if you did this (rolling some skills for the PC) you would constantly need to have their character sheets to account for the mods and that would be annoying.Not true at all. A simple chart on a 3x5 or 4x6 notecard with the character's skills (and a few other important details) is all it takes. Edit it at every levelup, replace it when it gets too smudgy.
I can't imagine GMing without such a note card. They are handy for SO many things.
|
.
The issue is that the PCs have been overruling my decisions and beating me in almost every rule argument, even when I am right, and this has to stop. That's why I'm saying that the Game Master's rulings are final. I'm tired of the PCs overruling me. For example, I refused to allow the APG playtest because I hadn't read it. They overruled me and made me allow it. That needs to stop. I told them that a monk-dipped sorcerer cannot use flurry of blows with spells. I got overruled. I want to work with the players, but there need to be clearly defined rules. I've tried playing without them, and it isn't working. I don't want to be Lawful Evil GM, but I'm tired of getting walked all over.
As for the magic item thing, according to my rules the party splits the treasure, not the GM, unless there is a fight over something, in which case the GM can intervene and decide who gets what is being fought over. This is because we have a lot of very nasty fights over treasure.
By the sounds of your group your games can't be that fun. I wouldn't bother playing with them. Find another group. Once the game stops being fun its time to move on.
As I learn more about your game none of your rules will have an impact. If ou are being overruled over what supplements you will allow, I don't think they will listen to your other house rules.
Dot for reading later and good night.
When gaining a level, a character may roll HP or simply choose to take the average HP for their hit die instead.
A house rule I've been playing with is that players never roll their hp, they always get average rounded up (so d8=5/level, d10=6/level, etc). We like it because it gives a decent amount of hp without silliness like the barbarian rolling 1 on his second or third level. It also means you can very quickly and easily calculate how many hp a character should have at any level. Given your players apparent propensity for cheating, you might find it a useful rule in that regard.
If all of this is necessary, then it becomes pretty clear to me that the OP and his/her players are quite simply not trying to play the same game.
In the case I want to make a 'secret' roll instead of having the players roll, I assume they take 10 on a certain skill check. This requires you knowing certain skill modifers the players have ofcourse.
It might make sense to have ur paladins to have the same alignment as their deity if you are going to play it like that, the code of conduct makes more sense that way imo. Otherwise I do not really see why a deity will get grumpy when a LG paladin of a NG deity actually starts following the deity's dogma more and shifts to NG.
The GM is called the Game Master for a reason. It is because she is the master of the game, and makes the decisions. The players may express opinions or advice about these decisions, and the GM will listen so long as the game is not being unduly interrupted, but the GM has the final word. The players will accept this.
The players will accept that Pathfinder is a collaborative game, and will not try to "beat" the GM. Likewise, the GM will accept the same, and will not try to "beat" the players. The GM and players will work together so that everybody may enjoy the game.
The players will not overturn GM decisions.
This is a great way to get labelled "b~!~#". Don't worry... a male GM would get labelled worse. Authority isn't something you get people to sign away to you unless we're dealing with the military. Authority at a gaming table is something you exude and assume. I've read your posts and I get it that you're a door-mat. You're not assertive, you're passive. Gotcha. This document can't change that. You need to change yourself, not you players. I've said that before.
I honestly think the dinks you play with are going to just get a laugh at your expense out of these paragraphs. They know - and you know - that they're just so many words.
Constructively, I'd suggest that perhaps you need to maintain a separate "house rules" document that is yours alone. It governs how you will behave and what you will and won't tolerate. Print it. Sign it. Give it to yourself. And every time you're finding yourself waffling at the table, remember... you signed up for yourself to be the boss. If you can't follow a signed document, your players certainly won't. You need to trick yourself into believing in your authority. It's your table, your game, and you can stop it at any time.
The GM and the players will not yell at each other, nor will players yell at other players.
Mmmm. This is seriously a problem in your group? Wow. They sound really stable. Anyway, again I'd keep this in your GM-only document. No player who's of the mind-set to yell at another is going to remember this or honour it. It's up to you to interrupt an argument and intercede, imposing peace. You've got to be able to control a crowd. Incidentally, sometimes silence is a useful technique when dealing with children. Don't try to talk over them. Don't yell louder. "Stop yelling" isn't an effective thing to yell. Go silent and scary. Slowly close your materials, stack your rulebooks, line your dice up beside your dice bag. Eventually they'll wind down and notice you. When that happens, ask "so, are we playing the game?" Make it short and simple. You've got better things to do than listen to arguments. You're one foot out the door. They can do whatever they want, but they get to decide if it's game, or yell.
If we cannot find a rule within 30 seconds, the GM makes one up and the rule is looked up after the game.
