Gained a feat or attribute bonus
Died and was reincarnated, not resurected
Have you ever Dm'd before? I'm curious.
What kind of campaigns do you play in? Is there more then just you and the DM playing?
How do you expect your DM to maintain a cohesive story/adventure with this? Half of these incidents would incur serious repercussions that would either get your character hunted, killed or ejected from the party.
If your DM can actually pull this off his improvise skills must be amazing.
And his patience must be legendary if he's going to let you scrap all of his adventure pre-planning.
I find it hard to believe the rest of the players at the table will be thrilled that your character is a walking, at will, deck of many things that can derail anything and wrap the adventure around yourself at a whim.
Is this for a campaign? Or is it just intended for a one off evening?
I was about to mention the deck of many things. Many of these things would wreck a campaign.
Doubling GP and getting free magic items are example of this. While PF is a very flexible system it does not work with everything well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I read everything you wrote.. And essentially you're dumping a lot of extra work on the DM if he wants to maintain verisimilitude.
And let me get this straight.. if another player spends a night drinking with you he basically gets a draw from a walking deck of many things. And if he doesn't like the card he pulled he has to spend 48 hours not adventuring with the rest of the group? You don't see something wrong with that? Or the fact that your character is basically a walking artifact?
Also you refer to a "main character",
is this a 2 person game or are there others at the table? In a group I don't see how your character isn't going to totally monopolize the game play.
What they said. I wouldn't allow this within a mile of my campaigns.
Frankly if a character's going to get drunk and do crazy stuff, it needs to happen at the table, where the GM and the other players can react in real(ish)-time.
I think the idea is pretty good, but you'll get more attention of the GM than others, you're pretty much the quest-starter, if the other players are okay with that, it could be great.
some ideas
- vandalized a bar, pay 100 gold
- graffitied some important building but can't remember it (who is this mysterious El Barto?)
- married to a prostitute, pay 10 gold every month
- won in a gambling game, receive 40 gold
- got attacked, great blood loss, loose 25gold and take 2 con damage.
I would put monetary gains and losses on most things. Have more negative things than positive ones.
|
Richard's ideas are slightly better, because they're less drastic effects, but again, this is like you're trying to DM from the player's seat. One of the main problems with this is that your character is immune to it. The other is that it's not GM-suggested, and thus (1) you don't even know if your GM will like it and (2) it's one player imposing rules on the others, which never ever turns out well.
Hangover-type games or interludes can be fun when they're GM designed, but shouldn't happen often enough to have a table. It's better when the GM can make up the drunken antics herself (I had one the other week; my PCs attempted to get a man drunk to get information from him, ended up blacking out themselves, and woke up shirtless, painted green, in a field far from home, one of them handcuffed to a young woman, missing minor items, with a tiger watching them.) But it only works when you do it in a way that's easily reversible--not putting someone out of the game for a couple days--and that won't make anyone angry or permanently change their character.
I have one question.
Where, when and how does the pictures come into play?
Okay, that might count as 3 questions, but still...guns are in Pathfinder, but image capturing devices have yet to make it.
illusionary orb of images?
You have gained a level as an alterationist mage. You have a spellbook and a monkey familiar.
You have a spell tatooed on your back, spellbook style.
While I too question the premise, this is going to be a great table for DMs to start a module with.
An admantium stiletto stuck through your left butt cheek. Will do damage when it's pulled out. :)
Awful. Awful. Awful.
Really? My character gets tattoos and teeth ripped out? and that can't be fixed.
I think your friends after one or two sessions are going to drug you and paint you up with sharpie markers.
I've DM'ed a lot, one big issue about DMing is always read the fine details before you rush to judgement...
your forgetting this line... "any roll on the table can be undone by spending the next 48hrs away from the party, likewise the DM can alter any outcome within 48hrs."
The idea being, that if the character absolutely does not want the outcome he can be away from the party (going through wild scenarios to un-do the effects) for 48 hrs, or the DM can arrange for magic items to be stolen back, money to be returned to the actual owners etc.
Pretty much the same things happen in the movies, through luck and swagger the main characters manage to get away mostly un-harmed save some embarassing photos and bad tattoos.
and Cinder it says very clearly "rather than role playing it" this is not something that is played out, it is purely color. At the most it would derail some of the characters in the party for 48hrs of in-game non-actual play time.
I did not forget the line. The GM can do that anyway, and doing it without killing verisimilitude is the key here. The GM might not see the error of allowing _____ until after the fact. Yeah the group can always retcon certain things, but "takebacks" don't work well for many groups.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am not confused at all. Nobody is saying it is impossible to make work. We are saying it is unlikely to make work, and still maintain verisimilitude.
edit:It is strange how people like to assume things. Note to any that are reading this, it is always better to ask unless of course you have some special mind reading ability.
Too true!
"Vicon- your forgot missing half fingers. :-0 but yeah, only really effects roleplaying for a bit until you get the wooden tooth, tattoo painfully removed or full heal, etc. Its fun, interesting, and not too over balancing. and really, wouldent characters be picking up some of these things as they go along anyway?"
- No, they wouldn't. And if they did they either wouldn't like it, or would deal with it as it being a result of an action they took or sacrifice they made.
What it appears you are proposing is forcing the other players to be subjected to this: "...thinking that the character who is trying to get them drunk/very high etc. has perform oratory and diplomacy should make some kind of contested roll, makes a perform check..." You're basically trying ON PURPOSE to steal the other player's agency, possibly marring their characters and centering significant events on your character at their expense.
