|
Yep, once again I have angered a player. Same player that lost his sword to the ogre, he decided to come back.
Anyway, I had watched an old episode of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles so it gave me an idea. It was the one with the Rat King in it, so I decided to create a Rat King villain. This one wasn't like the one from the show, the rats would swarm in and actually kill people on top of doing damage and spreading disease. I gave the Rat King a set if Pipes of the Sewers and I made it where it would summon a lot more than usual when they were played by the Rat King only. Well the players managed to defeat his Royal Ratness and the player in question, now a sorcerer, got the pipes and looked up what they did. Well let's just say they didn't summon thennumbers he thought it did and he got angry. He told me he wanted it to do what the Rat King could make it do because it would make them worth more so he could sell them. I gave him a knowledge arcana check and it was determined that the Rat King himself could enhance the power of the pipes as a unique ability. Basically I told him that they would only work more in the hands of the Rat King. Well let's just say he is mad and he wants me to give him a higher value for the item and I said no. I'm thinking about asking him to leave because it seems like it's always something.
Ever run into this problem?
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How many games do you run per week? Are all of these threads the same person? If the answer to question 1 is 1, and if the answer to question 2 is no, then you might want to look for a CHA-enhancing item.
I don't mean to start a flame with that or to cause offense, it's just...you have a LOT of these threads here. A LOT of them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not all THAT uncommon for an item to only work or work differently /better for a member of a particular race. Belt of Dwarvenkind comes to mind.
Economics are already broken in most d20 games, so you really can't sweat the details.
I know from my own experience if you give an inch, entitled players will take a mile. I ran a Legacy of Fire campaign a couple years back, and one of the players had maxed diplomacy to a ridiculous degree. He expected the plot of the *prewritten* AP to revolve around him and his ability to wrap NPCs around his finger. Essentially he expected to use diplomacy as a charm/dominate ability. Could not for the life of me convince him that diplomacy wouldn't make an NPC act against their self-interest. The other players and I tried to humor him for awhile, but the situation was untenable and improved significantly when he decided to leave. The diplomacy schtick would have worked fine in a freer, sandboxy campaign, but wasn't appropriate for what we were doing at the time.
Ultimately, I think a successful long-term gaming group has to be rowing in the same direction. If you've got a player who balks at the GM exercising poetic license, that player (and the group) may be happier overall going their separate ways.
|
|
How many games do you run per week? Are all of these threads the same person? If the answer to question 1 is 1, and if the answer to question 2 is no, then you might want to look for a CHA-enhancing item.
I don't mean to start a flame with that or to cause offense, it's just...you have a LOT of these threads here. A LOT of them.
I just somehow manage to get "that guy" in my groups. I don't get to run a lot of games because I work a lot, run my own business on the side and I have other things going on. I always get asked to run games but I like playing better to be honest so I play more than run.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
I just somehow manage to get "that guy" in my groups. I don't get to run a lot of games because I work a lot, run my own business on the side and I have other things going on. I always get asked to run games but I like playing better to be honest so I play more than run.How many games do you run per week? Are all of these threads the same person? If the answer to question 1 is 1, and if the answer to question 2 is no, then you might want to look for a CHA-enhancing item.
I don't mean to start a flame with that or to cause offense, it's just...you have a LOT of these threads here. A LOT of them.
Is "That Guy" one person or 5 people?
|
|
Is "That Guy" one person or 5 people?I just somehow manage to get "that guy" in my groups. I don't get to run a lot of games because I work a lot, run my own business on the side and I have other things going on. I always get asked to run games but I like playing better to be honest so I play more than run.How many games do you run per week? Are all of these threads the same person? If the answer to question 1 is 1, and if the answer to question 2 is no, then you might want to look for a CHA-enhancing item.
I don't mean to start a flame with that or to cause offense, it's just...you have a LOT of these threads here. A LOT of them.
One person while the other five facepalm themselves.
If this happened once (treasure consisting of an item that is only valuable to one particular bad guy), it wouldn't bother me. If this happened on a repeated basis, the eye-rolling would begin and/or my next character would be a Rat King anti-paladin...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ever run into this problem?
