing, IMO. If the player stands up and walks away from the whole scenario - I'm more inclined to say the problem is with the player vs. the GM. But ... hey - whatever.
The debate got me through a boring work day so it meant something on my end ;)First of all the OP made absolutely no attempt to display that this was an intentional distraction to promote his plot. If i am mistaking his intentions he has only himself to blame. You are giving him a very big benefit of the doubt. If the players needed distracting, an actual affliction could have sufficed, or a fight breaking out outside a tavern, or a particularly charming npc, or a million other ways to divert PC attention. So why the incurable but irritating superficial thing? Why the whole song and dance about a weekly attempt to vent frustrations on your players? It doesnt work as an explanation in my opinion. Maybe I am wrong but from what is posted I dont believe that to be the case....or the OP/DM is doing exactly what he intended to do by demonstrating it in this thread and we're endlessly debating about something that may essentially mean ... nothing.
;)
Here, I can have a debate with you without insulting your intelligence.
So basically your main problem is DMs having control over your character? Well, how about treasure? DMs directly control everything that gets put into treasure hoards, coin purses, or on a corpse in a ditch. If the DM taking control of the character by saying they sprout a sore is bad, then equipment control is crucifixion. If the DM wants you will be unable to get magic items that you want your character to have, and that infringes on character concept. Therefore, the DM refusing to give appropriate treasure on a character to character basis is a banable offense.
The same can go for everything in the setting. BY DEFINITION the DM does all the setting and NPCs, and in essence controls the options you have on interacting with them. If you're playing a barbarian and you want to seduce a noblewoman but the DM is running an Amish style society, does that not infringe on your character's ability to do what he wishes? If you want your ranger to go lurking through the swamps but the campaign takes place in an arctic tundra, does that not infringe upon the character concept?
I've never really ever heard of a player that would leave the game if I, like, introduced a beautiful female half-elf into the game as the city's liason to their character's library. And that's the same thing as inflicting something on the player that they may not want. What if their character is gay and the half-elf falls in love with them? That sounds funny and it sounds interesting. The tax collector comes to get his cash from you since you own the blacksmith... how does your character deal with him?
Well, I guess for some people, they'd deal with the tax collector or the unwanted attraction by quitting the game.
Kolokotroni, I agree with you entirely here. If I was a player, and the DM pulled something like this it would frustrate the hell out of me. I have seen many players leave tables for less, and seen groups remove GMs from the table for this type of thing. Even when there was a reason, its really easy to take this type of thing too far.Dear lord, this is meant to put some fun role-playing/paranoia stuff in the game. It's not as if you HAVE to do this, it's just a fun way to add some tertiary story ideas to the game (I mean, this is way below a secondary story).
And ender, there's no reason to insult either.
I am aware it is meant to be fun, and certainly I'd never put this in my game (i know I dont HAVE to use the idea). I do however think that baring a very unique group of players, this kind of behavior is always negative. DMs who have their world impose on the players instead of interact with them generally create bad blood at the table.
If the OP wanted to discuss clever traps, tricks, plot lines that would challenge, or even frustrate his players, I would probably actively participate. But the OP's tone is most assuredly from a DM VS Player perspective. I dont think the DM should ever play against the players. They are not there to vent your frustrations, or exact payment. At the table we are telling a story with our players, not to them.
Hey, if you keep playing with radiation, you might start seeing some sores yourself. ;)
Here, I can have a debate with you without insulting your intelligence.So basically your main problem is DMs having control over your character? Well, how about treasure? DMs directly control everything that gets put into treasure hoards, coin purses, or on a corpse in a ditch. If the DM taking control of the character by saying they sprout a sore is bad, then equipment control is crucifixion. If the DM wants you will be unable to get magic items that you want your character to have, and that infringes on character concept. Therefore, the DM refusing to give appropriate treasure on a character to character basis is a banable offense.
The same can go for everything in the setting. BY DEFINITION the DM does all the setting and NPCs, and in essence controls the options you have on interacting with them. If you're playing a barbarian and you want to seduce a noblewoman but the DM is running an Amish style society, does that not infringe on your character's ability to do what he wishes? If you want your ranger to go lurking through the swamps but the campaign takes place in an arctic tundra, does that not infringe upon the character concept?
I disagree, treasure is in the world, eventually it belongs to the character but it starts in the game world. I would firmly agree the dm should have control of what is and isnt available to the player in terms of treasure and such. Thats why we have a bunch of charts for it in the gamemastery section of the book, to help them sort that out.
Second, as far as your amish example, no. I can still TRY to seduce her, she just isnt likely to agree, and thats fine. The might be insulted, laugh it off, call the town gaurd whatever. Thats still interactive. Its when the world reacts unnaturally or simply doesnt react because the DM doesnt want it to that annoys me. I dont require success, just interactivity.
To your ranger example, that is a very poor dm, or a foolishly stubborn player. Rangers are something of an exception in the 'dont give anything away' department. Every adventure path i have ever seen offers suggestion for the ranger's favored enemy, including paizo's. And if it's homebrew you should give the player some idea of what's coming. If he still chooses to focus on tundra for background reasons or whatever else, then great, he still got to choose it.
|
How about taking the argument over whether or not you need to be a control freak out of the thread and start a new one with it. That way thoes of us who like the OP's idea, and have players mature enough to handle it can try it, and post about our experience. Thoes who wish to argue the point of "if" it should be done can argue to thier heart's content.
|
I remember being a player in the superb 1st Ed. AD&D "Tomb of Horrors" adventure, not the colored one the pink version.
Can't remember our party lasting long, the thief died almost immediately trying to unlock a small chest stuck to a wall that had been cunningly trapped with a poison needle, then our wizard (a particularly dumb player who should never have chosen to be a wizard) jumped willingly into a Sphere of Annihilation disguised as a monstrous head bas relief.
We were all pretty sore by then anyway after falling into a slew of pit traps randomly spaced along the strange entry corridor.
After losing the wizard the writing was on the wall. Can't remember what happened to my fighter character but I know he didn't last a great deal longer. Unfortunately our DM at that time was favoring the cleric player with automatic saving throw successes behind his screen (I guess they were old buddies).
