The thing that upsets me is when the DM is trying to avoid favortism toward their significant other, and his/her significant other makes "joking" comments about how their character had better not die/fail a save/miss.
Bad form.
Bah! A proper GM will not listen to something like this. He'll be too busy saying stuff like: "You know, promises of certain... activities later will take my minds of arbitrarily torturing certain characters which may or may not resemble YOUR character...." ;-P
Mr. Fishy has been called a bastard by his trollop more than any other player.
Mr. Fishy might find that not calling her trollop might reduce the amount of nothosonomia directed at him.
Set the wayback machine for 2001
What's with all the togas?
*glances at wayback machine*
Who put the Era switch to BCE again?
Well, I can wait....
Greg the Flagrant Bi-sexualOn behalf of the Universal Bisexual Collective, I'd like to apologize for Greg. Rest assured, we've taken him off the mailing list.
!?!?!?! You made my brain stop for a moment.
Set the wayback machine for 2001What's with all the togas?
*glances at wayback machine*
Who put the Era switch to BCE again?
Well, I can wait....
KaeYoss once again proves why he is one of my favorite posters on these boards in the history of ever.
"Golly, Mr. Peabody!"
I was DMing a homebrew campaign, and came to learn that the players were snooping into my notes, maps, etc., which were pretty detailed. I kicked 'em to the curb!
We had one player who "hacked" the GM's computer (actually, they were both on the same LAN party and the GM apparently shared a directory he better should not have) and got the GM's notes on the campaign.
The guy was proud of it. He bragged about it.
|
I was DMing a homebrew campaign, and came to learn that the players were snooping into my notes, maps, etc., which were pretty detailed. I kicked 'em to the curb!We had one player who "hacked" the GM's computer (actually, they were both on the same LAN party and the GM apparently shared a directory he better should not have) and got the GM's notes on the campaign.
The guy was proud of it. He bragged about it.
Why would anyone feel the need to cheat while playing tabletop RPGs? (Doesnt need to be answered I just had to say it!)
I'm unfortunately a glutton for punishment. I continually find myself going back to the same group I leave for various reasons (mostly because I become RPG starved and they are the only gaming group I know). With one DM I quit for each of the following reasons on seperate occasions:
-During character creation the dm says: "We're only going to be using the core (3.5) rules, so please nobody use duskblade or ninja or anything like that, and when you wild shape as a druid please stick to the base MM." The first session we end up fighting hobgoblin duskblades and beguilers and a ton of expansion monsters from various MM's and fiend folios and such. Along with loading his NPC's with feats we couldn't use, like leap attack, and spells enemy wizards had but we couldn't learn (stunning ray, for example).
-Starting as a level 5 necromancer in a group of 5 PC's I was started with no money, no spell book, no gear, and no memorized spells, and was forced to fight my way out of the dungeon I was found in, and was then expected to somehow get money (our average wealth is usually for a character of several levels below us, which I would be okay with if his fights weren't usually several EL above the party) for which to purchase a book and spells. Now I could've dealt with that, for a love of the game if not the dm/story, but in addition to the dungeon containing a kraken, an illithid, an greater invised sorceror COMMANDING me to do things with no save or charisma check on CHARM person, a rabid silver dragon, several salamanders, and three eriyes, I was informed that the reason he had purposely done this was because he was upset about a disagreement which happened before the game.
-I was told I have to be evil, the twin of another character, a dwarf, and a cleric (but other than that could be free to make my own character). Oh and I had amnesia so the background I finally worked up was useless for the campaign.
-He ran for 14 people simualtaneously. 'nuff said.
-A combat encounter with 2 CR18 dragons with a party of level 4's in an open feild with no way to escape. That was a fun TPK during the first session. You don't even want to know about the traps
-His best friend is constantly the spotlight of adventures and has thousands and thousands in treasure more than the rest of us and is constantly getting free levels above us. Enough so that I politely bowed out of one game.
-I was grabbed and put on a sacrifical alter without a save, grapple roll, or anything (during combat) because it 'fit the story'. Then I had to roll a new character because I COULDN'T be brought back by any means.
That all said I've quit as a DM before too when players cause more trouble than their worth.
-Players have argued with my judgements as a DM. Even with everyone in the group with the exception of the one player (as stubborn as her dward barbarian) coming to a pleasant consensus I was fought tooth and nail. Then for two weeks she refused to answer the phone. We played normally at her place and I ended up having to quit running because I wasn't going to put up with a player giving me the silent treatment because she doesn't understand how flat-footed armor class works.
