|
And that website is wrong. Read the book and the new spellcraft rule is retry after one week for scrolls and next day for barrowed spellbook. So yeah no such subrule exists anymore.What?
And it's not here either. I don't have the book and if they can't bother to update their own PRD with the rules change, I can't bother to care.
Page 106, spellcraft skill specifically says under the retries that you must wait 1 week or 1 day and not until you gain a new rank. Don't matter if you don't care...thats even more of what I'm saying because if you are using old/not entirely accurate web based rules then your not playing by RAW again are you. You are once again going play by my rules or your playing wrong again...as your not even remotely concerned with RAW it seems.
How are the rules explictly out to get you?!? Are the monsters somehow not playing by my rules in my game or something?!? If the rules are applied equally, then it isn't about YOU...not one wit.I don't make skill checks? Is that why I'm not negatively affected by house rules that turn skill checks into 5% failure rates regardless of your skill total? That sounds wrong.
Umm so your the ONLY one that makes skills checks ever?!? Because if the rule is applied equally, then the baddies have the SAME fail chance. The other players have the SAME fail chance. It's not just YOU. It's not about YOU. Honestly if you can't get that a game that is played in a group with a collectively made up world isn't about just YOU, then maybe you should write a book instead where you can have everything exactly how you want. If the group likes the rule, too bad, you have no right to tell them they are doing it wrong. You may politely point out the relivant pieces of RAW, but they are free to follow or ignore that all they want for THEIR game. YOU do not get to dictate how any other group enjoys this game.
|
|
And that website is wrong. Read the book and the new spellcraft rule is retry after one week for scrolls and next day for barrowed spellbook. So yeah no such subrule exists anymore.What?
Page 219 Core book has the wait until next Spellcraft rank subrule - just as the d20pfsrd link you posted shows.
The spellcraft is memorizing a foreign spell daily (assuming using spellcraft and no read magic), the learning and copying a spell is on pg 219 as the subrule in question.
Hope this helps.
Okay then page 219 contridicts page 106. So that helps not one wit.
And that's bad because??? I use this houserule all the bloody time. Although since I did not like how often it comes up for specialized skills, I made it work like crits. Nat 20 with a successful roll = uber. Nat 1 with a failure roll aftrwards is a critical failure (on top of any existing critical failure rules).So I, with my +23 to Perception can fail to detect someone with a -5 to Stealth because I rolled a 1 and he rolled a 20. You will never, EVER convince me that is a fair or sensible house rule. Ever.
I have to ask...
If this is how you feel on the subject, how often do your characters(or people in games you run)touch the dice?
A Sword of Counterspelling would hold one spell. That spell would only be countered when the sword contacted someone with that spell being cast or in effect. If you put Mage Armor in the sword, it would not conter mage armor till it actually hit. Mage Armor is to weak to suspend an armor enhansement bonus in my opinion.
Page 106, spellcraft skill specifically says under the retries that you must wait 1 week or 1 day and not until you gain a new rank. Don't matter if you don't care...thats even more of what I'm saying because if you are using old/not entirely accurate web based rules then your not playing by RAW again are you. You are once again going play by my rules or your playing wrong again...as your not even remotely concerned with RAW it seems.
I'm not playing by the rules? Those are the rule EXPLICITLY WRITTEN in the adding spells to a Wizard's spellbook section. Paizo's failure to do consistency editing is not my problem. The "web based" rules are from the reference document for the game. Them's the rules.
Umm so your the ONLY one that makes skills checks ever?!?
Now you are just being patently obtuse.
|
|
Umm so your the ONLY one that makes skills checks ever?!?Now you are just being patently obtuse.
No I'm not. How is a rule that is applied to EVERYONE singling you out? Really tell me that. Because that is what your saying. Your character isn't at any disadvantage unless the DM baddies can somehow ignore the rules and only you have to follow them.
Obviously because for a rule to disadvantage me, it has to affect only me.
Sorry, the Core book doesn't say you can counterspell a spell in effect, just as it's being cast. That effectively makes items immune, except a scroll still being read.
I'm still talking about the sword of counterspelling. I don't think it unbalences the game.
|
|
Obviously because for a rule to disadvantage me, it has to affect only me.
