What Was Your Last Straw?


Gamer Life General Discussion

601 to 650 of 907 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | next > last >>

Rhothaerill wrote:
/snip/

Why didn't your SIL's character just buy a warhorse?


Arnwyn wrote:
Rhothaerill wrote:
/snip/
Why didn't your SIL's character just buy a warhorse?

I was also thinking that.

In tandem with "how did she lose a horse? I mean, were they fighting a herd of centaurs? Did it fly away?"


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Cartigan wrote:
Arnwyn wrote:
Rhothaerill wrote:
/snip/
Why didn't your SIL's character just buy a warhorse?

I was also thinking that.

In tandem with "how did she lose a horse? I mean, were they fighting a herd of centaurs? Did it fly away?"

This was a 1st level character in 1st edition, so there wasn't enough starting cash to purchase the weapons and armor she needed along with a warhorse. She had a regular horse that she wanted to ride and train to become a warhorse down the road (roleplaying and probably a proficiency). She wasn't trying to ride the horse into battle yet; the DM ruled that it spooked as soon the kobolds got within 50 feet.

As to how she lost the horse, only the DM knows since he was the one that ruled that the horse ran off, wouldn't come back, and no tracks could be found.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Rhothaerill wrote:

Strike 3, you're out: So we all (almost all) start off to the east. My SIL, a fighter, had used a lot of her starting cash to add a horse, as she was trying to roleplay a mounted warrior (with the RP that she and the horse had grown up together). Soon after we leave the inn we're attacked by a group of kobolds (that didn't surprise us). The DM rules that my SIL's horse bolts because of the horrible monsters. Okay, fine. We take part in the combat, eventually beating the kobolds. My SIL goes to look for her horse. "It doesn't come back to you, and you can't locate any tracks after an hour of searching," says the DM.

Uh...okay. A horse that tore off in a rush doesn't leave any tracks. My SIL (who again, is playing a fighter) states that she is ignoring the obvious issue of finding tracks and asks why a horse who grew up around battle with her suddenly freaks and bolts, never to return. Another player posts that it is a riding horse and not a war horse, to which the DM essentially says, "Well duh".

A nice little argument ensues between my SIL and the DM (including some discussion about search and rescue horses) until he comes up with this gem: "Sorry, but no. There is a reason why riding horses are cheap compared to war horses. Roleplaying is good, but not when it is used as an excuse to circumvent the rules."

(My thought here: what rules...he just made up that the horse left and didn't come back)

My SIL responds with: "It's really not my fault that you don't know enough about horses to know that there are differences among how horses are trained and that the two levels of horses available for purchase don't cover all the bases - or hell, any of them other than "war" and "fragile flower riding near a pond". I'm so f***ing sick of control freaks. You know, when I was a DM and I led people who knew way more about reptiles than I did, I listened to them and didn't dismiss 'em with a "because I said so". But hey, that's me, right?"

To which he responds: "Good for you. Did you let them cheat, too?"

Y'know, I have to empathize with the DM a little bit on the horse issue - not on it being completely untrackable after the fight, he's on his own on that one. But having a player complain about how the game is set up based on some external knowledge they have about some relatively marginal aspect of life - like gradations of horses and training between riding horses and warhorses - can be a major pain. The game treats a lot of things with some abstraction and people really should be satisfied with that.

But having a riding horse, even one the character has grown up with, get skittish and bolt in a fight seems fine to me. I'd probably have it run off about 50-100 meters and just abide. I'd probably also be content to have it return to the PC if she whistled for it when the fight was over rather than have it simply be lost.

I also wouldn't call it cheating if the player brought up differences in training. I'd just say that, for the most part, they won't matter much in the course of play. You want a horse you can ride into battle, you will invest in a warhorse. If that's done by buying a riding horse and then spending cash over time to reflect how you're spending time and resources training it to fighting standard in 1st edition, that would be OK with me.


Cartigan wrote:
Arnwyn wrote:
Rhothaerill wrote:
/snip/
Why didn't your SIL's character just buy a warhorse?

I was also thinking that.

In tandem with "how did she lose a horse? I mean, were they fighting a herd of centaurs? Did it fly away?"