I like how every time you start a thread like this, it's "Ever run into this problem?" Not, "Could I have made a mistake?"
Not that you're wrong in this particular example, but I'm seeing a pattern.
|
|
If this happened once (treasure consisting of an item that is only valuable to one particular bad guy), it wouldn't bother me. If this happened on a repeated basis, the eye-rolling would begin and/or my next character would be a Rat King anti-paladin...
I would say first time in probably eight years.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
One person while the other five facepalm themselves.Is "That Guy" one person or 5 people?I just somehow manage to get "that guy" in my groups. I don't get to run a lot of games because I work a lot, run my own business on the side and I have other things going on. I always get asked to run games but I like playing better to be honest so I play more than run.How many games do you run per week? Are all of these threads the same person? If the answer to question 1 is 1, and if the answer to question 2 is no, then you might want to look for a CHA-enhancing item.
I don't mean to start a flame with that or to cause offense, it's just...you have a LOT of these threads here. A LOT of them.
Sounds to me like your question would be better rolled up into a single post, then.
"How do I deal with a problem player?"
Is it a sandbox? Let him find someone who will pay what he wants for it. Of course, it may take a while, and he can't be discrete, not while advertising. And the only guy who wants it that badly is another rat king. So when that other city over there is suddenly beset by rats, and that paladin over there sends his inquisitor friend to find out what the party knows about who they sold it to, and the paladin's rogue friend CG-edly decides the price of the pipes would make a lovely donation to the rat poison fund...
It is written the genies are charged with tempting mankind, to teach us we are not meant to wield great magics, and should be content with honest efforts of our own humble human hands and minds. Perhaps GeMieS are similarly charged. Grant his wish.
"You may have the moon, if you want it. But what would you do, alone on the moon?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hooboy, here we go again...
It's not all THAT uncommon for an item to only work or work differently /better for a member of a particular race. Belt of Dwarvenkind comes to mind.
Good point. Questions of fairness aside, I suspect that most 3.x players wouldn't blink at an item called 'Pipes of the Rat King,' which can only be used by rat-like creatures. Whereas "The rat king has a unique feat/trait/whatsit that allows him to augment the Pipes" smacks of hand-waivium. This may or may not be a double standard, but that's my sense of it.
|
|
Hooboy, here we go again...
It's not all THAT uncommon for an item to only work or work differently /better for a member of a particular race. Belt of Dwarvenkind comes to mind.Good point. Questions of fairness aside, I suspect that most 3.x players wouldn't blink at an item called 'Pipes of the Rat King,' which can only be used by rat-like creatures. Whereas "The rat king has a unique feat/trait/whatsit that allows him to augment the Pipes" smacks of hand-waivium. This may or may not be a double standard, but that's my sense of it.
One of the reasons I did this was because in order to balance the encounter, I made it where the Rat King could use the pipes to bring about more rats since it was basically a boss type encounter and it really fit the theme of the Rat King.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If this happened once (treasure consisting of an item that is only valuable to one particular bad guy), it wouldn't bother me. If this happened on a repeated basis, the eye-rolling would begin and/or my next character would be a Rat King anti-paladin...I would say first time in probably eight years.
Then Thornborn hit the nail on the head: the item is worth more, but only to Rat Kings, so the party can go looking for another Rat King or not, as the case may be.
Hooboy, here we go again...
It's not all THAT uncommon for an item to only work or work differently /better for a member of a particular race. Belt of Dwarvenkind comes to mind.Good point. Questions of fairness aside, I suspect that most 3.x players wouldn't blink at an item called 'Pipes of the Rat King,' which can only be used by rat-like creatures. Whereas "The rat king has a unique feat/trait/whatsit that allows him to augment the Pipes" smacks of hand-waivium. This may or may not be a double standard, but that's my sense of it.
