Thanks Abraham, now I have to go make a Succubus Monk.
Of the peace blossom style.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Turns out no, from what I read at the time.We allowed it, then later realised you can not flurry or attack with your head.Why not?
I will say that it is up to interpretation. In some areas, head butts are not included, in other areas they are. Though I would argue that lack of evidence is not evidence of lack (i.e. not be included in a section isn't proof that it is not allowed).
Good find, yeah I specifically go with the monk unarmed strike as listed in the monk section, it is quite clear there. So if hands, elbows, feet and legs were glued, as they were, the monk shouldn't be able to make unarmed strikes.
It was a great trap, room with coughing dust that can do con damage (forget the name), bars on the wall to climb up above the dust, bars have sovereign glue upon them, and weight upon the bars triggers the raising of a wall, leading to... I think they were skeleton girallons actually, not zombies.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Back from the holidays and the thread has just kept on growing. Wow.
Well I've got another one of my half-assed observations to add.
I've noticed two conflicting and complimentary issues here. Notably the
1.) Player doesn't go along with the group's plan
vs
2.) PLayer doesn't want to be a complete idiot just to move the plot.
They seem like the proverbial sides of the coin. Mostly because the Player from 1 thinks he's dealing with the DM from 2.
Players like to be important, like to scent out problems, and if they succeed, this causes a problem for the DM.
If the DM designs an entire session around the heroes getting kidnapped and they suss out that the grand ball they've been invited to smells funny, it derails things, it derails things big. An inexperienced DM, or even an experienced DM, will likely start in on the 'but you have to' at this point. Its similar to playing a video game and coming up against the 'thou must!' crap that most C-RPGs even today still operate on.
The players and DM in these situations are playing a different game, mentally.
Let's use the example from earlier. The pirate in Undermountain. Its possible Mr. Pirate Fish Out of Water thought he'd get chances to show how his unique skills could be used uniquely even in a dungeon environment.
Don't ask me for specifics, maybe tying kytons in knots, utilizing spilled blood as an alcohol-assisted fuel-air bomb or mesmerizing goblins with sea-chanties or something.
He 'understood' the game and its setting just fine, but he didn't understand what the meta-game here was (namely old school dungeon delving where pounding pitons into doors was the story of the day, presumably).
The Sithiss guy suffers from a player who's looking at one sort of character and not realizing, again, he's in a different meta-game. I had a similar problem once when I played a druid who wanted to find out /why/ the dragon and goblins were destroying civilization in a campaign where they were sort of just baddies for being baddies. Stories of humiliating these guys might assuage DM anger at having to deal with them, but ultimately aren't productive. It doesn't teach a lesson. Its actually more likely to make a player even more resistant, hell it might make a player who's passively a problem into one who's actively a problem.
Players all want to be the main character. PCs all should be treated as the main character. The trick with guys with this Sithiss-fellow is they don't get the concept of 'ensemble cast.'
The NG Cleric in the party of mercs thing, again, is a difficulty with the meta-game. THe cleric probably thought 'I can save them!' and that will make for good narrative, vs the other players doing their best attempts to re-enact Flesh+Blood with more elf-magic and less Rutger Hauer.
To tie this back to the initial thread, the issue here isn't 'gamist vs narrativist' its meta-game. What the meta intentions are.
"I want to run a real medieval campaign." thats how DMs will advertize what they want. Are we looking at dung ages stuff, knights and courtly love?
"Its a low magic campaign." or "Just like Lord of the Rings." Whooo boy. These two are frequently heard and what one DM means when he says it can be so far off in the distance from where the player views it that well, lets just say they're rolling feet instead of inches on their artillery scatter die.
So, rambling post aside: A player might develop a concept or roleplaying style based on a misunderstanding of what to expect. This isn't based on hostility or ignorance, just miscommunication.
... Let's use the example from earlier. The pirate in Undermountain. Its possible Mr. Pirate Fish Out of Water thought he'd get chances to show how his unique skills could be used uniquely even in a dungeon environment.
Don't ask me for specifics, maybe tying kytons in knots, utilizing spilled blood as an alcohol-assisted fuel-air bomb or mesmerizing goblins with sea-chanties or something.
He 'understood' the game and its setting just fine, but he didn't understand what the meta-game here was (namely old school dungeon delving where pounding pitons into doors was the story of the day, presumably) ...
That is what I thought he was going to try to do. It was not a kick in the doors mindless dungeon crawl. He probably could have at least done something with knot tying skills and acrobatics. He neither attempted nor even suggested anything like that. He specifically said that if I was a good GM, I would have written some ocean encounters into the campaign because he was a pirate captain.