Maybe the kobolds ate the horse. >_>


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Geistlinger wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
Arnwyn wrote:
Rhothaerill wrote:
/snip/
Why didn't your SIL's character just buy a warhorse?

I was also thinking that.

In tandem with "how did she lose a horse? I mean, were they fighting a herd of centaurs? Did it fly away?"

Maybe the kobolds ate the horse. >_>

Then why diodn't she find a pile of horse-bones? Looks to me like the DM was just saying "No, I'm not going to let you have a mounted warrior, period."


I agree, I was just being a smart-a$$. :P


Bill Dunn wrote:
But having a player complain about how the game is set up based on some external knowledge they have about some relatively marginal aspect of life - like gradations of horses and training between riding horses and warhorses - can be a major pain. The game treats a lot of things with some abstraction and people really should be satisfied with that.

While I think the DM in the game in question here was, in fact, being a jerk - I have to agree on this to a certain degree.

Case in point - In my longest running D&D game (started in 2nd Edition, ended in 3.5 and saw 18 levels of character growth on average), one of the shorter-termed players had a degree in Chemistry. She was, in fact, a Chemist.

So when I started describing how difficult it was for the PC's to put together a very potent, powerful potion they'd found the recipe for in an Alchemists notes (with which they'd gotten their hopes up about its potential for knocking out Dragons, as one was terrorizing their home city), she started asking questions about the various elements and ingredients, telling me that the items on their list wouldn't react in any way close to approximating a poisonous reaction.

"How do you know this?" I asked her.

"Well, this is basic Chem101A," she said. "You'd need (list of five items) to get (designated reaction)."

Sighing, I tried to remind her that this was a world in which magical beasts that breathed acid and flame flew around on leathery wings, spoke eloquently, and ate diamonds. Further, despite the fact that I had built a nation where literacy and basic schooling was assumed, her character was an INT 10 Ranger who, by her own description, had no formal education. "Chem101A" did not exist, and she could continue to metagame and use player knowledge and stall the game with pointless arguments about a shopping list, or she could accept that real-world chemistry did not exist in this game and Dragons did.

Now that I think about it, I'm sure she'd use THAT as her "last straw" story, as she left the game about two months after that, when I wouldn't let her play a Gnome in a world that had never had them. Ever.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Bill Dunn wrote:

Y'know, I have to empathize with the DM a little bit on the horse issue - not on it being completely untrackable after the fight, he's on his own on that one. But having a player complain about how the game is set up based on some external knowledge they have about some relatively marginal aspect of life - like gradations of horses and training between riding horses and warhorses - can be a major pain. The game treats a lot of things with some abstraction and people really should be satisfied with that.

But having a riding horse, even one the character has grown up with, get skittish and bolt in a fight seems fine to me. I'd probably have it run off about 50-100 meters and just abide. I'd probably also be content to have it return to the PC if she whistled for it when the fight was over rather than have it simply be lost.

I also wouldn't call it cheating if the player brought up differences in training. I'd just say that, for the most part, they won't matter much in the course of play. You want a horse you can ride into battle, you will invest in a warhorse. If that's done by buying a riding horse and then spending cash over time to reflect how you're spending time and resources training it to fighting standard in 1st edition, that would be OK with me.

Being a DM myself I'd agree about the players occasionally bringing up external knowledge, etc., but in this case she wasn't riding the horse into battle. The horse bolted before the kobolds got close. My SIL was actually content with it bolting until she tried to call the horse at the end and the DM ruled that it ran off and couldn't be found, which was baffling to all of us. That is what set off the whole exchange. If the DM had just let her find the horse off in the distance somewhere then the whole thing would have been fine.

Regarding the DM calling what she was trying to do cheating, I think part of that is conflicting philosophies. The DM didn't seem much interested in actual role-playing and as much as said that he thought role playing was something that people tried to do to "get more stuff than they should". Whereas the rest of us were into the role-playing aspect. I would have totally allowed her to use the horse as a riding horse and as she leveled up have it become more of a warhorse as she put ranks into riding, etc. (granted the game in question was 1e not 3.5e or PF). The DM calling what she did cheating was my SIL's last straw. The rest of us had no particular desire to remain either as we weren't having much fun to begin with.