He actually completed the quest to the Demilich on his own!! Like this could really happen. I stayed around intrigued to see the outcome and it seemed obvious that the poor Demilich was being hamstrung. He didn't even get to use his awesome gem eye socket powers.
This is an example of what happens with gratuitous behavior by DMs, and I tend to agree with Kolokotroni that the OP's idea certainly seems to be a way to unleash passive-aggressive real-world frustrations on his hapless players.
And no, I wouldn't leave the game table over a stupid non RP derived boil, but I would certainly start looking for the warning signs that the GM might actually be on an ego trip at the expense of the rest of the group, or worse is favoring particular players over others.
I encourage good role playing in my game and I award modest experience bonuses to players who make the best of strange situations they may stumble upon. For my group this system encourages players to live their characters and inspires all the group to do the same. When we play RPGs for the rules alone, it rapidly gets dull.
After all, it's a game and we are all players (GM included). But I do believe it's the GMs responsibility to be as impartial as possible, set the scene and let the players fill in the rest of the story. If that didn't happen GMing would be as dull as dust.
Hey, if you keep playing with radiation, you might start seeing some sores yourself. ;)Kolokotroni, I agree with you entirely here. If I was a player, and the DM pulled something like this it would frustrate the hell out of me. I have seen many players leave tables for less, and seen groups remove GMs from the table for this type of thing. Even when there was a reason, its really easy to take this type of thing too far.Dear lord, this is meant to put some fun role-playing/paranoia stuff in the game. It's not as if you HAVE to do this, it's just a fun way to add some tertiary story ideas to the game (I mean, this is way below a secondary story).
And ender, there's no reason to insult either.
I am aware it is meant to be fun, and certainly I'd never put this in my game (i know I dont HAVE to use the idea). I do however think that baring a very unique group of players, this kind of behavior is always negative. DMs who have their world impose on the players instead of interact with them generally create bad blood at the table.
If the OP wanted to discuss clever traps, tricks, plot lines that would challenge, or even frustrate his players, I would probably actively participate. But the OP's tone is most assuredly from a DM VS Player perspective. I dont think the DM should ever play against the players. They are not there to vent your frustrations, or exact payment. At the table we are telling a story with our players, not to them.
Yes, but at least I will be able to figure out what is causing them, and hopefully a way to treat them. The OP's idea implies that the play should be able to do neither of these things, and that is the problem with it.
Hey, if you keep playing with radiation, you might start seeing some sores yourself. ;)Yes, but at least I will be able to figure out what is causing them, and hopefully a way to treat them. The OP's idea implies that the play should be able to do neither of these things, and that is the problem with it.
Step 0: Roll good on your skill check to figure it out
Step 1: Develop rad suitStep 2: F that, just fund Mike's research of a Circle of Protection: Radiation spell.
Step 3: Profit
Step 4: Get sanctioned by the gnomes
Step 5: Switch sides
Step 6: More profit
LOL.
OR, as Marcus Aurelius has demonstarated, you can continue to argue here in this post, which was made for something else entirely, showing that you don't give a crap about the intentions of other people, as long as your voice is heard. ::sigh::
I don't like the idea of messing with your players as an outlet for GM "perturbedness", but I can definitely appreciate the idea of throwing curveballs at your players to keep them on their toes. Here are some examples of things I've run that may make for good future ideas (and hopefully avoid the overbearing-GM problem):
-The trapless dungeon. My players went through a secret door, down a spiral staircase, and found themselves in a clean, well-lit hallway that zig-zagged back and forth at 90 degree angles every hundred feet. It took them an hour to make it through the five sections of hallway.
-Have an antagonist you really likes to use magic aura. It doesn't allows a save against detect magic (only identify and better) so you can simply scatter red-herring magic everywhere.
-If you have characters who are of a monstrous race or are otherwise generally anti-heroic, but still behave like heroes, have people respond accordingly. I have kobold character in one of my games right now who attracted Torag's attention when his party helped to rebuild a church. Now he's getting helpful visions and omens but they're all dwarven-themed so he's terrified of them.
"Modern", to me, is anyone who came into the game after AD&D went soft. Somewhere @ 1987 or so...
And before you come back with whatever, the 1e AD&D PHB is STILL the best selling RPG book. Ever. There were a LOT more players before gaming started catering to Mary Sue lovers...
Hey, is this the thread where we insult other generations? Can I play?
I'm sorry you old grognards had to scale cliffs both ways in the snow to get to your gaming stores, carefully clutching your latest purchase to your chest to protect it from the wind and stifling your squeals of joy for fear of avalanches, but we don't have to do that anymore so we don't care how tough and grizzled that made you. You see, all that wealth and luxury we've been doused in since birth has opened up a lot of free time for us to to attain higher levels of ethical enlightenment. We're sorry you fogies aren't privy to certain truths because you spent your prime philosophizing years trying to fend off the Normans, but do try to keep up with the modern world.
|
|
OR, as Marcus Aurelius has demonstarated, you can continue to argue here in this post, which was made for something else entirely, showing that you don't give a crap about the intentions of other people, as long as your voice is heard. ::sigh::
So I guess what you're implying is that providing we agree that the OP's idea is a perfectly acceptable way to run a game or handle a player situation then we can post a response, otherwise we should shut up.
What's the point of discussing anything if nobody is allowed to share a point of view contrary to others without people getting bent out of shape over it.
After all it's immaterial to any of us how the OP chooses to run or not run his game, unless of course you happen to be a player in his group. For me, I just happen to think his suggestions are not conducive to running a good game, but that is purely my opinion and no more. Note that I said "opinion".
Perhaps the OP's players enjoy their characters being victimised for no other reason than that the GM was irritated by some guy he met at work and wants to take the aggression out in his game. That's his call and his players can walk away or stay if they want to.
I've been GMing for 30 years and I've never seen this kind of GMing end well, hence why I quoted the example. On another occasion I was unfortunate to observe a GM and player get into a fist fight over something similar. It kind of spoiled that game for me.
This is why I stated my opinion. But my opinion in no way infringes anyone elses right to run their game however they wish.
OR, as Marcus Aurelius has demonstarated, you can continue to argue here in this post, which was made for something else entirely, showing that you don't give a crap about the intentions of other people, as long as your voice is heard. ::sigh::
I have an opinion that is on topic, I am going to voice it, and it is on topic, just because it is opposed to the topic doesnt mean it is off topic. And to be honest, as far wanderer has shown, it is possible to disagree with the way the OP is going about it, and the attitude and still have something to say about the topic.