-I'm about to quit a DM'ing a game I'm running now. One of the players if always late because of his needy girlfriend, whom he spends more time with than away from. And whenever he is at the game he is constantly walking away from the table during crucial RP or combat to talk to her on the phone about a dream she had. He also drinks heavily before and during games. He is the DM from above, by the way. Also with him are two players who always want to play but would rather spend the session sleeping on the couch, having sex in their car, making a pot run, or getting food. Then they are upset that they missed most of the session and by extension XP. About 70% of the time before the game starts, by about 7 seconds, I get a phone call: "We can't make it, play our characters for us and write down XP!" Which I refuse to do. I only have two players who want to play and are always considerate, punctual, and fun.
EDIT: I forgot the one reason I quit a game for more than anything else. Every once in a while I play a gay PC, which, as a gay man I am wont to do. I was told I couldn't play a gay cleric because the DM didn't allow evil characters and the collected good and neutral religions saw it as evil and against code (so no paladin either).
-I'm about to quit a DM'ing a game I'm running now. One of the players if always late because of his needy girlfriend, whom he spends more time with than away from. And whenever he is at the game he is constantly walking away from the table during crucial RP or combat to talk to her on the phone about a dream she had. He also drinks heavily before and during games. He is the DM from above, by the way. Also with him are two players who always want to play but would rather spend the session sleeping on the couch, having sex in their car, making a pot run, or getting food. Then they are upset that they missed most of the session and by extension XP. About 70% of the time before the game starts, by about 7 seconds, I get a phone call: "We can't make it, play our characters for us and write down XP!" Which I refuse to do. I only have two players who want to play and are always considerate, punctual, and fun.
I would just boot the jerks and keep the decent people with the option to play two characters if they want too.
|
-I'm about to quit a DM'ing a game I'm running now. One of the players if always late because of his needy girlfriend, whom he spends more time with than away from. And whenever he is at the game he is constantly walking away from the table during crucial RP or combat to talk to her on the phone about a dream she had. He also drinks heavily before and during games. He is the DM from above, by the way. Also with him are two players who always want to play but would rather spend the session sleeping on the couch, having sex in their car, making a pot run, or getting food. Then they are upset that they missed most of the session and by extension XP. About 70% of the time before the game starts, by about 7 seconds, I get a phone call: "We can't make it, play our characters for us and write down XP!" Which I refuse to do. I only have two players who want to play and are always considerate, punctual, and fun.I would just boot the jerks and keep the decent people with the option to play two characters if they want too.
+1: Life's too short for bad players. There are plenty of great games to be run with just two players. Whether in Pathfinder or another system entirely.
+1: Life's too short for bad players. There are plenty of great games to be run with just two players. Whether in Pathfinder or another system entirely.-I'm about to quit a DM'ing a game I'm running now. One of the players if always late because of his needy girlfriend, whom he spends more time with than away from. And whenever he is at the game he is constantly walking away from the table during crucial RP or combat to talk to her on the phone about a dream she had. He also drinks heavily before and during games. He is the DM from above, by the way. Also with him are two players who always want to play but would rather spend the session sleeping on the couch, having sex in their car, making a pot run, or getting food. Then they are upset that they missed most of the session and by extension XP. About 70% of the time before the game starts, by about 7 seconds, I get a phone call: "We can't make it, play our characters for us and write down XP!" Which I refuse to do. I only have two players who want to play and are always considerate, punctual, and fun.I would just boot the jerks and keep the decent people with the option to play two characters if they want too.
That's actually what I was thinking about doing for them, because they as players deserve better than being at the whims of the rest of the group. I was thinking of running an urban game for them where they have to curry the favor of several factions and eventually join one and work with the people and rise the ranks. I was going to set it in a ruined city besotten with a (fast) zombie apocolypse as they are avid fans of zombie movies.
During character creation the dm says: "We're only going to be using the core (3.5) rules, so please nobody use duskblade or ninja or anything like that, and when you wild shape as a druid please stick to the base MM." The first session we end up fighting hobgoblin duskblades and beguilers and a ton of expansion monsters from various MM's and fiend folios and such. Along with loading his NPC's with feats we couldn't use, like leap attack, and spells enemy wizards had but we couldn't learn (stunning ray, for example).
Personally, I don't think this one merits quitting (though I agree with the others). I'm running a game right now where my players are only allowed to use PF core, but I reserve the right to use 3.5 material. I let them know this ahead of time. I think it is fair - it is harder to manage game balance if all the players are using extra resources than just the GM, and with just the GM doing so it is probably more balanced than making up stuff on the fly. (That said, I'd probably be okay with them learning any feat, class, or spell I use if they can find someone to teach them, something they wouldn't have to do if they just used core stuff.)