Little side note though...soon after I started my campaign up, when the party got out into the wilderness they saw a horse in the distance that got close to them, spooked, and ran away. ;)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can sum up a last straw moment I had in two words: Palomino Unicorn.

Here's the backstory - years ago myself and a few friends(briefly) played in a game run by a guy I'll call "Tim". His wife, I'll call her "Tammy", was a player in the game. Tim was always posting Gamers Wanted notices in the FLGS (this was the days before the interwebs), and he was having trouble keeping a group going. We chatted with him a few times at some in-store events we decided to give his game shot.

First game we meet his wife Tammy. The campaign was AD&D set in a homebrew world. Tammy's character was a homebrew race called something like "Elfling", which was basically like an elf but only better. And her character's class was also homebrew, it had a name I don't remember but it could best be described as a "Mystic Princess", which was like a figher/rogue/magic-user, but only better. New players were not allowed to run Elflings or Mystic Princesses, so we settled on the regular stuff.

Now that I am older and wiser, in the same situation red flags and sirens would be going off in my head and that would probably have been the last straw. But I was young and naive, so continued on in the campaign. Tammy liked her magic bling, and from time to time she'd drop not so subtle hints like "Tim, I would be really nice if my character had a magic staff that did X, Y, and Z.". And then later in the game we'd find as loot a magic staff that did X, Y and Z. But it wouldn't just be a regular staff, there'd be some qualifier like "only one of Elfling blood" could use it, so it obviously became Tammy's property as no one else could use it.

But the last straw came in maybe the second or third game session, when at the beginning Tammy mentioned "Tim, I'd really like a unicorn mount. But not just any unicorn...a Palomino Unicorn!". And sure enough, next encounter Tim described a forest clearing where a Palomino Unicorn appeared and signified by a touch of it's horn that it chose the Elfling Mystic Princess to be it's chosen rider. That was the last straw. We made some BS excuse, packed up early and never went back. 20 years later I'm still friends and occasionally game with some of my old friends who were also at the game or heard about it shorly after, and we still talk about the Palomino Unicorn.


Wasteland Knight wrote:
But the last straw came in maybe the second or third game session, when at the beginning Tammy mentioned "Tim, I'd really like a unicorn mount. But not just any unicorn...a Palomino Unicorn!". And sure enough, next encounter Tim described a forest clearing where a Palomino Unicorn appeared and signified by a touch of it's horn that it chose the Elfling Mystic Princess to be it's chosen rider.

The sickly sugary cheese just trigggered diabetes I never knew I had.

I'm all for Significant Others at the table, or even kids, but GM's should just ensure they get equal treatment... if anything I think most decent GM's probably overcompensate and go a bit harsh :(


Shifty wrote:
Wasteland Knight wrote:
But the last straw came in maybe the second or third game session, when at the beginning Tammy mentioned "Tim, I'd really like a unicorn mount. But not just any unicorn...a Palomino Unicorn!". And sure enough, next encounter Tim described a forest clearing where a Palomino Unicorn appeared and signified by a touch of it's horn that it chose the Elfling Mystic Princess to be it's chosen rider.

The sickly sugary cheese just trigggered diabetes I never knew I had.

I'm all for Significant Others at the table, or even kids, but GM's should just ensure they get equal treatment... if anything I think most decent GM's probably overcompensate and go a bit harsh :(

My wife wants a unicorn for her character. Only semi-seriously, really. No way in hell am I giving her one though. Not even being harsh, just not gonna happen. I do tend to overcompensate with her, in other areas of the game, but I like to think I treat all my players the same.... with contempt and loathing.


The Eel wrote:
My wife wants a unicorn for her character. Only semi-seriously, really.

Well if she wants to blow a feat on Leadership and pay for it like everyone else, and has a good cha and all the other qualifiers, you MIGHT let her have one per RAW. Or not :p


Shifty wrote:
The Eel wrote:
My wife wants a unicorn for her character. Only semi-seriously, really.
Well if she wants to blow a feat on Leadership and pay for it like everyone else, and has a good cha and all the other qualifiers, you MIGHT let her have one per RAW. Or not :p

Well, she's a CN Halflinh-ish rogue who delights in some typical CN hijinx, not really unicorn riding material. That's my out, right there.