If I posted an idea that was likely to be misinterpreted and alienate a significant portion of my potential or actual player base, I would want people to tell me. The argument has certainly gotten out of hand, but it is still on topic. And no one is stopping you from having the conversation you want to have - lead by example. Here:I don't like the idea of messing with your players as an outlet for GM "perturbedness", but I can definitely appreciate the idea of throwing curveballs at your players to keep them on their toes. Here are some examples of things I've run that may make for good future ideas (and hopefully avoid the overbearing-GM problem):
-The trapless dungeon. My players went through a secret door, down a spiral staircase, and found themselves in a clean, well-lit hallway that zig-zagged back and forth at 90 degree angles every hundred feet. It took them an hour to make it through the five sections of hallway.
-Have an antagonist you really likes to use magic aura. It doesn't allows a save against detect magic (only identify and better) so you can simply scatter red-herring magic everywhere.
-If you have characters who are of a monstrous race or are otherwise generally anti-heroic, but still behave like heroes, have people respond accordingly. I have kobold character in one of my games right now who attracted Torag's attention when his party helped to rebuild a church. Now he's getting helpful visions and omens but they're all dwarven-themed so he's terrified of them.
I have done the trapless section of dungeon. One of the dms in my group puts a trap every five feat. So when i describe the 'door with the odd runes inscribed on it along with similar inscriptions on the floor stones around it' they can go kind of nuts with their search checks, particularly when i respond with 'you don't seem to find any traps.' Then I switch it up with a barely described door that is trapped. Mind you i always give them a perception check before setting it off (regardless of whether or not the rogue has trapspotter)
One of my favorite curveballs to throw is to use some 3rd party material. For instance I recently used a 3rd party product, the shadow assasin by super genious games. They thought the 3 opponents were rogues and went to great pains to avoid being flanked, when in reality flanking had nothing to do with the class' abilities.
I like your magic aura idea, I may use that when my players get overzealous with the always on detect magic.
Here, I can have a debate with you without insulting your intelligence.So basically your main problem is DMs having control over your character? Well, how about treasure? DMs directly control everything that gets put into treasure hoards, coin purses, or on a corpse in a ditch. If the DM taking control of the character by saying they sprout a sore is bad, then equipment control is crucifixion. If the DM wants you will be unable to get magic items that you want your character to have, and that infringes on character concept. Therefore, the DM refusing to give appropriate treasure on a character to character basis is a banable offense.
The same can go for everything in the setting. BY DEFINITION the DM does all the setting and NPCs, and in essence controls the options you have on interacting with them. If you're playing a barbarian and you want to seduce a noblewoman but the DM is running an Amish style society, does that not infringe on your character's ability to do what he wishes? If you want your ranger to go lurking through the swamps but the campaign takes place in an arctic tundra, does that not infringe upon the character concept?
I disagree, treasure is in the world, eventually it belongs to the character but it starts in the game world. I would firmly agree the dm should have control of what is and isnt available to the player in terms of treasure and such. Thats why we have a bunch of charts for it in the gamemastery section of the book, to help them sort that out.
Second, as far as your amish example, no. I can still TRY to seduce her, she just isnt likely to agree, and thats fine. The might be insulted, laugh it off, call the town gaurd whatever. Thats still interactive. Its when the world reacts unnaturally or simply doesnt react because the DM doesnt want it to that annoys me. I dont require success, just interactivity.
To your ranger example, that is a very poor dm, or a foolishly stubborn player. Rangers are something of an exception in...
Damn quote function cutting things off.
Here's the issue though: Say you want a flaming sword for your character. The DM? Doesn't feel like giving you a flaming sword. Ever. Even if you make it known, say he's old school 3.5 and rolls all treasure randomly. Your character's flaming sword to him is iconic, as much a part of him for mid to high level as his gambling problem, his boisterous laugh, and his abusive relationship with the other party members. The DM right there is basically controlling your character through equipment distribution (My favorite tactic for dealing with a troublesome spellcaster at high level), and you just agreed that it's fine for him to do that.
The second point was that you have things you want to do with your character, which are arguably more important that the six fingers on his left hand or his work as a woodcutter as a child. As far as the DM's setting goes, you cannot seduce a noblewoman in that area. Coping with the problem does nothing to change the fact that the DM has taken away part of your character concept through the setting. Naturally, any good DM should allow the players to interact with the world, I agree. Otherwise you don't have much to do, aside from maybe yell at the orcs to stop killing people while they run past you and do so.
I can agree with you once again on the ranger's example, however it does nothing to address that it's the DM controlling the player just as much as sticking a boil on him. How about a barbarian character from a plains tribe? Pretty classic example, right? Well this campaign takes place on an insular highly technically advanced island that shuns immigrants. Most of the outside world is feared, and the outside world knows little of what goes on inside. If the PCs are supposed to be investigators in the city, then the barbarian sticks out like a sore thumb and basically needs to be completely retooled. That's the DM completely taking a character concept away. Would you be alright with that because it's in the name of the setting?
|
"Modern", to me, is anyone who came into the game after AD&D went soft. Somewhere @ 1987 or so...
And before you come back with whatever, the 1e AD&D PHB is STILL the best selling RPG book. Ever. There were a LOT more players before gaming started catering to Mary Sue lovers...
Hey, is this the thread where we insult other generations? Can I play?
I'm sorry you old grognards had to scale cliffs both ways in the snow to get to your gaming stores, carefully clutching your latest purchase to your chest to protect it from the wind and stifling your squeals of joy for fear of avalanches, but we don't have to do that anymore so we don't care how tough and grizzled that made you. You see, all that wealth and luxury we've been doused in since birth has opened up a lot of free time for us to to attain higher levels of ethical enlightenment. We're sorry you fogies aren't privy to certain truths because you spent your prime philosophizing years trying to fend off the Normans, but do try to keep up with the modern world.
Yeah, "ethical enlightenment" is the new code word for "spoiled brat"? First, new math, now new English!
Seriously, this is easily the whiniest generation I've ever seen. "Oh. My. God. My character broke a fingernail, you're a big meaniehead DM and I'm going to storm off in a huff and leave your big meaniehead game.!"