Good rule. I'd recommend extending it to a good 3 minutes, but a good idea. All my groups (three) do this. We don't have a hard time set, but invariably if something takes "too long", we guess and move on. Sometimes it takes a bit to find a feat or spell or edge-condition at the table, especially if you're flustered or distracted by other players. Two or three minutes is reasonable.
Barbarians, monks, and druids do not have alignment restrictions.
Fine. It's a house-rule. It's also one that removes restrictions. Nobody should complain about this.
Paladins may be of any Good alignment. If a paladin chooses not the be Lawful Good, they will be given an alternate code of conduct and switch out a few spells. The GM will write this code of conduct and decide which spells to add and remove. The same applies to anti-paladins and Evil alignments.
Personally I wouldn't allow CG paladins, but that's me. Part of my justification for that is you're going to get incredibly annoying "characters" out of your group. Sure, Robin Hood might've been CG but he was no paladin and regardless, your players are certain to come up with some despicable jackass of a character that's more C than G and point at your house rule as justification for taking a noble class and turning it into a slimy d-bag class.
A paladin or anti-paladin can switch from one Good/Evil alignment to another, but the GM considers this a major character change requiring the character to change deities. How this works is that the character loses class abilities as if she had fallen, and then most choose a new deity and follow the code of conduct of a paladin/anti-paladin of that deity until leveling up, at which point she regains her class abilities and is now a paladin/anti-paladin of that deity.
Does this merit being a house rule? Isn't that just pretty much how it works? Paladin does something wrong, GM imposes alignment change, paladin figures out what he's going to do about it?
There is no atonement spell. Things that would normally require it are handled via RP instead.
Hmmm. Interesting. I'm currently GMing a group that played through Council of Thieves. No spoilers but there is a particular creature that is encountered who is... mentally ill. She was tortured, imprisoned, left to rot, and... well, she's not well at all, okay? The PCs met her and managed to talk her down out of immediate combat, but that couldn't possibly be enough to fix her. She's had an alignment change because of her experience on top of everything else. The PCs acquired the resources to do what was necessary. I think a heal plus an atonement. The beauty is that the cleric involved is CG... a trickster/bluffer of the highest degree. The NPC was cured, accepted the cleric's alignment, and instead of being the NG she's supposed to be is now CG as well, and has been accepted as a cohort via Leadership. I'm now DMPCing that cohort and the role-play is absolutely fun-and-a-half. Atonement made that mechanically possible.
I'm not sure what your experience is. I suspect it's been used as a get-out-of-repercussions-for-being-a-lick-spittle. Players been crossing the border into Jerkville and using it to make it all better? Well, I'd suggest that all it takes is one deity to revoke the cleric's spell slot at casting time. "Sorry, this guy doesn't mean it. Repeat offender. He needs to work on his attitude first."
The GM is the final arbiter of all alignment issues.
Well, yeah. Not a house-rule but it is fair to make it clear to your players that you intend to rigidly enforce the (lightened) alignment rules.
When gaining a level, a character may roll HP or simply choose to take the average HP for their hit die instead.
Fine. A true house-rule. There are fifty billion different ways to do this and they're all valid. We roll-twice-take-best. Shrug.
XP are not used. The GM decides when the party levels up.
Hate it. It's your table and it's your right, but I hate it. There's no sense of progress. There's no anticipation. Players are just waiting for that day when the GM spontaneously declares they level. I've done the "every four sessions" technique, and I'd flex that for extraordinarily long or short sessions, but the milestone method leaves me personally unenthusiastic. I'd play at your table and I'd respect your right to rule this way, but before the campaign began I'd ask you to reconsider, so you knew your rule wasn't something I like. Then you'd never hear anything about it again.
The GM has the authority to disallow unreasonable character builds, but will use this authority only when the build is severely unbalancing or does not fit the campaign setting. The GM will make an effort to allow player choice.
"When you level, you send the GM a copy of your proposed character sheet for approval." All of my groups do that. It's never assumed a build is accepted (well, unless it was maybe Core Rulebook only). The GM reserves the right to review character sheets before the next session for accuracy and acceptance of materials referenced. We assume that Paizo material is probably accepted in any combination but any reference to 3rd-party spells, feats, magic items, classes or other are subject to review.
The GM will roll all bluff, diplomacy, disguise, perception, sleight of hand, sense motive, and stealth checks behind the screen so as to conceal the result from the players. The GM may also choose to do the same with other skill checks or saving throws if the GM has a reason to wish to conceal the result. The GM will not abuse this power, and will only conceal those rolls when she has a specific reason to do so.
Your table, but I wouldn't do all of those. Anything your PCs do they should roll IMHO, except Sense Motive. They should know when they've come up with a really, really awesome lie to cover their actions (Bluff). They should know when they've been distracted while searching for traps (Perception). They should know their make-up is smeared today (Disguise). They should be in charge of their fate when they stick their hand in someone's pocket (Sleight-of-Hand). It should be pretty obvious to them when they try to hide behind a broom-handle that it won't work (Stealth).