The Eel wrote:
Well, she's a CN Halflinh-ish rogue who delights in some typical CN hijinx, not really unicorn riding material. That's my out, right there.

I'm with you there!

NEVER.GONNA.HAPPEN ;p


Shifty wrote:
The Eel wrote:
My wife wants a unicorn for her character. Only semi-seriously, really.
Well if she wants to blow a feat on Leadership and pay for it like everyone else, and has a good cha and all the other qualifiers, you MIGHT let her have one per RAW. Or not :p

The Healer from the Miniature's Handbook gets a Unicorn at 8th level (and then progress to other crazy stuff). Of course, the class is what it says on the tin so it isn't exactly overpowered.


Cartigan wrote:


The Healer from the Miniature's Handbook gets a Unicorn at 8th level (and then progress to other crazy stuff). Of course, the class is what it says on the tin so it isn't exactly overpowered.

I'm not so much worried about it being over powered, I'm more worried about the vomit inducing sickly sweetness of it all - grown women should not go all giggly and turn the game into 'My Little Pony' meets "The Saddle Club'.


One time I played in a 3.5E game in the Forgotten Realms, where the DM had zero tolerance for "canon lawyering" from the players. It turned out several of the players were hardcore FR "canon lawyer" types.

In the first game, one player immediately challenged the DM on FR canon. So the DM forced the player to roll a d20, which was deducted from the player character's primary stat. Another player challenged the DM on another piece of FR canon. This player refused to roll a d20. So the DM rolled the d20 for the player, and force the player to deduct double the amount from the player's primary stat. By the time the game was abruptly over, the players had drained characters like: a fighter with 3 STR, a cleric with 3 WIS, etc ...

One of the players got really angry at the DM, and threw a cup of beer at the DM. The DM threw another cup of beer back at the player, but missed and hit another player. They ended up punching one another out in fist fights, and tried smashing a bottle over the DM's head. I just walked out and never went back.

The Exchange

Internet trolls were my last straw... oh wait what was the question?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

My last straw was a blue crazy one with a Snoopy toy on it.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Low magic is quickly becoming a sign of a game I don't want to play.

These days I don't even bother playing in "low magic" games anymore.

For some strange reason, just above every DM I know in person who is hardcore into "low magic" games, turn out to be the most boring DMs I have ever gamed with over the years. It was as if their obsession for "low magic" games, is mostly to satisfy their own "control freak" DM-ing style.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
The Eel wrote:
My wife wants a unicorn for her character. Only semi-seriously, really. No way in hell am I giving her one though. Not even being harsh, just not gonna happen.

Back in 2000 playing 3.5, my (now ex-) wife wanted to play a dragon. So I dug out Savage Species and let her. She played it really well, too. She was in no ways overpowered or broken, got no special treatment, and it worked really well. The rest of the party actually outclassed her in their specialities, but loved having the intimidate factor of a dragon in the party.

Lot's of:

"We can take them! They don't have bows!"
"No, they have a loaded f*****g dragon!"


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dabbler wrote:
The Eel wrote:
My wife wants a unicorn for her character. Only semi-seriously, really. No way in hell am I giving her one though. Not even being harsh, just not gonna happen.

Back in 2000 playing 3.5, my (now ex-) wife wanted to play a dragon. So I dug out Savage Species and let her. She played it really well, too. She was in no ways overpowered or broken, got no special treatment, and it worked really well. The rest of the party actually outclassed her in their specialities, but loved having the intimidate factor of a dragon in the party.

Lot's of:

"We can take them! They don't have bows!"
"No, they have a loaded f*****g dragon!"

Yeah, dragons were actually pretty weak if you played them straight outta Savage Species. I had a player once who TOTALLY WANTED to play a dragon (all other PCs were human, elf, or half-elf, plus one dwarf). So we looked in Savage Species, looked through the Draconomicon, and it turned out that the only dragon he could actually play was a young... bronze I believe. (We were in the ECL 13 - 15 range.) He played him for a while, but eventually got tired of being behind the party in so many ways. (He basically had the spellcasting of an 8th level sorcerer and the fighting ability of a 10th level fighter.)

So I had his mother appear and ground him for a while for having run away from home. I believe the player's next character was a geomancer.