Why would anyone feel the need to cheat while playing tabletop RPGs? (Doesnt need to be answered I just had to say it!)I was DMing a homebrew campaign, and came to learn that the players were snooping into my notes, maps, etc., which were pretty detailed. I kicked 'em to the curb!We had one player who "hacked" the GM's computer (actually, they were both on the same LAN party and the GM apparently shared a directory he better should not have) and got the GM's notes on the campaign.
The guy was proud of it. He bragged about it.
He's a rebel! No, really. He's the guy who's against it. Doesn't matter what it is - as long as he can be against something (usually what the people around him are all for), he's happy.
He also has the uncanny ability to make people *almost* explode. Just almost.
As obnoxious as the guy is, he hardly ever gets beaten up.
And we're talking about a guy who will make fun of skinheads when they're right there.
Anyone else would be a reddish smear on the pavement by now. About a hundred times over.
I reserve the right to use 3.5 material. I let them know this ahead of time. I think it is fair - it is harder to manage game balance if all the players are using extra resources than just the GM, and with just the GM doing so it is probably more balanced than making up stuff on the fly. (That said, I'd probably be okay with them learning any feat, class, or spell I use if they can find someone to teach them, something they wouldn't have to do if they just used core stuff.)
I disagree that it is fair, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. It's always going to be 'unfair' for the PC's, I think, because they never have control of the world. The GM has total control, and that's why it's such a difficult job to do sometimes.
I like the idea of monsters and enemies having powers unavailable to the PC's; it seems to me that it would reinforce the differences between the two sides of the conflict.
Idea: Pathfinder Core and APG player characters VS. WoTC 3.5e monsters and NPC classes. Could be fun, right? Right...?
During character creation the dm says: "We're only going to be using the core (3.5) rules, so please nobody use duskblade or ninja or anything like that, and when you wild shape as a druid please stick to the base MM." The first session we end up fighting hobgoblin duskblades and beguilers and a ton of expansion monsters from various MM's and fiend folios and such. Along with loading his NPC's with feats we couldn't use, like leap attack, and spells enemy wizards had but we couldn't learn (stunning ray, for example).Personally, I don't think this one merits quitting (though I agree with the others). I'm running a game right now where my players are only allowed to use PF core, but I reserve the right to use 3.5 material. I let them know this ahead of time. I think it is fair - it is harder to manage game balance if all the players are using extra resources than just the GM, and with just the GM doing so it is probably more balanced than making up stuff on the fly. (That said, I'd probably be okay with them learning any feat, class, or spell I use if they can find someone to teach them, something they wouldn't have to do if they just used core stuff.)
I've done similar things to this. I should mention. I've started with core and opened things up ala having a PC see a technique and decide they want to learn it, then role-play out the teaching during leveling so it feels like a unique experience and they got something special. However I have a bit more of a problem with the enemy wizard using scrolls of snowball swarm, having some left after he is dead, and then the group being forced to sell the scrolls to a NPC wizard because the PC wizard is miraculously unable to cast nor copy it.
-I'm about to quit a DM'ing a game I'm running now. One of the players if always late because of his needy girlfriend, whom he spends more time with than away from. And whenever he is at the game he is constantly walking away from the table during crucial RP or combat to talk to her on the phone about a dream she had. He also drinks heavily before and during games. He is the DM from above, by the way.
Nothing against having a life, with loved ones you spend lots of time with. But if you play an RPG, you play that RPG when the game is on. It's more than just a game, it's a social event, people make time for it. If you can't make time for it, if you need/want to be somewhere else, be somewhere else. You're wasting other people's time if you treat the game as something that happens during the moments you'd be bored otherwise.
Also with him are two players who always want to play but would rather spend the session sleeping on the couch, having sex in their car, making a pot run, or getting food. Then they are upset that they missed most of the session and by extension XP.
Same as above. If you play, you play, if you don't you don't.
About 70% of the time before the game starts, by about 7 seconds, I get a phone call: "We can't make it, play our characters for us and write down XP!" Which I refuse to do. I only have two players who want to play and are always considerate, punctual, and fun.
I concur to the others: Send those jerks to hell and play with the players who want to play and respect other people enough to not waste their time.
Be better than those jerks and don't tell them 7 seconds before the game starts that they're out. It would be fun, but you'd be stooping to their level.
I disagree that it is fair, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.
It's cheap, that's what it is.
I like the idea of monsters and enemies having powers unavailable to the PC's; it seems to me that it would reinforce the differences between the two sides of the conflict.