Yes because other are also at the same disadvantge so it even out. Yeah it sucks when you roll that one but when the baddies do it, I bet your pretty happy. So while you fail 5% of the time, so does EVERTHING else. So there is no disadvantage to just you.
Obviously because for a rule to disadvantage me, it has to affect only me.Yes because other are also at the same disadvantge so it even out. Yeah it sucks when you roll that one but when the baddies do it, I bet your pretty happy. So while you fail 5% of the time, so does EVERTHING else. So there is no disadvantage to just you.
Yes, I am overjoyed at all the Knowledge checks the baddies are failing.
|
|
Yes, I am overjoyed at all the Knowledge checks the baddies are failing.Obviously because for a rule to disadvantage me, it has to affect only me.Yes because other are also at the same disadvantge so it even out. Yeah it sucks when you roll that one but when the baddies do it, I bet your pretty happy. So while you fail 5% of the time, so does EVERTHING else. So there is no disadvantage to just you.
If it means you get to the artifact before they do...you should be.
I think it's pure win, The GM has EVERY right to change the game as he sees fit...his world has wild magic areas, how do you know how magic works in his setting?
I hate generic magic rules, I dislike that all the flavor of 1e with spell components was dispensed with a simple spell component pouch.
Maybe go a step further with the rat sword, when the sword is thrown, now it appears to be phantom rats flying through the air...obviously the sorcerer is insane to think the magic is evil, does he think some of HIS spells are evil and refuses to cast them?
Make the magic go awry, give the sword new and wand of wondrous abilities...some good some bad...if he still doesn't like it, STEAL it from him, see if he gets mad or if he's happy it's gone...
|
No I'm not. How is a rule that is applied to EVERYONE singling you out?
Because it's clearly NOT applied to everyone.
The NPCs are able to have all events in their life that happen offstage, out of sight of the PCs, handwaved away.
When the PCs go to see the blacksmith, he's there, working at his forge, assumed to have made it to work without maiming himself on the way.
For the game to be fair, the GM should make 100 d20 rolls for all the tasks he's had to complete that morning, in case he failed Perception to hear the rooster crow, got groinstrain from Climbing out of bed, failed Acrobatics and trod on the cat, and dropped a pan of boiling porridge on himself.
The PCs are centre stage, under a spotlight, having to make rolls for everything they do, from the moment they are created, to the moment they die.
Probably from cutting their own head off with nail clippers.
If it means you get to the artifact before they do...you should be.Yes, I am overjoyed at all the Knowledge checks the baddies are failing.Obviously because for a rule to disadvantage me, it has to affect only me.Yes because other are also at the same disadvantge so it even out. Yeah it sucks when you roll that one but when the baddies do it, I bet your pretty happy. So while you fail 5% of the time, so does EVERTHING else. So there is no disadvantage to just you.
Why do Trolls care about "the artifact"? Whatever it is.
|
|
Why do Trolls care about "the artifact"? Whatever it is.If it means you get to the artifact before they do...you should be.Yes, I am overjoyed at all the Knowledge checks the baddies are failing.Obviously because for a rule to disadvantage me, it has to affect only me.Yes because other are also at the same disadvantge so it even out. Yeah it sucks when you roll that one but when the baddies do it, I bet your pretty happy. So while you fail 5% of the time, so does EVERTHING else. So there is no disadvantage to just you.
Why are trolls even making knowedge rolls...everyone know trolls have no brains anyways.
|
|
No I'm not. How is a rule that is applied to EVERYONE singling you out?Because it's clearly NOT applied to everyone.
The NPCs are able to have all events in their life that happen offstage, out of sight of the PCs, handwaved away.
When the PCs go to see the blacksmith, he's there, working at his forge, assumed to have made it to work without maiming himself on the way.
For the game to be fair, the GM should make 100 d20 rolls for all the tasks he's had to complete that morning, in case he failed Perception to hear the rooster crow, got groinstrain from Climbing out of bed, failed Acrobatics and trod on the cat, and dropped a pan of boiling porridge on himself.The PCs are centre stage, under a spotlight, having to make rolls for everything they do, from the moment they are created, to the moment they die.
Probably from cutting their own head off with nail clippers.