Jandrem wrote:
I've been there, I hate double-standard cheese. More often than not, the players who call me a power-gamer/min-maxer are more guilty of it than I am.

Yeah, that happens a lot.

Either this or the guy just doesn't know jack about the rules, hears something that is higher than with his character (like a defensive cleric of protection having a better AC than a sorcerer), and comments that it's overpowered.

And I was in a situation where we had to talk the GM into continuing the fight after he all but threw everything away - the wizard managed to get a reverse gravity in and cut the number of big scary giants attacking us in half for now.

But we did continue the fight. Two characters were slaughtered, the rest flew, there was no time to get them back, and the world bas basically destroyed.

Yes, you read that correctly: A GM whining about a fight becoming easier for us, a fight which killed the whole campaign.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Well I had to mess around with a Bronze dragon a bit to get it to work (giving her an alternative humanoid form and reducing hit dice among other things), but work it did. In fact while she couldn't fight better than the fighters or do better magic than the wizard, her combination of the two was effective and her perception scores were off the scale so she was the party's look out at all times (especially as she had extra range darkvision and could see invisible things). Being able to fly - fast! - at will was very useful, as was her swim speed and ability to breath underwater. In combat she was an also-ran with options, but she helped them overcome many other obstacles. In fact she ended up taking rogue levels and being an effective scout ...


The Eel wrote:
Shifty wrote:
The Eel wrote:
My wife wants a unicorn for her character. Only semi-seriously, really.
Well if she wants to blow a feat on Leadership and pay for it like everyone else, and has a good cha and all the other qualifiers, you MIGHT let her have one per RAW. Or not :p

Well, she's a CN Halflinh-ish rogue who delights in some typical CN hijinx, not really unicorn riding material. That's my out, right there.

You're not seeing the big picture.

Give her a pony with a strap-on. Call it a unicorn. CN types usually aren't too much into specific definitions.

That way the rogue gets her shiny horse and call it a unicorn, but you won't have to deal with an actual unicorn.


ggroy wrote:

One time I played in a 3.5E game in the Forgotten Realms, where the DM had zero tolerance for "canon lawyering" from the players. It turned out several of the players were hardcore FR "canon lawyer" types.

In the first game, one player immediately challenged the DM on FR canon. So the DM forced the player to roll a d20, which was deducted from the player character's primary stat. Another player challenged the DM on another piece of FR canon. This player refused to roll a d20. So the DM rolled the d20 for the player, and force the player to deduct double the amount from the player's primary stat. By the time the game was abruptly over, the players had drained characters like: a fighter with 3 STR, a cleric with 3 WIS, etc ...

Yeah, I would leave by that point als-...

ggroy wrote:
One of the players got really angry at the DM, and threw a cup of beer at the DM. The DM threw another cup of beer back at the player, but missed and hit another player. They ended up punching one another out in fist fights, and tried smashing a bottle over the DM's head. I just walked out and never went back.

Good lord! You call that the last straw?!? I'd call that a two-ton weight!


Dabbler wrote:
Back in 2000 playing 3.5, my (now ex-) wife wanted to play a dragon. So I dug out Savage Species and let her.

They had 3.5, and Savage Species, in 2000?!?

Dabbler wrote:

She played it really well, too. She was in no ways overpowered or broken, got no special treatment, and it worked really well. The rest of the party actually outclassed her in their specialities, but loved having the intimidate factor of a dragon in the party.

Lot's of:

"We can take them! They don't have bows!"
"No, they have a loaded f*****g dragon!"

Uh... if you say so.

I never tried using Savage Species for dragons, but using straight 3.5, dragons had an absurdly high level adjustment. Considering how under-CRed dragons were, I felt that those high LA figures were outrageous. (Yeah yeah. I know. CR and LA are not the same because CR doesn't account for the number of times per day blah blah blah.) The 9th-level dragon character I created was practically helpless. As Archmage_Atrus said, pretty weak, and behind the party in so many ways. If you (Dabbler) could make it work by "messing with it," then you must be quite the dabbler indeed!

The Exchange

TriOmegaZero wrote:
My last straw was a blue crazy one with a Snoopy toy on it.

But I like Snoopy!


Crimson Jester wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
My last straw was a blue crazy one with a Snoopy toy on it.
But I like Snoopy!