;)
"Modern", to me, is anyone who came into the game after AD&D went soft. Somewhere @ 1987 or so...
And before you come back with whatever, the 1e AD&D PHB is STILL the best selling RPG book. Ever. There were a LOT more players before gaming started catering to Mary Sue lovers...
Hey, is this the thread where we insult other generations? Can I play?
I'm sorry you old grognards had to scale cliffs both ways in the snow to get to your gaming stores, carefully clutching your latest purchase to your chest to protect it from the wind and stifling your squeals of joy for fear of avalanches, but we don't have to do that anymore so we don't care how tough and grizzled that made you. You see, all that wealth and luxury we've been doused in since birth has opened up a lot of free time for us to to attain higher levels of ethical enlightenment. We're sorry you fogies aren't privy to certain truths because you spent your prime philosophizing years trying to fend off the Normans, but do try to keep up with the modern world.
Yeah, "ethical enlightenment" is the new code word for "spoiled brat"? First, new math, now new English!
Seriously, this is easily the whiniest generation I've ever seen. "Oh. My. God. My character broke a fingernail, you're a big meaniehead DM and I'm going to storm off in a huff and leave your big meaniehead game.!"
;)
Guys I am trying to have a debate in here and you're just turning it into a flame war. Stop being so ethically enlightened and let me have a reasonable discussion. :P
|
|
Here's the issue though: Say you want a flaming sword for your character. The DM? Doesn't feel like giving you a flaming sword. Ever. Even if you make it known, say he's old school 3.5 and rolls all treasure randomly. Your character's flaming sword to him is iconic, as much a part of him for mid to high level as his gambling problem, his boisterous laugh, and his abusive relationship with the other party members. The DM right there is basically controlling your character through equipment distribution (My favorite tactic for dealing with a troublesome spellcaster at high level), and you just agreed that it's fine for him to do that.
The second point was that you have things you want to do with your character, which are arguably more important that the six fingers on his left hand or his work as a woodcutter as a child. As far as the DM's setting goes, you cannot seduce a noblewoman in that area. Coping with the problem does nothing to change the fact that the DM has taken away part of your character concept through the setting. Naturally, any good DM should allow the players to interact with the world, I agree. Otherwise you don't have much to do, aside from maybe yell at the orcs to stop killing people while they run past you and do so.
I can agree with you once again on the ranger's example, however it does nothing to address that it's the DM controlling the player just as much as sticking a boil on him. How about a barbarian character from a plains tribe? Pretty classic example, right? Well this campaign takes place on an insular highly technically advanced island that shuns immigrants. Most of the outside world is feared, and the outside world knows little of what goes on inside. If the PCs are supposed to be investigators in the city, then the barbarian sticks out like a sore thumb and basically needs to be completely retooled. That's the DM completely taking a character concept away. Would you be alright with that because it's in the name of the setting?
Madcap Storm King you have made some very interesting points.
I have actually used the same tactic as a GM too. Very often I tailor magic items rather than roll them randomly, as some would affect game balance or cause issues I wouldn't want to change the direction of my game. Later on, conditions might warrant a flaming sword to rebalance game play. For example, the next adventure may include a big set of battles against trolls. It may be that Character A has little chance to prove himself as a fighter or ranger, when he has to take time out to douse each defeated foe with burning oil or acid, while his buddies are running around casting flame strikes and fireballs and having a ball. As said characters have all gained levels since the initial player request, a few levels previously a much desired flaming sword in the treasure mix will certainly bring a hoot of delight to the player in question. Nevertheless it's still perfectly OK to ban any item you wish, this is the GM's prerogative, hence why D&D has always included magic items in the DM's Guide and not the Player's Handbook.
Your Barbarian example is also perfectly acceptable. It might irk the barbarian player but I would expect him/her to grasp the opportunity and perhaps adapt to the situation. It would certainly be a good way to explore some new role playing possibilities, either he gets into loads of trouble with the authorities or instead grins and bears it. Perhaps he might spend some cash and learn to read and write (3.5ed) :) I can't remember if barbarians are still considered illiterate in PFRPG. Forgive me I've only recently started using it.
Whatever happens it's an interesting way to change parameters. After all in FR Athkatla in Amn forbids mages from openly using magic, or at least it did prior to Ed 4. Mages are thus restricted.
I'm certainly not saying we should coddle our players, but certain contributors to this discussion have decided they can't be bothered to discuss and would rather hurl "Mary Sue" references around because they consider it cool to engage in a macho feeding frenzy directed towards those they don't agree with, regardless whether or not they have anything substantial to add to the discussion. Smart people immediately lose any respect in a discussion where people resort to insults.
My only objection to the OP's suggestion was the crass suggestion about taking out his anger at day to day events outside the gaming table and then persecuting his players to make himself feel better. It sets a bad example to new gamers and makes our passion for RPG playing look like a mean spirited activity. No-one's saying he can't do whatever he likes in his own game, nor is the boil concept necessarily bad. It's the thinking behind it that grates.
Damn quote function cutting things off.
Here's the issue though: Say you want a flaming sword for your character. The DM? Doesn't feel like giving you a flaming sword. Ever. Even if you make it known, say he's old school 3.5 and rolls all treasure randomly. Your character's flaming sword to him is iconic, as much a part of him for mid to high level as his gambling problem, his boisterous laugh, and his abusive relationship with the other party members. The DM right there is basically controlling your character through equipment distribution (My favorite tactic for dealing with a troublesome spellcaster at high level), and you just agreed that it's fine for him to do that.
Do I think a dm SHOULD do this? No. Would I call it abuse? No, it depends on the group and how they play. I have played with dms that NEVER hand out desired treasure unless it comes up on the roll chart. I dont like it but its not a deal breaker to me. I wouldnt walk away from the table, but I might talk to the dm about why he isnt interested in giving me a flamming sword (or whatver piece of gear it is im interested in).
The second point was that you have things you want to do with your character, which are arguably more important that the six fingers on his left hand or his work as a woodcutter as a child. As far as the DM's setting goes, you cannot seduce a noblewoman in that area. Coping with the problem does nothing to change the fact that the DM has taken away part of your character concept through the setting. Naturally, any good DM should allow the players to interact with the world, I agree. Otherwise you don't have much to do, aside from maybe yell at the orcs to stop killing people while they run past you and do so.