The real problem with these types of specific cases is that if it is not an established norm that "story trumps rules," then players will be upset any time it does. If a GM is creating an ability, that doesn't exist, to beef up a boss encounter, but then doesn't allow the characters access to that ability, it is not only hand-wave-ium, it is unfair. An important axiom to remember, and one that I always play by is: "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." If I give the PCs full hit points at every level, they know that all their enemies will also be at their maximum hit points. If I need to create a feat/ability, etc. for an NPC to use, I will make that same thing available to the players. This happens for even simple houserules like the way we do critical hits.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the reasons I did this was because in order to balance the encounter, I made it where the Rat King could use the pipes to bring about more rats since it was basically a boss type encounter and it really fit the theme of the Rat King.Hooboy, here we go again...
It's not all THAT uncommon for an item to only work or work differently /better for a member of a particular race. Belt of Dwarvenkind comes to mind.Good point. Questions of fairness aside, I suspect that most 3.x players wouldn't blink at an item called 'Pipes of the Rat King,' which can only be used by rat-like creatures. Whereas "The rat king has a unique feat/trait/whatsit that allows him to augment the Pipes" smacks of hand-waivium. This may or may not be a double standard, but that's my sense of it.
Yeah, I don't see anything wrong with this kind of fudging once in a while. The boss monster can squeeze a bit more juice out of an item because it makes thematic sense and because it makes the final encounter more dramatic? Ok.
The boss monster is the only one who can use an item that turned the encounter into a near TPK? The boss' minions all have items that decay after I kill them? (Drow piwafwi, anyone?) I have to scape and beg for a +1 sword? Those're red flags, right there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The real problem with these types of specific cases is that if it is not an established norm that "story trumps rules," then players will be upset any time it does.
Agreed; this is often true.
If a GM is creating an ability, that doesn't exist, to beef up a boss encounter, but then doesn't allow the characters access to that ability, it is not only hand-wave-ium, it is unfair.
I see where your sentiment is coming from, but I don't necessarily agree. Unless we're talking "My NPC has a special version of Power Word Kill without a HP cap, and you guys can never learn it," hand-waivium isn't necessarily a bad thing.
For example, let's say that Shallowsoul has written the feat that allowed his Rat King to augment those Pipes, and it looks like this:
I'm Too Sexy for This Fur
Requirement: You must be a rat creature of some sort. (Being a rat-bastard doesn't count.)
Benefit: Your ratpipe skillz are so sexy that you summon even more rats when you play this magical item. You probably get laid afterward, too.
We could all pat Shallowsoul on the back for being perfectly fair with his players...but would any of them ever use said feat? Even if one of them decided to play a wererat or something, they probably have better things to do with their feat slots. I'm not saying that writing such a feat retroactively is a bad idea, if one of his players is keen on being the Ratliest Rat of Ratdom. But I won't blame a DM for being unprepared for the off-chance that one of his players will want a circumstantial home brew ability.
If a GM is creating an ability, that doesn't exist, to beef up a boss encounter, but then doesn't allow the characters access to that ability, it is not only hand-wave-ium, it is unfair. An important axiom to remember, and one that I always play by is: "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."
That's a valid point. Suppose one of the PCs was a draconic bloodline sorcerer; would it be fair to let that PC create a magic item with a big discount because it's only usable by draconic bloodline sorcerers? If not, why not?
The One Ring answers to Sauron alone...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Realistically, I don't think there's much you're going to be able to do over the long run to make/keep this guy happy. There's nothing wrong with telling him "Clearly, my GM style and what you're looking for don't seem to match. Maybe you'd be better off looking for another game."
If a GM is creating an ability, that doesn't exist, to beef up a boss encounter, but then doesn't allow the characters access to that ability, it is not only hand-wave-ium, it is unfair. An important axiom to remember, and one that I always play by is: "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."
Personally, I'm a bit wary of trading in absolutes like that. Should the GM ensure that every encounter is balanced for both CR AND action economy? There is an insurmountable qualitative difference between the outcomes a party of adventurers needs to address and those of their adversaries. Adversaries exist to be overcome, and their use is in the challenge they pose to the party. Overcoming unfair odds (is one of the things that) makes players feel heroic.