Snoopy's not viable. You have to be playing Linus with greater blanket specialization to be optimal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Phneri wrote:
Snoopy's not viable. You have to be playing Linus with greater blanket specialization to be optimal.

But Linus can be countered with Lucy who specialized in the Grab and Disarm techniques.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Aaron Bitman wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Back in 2000 playing 3.5, my (now ex-) wife wanted to play a dragon. So I dug out Savage Species and let her.
They had 3.5, and Savage Species, in 2000?!?

I think is was a bit after then, but it was right after it came out.

Aaron Bitman wrote:
Dabbler wrote:

She played it really well, too. She was in no ways overpowered or broken, got no special treatment, and it worked really well. The rest of the party actually outclassed her in their specialities, but loved having the intimidate factor of a dragon in the party.

Lot's of:

"We can take them! They don't have bows!"
"No, they have a loaded f*****g dragon!"

Uh... if you say so.

I never tried using Savage Species for dragons, but using straight 3.5, dragons had an absurdly high level adjustment. Considering how under-CRed dragons were, I felt that those high LA figures were outrageous. (Yeah yeah. I know. CR and LA are not the same because CR doesn't account for the number of times per day blah blah blah.) The 9th-level dragon character I created was practically helpless. As Archmage_Atrus said, pretty weak, and behind the party in so many ways. If you (Dabbler) could make it work by "messing with it," then you must be quite the dabbler indeed!

That depends. While the dragon was weaker than a fighter in combat, and weaker than a wizard casting spells, it was really good at some other things - largely perception and movement. Crap main character, awesome support character.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Phneri wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
My last straw was a blue crazy one with a Snoopy toy on it.
But I like Snoopy!
Snoopy's not viable. You have to be playing Linus with greater blanket specialization to be optimal.

You rollplayers and your optimal! I played my Snoopy for a 20-year campaign and loved every minute of it! You should stop looking at the bonuses he doesn't get and just play the story! And if the DM changes the rules everything works just fine!


ggroy wrote:
One of the players got really angry at the DM, and threw a cup of beer at the DM. The DM threw another cup of beer back at the player, but missed and hit another player. They ended up punching one another out in fist fights, and tried smashing a bottle over the DM's head. I just walked out and never went back.

Was that a gaming session or Finnegan's wake? O.o

-The Gneech


Phneri wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
My last straw was a blue crazy one with a Snoopy toy on it.
But I like Snoopy!
Snoopy's not viable. You have to be playing Linus with greater blanket specialization to be optimal.

I tried playing Linus once, but the GM made sure that every other encounter had a Sally in it, so I always ended up getting turned and fleeing from battle by round 2.


John Robey wrote:
Was that a gaming session or Finnegan's wake? O.o

When I first arrived at the place (it was a house), there were empty liquor bottles all over the place and it smelled like marijuana in the air. The players already there and the DM were smoking bong hits, and drinking heavily for several hours before I arrived. They were repeatedly going to the kitchen to get more beer, from a keg in the fridge. The actual gaming table still had some remnants of a white powder and short straws laying around. (Not hard to guess what it was).


ggroy wrote:
When I first arrived at the place (it was a house), there were empty liquor bottles all over the place and it smelled like marijuana in the air. The players already there and the DM were smoking bong hits, and drinking heavily for several hours before I arrived. They were repeatedly going to the kitchen to get more beer, from a keg in the fridge. The actual gaming table still had some remnants of a white powder and short straws laying around. (Not hard to guess what it was).

Okay, that would be the first and the last straw for me. If I walked into a game where people had been going hard core like that, I'd turn around and walk right back out. No point in even pulling out my dice bag.

That's ghetto gaming right there, man.


Wander Weir wrote:
That's ghetto gaming right there, man.

The house was actually in a semi-rural area.

Ghetto gaming probably isn't the best description. Maybe "hillbilly gaming" is more apt description.

They even had a moonshine still in the woods behind the house!


ggroy wrote:


They even had a moonshine still in the woods behind the house!

What's wrong with that?


juanpsantiagoXIV wrote:
ggroy wrote:


They even had a moonshine still in the woods behind the house!
What's wrong with that?

Nothing wrong.