First of all, why would one reinforce the difference between the two sides? I think that's the wrong direction.
I do agree that the sides are different (heroes are generally humanoid, while enemies can be anything), but I prefer to keep things clean and consistent.
Enemy gets something the players can't get because the enemy happens to be an exotic creature and therefore has weird abilities humans cannot get? Okay, fine by me. That's the actual difference between them: One's a humanoid, the other is, say, a bird with a fly speed or something.
But I don't like arbitrary differences. It breaks suspension of disbelief, is arbitrary and blatantly metagaming.
So there's a feat both would qualify for, but only one can take it because the GM just says it's off limits for the other? Not because it would automatically destroy the campaign, or it's something the character with his background and origins couldn't have learned or anything like that, but because it's from a different book and the GM says so? If I want stuff like that I play chess.
And it gets worse if it's stuff like spells. So the enemy wizard uses some spell. The party kills the wizard, and the party's wizard takes the enemy spellbook - but the spells are useless to him, simply because the GM says so?
That would have a good chance of making me walk away from the table, too.
Generally, if I'm going to use something non-core, it is because it is meant to be exotic. A WTF moment to keep the PCs on their toes. If they kill an enemy wizard using an exotic spell, the party wizard can learn the spell. If they see someone from another culture using a strange technique, they can certainly find that culture and (with varying degrees of difficulty depending on how they go about it) get someone to teach them that technique. I'm not saying I'd absolutely restrict it from the players, but it would be harder to get than something that is common all over the world.
Sorry KaeYoss, you must have misunderstood me.
I was trying to agree with Mr. Vande Brake and his methods, and merely put forth the thought experiment of classes vs classes -- not spells or feats. Vande Brake's method of "teaching from ones already learned" would be very effective, I think.
Generally, if I'm going to use something non-core, it is because it is meant to be exotic. A WTF moment to keep the PCs on their toes. If they kill an enemy wizard using an exotic spell, the party wizard can learn the spell. If they see someone from another culture using a strange technique, they can certainly find that culture and (with varying degrees of difficulty depending on how they go about it) get someone to teach them that technique. I'm not saying I'd absolutely restrict it from the players, but it would be harder to get than something that is common all over the world.
That sounds reasonable. I mean, there is an actual reason for why the other guy has it but the player doesn't: It's exotic and that other guy went to the trouble of hunting it down, or comes from somewhere where it's not exotic.
And, of course, once they have been exposed and know of it, they can try to pick it up, too.
The thing I'm objecting to would be flat out denying the player characters something without giving an in-game reason, and then making it common for enemies that come from the same place the players come from. Double disgust points for not even telling anyone, and then sticking to it and not allowing players to copy stuff out of spellbooks and so on.
The thing I'm objecting to would be flat out denying the player characters something without giving an in-game reason, and then making it common for enemies that come from the same place the players come from. Double disgust points for not even telling anyone, and then sticking to it and not allowing players to copy stuff out of spellbooks and so on.
+1
My players are from a set location, kinda. But they will encounter things from other places as they evolve. A place where the Kohpesh is the favored sword, where magic components are 'alchemical potions' (hard to spellcraft against), gems can be used as scrolls, etc. A player has just added Candlemancy to her repitoire as an Oracle. Her BF is trying to figure out which Bloodline he wants to play with his 'OZ' based construct character, a re-animated collection of spent magical gear. Both were encountered by the party and are 'now available'. Okay, his Barbarian died and this is his replacement character.
Her BF is trying to figure out which Bloodline he wants to play with his 'OZ' based construct character, a re-animated collection of spent magical gear. Both were encountered by the party and are 'now available'. Okay, his Barbarian died and this is his replacement character.Perhaps a 'Clockwork' bloodline based off the Artificer domain or the Construct sub-domain?
That could be interesting.
|
...
He also has the uncanny ability to make people *almost* explode. Just almost.
...
I used to hang out with a guy like this. He would push and push until it was almost your breaking point (nothing big, it was a death by a thousand cuts sort of thing), then back off for a week so if you exploded at him you would look like the a-hole.
But on the plus side I learned everything I know about game-mastering because of him. I carefully studied his techniques and then did the complete opposite.
==
AKA 8one6
Its horror stories like the above that reminds me why members of our group are averse to picking up new members we haven't known for 20 years...
-He ran for 14 people simualtaneously. 'nuff said.
Dude, you have the perfect opportunity to form your own group and show 'em how a real DM runs a game!
|
|
Its horror stories like the above that reminds me why members of our group are averse to picking up new members we haven't known for 20 years...