Again, it's your table, but I'd like to give you the player perspective; if you take this many rolls away from the players, the world becomes arbitrary. There's less... trust... in the GM. Did their Sleight-of-Hand attempt fail because you-the-GM rolled crappy or because you-the-GM don't want the attempt to succeed? You always want less trust issues at the table. Heck, I roll my NPC attacks and saves and stuff in full view. Yes, there's some math metagaming that goes on, but when you crit someone to death or when your NPC makes five saves in a row against save-or-die spells, nobody will ever question you. The dice become the enemy (or friend).
Just think about it.
If you wish to argue about something the GM did, do so outside of the game or do not do so at all.
Define "argue". Disagree with and want discussion before proceeding? I've had circumstances on both sides of the table where a GM has said "X happens" and a player rebuts with "seriously, but what about Y? My PC is a Z and Z's very rarely X because of Y. Why would he/she X?" I know I'm being vague, but it happens. Discussion / reminder is fair. This one comes back to your authority again. It's up to you to accept input, weigh it, rule on it, and carve that ruling into stone. IMHO writing this down in a house-rules document says "if I say it, it's in stone, and you suffer consequences."
Link this one to the next house-rule...
Taking actions back is only allowed if the GM makes a mistake or is unclear about something.
...and the GM won't find out they made a mistake until next session. The PC has suffered consequences and the plot has gone sideways and it's too late.
Okay, that point is made PURELY for the previous rule. THIS rule is actually fine, though I'd word it differently. Actions cannot be "taken back" unless they are found to be unreasonable shortly afterward. Find out a round later that uncommon spell "doesn't work that way"? Unless it's dramatically, violently impossible, history doesn't get undone. Must be some weird variant of uncommon spell. Weird. Say for instance YOU make a mistake and you use hold person on a aasimar PC. The PC fails his save and is held. You move on. A round later, the PC finally remembers that "hey, I'm not a person... I'm an outsider... that spell doesn't work on me". Don't undo fate. On the PC's turn, let them act normally without having to make a save. The spell... lets go. Maybe their blood holds a little more humanoid in it that outsider. Weird. Shrug. Move on. But if something really drastic happens... a huge mistake/oversight... then consider it.
Still, having a no-take-backs rule written down is a good thing. I'd just simplify the written rule a bit.
If the players get into an argument over party treasure, the GM may decide who gets what. Otherwise, the players split the treasure, not the GM.
Your table, but I'd let them argue. Real people argue. PCs can argue. But if they can't come to an agreement, there's no magical solution. If two PCs want an item, they have to figure out who's carrying it, or in-character fight for it. It's their problem to be a group. Let them solve it.
If a player wishes to use homebrew or third party content, the GM will review it to see if it is balanced and fits the campaign. The GM is the final arbiter as to whether or not such materiel is acceptable.
Agreed, but redundant. See above regarding all character sheets to require approval. I'd explain the why of that rule back at that rule, and then not need this one.
The GM may disallow core content if it is unbalancing or does not fit the campaign setting, but will use this power only when necessary.
See previous comment.
If the GM wishes to use campaign specific house rules, she will provide a list to the players at the beginning of the campaign.
Again, redundant. A GM handing a player-group a house-rule document has clearly reserved the right to impose house-rules.
Kelsey, about half of this is house-rule. Some of it I agree with, some I don't... which is NORMAL, given if they were universally adored they wouldn't be house-rules, they'd be written in the Core. The other half comes down to your confidence.
I reiterate... you need to act confident. Writing down some of these things and handing them over screams "nervous Nellie". You need to believe in yourself, even if you're not perfect. You're the GM. It's your job to impose order on the chaos that is an RPG. Let the players play... provide the opportunity for the players to play... but you are running the show. You're not an arbitrary or capricious god, but you're going to enforce the laws of physics, the ten commandments, and the Core Rulebook. Just because some 3rd-party twit posted a version of wish with its spell-level crossed out and "0th" written on it doesn't mean your players are free to use wish as a cantrip. You're massaging the game, and you need to be confident doing so. You're the boss. Remember that.
The issue is that the PCs have been overruling my decisions and beating me in almost every rule argument, even when I am right, and this has to stop. That's why I'm saying that the Game Master's rulings are final. I'm tired of the PCs overruling me. For example, I refused to allow the APG playtest because I hadn't read it. They overruled me and made me allow it. That needs to stop. I told them that a monk-dipped sorcerer cannot use flurry of blows with spells. I got overruled. I want to work with the players, but there need to be clearly defined rules. I've tried playing without them, and it isn't working. I don't want to be Lawful Evil GM, but I'm tired of getting walked all over.