I thought it was kinda neat at the time. I never saw a real moonshine still before, until that day.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
ggroy wrote:
John Robey wrote:
Was that a gaming session or Finnegan's wake? O.o
When I first arrived at the place (it was a house), there were empty liquor bottles all over the place and it smelled like marijuana in the air. The players already there and the DM were smoking bong hits, and drinking heavily for several hours before I arrived. They were repeatedly going to the kitchen to get more beer, from a keg in the fridge. The actual gaming table still had some remnants of a white powder and short straws laying around. (Not hard to guess what it was).

I think that would have been my big warning signal there and then. I do not know many people who can game when totally off their faces on beer, moonshine, cocain and marijuana.

Actually, I don't know any people who can game like that. The most recreational our groups got was tea and biscuits ...


Okay, relating this one after going over this thread with some friends over the weekend.

One fine convention morning, while running an impromptu Cybergeneration game for some friends who'd "never really managed to get into the game" and some others who'd never played any form of Dystopic game before, we are approached by a couple of folks who have bright, shining eyes.

"You're running a Cgen game?" they ask. "Do you have room for a couple more players?"

Sure! Sit yourselves down and let's talk characters.

So we go through the steps of creating characters for my friends, and the first of the two drop in players pulls out a couple of his established characters and says "I'm not sure about using this one - he's been through a lot and has a lot of experience... but I have this Beaverbrat here, and I've only played him once, do you mind if I pull him in?"

I look over the character, struck by the really fantastic, childlike - nearly Bill Waterson-esque drawings all over the back of the character sheet (the Character being all of 8 years old).

"Sure!" I say. "He's in. Cindy (name changed to protect the innocent) could use a kid-brother type, since she's said her character is protective of small children."

The second, until now, has been very silent on his character, choosing instead to help the newbies flesh out their characters - he's actually doing a really bang-up job of helping out. He knows the lore, he knows the game world, and he's showing a superb level of attention to detail on things like parental relations, familial ties, gang-relations, all that. I am impressed.

Finally, it comes time to ask about his character.

"Well, do you mind if I gender-bend?" he asks.

Not at all! Bob (name changed) is playing a 12 year old girl named Patches, you can play a female as well if you like.

"How about a 19 year old"?" he asks. "I know the normal cutoff is 18, but the character I want to play is a bit more, uh, experienced."

Well, I suppose so.

"And it's okay if I play a rich character, right?"

Um. Well, the scenario I have in mind, could maybe be broken by too much cash on hand, but I suppose if you don't mind me pulling that away from you...

"Ah, okay! I'll just play her evil clone, then..."

At this point, a tiny red flag has gone up in my head, but, hey, so far this guy has been fantastic at helping the other players and keeping things on track for me as a GM trying to explain a game to people who've never played before. So, I put the flag aside and ask to see his character.

He hauls out an ENORMOUS, heavy, industrial grade binder, opens the cover, and with a lick of his thumb and forefinger, pages through a series of centerfolds, pictorial spreads, and nude photographs that have all been copped and cut from the likes of Playboy, Penthouse, and several other less reputable "Men's" magazines.

I'm no prude, and I've taken hundreds of hours of Life Drawing classes, but it fails to dawn on me that these are his Character Illustrations. I sit there for a moment thinking that he's just digging around for some jollies, when he finally stops on a particular page, and turns it around to show me.

"You'll note that she's a Bolter," he says, and proceeds to launch into a monologue about how her "original" was a Webcam Sensation, using her body and "charms" to amass a good deal of money before buying out her father's corporation, and using that to procure political savvy and power in the ISA. The Clone, he explains, is an ISA plant designed to discredit and dishonor the name of his "main" character, and then (with a now greasy from a bag of chips he's materialized from somewhere) proceeds to stab at the sheet protector over the image of a spread-eagled, mythically-proportioned woman, indicating the various bits of paper with printed numbers and statistics on them, pasted all over the sheet.

"She has a 10 REF," he says, "Because she's a Bolter..."

This goes on for some time. The eloquent, skilled, talented and helpful player is suddenly replaced by someone almost unrecognizable from ten minutes earlier, going on and on in great detail about the sexual exploits and prurient mannerisms of the "Evil Clone," and how the only reason they really differ from the "Good Original" is "And as you can see, she has black hair, which explains why she's evil."