I always jump at the chance of getting new members into the group. Sure it might not work out. But a lot of the time once they've played in a truly creative, co-operative game they ingrain themselves into that style.
Columbus by chance?Nah, central Ohio. I ran into Urizen on these boards and discovered we lived right down the street from each other.You never know, you just might know them. I met someone on these very boards who happens to live a 5 minute bicycle ride from my house. Scary.
...an annoying female drow assassin.
...how diminutive she was, and how bad ass she and her giant sword were.
...I figured once he had his time, he'd let the other players do their thing too.
...and went into great detail about how his 5 foot tall sexy drow chick taught fencing to a bunch of 12 year old boys with her 6 foot long full blade!
...he describes his little scenario for an hour.
...nobody else can finish a sentence without him commenting about it.
...tiny drow chick decides her giant sword needs more blood and attacks to kill.
..."I'm just playing my character."You know...
I think I know that guy. Seriously. That scenario is so very, very familiar.
uh...you wouldn't happen to live in NY, would you?
Just east of, actually. Pataskala.
|
Just east of, actually. Pataskala.Columbus by chance?Nah, central Ohio. I ran into Urizen on these boards and discovered we lived right down the street from each other.You never know, you just might know them. I met someone on these very boards who happens to live a 5 minute bicycle ride from my house. Scary.
...an annoying female drow assassin.
...how diminutive she was, and how bad ass she and her giant sword were.
...I figured once he had his time, he'd let the other players do their thing too.
...and went into great detail about how his 5 foot tall sexy drow chick taught fencing to a bunch of 12 year old boys with her 6 foot long full blade!
...he describes his little scenario for an hour.
...nobody else can finish a sentence without him commenting about it.
...tiny drow chick decides her giant sword needs more blood and attacks to kill.
..."I'm just playing my character."You know...
I think I know that guy. Seriously. That scenario is so very, very familiar.
uh...you wouldn't happen to live in NY, would you?
Live in the Near East temporarily. Work at the DSCC. You play with the guys down in Pickerington at Armoury Games?
Quote trees grow faster than bamboo! O_O
*removed quote tree*
Nah, we play at a friend's house. Never actually gamed in a store before.
Bah! A proper GM will not listen to something like this. He'll be too busy saying stuff like: "You know, promises of certain... activities later will take my minds of arbitrarily torturing certain characters which may or may not resemble YOUR character...." ;-PThe thing that upsets me is when the DM is trying to avoid favortism toward their significant other, and his/her significant other makes "joking" comments about how their character had better not die/fail a save/miss.
Bad form.
My wife tried to do the whole "my character better not die..." followed with bribes of marital activities after the game, which soon resorted to threats of lack of marital activities...
I shut her down each time. There was a collective "Oh, Snap!" from around the table. :)
I shut her down each time. There was a collective "Oh, Snap!" from around the table. :)
I too spare my wife nothing at the gaming table. As soon as we sit down, she is a gamer first and my wife second.
I've never, ever walked away from a game, nor have I ever asked a player to leave if I was DMing. Either I'm singularly blessed in the games I've played in over the last 30+ years, or I'm just a tad more tolerant of different styles of play and DMing than a lot of folks. I've found that just about everything can be worked out if people just talk about it or work to solve it rather than up and leaving. In my opinion, it's all gaming, and it's all supposed to be fun, and I'm willing to be pretty flexible if others find their fun in play styles that are different from mine. I've played campaigns I don't particularly like for months at a time because others were enjoying it and I don't want to kill their buzz. I've also swallowed my tongue on numerous occasions when DMs make wrong or stupid decisions rather than disrupting the game with a long argument.
I admit, some of the examples given seem pretty extreme and I'd have a hard time stomaching, but I keep in mind that I'm only hearing at most one half of the story, and the real story could well be less extreme. I'm not at all saying that anybody is exaggerating their story deliberately or being deliberately misleading, just that perspective is an amazingly powerful thing.
Many others describe DM behavior that frankly doesn't seem out of line to me, or at least falls within the latitude a DM should be given by his/her players. Oh well, that's just me.
All that said, the only example I can even think of of a game I should have walked away from and didn't is from a wargaming convention, rather than RPGs.
Two of my buddies and I signed up to play a Civil War scenario at a convention. The first warning sign was that we were in Virginia. The second warning sign was that the guy running the game (and who designed the game system) showed up wearing a Confederate slouch hat. Third warning sign was that all his real life friends were already signed up to play the Confederate side. Fourth warning sign was that the Union forces had to set up first, and had no idea what forces we would be facing, and just a general idea of what direction the enemy would be coming from. Fifth warning sign was that after we had set up, he hauls out new pieces of terrain from beneath the table, places them in the flank and rear of our position and allows the Confederate forces, which were numerically and qualitatively superior in this scenario (designed by him rather than drawn from any real battle) to set up in that terrain, which we didn't even know existed until then. So we started the game with a clearly superior force on our flank and in our rear.