I dont consider success part of my character concept as is the way I behave. I dont expect to succeed in all the things my character does, only to have the opportunity to try.
I can agree with you once again on the ranger's example, however it does nothing to address that it's the DM controlling the player just as much as sticking a boil on him. How about a barbarian character from a plains tribe? Pretty classic example, right? Well this campaign takes place on an insular highly technically advanced island that shuns immigrants. Most of the outside world is feared, and the outside world knows little of what goes on inside. If the PCs are supposed to be investigators in the city, then the barbarian sticks out like a sore thumb and basically needs to be completely retooled. That's the DM completely taking a character concept away. Would you be alright with that because it's in the name of the setting?
If the DM was upfront about the style of the campaign, I am ok with him having a very specific world. If he says, look we are doing an urban campaign in such and such setting, where really rustic characters wouldn't fit, then I am totally ok with that kind of setting. I dont mind designing my characters both mechanically and personality/background to fit a campaign as long as I'm warned ahead of time. Because yes it limits my options, but it doesnt make my choice for me. Just like the DM can decide what books/feats/classes/3rd party material to let into his game, if he wants to restrict style of characters for the sake of specific kind of game, I consider it along the same lines. As long as it's up front, i can still make A character i want, even if it's not THE character I want.
I think you are all a little too slaved to the game mechanics... When I hear something that starts by: "if it is not in the rules..." my ears start to bleed. The rules are all guidelines and the DM can change them as he sees fit. If you aint happy with that possibility, then move on. However, I *hate* DM who are actively against the players to the point of being unreasonable but a sore is at most a funny plot twist.
Furthermore, I guess you must have a lot of friends to play with, because I couldn't just go off on one of my best friend who also happens to be my DM. We usually discuss it and come to an agreement and its the end of it.
Finally, I could share some of my past experiences where I really made a PC flip out of his mind with mind tricks. As I mentionned, not everything is in the rules and this is a perfect example:
One of my player had been possessed by a devil during a previous encounter. It was a very cunning and subtle devil and I decided to play it out to the extreme. While the possessed went to get a drink refresh, I told the rest of the party: "whenever I do not have my glasses on (I wear glasses obviously), you do not hear or see whatever I tell player X (the possessed player)". The group did not know why I was doing this, but they had some sense that something was off (which was perfect by my book) and they played it out like champions.
We did a few games like this until they could confront the evil, but it was a very refreshing experience for all of them especially the possessed player who definitely thought he was going insane at some point. Everyone had fun and that is what matters.
I dont have a problem with a DM changing rules. House rules have always been fine by me as long as he actually shares them. Its the hand waving that gets on my nerves because it becomes something you cant do anything about as a PC.
As for your example, I wouldnt have had any problem with that. As a DM i talk specifically to a player all the time. Individual characters always have knowledge other players dont, I dont see anything wrong with what you did. He could then choose to disclose that he is hearing voices to the party or not. And I assume that this possession had a plot purpose (its unusual for clever outsiders to possess individuals without a purpose). Did it lead to a plot point? It seems like it was supposed to drive the party, particularly the player to confront this devil yes? I am ok with that. It doesnt seem to me you did it to be deliberately annoying, but were trying to get the player more involved in your plot.
Damn quote function cutting things off.
Here's the issue though: Say you want a flaming sword for your character. The DM? Doesn't feel like giving you a flaming sword. Ever. Even if you make it known, say he's old school 3.5 and rolls all treasure randomly. Your character's flaming sword to him is iconic, as much a part of him for mid to high level as his gambling problem, his boisterous laugh, and his abusive relationship with the other party members. The DM right there is basically controlling your character through equipment distribution (My favorite tactic for dealing with a troublesome spellcaster at high level), and you just agreed that it's fine for him to do that.
Do I think a dm SHOULD do this? No. Would I call it abuse? No, it depends on the group and how they play. I have played with dms that NEVER hand out desired treasure unless it comes up on the roll chart. I dont like it but its not a deal breaker to me. I wouldnt walk away from the table, but I might talk to the dm about why he isnt interested in giving me a flamming sword (or whatver piece of gear it is im interested in).
The second point was that you have things you want to do with your character, which are arguably more important that the six fingers on his left hand or his work as a woodcutter as a child. As far as the DM's setting goes, you cannot seduce a noblewoman in that area. Coping with the problem does nothing to change the fact that the DM has taken away part of your character concept through the setting. Naturally, any good DM should allow the players to interact with the world, I agree. Otherwise you don't have much to do, aside from maybe yell at the orcs to stop killing people while they run past you and do so.
I dont consider success part of my character concept as is the way I behave. I dont expect to succeed in all the things my character does, only to have the opportunity to try.
...I can agree
In a lot of my examples I do a lot of things a DM maybe shouldn't do (or should do in the case of high level spellcasters only, or perhaps players that seem to think I'm going to just hand out a magic item they desperately need or let them buy it). The second example is still kind of unresolved but I basically get what you're saying. The only thing I really have to add is that you have to modify your goal to fit the setting, which is something a good player should always do and shouldn't be up for debate.
DMs all have their own little quirks. One I knew really just wanted to run people through dungeons and disdained roleplaying because he wanted to see how we handled the next encounter. In essence, I have one last question for you before addressing my final point.
What about Baleful Polymorph?
Baleful Polymorph can be a kill spell, but let's say the DM is being "nice" (As nice as turning a PC into a newt is) and doesn't do the save to keep your sanity. He does this at say 5th level. Your character is now useless (Aside from scouting and moral support) unless he's a Druid, and may be so until you cure this. Would this cause you to walk from the table?
What about Baleful Polymorph?
Baleful Polymorph can be a kill spell, but let's say the DM is being "nice" (As nice as turning a PC into a newt is) and doesn't do the save to keep your sanity. He does this at say 5th level. Your character is now useless (Aside from scouting and moral support) unless he's a Druid, and may be so until you cure this. Would this cause you to walk from the table?
This is a different point I think. We are obviously inside the ruleset here, and I will explain my beliefs on the subject.