Well...unless the PC have to make all those assnine checks, I fail to see why the NPC must as well. Please note equal application of the rule is ASSUMED. If not they we have more of an issue then just skill check houserules because if your not willing to apply rules equally, then it doesn't even matter WHAT the rules are anyways.
Why are trolls even making knowedge rolls...everyone know trolls have no brains anyways.Why do Trolls care about "the artifact"? Whatever it is.If it means you get to the artifact before they do...you should be.Yes, I am overjoyed at all the Knowledge checks the baddies are failing.Obviously because for a rule to disadvantage me, it has to affect only me.Yes because other are also at the same disadvantge so it even out. Yeah it sucks when you roll that one but when the baddies do it, I bet your pretty happy. So while you fail 5% of the time, so does EVERTHING else. So there is no disadvantage to just you.
I don't know. You're the one having them roll skill checks to see if they fail once every 20 times. And they have 6 Int.
I don't know. You're the one having them roll skill checks to see if they fail once every 20 times. And they have 6 Int.No they don't. When have to ever seem a troll with 6 int...honestly, I'd rate the trolls to have 3 int at best.
And I never said you roll for the hell of it.
Page 268 The Bestiary says Trolls have a 6 Int.
Primordial Trolls have a 3 intelligence, because they regenerate from every large chunk. It's their decentralized nervous system.
They don't seem to use toenail clippers.
|
|
Take it up with the PRD.
I don't know. You're the one having them roll skill checks to see if they fail once every 20 times. And they have 6 Int.No they don't. When have to ever seem a troll with 6 int...honestly, I'd rate the trolls to have 3 int at best.
And I never said you roll for the hell of it.
Wrong trolls.
Wrong trolls.Take it up with the PRD.
I don't know. You're the one having them roll skill checks to see if they fail once every 20 times. And they have 6 Int.No they don't. When have to ever seem a troll with 6 int...honestly, I'd rate the trolls to have 3 int at best.
And I never said you roll for the hell of it.
Not only do the goalposts move, they also insult people. Very innovative.
|
|
Not only do the goalposts move, they also insult people. Very innovative.Wrong trolls.Take it up with the PRD.
I don't know. You're the one having them roll skill checks to see if they fail once every 20 times. And they have 6 Int.No they don't. When have to ever seem a troll with 6 int...honestly, I'd rate the trolls to have 3 int at best.
And I never said you roll for the hell of it.
Umm since when is a pun goalpost moving?!? sheesh.
And thank you I thought the pun was quite clever myself.
|
The PC decided to destroy, for reasonably valid in-game reasons (albeit based on a misunderstanding), a piece of treasure. So what? But the DM seemed like he wanted to teach the guy a lesson ("don't destroy the treasure I, in my munificence as DM, deign to grant you, or there'll be trouble!") which to me just seems a bit mean-spirited.Maybe he shouldn't have used the word "dumb", but that's not the point.
The PC was forging a sword. He used the exact same fire to destroy the item and then proceed to forge his sword in it.
If you set a tire on fire, and then cook over it, your food is going to come out tasting bad. Conversely, if you use special kinds of wood, your food might come out tasting awesome, for example, hickory smoked ribs.
The GM wasn't trying to screw over his player, he saw a perfectly plausible consequence for an action and add a small amount of COLOR to his campaign. He didn't give any mechanical penalties. He also gave the player a guaranteed way to fix the problem, with an assurance that the player would have the opportunity to use this solution within the natural course of the campaign. The player being impatient, decided to try using magic in an noted uncontrollable environment to have a very specific effect.
So why is the DM upset, because he clearly is? Actually, this isn't about the player - his feelings on the matter are still a bit mysterious. It's about the DM - he was the one who was moved to post the OP after all. The DM effectively says "I gave him treasure and he destroyed it, so I did X to his weapon". And it's quite funny and if the PC and the DM are cool about it, there is no problem. But there is a problem. The player could think this was great for all we know, but it isn't the point - the DM is the one who is upset.
My point is: the player didn't do what he wanted. That's a player's perogative. Is the player seriously disruptive? I don't know, but it doesn't really sound like it. The player displays an admirable lack of metagaming - he destroyed a perfectly saleable magic item for in-game reasons, and not many players would do that. The wild magic thing is a bit odd but his DM allowed him a skill check which basically said it would work, so it's not really that mad.