About an hour into the game - during which time he has not once ceased attempting to pick up, solicit sexual favors from, or otherwise commandeer any male character or NPC his character has come across - he gets up to take a break in the men's room.

I turn to the guy he came to the table with. "Your friend is clearly making the ladies at the table uncomfortable," I say. "Do you mind asking him to tone it down?"

He shrugs. "I don't know the guy. We were just talking about Cyberpunk and stuff and we heard you starting a CGen game. I really didn't know he'd do this."

My female friends threaten to leave the game.

Thinking quickly, I scribble my room number down on several slips of paper, and as Problem Player comes back to the table, I make sure that all of the rest of the players have their slips.

He returns, and we play for about another ten minutes, when the alarm I'd just set on my phone goes off.

"Crap!" I proclaim. "I'm supposed to be meeting (insert friend of mine who wasn't at the convention's name) for lunch."

I gracefully remove myself from the game, thanking everyone for playing, and say I hope we can do it again later.

I then exit the game, as the rest of the group breaks up and goes their separate ways.

A half an hour later, the group - now minus the problem player - reforms in my room, we finish up the session (much faster and cleaner and with a lot less digressions), and have a great time.

I've seen that guy at a few other cons since then. He still has his binder.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

My last straw was a bendy one, wait isn't that what this thread is about...


Dabbler wrote:


I think that would have been my big warning signal there and then. I do not know many people who can game when totally off their faces on beer, moonshine, cocain and marijuana.

Myself and my freiends produced a very silly d20 game some time back called "Mudgrips & Big Rigs" that lampoons our own lives and experiences growing up and living in backwoods Georgia. I'll have to upload the old files and link to them later tonight. It's actually better played while a little lit up.


ggroy wrote:
juanpsantiagoXIV wrote:
ggroy wrote:


They even had a moonshine still in the woods behind the house!
What's wrong with that?

Nothing wrong.

I thought it was kinda neat at the time. I never saw a real moonshine still before, until that day.

I'm always amazed when I see people say things like this, or when they ask what grits are or how they taste. Then I remind myself not everyone is blessed with being Southern.


juanpsantiagoXIV wrote:
ggroy wrote:
juanpsantiagoXIV wrote:
ggroy wrote:


They even had a moonshine still in the woods behind the house!
What's wrong with that?

Nothing wrong.

I thought it was kinda neat at the time. I never saw a real moonshine still before, until that day.

I'm always amazed when I see people say things like this, or when they ask what grits are or how they taste. Then I remind myself not everyone is blessed with being Southern.

Of course some people in the South actually live in cities and towns and wouldn't know either.


Cartigan wrote:
juanpsantiagoXIV wrote:
ggroy wrote:
juanpsantiagoXIV wrote:
ggroy wrote:


They even had a moonshine still in the woods behind the house!
What's wrong with that?

Nothing wrong.

I thought it was kinda neat at the time. I never saw a real moonshine still before, until that day.

I'm always amazed when I see people say things like this, or when they ask what grits are or how they taste. Then I remind myself not everyone is blessed with being Southern.
Of course some people in the South actually live in cities and towns and wouldn't know either.

What about the penguins?


KaeYoss wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
juanpsantiagoXIV wrote:
ggroy wrote:
juanpsantiagoXIV wrote:
ggroy wrote:


They even had a moonshine still in the woods behind the house!
What's wrong with that?

Nothing wrong.

I thought it was kinda neat at the time. I never saw a real moonshine still before, until that day.

I'm always amazed when I see people say things like this, or when they ask what grits are or how they taste. Then I remind myself not everyone is blessed with being Southern.
Of course some people in the South actually live in cities and towns and wouldn't know either.
What about the penguins?

Drunks.


juanpsantiagoXIV wrote:

I'm always amazed when I see people say things like this, or when they ask what grits are or how they taste. Then I remind myself not everyone is blessed with being Southern.

Nothing wrong with a little home brew and some wild game :)

We have all that good stuff in this country too!


KaeYoss wrote:
What about the penguins?

That may be a bit further south than they're talking about.

-The Gneech

601 to 650 of 907 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / What Was Your Last Straw? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.