I do not believe a dm should use save or lose/ save or die effects on the players with any kind of frequency. In fact save or die spells should be along the order of never (in my opinion). It should never be the dm's objective to kill the pcs, so a save or die spell shouldn't be used ever. The same way the villians never just shoot James Bond when they capture him, you dont just off your players who are in theory the heroes of this story.
But of course baleful polymorph is not a save or die, it's a save or lose. And here is my opinion on the matter. First of all it really depends on the timing. Is this out of combat? In combat? How early or late in the fight is it? If its at the start of combat and I am going to sit there and do nothing for an hour while everyone else gets to have fun, yes, I probably would leave the table. If only because I am not going to be doing anything. Out of combat, if there is like a talking encounter, I might be annoyed but at the very least it shouldn't take too long to be undone.
Second and probably more important, is does the party have the resources to remove it? Do we have someone with dispel magic, or break enchantment and the caster level to hit the check? If so then as long as it isnt in the opening couple rounds of a combat I would not be angry, probably just a little annoyed.
I dont think a dm should ever seek to remove a player through any effect from a combat. Combats take time in the real world, and if you take down a player with a save or lose effect he likely isnt going to be having much fun for a while, while everyone else continues on playing. If the effect can be readily undone, its different, but if it can, to me that is not a dm who has everyone's fun in mind when running/designing encounters.
You may ask, but the players can use those same abilities, why not the dms monsters/npcs? The answer there is pretty simple. The wizard one shots the boss, yes it sucks, and a good deal of work on the part of the dm is wasted, but the whole group, dm and party move on to the next situation in the game. If you save or lose or save or die a player, if they fail the save, they are stuck waiting for significant amounts of real world time before they get to play again. No one likes having to twiddle their thumbs for an hour while everyone else is still playing. I certainly dont.
|
Come on Yeller... Time to go outside for a walk...
Just a couple of things before I put a cap in this thread.
The concept of this thread was to create an imaginative and fun outlet for DM's. If you do not feel even a slight bit of annoyance when thinking about your players you have not DM'ed long enough =).
The next point I would like to make is, that as far as I could tell, this game, like many others, is based on fun. The tone of my original post obviously did not get through to some folk. I'm am a person who enjoys a good laugh multiple times a day and finds that gaming is a great outlet for my quirky humor.
If you feel that the simple idea of the sore is abusive and would upset you so much that you would walk out of a game I suggest you see a therapist because you take your gaming far too seriously. If you feel that any rulebook is akin to the bible and thusly sacred and immutable, I suggest you play a boardgame, because RPG's, like monopoly and rummy, are magnets for houserules and the playthings for the Gods of variation.
So in the name of the father, son and holy spirit, I, with heartfelt regret, declare this experiment in community dead…
Come on Yeller... Time to go outside for a walk...
Just a couple of things before I put a cap in this thread.
The concept of this thread was to create an imaginative and fun outlet for DM's. If you do not feel even a slight bit of annoyance when thinking about your players you have not DM'ed long enough =).
The next point I would like to make is, that as far as I could tell, this game, like many others, is based on fun. The tone of my original post obviously did not get through to some folk. I'm am a person who enjoys a good laugh multiple times a day and finds that gaming is a great outlet for my quirky humor.
If you feel that the simple idea of the sore is abusive and would upset you so much that you would walk out of a game I suggest you see a therapist because you take your gaming far too seriously. If you feel that any rulebook is akin to the bible and thusly sacred and immutable, I suggest you play a boardgame, because RPG's, like monopoly and rummy, are magnets for houserules and the playthings for the Gods of variation.
So in the name of the father, son and holy spirit, I, with heartfelt regret, declare this experiment in community dead…
Darn. I was lookin forward to some of this stuff.
In nomine ptri et filii et spiriti sanctiI bid this thread goodbye.
|
|
Come on Yeller... Time to go outside for a walk...
Just a couple of things before I put a cap in this thread.
The concept of this thread was to create an imaginative and fun outlet for DM's. If you do not feel even a slight bit of annoyance when thinking about your players you have not DM'ed long enough =).
The next point I would like to make is, that as far as I could tell, this game, like many others, is based on fun. The tone of my original post obviously did not get through to some folk. I'm am a person who enjoys a good laugh multiple times a day and finds that gaming is a great outlet for my quirky humor.
If you feel that the simple idea of the sore is abusive and would upset you so much that you would walk out of a game I suggest you see a therapist because you take your gaming far too seriously. If you feel that any rulebook is akin to the bible and thusly sacred and immutable, I suggest you play a boardgame, because RPG's, like monopoly and rummy, are magnets for houserules and the playthings for the Gods of variation.
So in the name of the father, son and holy spirit, I, with heartfelt regret, declare this experiment in community dead…
Damn.
What about Baleful Polymorph?
Baleful Polymorph can be a kill spell, but let's say the DM is being "nice" (As nice as turning a PC into a newt is) and doesn't do the save to keep your sanity. He does this at say 5th level. Your character is now useless (Aside from scouting and moral support) unless he's a Druid, and may be so until you cure this. Would this cause you to walk from the table?
This is a different point I think. We are obviously inside the ruleset here, and I will explain my beliefs on the subject.
I do not believe a dm should use save or lose/ save or die effects on the players with any kind of frequency. In fact save or die spells should be along the order of never (in my opinion). It should never be the dm's objective to kill the pcs, so a save or die spell shouldn't be used ever. The same way the villians never just shoot James Bond when they capture him, you dont just off your players who are in theory the heroes of this story.
But of course baleful polymorph is not a save or die, it's a save or lose. And here is my opinion on the matter. First of all it really depends on the timing. Is this out of combat? In combat? How early or late in the fight is it? If its at the start of combat and I am going to sit there and do nothing for an hour while everyone else gets to have fun, yes, I probably would leave the table. If only because I am not going to be doing anything. Out of combat, if there is like a talking encounter, I might be annoyed but at the very least it shouldn't take too long to be undone.
Second and probably more important, is does the party have the resources to remove it? Do we have someone with dispel magic, or break enchantment and the caster level to hit the check? If so then as long as it isnt in the opening couple rounds of a combat I would not be angry, probably just a little annoyed.
I dont think a dm should ever seek to remove a player through any effect from a combat. Combats take time in the real...