As for the magic item thing, according to my rules the party splits the treasure, not the GM, unless there is a fight over something, in which case the GM can intervene and decide who gets what is being fought over. This is because we have a lot of very nasty fights over treasure.
This is wrong and your players should respect you more. Rules shouldn't be looked at as restrictions, but as challenges. You could get another group, which I know isn't always possible. Or, you could find and play with another group and see how other GMs handle things. It's different for me, I'm in my 30s and my group is about in that age group, so there isn't a whole lot of that childish crap when playing. We are usually just happy to have the time to get together and play.
The players will not overturn GM decisions.The GM and the players will not yell at each other, nor will players yell at other players.
There really shouldn't be any yelling at all. If that's happening, I'm not sure some rules will fix this. I'd probably put down some consequences for this behavior. Yelling out of turn or at someone else should result in an out-of-game penalty such as a Time Out. Sounds really childish, but hey, thats the sort of behavior they're exhibiting.
If we cannot find a rule within 30 seconds, the GM makes one up and the rule is looked up after the game.Barbarians, monks, and druids do not have alignment restrictions.
Paladins may be of any Good alignment. If a paladin chooses not the be Lawful Good, they will be given an alternate code of conduct and switch out a few spells. The GM will write this code of conduct and decide which spells to add and remove. The same applies to anti-paladins and Evil alignments.
A paladin or anti-paladin can switch from one Good/Evil alignment to another, but the GM considers this a major character change requiring the character to change deities. How this works is that the character loses class abilities as if she had fallen, and then most choose a new deity and follow the code of conduct of a paladin/anti-paladin of that deity until leveling up, at which point she regains her class abilities and is now a paladin/anti-paladin of that deity.
All 4 of these rules are good by my book. I've never been a fan of alignment restrictions and while they're in place for the Paladin, it's more lax and looks as if going "evil" doesn't totally screw your character. As for the GM rule in 30 seconds or less, I like it too. Players know, going into the game to have X rule present or understand that quick reference is expected. What I do is put strange or arbitrary rules on my character sheet such as printing the entire Turning section of rules (using v3.5) on the back of my Cleric's character sheet.
XP are not used. The GM decides when the party levels up.
I think out of all your homebrew rules, this is the one I don't like. My players like knowing they're gaining experience, they like seeing that "bar" increase and know that possibly the next battle could put them up in a new level. It's not very realisitc and it definitly has a meta-game/video-game mentality as I get "We need to go kill boars in the woods to gain enough XP to level up." And while that is sort of a joke around the table, the idea remains. I can see why the rule is in place, and if it's just for those reasons I could see, still....players start questioning the validity of your arbitration and they like seeing "hard facts".
The GM has the authority to disallow unreasonable character builds, but will use this authority only when the build is severely unbalancing or does not fit the campaign setting. The GM will make an effort to allow player choice.
Honestly, this is easily solved by making them build their character from 1st level to 20th during creation. They should complete the build with a level-by-level breakdown of Feats, alternate class features, and levels. Something like this (3.5 mind you):
Human Paladin 6/ Fist of Raziel 10/ Paladin 4
Paladin 1- Power Attack (human), Weapon Focus (Greatsword) (1st)
Paladin 2- N/A
Paladin 3- Extra Smite (3rd)
Paladin 4- N/A
Paladin 5- ACF charging smite (PH2)
Paladin 6- Battle Blessing (6th)
...
...
...
The GM will roll all bluff, diplomacy, disguise, perception, sleight of hand, sense motive, and stealth checks behind the screen so as to conceal the result from the players. The GM may also choose to do the same with other skill checks or saving throws if the GM has a reason to wish to conceal the result. The GM will not abuse this power, and will only conceal those rolls when she has a specific reason to do so.
This is the second rule that I have trouble with. I like being in control of my results, whether my lie will fail or Succeed is based on a DC. The DC is set by you, and this is how you control the outcome. If you don't really want the player to succeed the Bluff check, make it ridiculously high or if your not sure how you want to proceed, then keep it average and see how they role-play to add or detract from their modifiers (or the change in DC)
Everything else you mentioned is pretty much unspoken rules that every player should be going by. You don't argue with DMs in front of everyone. You don't yell or scream at one another and you certainily don't bully your way through rules because they don't agree with how they interact with the game. Seriously, Flurry of Blows with spells is only done through Quicken Spells (something sorcerers don't really have access too since it takes them a full-round to cast a meta-magic spell). That rule is still there right?
One other thing that I had was multiclassing from your other thread. I believe pre-determined and built Builds would fix this problem of Multiclassing for you. If a player knows that you enjoy in-game reasons for the classes you take, then that player needs to make lots of background and in-character influences for those needs. A sorcerer that wants Monk levels should exhibit character quirks that shows a Monk-style persona. things like attire that's fitting a monk, a desire to get into melee, background information about maybe him visiting a monistary for a year or two. Adept training in hand-to-hand combat and things such as meditating.