I think there are probably play style issues here. The DM, a bit ironically, seems to expect a bit of metagaming from his PC (which I guess can be useful to a DM from time to time) but the player is simply not doing it. Others have alluded to communcation issues and I think this is the problem too. So, like I say, don't slyly stick effects on the guys sword in-game if, as a DM, you are getting frustrated - talk the the player instead to iron out what is probably not that big a deal.
If you ban an internet troll, several new ones join up.
In other words, Primordial.
If you strike me down now, I shall become more powerful than you can ever imagine!
The only grief I have with that is that sometimes, as a DM, I don't want them making a skill check, or failing it. So I set a DC so low or so high that can't possibly do one or the other. If a 20 followed by a 20 is a guaranteed success, then the piece of obscure lore that I want them to research or that only the Wizard should be able to make, could be known by the stupid rogue. Or, the DC 1 Knowledge Duh check is failed by the genius because he rolled two 1s. I know, statistically it's highly improbable, but the chance exists.
No the stealther would have to roll a 1 followed by a 1 to fail. The perciver would need to roll a 20 followed by a 20 to succeed. So you have a 1 in 400 chance of failure because you stepped on a very loud cracking branch. He has a 1 in 400 chance of just happening to glance at the right place at the right time. Please do try to read the WHOLE thing before commenting...sheesh.
Improbably? According to Murphy's law, it will happen - when it's least convenient.
I see your point, however unless an arcana check was done, in character the player has no idea what effects could come from this action
It's the GM's task to call for knowledge checks in that situation. The GM knows that there is something the character could know. The player doesn't. So the GM calls for rolls. Or makes them for people secretly.
Plus, it's knowledge. While you can wrack your brain to remember something, it's usually either "you know this" or "you don't know this", and the brain will automatically (attempt to) recall the information when the situation calls for it.
So you don't force players to make Knowledge checks whenever they think there could be something they didn't think of, because you'll drown in Knowledge checks. And Perception checks to notice things. And Sense Motive checks to call everyone's character in question. And so on, and so forth ad nauseum
As to the rules about 1 and 20 on skill checks. I go with the rule that a nat 1 is treated as a -10. Horrible check but not auto-fail. A nat 20 is treated as a +30, not quite auto-success, but still damn good.
I do the same thing by making up unique items or boons for PCs. In my last campaign, most of the PCs had special unique items including bracers of armor that granted the effects of a golembane scarab to him-- but instead of breaking DR on golems, it broke DR on undead. One PC was blessed by his god to have a +2 Wis +2 Cha ability representing his latent schizophrenia (Dark Passenger (su), and if the game had continued I would've given him slippery mind for free). Editing and making up new and interesting items and creatures makes the game more than just a Choose Your Own Adventure book in my opinion.
A 55 foot wide gorge is easily clearable by a lucky rogue (1 out of every 20 make this jump when asked to) on a running jump. Level 1. Considering the world record is about 30 feet... :P Just funny.
For a less meaningful and shocking number, a level 20 monk could jump (20+20+30+20+24+10+20+6+3) about 143 feet on a natural 20. Or, 35 feet straight into the air, without a running jump. That's actually par for par-- monk's being amazing acrobats-- but I just had to check it out for myself.
I know it only enhances his jump by 30 feet, but I find it very humorous that the monks in your game could get that much closer to jumping my entire Chessex map grid (32x47) in one bound.
In a recent game, I botched a roll whilst creating a Scroll of Mage Armor which I had intended to sell. I failed by such a small margin (1 point, actually) that I didn't even realize I screwed up. I sold the scroll, and three days later I was being hounded by Dottari demanding a bribe, plus compensation for harming a Cheliaxan citizen. Ultimately, as I see it: magic is as exact a science as an inexact science can be.
Actually, that's how not to do things. You punish people for better rolls - failing by only a small margin will fool you into believing you did it right, while only messing things up properly will let you know you failed.
The proper way to do it is to let people who really mess up believe they did it right - i.e. screw them more than the guy who only fails, but knows it.
There's rules precedence for that sort of failure scale.