Suppose somebody else at the table Got permission from the GM to be a custom-race, say... a "Sobriety Vampire" and when he bit you and the other players you permanently lost the ability to get drunk, or enjoy the taste or benefits of alcohol. You would feel totally railroaded, cheated of how you wanted to play your character, and forced into a future beyond your control by some failure to make a dice check. How would you feel? You would think that sucked. The other players at your table are very likely to hate YOUR "sobriety vampire" just as much.
Why don't you, as a GM, come up with a great "The Hangover" scenario and run it for your friends... instead of creating a character that turns ALL CAMPAIGNS into the same (in my opinion not very funny) movie derivative. Most people you ask will tell you the Sequel to the hangover didn't have to exist, how many times do you require your party to Watch/Live the same movie over and over?
I literally cannot get my head around how bad of an idea this table is for a CHARACTER. A GM... maybe a useful plot device if he had complete editorial control, if used sparingly and in a way he could keep continuity.
When you even look at the way it's interference is mitigated... walking off for a day or two not only "Time-Outs" other players who don't want anything to do with this crap, it removes any real consequence without any justification. Lost all your gold? Take the bench for 24-48 hours. Doubled your gold? Keep it. Offend the king? There's the penalty box, don't worry about it. NEw magic item? Keep it. Not to mention it shouldn't be the OTHER players who are punished when your homebrew table makes a stink.
Awful. Awful. Awful. Some people on these boards can play devils advocate for anything, or think agreeing with everything is the favored voice in a public forum. But I say, without any invective or ad hominem... that this is a horrible and inconsiderate thing to subject other people to, and should not be done. I am sure you'll do it anyway, and have a GREAT time. Your fellow party members, whether they tell you or not, will be less enthused.
Awful. Awful. Awful.
Really? My character gets tattoos and teeth ripped out? and that can't be fixed.
I think your friends after one or two sessions are going to drug you and paint you up with sharpie markers.
I think being a living spellbook is a plus.
Also, a little damage that can be healed normally and you get an admantium dagger. I wouldn't mind that. I stand by my suggestions.
It's not that I think the autonomy of a player's character cannot by any means be derailed, but that is primarily (I'd almost argue exclusively, the GM's job... not your party-mate who thinks it would be funny to hijack the narrative and make you do something stupid or out of character... with your character - because what my character does in character is pretty well meshed into what the game is all about. It's NOT primarily about making OTHER characters do what they don't want or didn't choose... it's about being in a situation and CHOOSING what you think is the best choice and dealing with those consequences. I'm not saying that there aren't situations where people (IRL or in-game) couldn't be subjected to a situation where they are hoodwinked and duped into doing things beyond their control and with consequences they may regret... I'm just saying that if you gave everybody a choice for their free time, they'd probably elect to FORGO situations in their role-play akin to being intoxicated and manipulated, or serial-violated... add to that, that by the GM and central story this is NON-ESSENTIAL, and does not advance any specific plot but is instead a POTENTIALLY RECURRING *gimmick* of another player character... I'm horrified. I wouldn't let it happen at my table whether I was GMing or not. If you want to explore control scenarios that push the bounds of consent and willingness and unwillingness to go along, you may wish to explore BDSM. Don't bring it to the Table-top.
As I said before, as a GM's plot device this could make a fine adventure. As a recurring theme of a character in a party it's utterly gross. The people who don't seem to realize this aren't respecting their fellow players -- if you are considering things like : "I use my mind control powers on the paladin so he doesn't attack me for my shenanigans" (and I've heard talk like this recently) or are doing anything else (ESPECIALLY with dice rolls) to curtail the agency and freedom of CHOICE to respond to a situation (which they are NOT in complete control of, that's the GM's job) YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG. Whatever powers you have to manipulate, control, and compromise targets... The primary intent is that you're using them on OTHERS.
You want to exert sweeping effects on other party members? Be a cleric and BUFF THEM. Don't get them drunk and pull all their teeth out. Jeez. And your GM's a jellyfish for even giving such a device an ear without complete editorial control.
Caveat: I realize that this game can be played in a variety of ways and there ARE some dynamics where something like this could work, but I don't think we've received ANY indicator this would be one of them. If EVERYONE in the party knew beforehand and approved, and had their own devices for manipulating and controlling one another that could be an interesting game in and of itself. But at a table where "I'm the fighter, I'm the bard, I'm the Sorceress, I'm the Cleric, I'm the jerk who is trying to get you drunk for laughs and cause havoc that constantly disrupts the story at least ONE but probably ALL OF YOU are focused on." -- that sounds like a s&&&ty table.
if you need it explained ANY MORE CLEARLY:
It is not a question of CAN YOU... it is a question of SHOULD YOU...
If it's a game, who's major selling point is enabling you to do most anything, why should your expression of that be preventing other people from doing what they want to do?!?
If it's the type of gaming group where everyone does some of the GM work, then this should be ok.
Imagine a DC heros game where 6 ordinary kids find the dial H for heros device. They take turns with it till 1 kid explodes dramaticly. The last kid throws it down a mineshaft and gets everyone to swear secrecy.
The kid who exploded and the one who tossed it are both NPCs. The one who exploded actually became a sort of poltergeist. He needs the dial to return to human form, as he finds out talking to other ghosts. The 4 PCs now start their superhero careers.
Because it's random, the characters are defined by what they do with the hand fate dealt them.
You notice you have a party charter. Your adventuring party is named "The Flumpf preservation society"
(Monty Pythons Flying Circus got their name from an all night drinking binge)