Having read several of your post I have a few suggestions.
You obviously have a deficient group. That can be fixed. They need to know your final decision is the end all be all. Your the DM. Your the one spending the hours putting together a night they can enjoy. You diserve a certain amount of respect.
So I suggest you do two things.
1. Print out your list of rules with signiture lines at the bottom. Make every player sign it.
2. Point out that each player has 3 strikes. If they break your rules you will warn them they have earned a strike (or just a warning if your feeling nice). At 3 strikes they will be removed from the gaming group for an alloted amount of time.
If anyone refuses to sign they will need to find a new GM. Make it clear your list is not up for discussion. You have to be hard and stubburn. Your the DM. You have controll. YOu are the one member of the group that cant leave without it desolving. Make sure they understand that. The DM is king.
I admire Kelsy's tenacity. She clearly wants to play and play fairly. But, as some have already said, I wouldn't waste my time playing with the people she's got to deal with. They wouldn't last 2 sessions at my table.
I'm an old phart, and have no patience for abusive play, either in game or in player attitude. Stomping all over my game, which I carefully craft for the enjoyment of everyone, is an insult to me and my time-consuming efforts. If you don't like it, leave. If you insult me by acting like an idiot, I'll tell you to leave.
Mature players can disagree with their GM tactfully. If it will take too long to pore over the rules, they'll accept the GM's ruling and resolve the issue out of game, not insist that they can do the impossible.
But, as some have already said, I wouldn't waste my time playing with the people she's got to deal with.
Sadly, given how flagrantly, egregiously, and gleefully her players violate the game rules at every turn, I find it hard to believe that those same people will adhere to this set of rules, either (or any other set, for that matter, no matter how reasonable).
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
There certainly things I would do differently as far as the house rules go but yours are not bad and your situation clearly calls for special handling. I admire your desire to stick with this group despite the difficulties.
Let me offer just a couple of additional pieces of advice.
- Let the players know calmly that you are not attempting to spoil their fun but you will no longer allow them to spoil yours. Hand out the new House rules have them sign it or not your choice but let them know like it or not this is how you are going to run your table.
- They will test you and quickly. Stick to your guns. Stay calm no matter how hard they push you and be prepared to quietly pick up and leave if things seem irreparable. When you do tell them you will see them on the next scheduled game night and leave.
- If someone takes too long looking up a rule or is bickering with you in combat ignore that player and simply inform them that they are holding their action and move on to the next character's turn.
- Count to three. Out loud. It sounds silly but it works with my kids when they're acting up it might work with your group. ;) Just make sure you follow through with fair repercussions when you do or it will lose its effectiveness.
Best of luck.
I kinda think she zoned out and lost interest in this thread about five million man-hours worth of responses ago. <Grin>
I kinda think she zoned out and lost interest in this thread about five million man-hours worth of responses ago. <Grin>
Did not.
Players can never force you to allow something. They can argue with you until you give in, they give up and drop it, or they leave the game.
If you refuse to budge, there is never any 'chance' of being forced to allow something. Instead, you are given a chance to talk your players into your perspective, and if it fails, then you have to decide if you want to run a game so badly that you will do it under a system that you disagree with -- sometimes in a minor way, sometimes in a major way.
Minor things are passable, but being talked into running a game where, hypothetically, a monk can cast a touch spell that applies to every attack made simply isn't worth it.
What I recommend is, find a game with like-minded players. Invite ONE player you think can be reformed, and keep that player under constant gentle yet firm supervision. Instead of a whole group of players trying to break you, you're the one trying to civilize a problem player -- and if everything goes well, eventually they'll be just as demanding of a good game as you are, and you can bring another into the fold.
I guess I could comment on the rules.
* I'd allow more than 30 seconds to find a rule. That's hardly any time at all. Rather, we usually attack a rules question with multiple players; the more important the result of the rule is, the more time we'll give it. Of course, every person at the table understands the important of the flow of the game, and we tend to keep rules researching A) to a minimum, B) as short as possible, C) for when it's not our turn if possible, and D) preferably reserved for when it has a severe impact on the game.
* We allow respectful disagreement with the GM. There is no shouting, no personal attacks; the player is expected to present a concise reason he disagrees, and there is a period of argument or rules research allowed proportional in length to how important the disagreement is. The GM has final say, but it is best to say "I'm ruling it this way for now" and revisiting it after the game is complete.
* Also, my opinion is that the less the game has to do with alignment, the better. The true personality of a character is only known to a player, and any one action can be explained as Chaotic, Lawful, Good or Evil depending on the unseeable motives of the character in question. As far as that goes, Evil and Chaos are easy -- Lawful and Good are the alignments that require the most justification out of their adherents, in my opinion.