So why is the DM upset, because he clearly is? Actually, this isn't about the player - his feelings on the matter are still a bit mysterious. It's about the DM - he was the one who was moved to post the OP after all. The DM effectively says "I gave him treasure and he destroyed it, so I did X to his weapon". And it's quite funny and if the PC and the DM are cool about it, there is no problem. But there is a problem. The player could think this was great for all we know, but it isn't the point - the DM is the one who is upset.My point is: the player didn't do what he wanted. That's a player's perogative. Is the player seriously disruptive? I don't know, but it doesn't really sound...
I'm not sure where you're getting the punitive angle from. There was nothing punitive in the OP, or any of his follow up posts. Other than perhaps the use of the word "dumb" in the thread title.
From everything the GM has posted, after the initial tampering of the magic item, he has informed the player of everything going on. He's not punishing the player for not doing the GM's preplanned actions. The player is clearly making a bad choice by trying to use controlled magic in a highly uncontrolled environment. I would equate relying on magic in a Wild Magic zone to trying to fill out your tax return by throwing the forms and a pen into a drier together.
Yes, there is a problem, and there have been solutions presented, but just telling the GM he is bad and the problem shouldn't have existed in the first place aren't helpful.
As for people who become cry-babies when something bad happens to their characters, I really recommend they actually watch/read some good fiction. I posted some great examples, but there are hundreds more, of awesome fiction that shows the protagonists basically getting dumped on all the time, yet they are awesome stories. I mentioned John Wick and someone else said that his DM advice is horrible. Yet if you compare his DM style to the typical stuff that happens to characters in movies/tv/books, it's very similar.
And it's not here either.
You're talking about different applications of spellcast. the 1day/1week rule is about learning/preparing spells from a spellbook or scroll, while the rule where you need a new rank is for when you want to write it into your spellbook.
Weird that there are different rules for these things, probably an oversight, but it's a fact that Pathfinder still has a rule where you need another rank to try again (that is still there in the most current printing of the book).
Also whoever on page 1 mentioned John Wick, don't. He has like the worst DM advice in the universe. He's the guy who creates DMNPC villains purposefully to screw over his players.See, here's fun fact. There is no DM vs PCs. There can't be. So long as the DM can say "rocks fall you die," there can be no vs there because the PCs cannot fight back. Now, PCs vs the rules? That's not only possible, it's the default.
I agree and disagree. There is always a component of DM vs. PC, because the DM is attempting to set up challenges against his players. Everyone is at the table to work together to create an awesome story, so in that part, there is no "vs".
Compare John Wick's style of GM'ing to some of your favorite fiction. For example, there's a remarkable similarity to Buffy, Burn Notice, Empire Strikes Back, Dresden Files, the list goes on. It seems to me, that the majority of people in this thread would quit a game if their GM treated them like the main characters in these stories. Yet, these are great works of fiction that a lot of people enjoy.
If you look at John Wick's style and assume that he's only out to kill your character, yeah, he looks like a jerk. But look at what he writes and imagine it as a Superman comic, and you end up with 1/2 of the plot lines of Superman. Compare it to Joss Whedon's style of story and you start to see a lot of similarities. I love Burn Notice, but every time the main character gets closer to figuring things out, the rabbit hole gets deeper.
John Wick's style is to only let his players barely get their heads above water. They are always struggling and it is the struggle that is the story. We don't watch movies where people with perfectly content lives go about their day succeeding at everything they do. Yet, that's how a lot of people treat D&D.
We don't? How many popular shows have the heroes dieing or not achieving their immediate goal? Sure, it SEEMS that they are getting the crap kicked out of them, but really, they are succeeding at everything they try - and very well.
The PC was forging a sword. He used the exact same fire to destroy the item and then proceed to forge his sword in it.If you set a tire on fire, and then cook over it, your food is going to come out tasting bad. Conversely, if you use special kinds of wood, your food might come out tasting awesome, for example, hickory smoked ribs.
I bow to your superior knowledge about martial cuisine and humbly request that you bake a tasty devil slayer sword for me! :P
The GM wasn't trying to screw over his player, he saw a perfectly plausible consequence for an action and add a small amount of COLOR to his campaign.
What seems plausible to one person can be utter nonsense to another. Assuming everyone thinks like you will more often lead to trouble than not.
He didn't give any mechanical penalties.
A penalty doesn't have to be mechanical to be an annoyance, unless you're talking about a pure roll-player here, one who has Cha 3 with every character unless it's a paladin or sorcerer or something like that.