We should have walked right then, but were too stubborn to do so. So we spent the next three hours helping this Luddite and his friends enact their fantasies of Southern superiority and victory in the War of Northern Aggression. The guy who ran the game was actually quite peeved that, rather than standing our ground and allowing our forces to be annihilated, we immediately started a fighting withdrawal that allowed us to escape the battle with at least some of our forces intact. Thought we were being cowards and spoilsports because we refused to fight to the death in a hopeless engagement. Nonetheless, we stayed to the end of the scenario, then left the table with arms linked bellowing the Battle Hymn of the Republic at the top of our lungs.
I've never, ever walked away from a game, nor have I ever asked a player to leave if I was DMing. Either I'm singularly blessed in the games I've played in over the last 30+ years, or I'm just a tad more tolerant of different styles of play and DMing than a lot of folks. I've found that just about everything can be worked out if people just talk about it or work to solve it rather than up and leaving. In my opinion, it's all gaming, and it's all supposed to be fun, and I'm willing to be pretty flexible if others find their fun in play styles that are different from mine. I've played campaigns I don't particularly like for months at a time because others were enjoying it and I don't want to kill their buzz. I've also swallowed my tongue on numerous occasions when DMs make wrong or stupid decisions rather than disrupting the game with a long argument.
I admit, some of the examples given seem pretty extreme and I'd have a hard time stomaching, but I keep in mind that I'm only hearing at most one half of the story, and the real story could well be less extreme. I'm not at all saying that anybody is exaggerating their story deliberately or being deliberately misleading, just that perspective is an amazingly powerful thing.
Many others describe DM behavior that frankly doesn't seem out of line to me, or at least falls within the latitude a DM should be given by his/her players. Oh well, that's just me.
All that said, the only example I can even think of of a game I should have walked away from and didn't is from a wargaming convention, rather than RPGs.
Two of my buddies and I signed up to play a Civil War scenario at a convention. The first warning sign was that we were in Virginia. The second warning sign was that the guy running the game (and who designed the game system) showed up wearing a Confederate slouch hat. Third warning sign was that all his real life friends were already signed up to play the Confederate side. Fourth warning sign was that the Union forces had to set up first, and...
One wargaming friend of mine(whom I have not seen since college) had an experience where someone attempted to field a Sherman M-1 for the Confederacy, claiming it was Ghost Tank from Weird War Tales.
*sigh*
-During character creation the dm says: "We're only going to be using the core (3.5) rules, so please nobody use duskblade or ninja or anything like that, and when you wild shape as a druid please stick to the base MM." The first session we end up fighting hobgoblin duskblades and beguilers and a ton of expansion monsters from various MM's and fiend folios and such. Along with loading his NPC's with feats we couldn't use, like leap attack,
???? Weird. As long as they have the proper CR and you're getting the appropriate amount of XP and rewards, this is not only no big deal, but not any sort of deal at all.
No DM lets us play Balors, either.
But everyone has their own little peccadilloes, I guess.
and spells enemy wizards had but we couldn't learn (stunning ray, for example).
Okay, ouch. That's not appropriate.
A few years back...
We had a group that was going to work out great: the D, myself and one other were the only experienced tabletop players in the group. We had three others that were console/PC RPG vets so they got the gist. The DM had a great 'scheme' for a campaign and, we were able to work out (very amicably) our PCs backgrounds and how they fit in. Me and one of the novices were friends already and we both *really* looked forward to getting into the game. All the signs pointed to an amazing story based game where our PCs were important, but at the same time expendable. Again, we were really excited about this game :)
Then... punch in the face...
The DM's buddy (the other experienced player) is a no-show for the first session. Well, not a no-show, but he gets there about five hours into a six hour Sunday afternoon. No call, just a half-assed "I had to work"
Then... punch in the face...
The DM's buddy has rolled up a scout and I don't even know if he had a name. *sigh* We were at a tavern, my character had turned in early; my buddy was trying to earn some silver entertaining the crowd. The scout noticed a man at the bar wearing black studded leather, an unbound rapier at his hip; very sinister type! The scout says, "I find some shadows." DM: Ok.. you are hidden from view. "I shoot the guy" *DM and all of us are goggle eyed* You do what? "I shoot the man in black." DM: ok-roll to hit. *clatter* 20. I do 27 damage. Rapid shot, *clatter* Hit. I do 7 more. DM: the man in black drops, bleeding, then leaking from two arrow wounds in his neck.