I believe what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If save or die spells exist and the players use them, I will use them. Killing off my monster I spent a half hour making the stat block on with Touch of idiocy (In 3.5) is a surefire way to get a trip to curse city from a later monster.
Basically, the DM doesn't get to play in your example, and just because there are more players than the DM does not make it OK to me. I think Save or Lose spells shouldn't be quite so ridiculous: After all, a Druid who gets polymorphed into a rabbit should be able to cast spells, but with that second save failed he's now a rabbit despite being able to turn into one anyway. However, by that same note, is it fair in your opinion for a scythe wielding demon to come up, crit you and kill you in the opening round?
Long story short, getting taken out with no save is a hell of a lot worse, and there are still ways to do that to a player with a fairly basic spellcaster. Getting a wart in D&D should be the least of your worries. Vrocks, for example, have a no save allowed effect that causes damage and small plant fronds to sprout out from you. You can only remove these babies with bless or a razor. The sore that's resistant to healing magic? Maybe you were fighting an ooze and some of it got left in you and has created this sore. It's all in the packaging with players, and I'm sure I could put a planter's wart on one of my players and have it resist healing magic because it's a living creature. Would they complain? Hell no, they'd be happy it wasn't planted there by evil druids so they could be scryed on from a distance and have all their plans brought to ruin. They'd probably get drunk in a tavern, rip the sucker off with their teeth, and douse it in alcohol.
I guess my main point is in DnD it's all in the details. That sore is something to be suspicious of, maybe that mummy rot really did get you last session. It also casts a shadow of doubt on other diseases you got cured or wounds sustained that weren't so clean after all. It's a good roleplaying opportunity and something any DM worth his salt can package in a thousand different wrapping papers.
I believe what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If save or die spells exist and the players use them, I will use them. Killing off my monster I spent a half hour making the stat block on with Touch of idiocy (In 3.5) is a surefire way to get a trip to curse city from a later monster.
Basically, the DM doesn't get to play in your example, and just because there are more players than the DM does not make it OK to me. I think Save or Lose spells shouldn't be quite so ridiculous: After all, a Druid who gets polymorphed into a rabbit should be able to cast spells, but with that second save failed he's now a rabbit despite being able to turn into one anyway. However, by that same note, is it fair in your opinion for a scythe wielding demon to come up, crit you and kill you in the opening round?
I disagree that the dm doesnt get to play. It isnt about numbers. Its about playing time. The dm controls many monsters, the players only have a single pc. If a monster dies, everyone moves on, no one is stuck not getting to play the game. Like i said i believe in a different style. I respect your opinion, and would not condemn it, it just isnt my style.
Long story short, getting taken out with no save is a hell of a lot worse, and there are still ways to do that to a player with a fairly basic spellcaster. Getting a wart in D&D should be the least of your worries. Vrocks, for example, have a no save allowed effect that causes damage and small plant fronds to sprout out from you. You can only remove these babies with bless or a razor. The sore that's resistant to healing magic? Maybe you were fighting an ooze and some of it got left in you and has created this sore. It's all in the packaging with players, and I'm sure I could put a planter's wart on one of my players and have it resist healing magic because it's a living creature. Would they complain? Hell no, they'd be happy it wasn't planted there by evil druids so they could be scryed on from a distance and have all their plans brought to ruin. They'd probably get drunk in a tavern, rip the sucker off with their teeth, and douse it in alcohol.I guess my main point is in DnD it's all in the details. That sore is something to be suspicious of, maybe that mummy rot really did get you last session. It also casts a shadow of doubt on other diseases you got cured or wounds sustained that weren't so clean after all. It's a good roleplaying opportunity and something any DM worth his salt can package in a thousand different wrapping papers.
Different strokes for different folks again. I think if there is a purpose to it i would be less annoyed. We all have different preferences, and if your players would enjoy this kind of thing, go for it. But that is not the tone that this topic set. Its not for me, I wouldnt enjoy it, and I'll speak out against it.
I disagree that the dm doesnt get to play. It isnt about numbers. Its about playing time. The dm controls many monsters, the players only have a single pc. If a monster dies, everyone moves on, no one is stuck not getting to play the game. Like i said i believe in a different style. I respect your opinion, and would not condemn it, it just isnt my style.I believe what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If save or die spells exist and the players use them, I will use them. Killing off my monster I spent a half hour making the stat block on with Touch of idiocy (In 3.5) is a surefire way to get a trip to curse city from a later monster.
Basically, the DM doesn't get to play in your example, and just because there are more players than the DM does not make it OK to me. I think Save or Lose spells shouldn't be quite so ridiculous: After all, a Druid who gets polymorphed into a rabbit should be able to cast spells, but with that second save failed he's now a rabbit despite being able to turn into one anyway. However, by that same note, is it fair in your opinion for a scythe wielding demon to come up, crit you and kill you in the opening round?
Well I guess my main issue is that it's not a challenge to the players if the BBEG loses to, say, creeping doom from a Druid and gets no actions beyond a setup spell. It makes me feel like I'm not doing my job because I can't deliver a climactic and fun fight. If you're using save or dies on chump monsters that's fine. Having to insulate every one of my memorable baddies against a huge set of effects means the PCs had better watch out too.
...
Long story short, getting taken out with no save is a hell of a lot worse, and there are still ways to do that to a player with a fairly basic spellcaster. Getting a wart in D&D should be the least of your worries. Vrocks, for example, have a no save allowed effect that causes damage and small plant fronds to sprout out from you. You can only remove these babies with bless or a razor. The sore that's resistant to healing magic? Maybe you were fighting an ooze and some of it got left in you and has created this sore. It's all in the packaging with players, and I'm sure I could put a planter's wart on one of my players and have it resist healing magic because it's a living creature. Would they complain? Hell no, they'd be happy it wasn't planted there by evil druids so they could be
To the other part of your paragraph not present in this post, there is always a purpose to whatever the DM does. If the purpose is to mess with the PCs, it can create interesting roleplaying opportunities. One DM I know makes hard as hell games, once disguising an advanced HD rust monster as a bulette with Persistent Image. After the bulette disintegrated their weapons upon impact, they were hysterical. They ran out of the dungeon and killed the thing with arrows. When it died and its ruse was revealed, they were all a bit ticked but took it in stride. Taking blows and getting through a tough fight is extremely satisfying, and provided the DM tries to keep you up to snuff with good equipment or rewards for difficult fights, is a great mental exercise and makes your characters look really good as far as heroism goes. Having a fair fight is for suckers, and unless your PCs are from the Far Realm, they haven't got any suckers.