Think of alignment as a description, not a strait-jacket. If you think an alignment doesn't fit a character, first see if it's a pattern, then bring it up with the player. Do not attack the player for his actions, but give him the opportunity to justify them and be willing to believe.
I see nothing wrong with any of your rules. It's a game and all involved should have fun. I would play under those rules with ease. I'll say again though, it might be the players.
Cranwings: You would be correct and I shouldn't have generalized like that. Everybody is capable of being a dick, regardless of age.
Keeping in mind the last thread, I'm not 100% sure these rules will work with that group, but I admire your dedication to TRYING to make it work...
I don't think any are 'unreasonable'... Theres a few I'd be leary of, and a few I personally don't like... But then again, I'm not IN a group like that ;)
My opinions.
Barbarians, monks, and druids do not have alignment restrictions.
PERSONALLY... I have ALWAYS hated the Lawful restriction on monks... and would love to see them die a slow death. That said, with YOUR group... I'd be VERY leery of any Barbarian monks... That could get OP.
Now... I LIKE Level dips, and think they are awesome... but then I don't cheat or try to look for OP loopholes, THIS may open one ;)
A paladin or anti-paladin can switch from one Good/Evil alignment to another, but the GM considers this a major character change requiring the character to change deities. How this works is that the character loses class abilities as if she had fallen, and then most choose a new deity and follow the code of conduct of a paladin/anti-paladin of that deity until leveling up, at which point she regains her class abilities and is now a paladin/anti-paladin of that deity.
The GM is the final arbiter of all alignment issues.
I understand where your coming from with 'life altering choices'... but as a player, I would be VERY upset if the GM intentionaly screwed over my paladin by switching his alignment...
There ahve been a LOT of Paladin bashing threads on here.. and with these rules spelled out like this, I'd be nervous even trying one in this game. Again, with MOST groups, I don't think this would even be necessary :)
XP are not used. The GM decides when the party levels up.
I've seen a couple threads where people do this... and it works just fine for them. I personally like to see the xp meter go up. I like to know that the actions I took resulted in my character improving. NOT that we got to chapter 4 in the module. Whether we help the peasant from the bandits or not... as long as we get to the mayors offic in the town xxxx then we hit level 4.
MUCH less satisfying.
What I would recommend is just tossing the numbers out to the players ANYWAY... Your 8-11 encounters is about average for xp ANYWAY... so what difference does it make? To make things easier on yourself, I'd probably just give everyone the same xp for the night (if they were there or not...) and then they all level up when you want anyway.
The GM has the authority to disallow unreasonable character builds, but will use this authority only when the build is severely unbalancing or does not fit the campaign setting. The GM will make an effort to allow player choice.
This IS a very balanced game... There aren't TOO many 'unreasonable' builds... unless you allow too many third party stuff and barbarian/monks... THEN it may get a bit wacky... I'd think long and hard before disallowing anything. But your players need a tighter leash ;)
The GM will roll all bluff, diplomacy, disguise, perception, sleight of hand, sense motive, and stealth checks behind the screen so as to conceal the result from the players. The GM may also choose to do the same with other skill checks or saving throws if the GM has a reason to wish to conceal the result. The GM will not abuse this power, and will only conceal those rolls when she has a specific reason to do so.
THIS... THIS I don't like. In SOME games, I did this. 2nd edition and Marvel it was done quite a bit... Secrecy is always fun if the player doesn't KNOW if he succeeded. However in THIS game, MOST of those are 'opposed rolls' anyway. The DC is already hidden, so the 'doubt' will always exist. Theres no need to roll BOTH sets of dice behind the screen.
If the players get into an argument over party treasure, the GM may decide who gets what. Otherwise, the players split the treasure, not the GM.
I can't imagine a situation where this would seriously come up... Nor can I imagine a DM saying "NO, that +3 armor is for Sally! Not TOM..." UNLESS the DM is DATING Sally, then that's a whole OTHER problem ;)
While the DM controls the game and the world, I DO think the loot distribution is kind of out of his hands...
In reaction to this, I have decided to write a list of house rules that, from now on, are in effect for any Pathfinder game I GM. The players will be given this list before all games, and must agree to it for me to GM. Here they are:
.
.
.
.** spoiler omitted **...
I love your Alignment changes, not quite how I interpret lawful and chaotic, but a perfectly valid way to do it.
Most of the rules seem fine, there are 3 I would modify:
1) give 2-3 minutes to look up a rule, especially if it is important.
2) The rolling the players dice for them is almost universally hated by players, they are assumed to be able to role-play their character knowledge such that they don't suddenly know that they failed a perception check, if you do use this I would advise only for rolls where it is really important that they not know.
3) Spliting up the treasure is something that should always be done by the players. There is no in0character justification for "Hey, why do you get this item and I don't"...."Uh...God said so?"