I recently ran 3 players through the mythic playtest encounter, and they absolutely steamrollered the last encounter. Not even a remote challenge. Needless to say, the players couldn't really own that success.
The One Ring answers to Sauron alone...
The one ring though didn't stop being the one ring or was valued less in another's hand, even if it would not truly serve them. And in fact others claimed they would be able to wrestle control of it to themselves, the problem was that it would corrupt them and ultimately turn them into Sauron 2, this time with more Gandalf!
So yes, it answers to Sauron alone, but that is because anyone that is powerful enough to command it would become (effectively) Sauron.
@Tequila
For example, let's say that Shallowsoul has written the feat that allowed his Rat King to augment those Pipes, and it looks like this: ... We could all pat Shallowsoul on the back for being perfectly fair with his players...but would any of them ever use said feat?
emphasis mine
I think you're actually agreeing with me in a roundabout way. You're agreeing that it is fair to retroactively create the ability and allow the PCs access to it. Which is really all I'm saying. Sometimes the illusion of fairness is all that's required. Whether or not a created ability gets used on both sides of the screen is, at least for argument's sake, beside the point.
I would never blame a GM for being unprepared either, heavens know I've had my fair share of unprepared moments at the table. What I would hold some blame for, though, is if a GM created an ability that I particularly liked, and then was told, too bad, it just worked with this one random NPC, and just for this encounter.
@LazarX
I want to start by saying I completely respect your opinion. Of the many posts I've read of yours they have almost all been level-headed, logical, and reasonable. However, here, I'm going to agree to disagree. Knowing where any NPC or Monster's "mojo" comes from, in my mind, is a pretty clear answer: the various rulebooks, or the GM's head. Those should be the only two places abilities are found, and, in the case of it coming from the GM's head, I would only play at a table where my GM either retroactively introduced it as an available mechanic for all that fulfill the requirements, or where it was broached ahead of time with the entire table. I don't go in for games where there are esoteric places of power that never ever get revealed in a mechanical way. I like strict mechanics because I like an even playing field. In essence, I like knowing the rules, all of them, or, to be more clear, I like knowing where I can find the rules, before I sit down to play.
@DigMarx
I totally understand, and I do agree that there are places where "good for the gander" can cause a little wonkiness. I guess I should have added an addendum that there are definitely certain things and specific situations in which it's just better for all involved that the enemies do things in a different way than PCs. For example, I frequently have larger groups of similar enemies in a grouped initiative. With these situations though, I always clear it with the table before we play. Likewise, anything I foresee using, that has not been clearly presented to the players, either in a rulebook, or via conversation, will be addressed before it enters into gameplay.
Yea if this issue happened at my table I'd politely tell the guy where to stick it.
My #1 rule is don't argue with the DM. If I'm wrong about something, or you have a question please let me know, but if I tell you that is how it is accept that and move on.
Reason for rule #1 is due to a player like the one above who would challenge me in every ruling/decision. I eventually told him that if he didn't like my style of DMing he was free to find another group or run a game himself.
I would put it something like this:
The vast majority of people who might buy this from won't care that it's more useful to Rat Kings, book price.
If you go looking for a collector of very rare magic items, +5% to the value, just because it's odd.
If you find someone who an actually use the special ability on it, or someone specifically studying things like this, +10-20%.
Mind you, an extra 10% on the sale price is a whopping 55g, so really, it's not that big of a deal.
|
I see its time for our weekly thread where a player overeacts in shallowsoul game again.
Not that you're wrong in this particular example, but I'm seeing a pattern.
Your not the only one. I get that sometimes problems happen with a player(s) in a game. Not on a weekly basis. How is that even possible. I would actually be on shallowsoul side on this one if it were not for the fact that everytime a player gets angry in his game it seems the angered player never seems to want to compromise with the DM and somehow always seems to suffer from player entitlement.
Im curious as to why the player would even think to try and replicate what the Rat King could do in the first place. Anyhow if he insists on wanting to do what a npc can do than he either accepts the pipes as is or the pipes become useless and no more better than a regular instrument.