Well I guess my main issue is that it's not a challenge to the players if the BBEG loses to, say, creeping doom from a Druid and gets no actions beyond a setup spell. It makes me feel like I'm not doing my job because I can't deliver a climactic and fun fight. If you're using save or dies on chump monsters that's fine. Having to insulate every one of my memorable baddies against a huge set of effects means the PCs had better watch out too.
Generally I personally dont use save or dies, partly for that reason, and partly because i prefer debuffs and battlefield control, you tend to get more bang for your buck, and people have more fun. Again i dont think either side should use them, but I think the impact on fun is worse if a dm takes out a player with one.
...
To the other part of your paragraph not present in this post, there is always a purpose to whatever the DM does. If the purpose is to mess with the PCs, it can create interesting roleplaying opportunities. One DM I know makes hard as hell games, once disguising an advanced HD rust monster as a bulette with Persistent Image. After the bulette disintegrated their weapons upon impact, they were hysterical. They ran out of the dungeon and killed the thing with arrows. When it died and its ruse was revealed, they were all a bit ticked but took it in stride. Taking blows and getting through a tough fight is extremely satisfying, and provided the DM tries to keep you up to snuff with good equipment or rewards for difficult fights, is a great mental exercise and makes your characters look really good as far as heroism goes. Having a fair fight is for suckers, and unless your PCs are from the Far Realm, they haven't got any suckers.
I dont think DM's are beyond reproach. No one is perfect, certainly dms are not as such. The idea that the dm is always right is nonsense. They are certainly capable of spite, and sadism, just like all humans. When that happens it is bad dming.
That said I agree, hard encounters can be fun. I certainly enjoy them. Surprising encounters are great. I dont think i've ever disputed that. What your dm did i wouldnt have a problem with. Like them I would be annoyed. If important equipment was lost in the encounter, assuming the dm took it into consideration the next fight or couple of fights, I'd get over it pretty fast. Like I've been trying to say that kind of behavior is not what I am opposed to. Here the dm did something clever with the intention of challenging the players. That I think is a good goal for the DM to have.
Amusingly enough, we seem to agree on this. You are including all the conditions that I think define the difference between challenging the players/keeping them on their toes, and abuse as a dm.
1. The intent is important, if you are looking to make an encounter more difficult or lead the players to something important, it changes the context of what you are doing.
2. Whatever disadvantage is applied to the pc is reversable through reasonable means (in your rust monster example for instance, you said 'and provided the DM tries to keep you up to snuff with good equipment or rewards for difficult fights'). Meaning you took a hit, it sucked for a while, but hopefully that magic sword the monster rusted, is eventually replaced by something new.
3. If its possible, follow the rules of the game. Seems to me you are looking to fit dm ideas into the rules, maybe applying some house rules but not hand waving it. I respect that and am certainly ok with it. I just want a reasonable chance to respond. Maybe the wizard had detect magic up when he encountered the illusioned rust monster. Maybe the cleric cast true seeing when things started rusting. If there is a reasonable opportunity for the players to respond to it, I dont see a problem with it.
I'm looking forward to using this idea, and hopefully more ideas to come.
Kolokotroni -
I'm looking forward to using this idea, and hopefully more ideas to come.
Kolokotroni - I get that you felt strongly about this, and felt like having a debate. However, do you realize you utterly derailed what could have been a very productive idea-generating thread for no more than your personal gratification?
It wasnt about personal gratification. I think it has generated positive discussion. But the most important thing to me is the impact on the game as a whole. New DM's read these boards, as do new players, and old players. The attitude and the mentality needed to be challenged. And I would sooner see the discussion happen in another thread that is started on a positive note instead of a negative one.
Edit:
And it apparently has, i wont get involved in that thread unless I have something to add to it.
For the record, I thought the OP's idea was clever. Sometimes players need curveballs thrown at them. It could eventually lead to something, or it could amount to nothing but they spend so much time trying to deal with the issue that they're conveniently sidetracked from the BBEG's minions just around the corner....
The OP suggest being a vindictive ass to the players is a good thing. His suggestion serves no purpose but to annoy the players. I have seen GMs lose games for this type of behavior, and to encourage it is a terrible idea. It detracts from the overall gameplay without adding anything. If a GM I didn't really know that well did something like this, I would probably never play with them again.
IMO, it all depends on what this mystifying sore is doing there in the first place. If it's some sort of plot hook into the next chapter of the story(planted on the player by the BBEG) then I have no problem with it. Hell, it could even have negative mechanical effects on the player(CON damage, sickness, etc) and I'd still be cool with it, as long as it's serving a purpose in the plotline.
If it's just there because the DM wants to mess with someone, that's not so cool. Basically, if it's not progressing the plot forward, it's getting in the way and messing with someone else's character arbitrarily. I would definitely say something to the DM about it, but leave the game? That's a bit extreme. If a player is so fickle as to "take their ball and go home" over something this minor, then there are deeper issues at the table than the annoying DM...
I mess with my players like this all the time, but in doing so I plant plot device to advance the story. I make it clear at the beginning of the campaign; plans will fail. Your character WILL get in trouble, at some point. THIS WILL LEAVE A MARK. But, it's all in the name of the story. When fate decides to punch you in the face, you can roll over and give up, or get up and punch back. I've tortured my player's characters, and the players loved every minute of it.
I'm looking forward to using this idea, and hopefully more ideas to come.
Kolokotroni - I get that you felt strongly about this, and felt like having a debate. However, do you realize you utterly derailed what could have been a very productive idea-generating thread for no more than your personal gratification?
It wasnt about personal gratification. I think it has generated positive discussion. But the most important thing to me is the impact on the game as a whole. New DM's read these boards, as do new players, and old players. The attitude and the mentality needed to be challenged. And I would sooner see the discussion happen in another thread that is started on a positive note instead of a negative one.
Edit:
And it apparently has, i wont get involved in that thread unless I have something to add to it.
This isnt debate this is dictation for personal gratification.