Other than that it all works fine. (I have never used XP in my entire gaming career with D20, both as a player or a gm, and just giving levels works fine!).
Did not.
Okay, then let me explain my gentle (and successful) prod's context. I think you've got a desire to produce a fun game for your (new) group and I admire that. So I've tried to help. By "tried to help" I mean "spent a significant amount of time crafting what I hope is a useful response to your issues more than once."
When I don't get any sort of response (and you're active on other threads), I have zero feedback. I don't know if you agree with what I've said and are taking it to heart or if you've decided I'm a crazy and are ignoring every word I write. That limbo status doesn't really incline me to try and help anymore.
I don't even ask for a reply to my suggestions in particular. But popping in and generically saying something like "interesting ideas folks... I'm processing all of this" at least gives the impression we're not wasting our time.
Please note: I'm not saying this to be mean or critical. I'm just explaining my passive-aggressive post. I was hoping to jolt you into showing up so I know if it's time to stop paying attention to this thread or not.
The GM will roll all bluff, diplomacy, disguise, perception, sleight of hand, sense motive, and stealth checks behind the screen so as to conceal the result from the players. The GM may also choose to do the same with other skill checks or saving throws if the GM has a reason to wish to conceal the result. The GM will not abuse this power, and will only conceal those rolls when she has a specific reason to do so.”
No, rolling dice is part of the fun. It’s a game, everyone is there to have fun. Bad rule.
“If you wish to argue about something the GM did, do so outside of the game or do not do so at all.” Slight change to- “If you wish to argue about something the GM did, you may make your point once and only once, quickly, then the DM will make a final ruling . Afterwards do so outside of the game.”
The GM will roll all bluff, diplomacy, disguise, perception, sleight of hand, sense motive, and stealth checks behind the screen so as to conceal the result from the players. The GM may also choose to do the same with other skill checks or saving throws if the GM has a reason to wish to conceal the result. The GM will not abuse this power, and will only conceal those rolls when she has a specific reason to do so.”
No, rolling dice is part of the fun. It’s a game, everyone is there to have fun. Bad rule.
“If you wish to argue about something the GM did, do so outside of the game or do not do so at all.” Slight change to- “If you wish to argue about something the GM did, you may make your point once and only once, quickly, then the DM will make a final ruling . Afterwards do so outside of the game.”
I disagree, anytime the outcome of a roll wouldn't be known by the characters and could directly influence their actions it makes sense to have the GM roll in secret. This benefits both the players and the GM in that it keeps suspense active and intense during nail biting moments.
Also many players us out of game knowledge to to a greater or lesser extent. And although a lot of them hide that use of knowledge they still act on it. For example after a poor roll on a stealth check they opt to go a different less dangerous way.
In reaction to this, I have decided to write a list of house rules that, from now on, are in effect for any Pathfinder game I GM. The players will be given this list before all games, and must agree to it for me to GM. Here they are:
.
.
.
.** spoiler omitted **...
Regarding your alignment rules, I've found this site invaluable:
EasyDamus The Alignment SystemThe codes of conduct under the individual alignment entries are excellent.
I disagree, anytime the outcome of a roll wouldn't be known by the characters and could directly influence their actions it makes sense to have the GM roll in secret. This benefits both the players and the GM in that it keeps suspense active and intense during nail biting moments.
Also many players us out of game knowledge to to a greater or lesser extent. And although a lot of them hide that use of knowledge they still act on it. For example after a poor roll on a stealth check they opt to go a different less dangerous way.
Agreed.
Two things to disagree with here:
1. Your players may use out of game knowledge, mine do not. They are much more likely to say "Since I clearly am moving quite silently, I will skip sneaking around the back, safe way, and move in right past the guards."
2. If the roll is an abject failure "I sneak past the suits of armor through to the treasure room". Roll a 1. DM - "Crash, clang, bangedy bang, crash, bang, clank, etc." Do you think there's a chance they might know they failed?
Also, the players are usually required to describe their intentions BEFORE rolling. It's not - "I am sneaking past the guards". Oh, I rolled a 5. "I meant I was sneaking around the back where the guards aren't." I don't run my game that way, and I doubt you do either.
Finally, 3.5 & PF have put the roll in question, no matter what you roll. Since a 20 is no longer an autosuccess on a skill roll, and a 1 is not an auto-fail, the players cannot be sure if they succeeded or failed, no matter what they roll. If the guards are asleep, and the player has but 4 ranks in stealth, a natural 1 will still succeed. If the guards are actually trained ninja, with a spot of 18, and the PC has a stealth of 8, even a natural 20 will fail (assuming the ninja are taking 10).
But it's really about the feeling of playing your character. If someone else rolls for you, no matter what the situation or result, you feel tainted/cheated.