Then... punch in the face...
We all (that have not been truly introduced-that was kay-boshed by the scout...) get clear of the tavern, but we know we have to leave town... The scout's player is absent for the first four hours of the next session too. There was some 'hand waving' and assumptions about his escape, and now we are all on the run. The scout player shows up and says, "I am bored of this character. I want to roll a new one." Over the next two hours the DM kills the scout (not a bad plan, really...) and we sit as the player rolls a new PC...
Then... punch in the face...
The new PC is a Barbarian (great class that is all too easily turned into a prick, "But I can punch the Duke! I'ma Barb!") that has *no* connection to the game as everyone else at the table is experiencing it... Not too big a deal, so we can deal... but, the Barb is also an excuse/coward. "Oh, I don't fight undead-I might get a disease! Cultural taboo, you understand."
Then... punch in the face...
Well, sadly, after a total of four sessions due to this guy's antics this well developed, player interactive game dissolves. I don't know why, but suspect it was due to the fact that the DM and the scout were friends outside of the game and the scout wasn't interested in the game, or setting.
So, I take over for a while and things go smoothly. Scout was not invited.
Then... punch in the face...
Scout decides to run his own game! I go because the group was invited. He is going to run a SWASHBUCKLER GAME. Good! Courtly intrigue, panache and derring-do! Then, when I presented my PC, he said, "I don't let any cross-gender roleplay. You have to play a male."
Then... punch in the face...
Ok, *scrapscraprerollwriteout* Here, how's this? "Looks good" let's begin... We are going to use an alternate combat system where Armor provides some DR, and you have an active defense. The purpose is to make firearms more dangerous and to make swashbucklers more effective (so DEX means more than Platemail). OK, I am down with this. However... the *lightest* armor our opponents had was Chainmail. So, my fighter/rogue's d6+1 was pretty pointless (ha! pointless rapier...) agains the bad guy's DR5.
Then... punch in the face...
Our Swashbukler patterned PCs were then put on a ship and sailed to the new world. Those ranks you put into Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Bluff? Bears and Crocodiles don't care. The 'active defense' and DR mechanic went to the birds since now *everything* we are fighting is either perfectly stealthy, and has DR 5 to 7 (as it's Natural Armor dictated)
So, in summary I had the chance to do some really good *character* based gaming and it was ruined by one player. Like, really shattered.
I understand that there are lots of play styles and lots of DMs. I hope Scout finds the group he wants. You know, the one that plays what he wants, when he wants and how he wants. For me, I will continue to find players that play for the game, and the company.
GNOME
O rly? ;)
No DM lets us play Balors, either.
My Balor Lord Cleric of Himself disagrees! :P
Mainly because there is a huge difference between not being allowed to play balors and then encountering them and not being allowed to play duskblades and then encountering them...
I would have retorted 'Then I guess you can't GM anything but a human-only campaign, huh?'
On further reflection, and in context, even that would be a stretch. :/
I had a game where the DM allowed books from every edition, but at the same time refused read said books and would just ignore anything that she didn't know from 1st edition. (Game was promoted as a second edition game..)
I would have retorted 'Then I guess you can't GM anything but a human-only campaign, huh?'On further reflection, and in context, even that would be a stretch. :/
Well, I am currently running a Human Only campain, due to a special event that happens through out the game, where the players become some of the only humans left alive, while the other races are take over.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Although I have never walked from a game due to bad GMing or playing (I did have times whan I had to leave, because of RL issues, such as moving to another location) and have never had players/GMs walk out on any of the groups I was playing in for this reason either, even ignoring the teenage years, I do have my own share of GMing mistakes that some might consider horror stories.
A relatively recent DMing mistake of mine occured during a campaign I was running in my own world featuring my friends and my sister as players. They were taking a break from the main plot and accepted a quest to retrieve the symbols of rulership from an ancient tomb burried under a remote part of the desert. The tomb was hidden, but the group eventually overcame environmental and other hazards and found it. Forcing their way in, the PCs discovered undead in the tomb, whom they proceeded to swiftly dispatch (Channel Energy...). Unfortunately, when designing the adventure, I thought I would make things more interesting by making the undead a bit different from the standard lot. You see, I had decided that undeath was actually considered the afterlife for the culture that built the tomb, so instead of haunting the living, the undead merely (un-)lived their (un-)lives in the tomb, which was designed to guard them, but also to provide them with comforts resembling the ones they enjoyed during their mortal existence.