He also gave the player a guaranteed way to fix the problem, with an assurance that the player would have the opportunity to use this solution within the natural course of the campaign.
I don't know about you, but if something really annoys me, I don't want to wait months to fix it if it can't be helped.
And if someone is responsible for that annoyance, I definitely won't wait months to let them fix it.
The issue here (well, the other issue besides the guy calling his player "dumb" because he has a different opinion) is this:
The GM decided to off the beaten path. That alone isn't a problem. But he didn't tell the player he'd do that. That can be a problem. And then he didn't give the character a chance to know how this made-up world works, even though the character has lived in it, and then punished him for not playing according to rules he was never told. And that definitely is a problem.
A simple "are you sure?" just doesn't cut it, because that is pretty vague. It could mean "You want to destroy valuable treasures you could get some gold out of, are you sure you want to do that? I won't reimburse the party for that."
Don't matter if you don't care...thats even more of what I'm saying because if you are using old/not entirely accurate web based rules then your not playing by RAW again are you. You are once again going play by my rules or your playing wrong again...as your not even remotely concerned with RAW it seems.
Wrong.
Rule one of being a jerk about things you think you know: Make sure you actually know what you're talking about, or things may backfire horribly.
Obviously because for a rule to disadvantage me, it has to affect only me.Yes because other are also at the same disadvantge so it even out. Yeah it sucks when you roll that one but when the baddies do it, I bet your pretty happy. So while you fail 5% of the time, so does EVERTHING else. So there is no disadvantage to just you.
Stuff like that will always screw the PCs. It's the old "enemy needs only to be lucky once, players need to be lucky all the time" situation. Happens when some critters are there only for a single encounter and end up as roadkill, while the characters are in the spotlight all the time.
The party is getting reimbursed for destroyed magic items?
What game are you playing?
Is that in some book, file, or what?
The GM has EVERY right to change the game as he sees fit...
Right doesn't come into it. If you change something without telling anyone, you're just being mean.
his world has wild magic areas, how do you know how magic works in his setting?
I don't. I have no idea. But I do know why I don't know. It's because I'm not a character living in this world. I'm especially not a smith and/or crafter of magic items in this world.
But the character in question was. He has lived there all his life. He's been trained in the subject. Surely you don't suggest that character cannot know about his trade, do you?
if he still doesn't like it, STEAL it from him, see if he gets mad or if he's happy it's gone...
Yeah. That's just like I installed this program on a friend's computer. It randomly changed the keyboard layout. When he complained, I stole his computer. For some weird reason, he wasn't happy at all. For some reason, he wanted to keep his stuff, he just wanted it fixed again.
People these days! :P
he destroyed a perfectly saleable magic item for in-game reasons, and not many players would do that.
I had a fellow party member almost throw a hissy fit because my character destroyed an item worth several millions of GP once.
It was some demon lord's sword of unholy power, I think effectively +13 all in all.
My CG and very valiant bladesinger didn't think twice and worked together with the party druid to destroy this abomination.
The party's wizard was angry because we didn't sell the thing. :)
(So beyond doing a good deet, I got to annoy the greedy SoB again - double win! :D)
+1 to OP.
If the group and the player are happy, play on and ignore these mooks.
I am quite shocked at the venom spewed towards the OP, and it really makes me wonder what planet (or who's basement) some of you live on. So he and his group like a more cinematic style of play, more power to them.
We don't? How many popular shows have the heroes dieing or not achieving their immediate goal? Sure, it SEEMS that they are getting the crap kicked out of them, but really, they are succeeding at everything they try - and very well.
Yup, they often succeed, or succeed through failure as a means to further the plot, but they still have to endure the bad stuff that leads up to these successes, or live with the consequences afterwards.
In the typical D&D game, there are no negative consequences (except death). The only trials and tribulations are trying to figure how to get bonuses to stack. I grew up on the game and love it, but too often I see people want to play perfect badasses who never fail at anything and never make a bad decision or suffer the consequences for failing to think their actions through.
I am quite shocked at the venom spewed towards the OP, and it really makes me wonder what planet (or who's basement) some of you live on.
I'm sure that if the OP didn't call the PC "DUMB" (all in cap letter), the tread would have unraveled quite differently.