I am sorry, I wasn't wrong. I have played both without this rule and with it and I noticed that people act differently when they think they did poorly on a roll rather than when they think they did good. They don't usually obviously metagame. But when there are options their OOG knowledge is what they fall back on. They roleplay it out properly for their character, but in the end they go with what they think they rolled. The example I was remembering was during a mission where they were sneaking up to an enemy encampment trying to slip inside. They rolled a 2 and decided to move on to fully scout the perimeter instead of simply going straight in. Both valid options but on previous encounters I noticed they wouldn't take such caution, but then they rolled high on other situations. The roll was necessary regardless of which path they ended up taking.
In a different game the GM was using this house rule and the fearless party leader drank a potion of influence and attempted to negotiate his way past a dragon. The dragon seemed to be responding to the diplomacy and bluff effects quite well so the leader got bold and asked for directions to its lair. The dragon complied and even offered to take us there as honored guests. No one knew if the dragon was actually 'friendly' or just acting like it was. So when it turned out to be a trap we were all surprised. If those rolls had been in the open it would have ruined suspension of disbelief. Even if we had decided to role play out as if we didn't know, we would have known. Even as we entered the trap we would have been preparing for combat. When we didn't know the rolls then we chose actions that were designed to avoid suspicion on the part of the dragon and we walked blindly into the trap. In hindsight we had more fun when the GM made those checks for us... it's better not to know and then you can act freely without any preconceptions about your success or failure.As for part two... Really?! As a GM you would describe the actions of people who are trying to sneak as loud bangs and crashes? That's a good way to break suspension of disbelief. Even a one on a stealth check should be quieter than if they didn't bother to sneak. You make it sound like they are stupidly crashing through everything instead of sneaking.
And that last part is pure excuse. You never stopped playing your character. YOU chose the actions you took the GM is just being secretive about the success. How is that in ANY way taking control from you? The only way to feel cheated is to know ahead of ANY further role play whether you succeeded or failed based solely on a die toss.
Don't you don't trust your GM.
The example I was remembering was during a mission where they were sneaking up to an enemy encampment trying to slip inside. They rolled a 2 and decided to move on to fully scout the perimeter instead of simply going straight in. Both valid options but on previous encounters I noticed they wouldn't take such caution, but then they rolled high on other situations. The roll was necessary regardless of which path they ended up taking.
The roll may have been necessary, but I think the majority of GM's require specifying what the roll is for in no uncertain terms. If they didn't specify they were scouting the perimeter before they rolled stealth, how is the DM supposed to know the roll was for that? They aren't allowed to roll and then retroactively put themselves in a safer spot on a bad result. Not with Stealth, not with Bluff, not even with Climb or Acrobatics, which they would still be allowed to roll under the house rules.
It's probably best to let them either roll all their skills, or none of them. If I'm waffling between two rogue concepts, and one lets me roll my checks while the other has me just narrating choices and accepting what happens, I will probably choose to roll.
If there's an ability involved that lets me reroll a check a limited number of times a day, like the old Luck domain ability or something, I'd be doubly concerned. If I roll an 18 and still fail, I'll probably want to save my reroll for later unless it's going to kill me. If I'm not seeing my results, I can't use the ability. If they're banned ahead of time, that will and ought to affect my choices when building my character.
It's not always a matter of "Do you trust your GM?" so much as the irrational psychology of people. It's more efficient at a store checkout if there is one long line and people were sent to open registers than if each register had its own line people chose. Many commissaries use this, but civilian stores never do- people hate it, even though the wait is shorter. Getting to roll your own dice is often similar.
I'm kind of late to the party here, apparently.
None of the items on that list seem unreasonable. There is a passive aggressive subtext there that would turn me off as a player, though...not enough for me to turn down the game altogether, but I would definitely walk into the first few sessions with my gameface on.
Considering the other thread you posted the other day regarding what went into the formulation of this list, I get where you're coming from. I already mentioned that I think nearly everything in that list is perfectly reasonable.
There are a couple of suggestions I would like to make. I would probably leave out the section about yelling at one another out of the document completely. It is already a long document. Players by and large do not like reading anything more than a couple sentences, and even that is a stretch for many. Adding in stuff about verbal warfare is a big turnoff and implies GM vs Player mentality (the statement at the beginning about that should probably be dropped as well). I would guess that had I included lines like those in a written document and submitted it to players, they would either constantly deride me for the statements, or not even play at all.
Lastly, and again this is just my opinion, the statement about the GM's word is final, no arguments communicates that same adversarial tone I would not want to read as a player. I GM more than I play, and although it is understood that my word is final as GM, I frequently let players override my decision _if it is reasonable and can be accomplished in a timely manner_. I am not afraid to admit when I am wrong, or at least don't have the best answer, as long as the players can calmly communicate whatever is at issue quickly and argue their case without beating their chest. It is, after all, supposed to be fun.
The list is reasonable, though. I would just be careful with the way it is presented.