The players eventually discovered this and it split the party. Most of the PCs were intent on plundering the tomb anyway and destroying the undead, arguing that the undead simply don't know any better and it will actually liberate their souls. One PC, however, wanted to respect the afterlife of the given culture. This turned into a major intra-party conflict (though it didn't come to blows), which in itself would not be such a huge issue. As a DM I did nothing about this and just let the party work it out among themselves, thus allowing it to spill into real life.
That particular session ended without a resolution and we all went home. The player who disagreed with purging the rest of the undead, however, was the girlfriend of one of the other players and it seems that she let him 'feel the heat' (or maybe, ehm, 'feel the cold', ehm) so to speak in a major way. The things became apparently so bad, that he called me to ask me to reschedule the session for earlier the following week, swapping it with the game his girlfriend was running (same group of players, but she was the DM and I was a player in that game), so that the situation could be resolved earlier. I agreed and the next session the conflict continued for a while. By this time (well since that phone call), however, I had realized what I was causing by letting it fester, so when the conflict continued (well, by this time it was not so much conflict, as the rest of the group pleading with her to come out of her 'secure shelter' and appologizing to her), I interrupted the game and had a chat with them out of game, particularly with that one player. I also decided to tilt the issue to one side by making the situation less morally ambiguous and to present some 'additional evidence' that killing the undead would actually liberate their souls, despite the fact that they believe they are in their afterlife. The out of game chat and the extra evidence did help to resolve the issue and the party then recomposed and cleared out the tomb before proceeding with the main quest.
Lesson 1 for me: Be very careful when introducing morally ambiguous situations - at least with this particular group. I made a mistake of introducing a morally ambiguous situation without knowing the group sufficiently well to be sure that it wouldn't tear the group apart.
Lesson 2 for me: Intervene early when an in-game conflict spreads into real life. I let had allowed the situation to fester and even continue past the end of the game session of where it began.
Lesson 2 for me: Intervene early when an in-game conflict spreads into real life. I let had allowed the situation to fester and even continue past the end of the game session of where it began.
Best lesson in the thread.
Mainly because there is a huge difference between not being allowed to play balors and then encountering them and not being allowed to play duskblades and then encountering them...
As already noted: No, there isn't, actually.
If it makes you feel more comfortable, substitute any Monster Manual monster in for "balor", any one at all.
Mainly because there is a huge difference between not being allowed to play balors and then encountering them and not being allowed to play duskblades and then encountering them...As already noted: No, there isn't, actually.
If it makes you feel more comfortable, substitute any monster in for "balor".
I have to agree with KaeYoss, at least partially. A race is what something is born as, whether Balor, Minotaur, Hobgoblin, or Human. A class is what you train to be - a collection of skills and techniques that you learn to do. A GM might disallow you from playing a Balor or Hobgoblin because he only wants core races, and he might do the same for classes. But to turn around and say, "Yes, this person learned to do this ability, but even though you are at least as capable as him, you can't learn it. Ever." No matter how hard he tries, a human's never going to be an elf. But he might learn to be a duskblade.
I have to agree with KaeYoss, at least partially. A race is what something is born as, whether Balor, Minotaur, Hobgoblin, or Human. A class is what you train to be - a collection of skills and techniques that you learn to do. A GM might disallow you from playing a Balor or Hobgoblin because he only wants core races, and he might do the same for classes. But to turn around and say, "Yes, this person learned to do this ability, but even though you are at least as capable as him, you can't learn it. Ever." No matter how hard he tries, a human's never going to be an elf. But he might learn to be a duskblade.
Hrmm. All I can do is repeat my original post:
???? Weird. As long as they have the proper CR and you're getting the appropriate amount of XP and rewards, this is not only no big deal, but not any sort of deal at all.
No DM lets us play Balors, either.
But everyone has their own little peccadilloes, I guess.
*shrug* Sorry, guys. Color me incapable of understanding. [Move along, nothing to see here...!]
I'm ok with a GM saying that players can't play X class, but having the NPC's running with it.
If the players were a bunch of traders turning up on the shores of fuedal Japan then they might have had some deadly encounters with Ninja, yet it would be practically impossible for those traders to be Ninjas, nor even remotely likely for the next, oh 600 years?
I'm ok with a GM saying that players can't play X class, but having the NPC's running with it.
If the players were a bunch of traders turning up on the shores of fuedal Japan then they might have had some deadly encounters with Ninja, yet it would be practically impossible for those traders to be Ninjas, nor even remotely likely for the next, oh 600 years?
I liked the Shogun miniseries too.