In doing so, the OP insulted everyone who, like his "DUMB" PC, would have been slightly offended by this otherwise relatively benign DM twist. The venom was quite palpable in the OP, I for one am not surprised it backfired on him (not much impressed either, just not surprised).
'findel
I believe in the Rule Of Cool with RPGs. Most players want their character to be cool above all else. Failure, hardship, torture, all can be lived with as long as they can still see their character as cool. Forced lameness is a worse punishment than unwanted enchantments or transmutations, which are both worse than death. The DM may have thought it was a cool and fun effect, but if the player disagrees, unhappiness follows.
Also, I too use the 1=-10, 20=30 house rule.
|
|
I'm not sure where you're getting the punitive angle from. There was nothing punitive in the OP, or any of his follow up posts. Other than perhaps the use of the word "dumb" in the thread title.
Well, doesn't that rather go to the heart of the matter? If it isn't an issue, why mention it? Why bother to create the thread? And why is it dumb to use magic in a wild magic zone of the DM gives you an Arcana chack and then says he can use it to get rid of the effect on his sword. More like calculated risk based on the information the player was given.
As for people who become cry-babies when something bad happens to their characters, I really recommend they actually watch/read some good fiction.
This isn't about what people may have read or not read, it's about a player and his DM failing to communicate and having different play styles.
Also whoever on page 1 mentioned John Wick, don't. He has like the worst DM advice in the universe. He's the guy who creates DMNPC villains purposefully to screw over his players.See, here's fun fact. There is no DM vs PCs. There can't be. So long as the DM can say "rocks fall you die," there can be no vs there because the PCs cannot fight back. Now, PCs vs the rules? That's not only possible, it's the default.
I agree and disagree. There is always a component of DM vs. PC, because the DM is attempting to set up challenges against his players. Everyone is at the table to work together to create an awesome story, so in that part, there is no "vs".
Compare John Wick's style of GM'ing to some of your favorite fiction. For example, there's a remarkable similarity to Buffy, Burn Notice, Empire Strikes Back, Dresden Files, the list goes on. It seems to me, that the majority of people in this thread would quit a game if their GM treated them like the main characters in these stories. Yet, these are great works of fiction that a lot of people enjoy.
If you look at John Wick's style and assume that he's only out to kill your character, yeah, he looks like a jerk. But look at what he writes and imagine it as a Superman comic, and you end up with 1/2 of the plot lines of Superman. Compare it to Joss Whedon's style of story and you start to see a lot of similarities. I love Burn Notice, but every time the main character gets closer to figuring things out, the rabbit hole gets deeper.
John Wick's style is to only let his players barely get their heads above water. They are always struggling and it is the struggle that is the story. We don't watch movies where people with perfectly content lives go about their day succeeding at everything they do. Yet, that's how a lot of people treat D&D.
You'll have a point when he doesn't make DMNPCs and create scripted events in which the player cannot move or take any actions as his character as his evil DMNPCs ruin their lives.
Or when he doesn't just offhand turn bonuses they've bought in game into death-dealing penalties for no reason.
Or when he doesn't lock up a character for weeks of real life time and demand the player literally just sit there every session and do nothing but watch everyone else play.
But, see, he has done those things, and continues to advocate those things. So no. He is the very representation of the bad DM. He is the ur-terrible DM.
Well. John Wick is certainly an interesting character. I googled him, then realised that I'd read his Hit em where it hurts article a few years back.
The comments on that article speak from themselves to be honest. And what would he make of my current character:
A tragic backstory with dependants.
Unusual source of shadow powers.
Built in recurring villain potential.
And he has concealment, which may or may not be on JW's list of 'powers I want to mess with'.
So, I can see my character being held to ransom over his sister/mother, his concealment being negated to total uselessness, and a recurring shadow villain who completely fubars everything he tries to do.
Nice.
As it happens, I gave my DM the freedom to make anything of my backstory etc, and I've ended up with a hugely enjoyable personal quest alongside that of the campaign, my character has developed enormously from what I thought it would, and I'm having a whale of a time (although I think I could do with a power up, but that's another thread).
I'd probably be thinking of qutting if it was JWs game. Unless he really is an amazing DM and just has some control issues with munchkins.