... The Sithiss guy suffers from a player who's looking at one sort of character and not realizing, again, he's in a different meta-game. I had a similar problem once when I played a druid who wanted to find out /why/ the dragon and goblins were destroying civilization in a campaign where they were sort of just baddies for being baddies. Stories of humiliating these guys might assuage DM anger at having to deal with them, but ultimately aren't productive. It doesn't teach a lesson. Its actually more likely to make a player even more resistant, hell it might make a player who's passively a problem into one who's actively a problem.
Players all want to be the main character. PCs all should be treated as the main character. The trick with guys with this Sithiss-fellow is they don't get the concept of 'ensemble cast.' ...
We were never sure what he really wanted. He tried to ignore every single plot hook thrown his way. He seemed to want the entire group to cajole(sp?) him to go along with every/any thing.
... The NG Cleric in the party of mercs thing, again, is a difficulty with the meta-game. THe cleric probably thought 'I can save them!' and that will make for good narrative, vs the other players doing their best attempts to re-enact Flesh+Blood with more elf-magic and less Rutger Hauer. ...
May be what he was thinking, but I'm not sure why. All the other players specifically told him before starting that they were not playing crusading heroes. They were playing close to evil, money hungry, and power madd.
... To tie this back to the initial thread, the issue here isn't 'gamist vs narrativist' its meta-game. What the meta intentions are.
"I want to run a real medieval campaign." thats how DMs will advertize what they want. Are we looking at dung ages stuff, knights and courtly love?
"Its a low magic campaign." or "Just like Lord of the Rings." Whooo boy. These two are frequently heard and what one DM means when he says it can be so far off in the distance from where the player views it that well, lets just say they're rolling feet instead of inches on their artillery scatter die.
So, rambling post aside: A player might develop a concept or roleplaying style based on a misunderstanding of what to expect. This isn't based on hostility or ignorance, just miscommunication.
I will agree that it is a mostly meta-game issue. And it is probably increased by miscommunication. But I won't agree that it is all the GM's fault. Which many people seem to believe.
Kydeem, I don't think he's saying it is GM's fault.
In fact, I'm pretty sure he's just saying that different people see things differently/have different expectations.
Sorry Spook, I didnt mean you were saying that.
But many people have acted like it is my fault. Both some of the players and quite a few on these boards seem to feel the gm is soley and completely responsible for everything.
|
|
Kydeem, I don't think he's saying it is GM's fault.
In fact, I'm pretty sure he's just saying that different people see things differently/have different expectations.
Yeah, not pointing fingers either way. And not using you specifically, just using your examples as a jumping off point.
...as for the guy who wanted ocean adventures under ground, thats pushing it, there is an undersea down there somewhere, but sheesh.
I think principly, as I stated, the problem is players don't grok what the DM wants them to grok when it comes to settings.
And no problem, Kydeen. I ramble like crazy so its easy to misunderstand me. :D
If WBL is treated as a rule, and not merely a suggestion, then Ye Olde Magik Shoppe becomes an impossibility. Even assuming that all such shops are owned by20th level characters, the entire inventory's worth cannot exceed 440,000 gp.
Only if you define wealth by level as the total sum of wealth owned, instead of value of equipment carried and used.
I have always advocated that wealth by level only includes materials (and titles, bonus feats if given as rewards and such) as are actually useful in the campaign.
This means that beautiful fluffy castle they live in doesn't count against them anymore than it does the king, unless it's of direct benefit beyond what the GM has alloted in the campaign (after all if you are in kingmaker this is going to be slightly different than it might be in other campaigns).
This is also why I'll account for the 20+ +1 magical large long swords the party found, but not considered them as 'wealth by level' in the middle of a dungeon where they can't be sold and turned into something actually useful.
Here are a few examples of the kinds of things that have driven me nuts over the years.
I was the GM. Told the party ahead of time, most of the adventures would be in Underountain, a lost dwarven stronghold. One of the players decides he wants to play an elf pirate. I tell him there will be no ocean going or ships involved, so most of the skills will be useless. He says he’s ok with that. He wants to be the guy learning how to cope out of his element. Seems weird to me, but fine you can do it. After a few game session, he gets upset that I’m picking on him and won’t let his PC do anything special. He actually said that since he was playing a pirate, I should have re-written things to let him shine sometimes.
I was a player. The group (all the players including me) decide they want to play a very mercenary borderline evil campaign were they are in it for the money and power. One player ends up with a NG cleric (played almost as a lawful-stupid paladin) who spends all the time upset about all the actions and motivations of every other PC.
I was a player. Group includes a lizardman (might have been kobold) ranger who has no friends nor family, was kicked out of his tribe (for not fitting in by not being evil enough) but holds them no ill will since that is their nature, doesn’t care about power or money, is definitely not a crusading hero helping others, etc… His entire back story was to make clear that he was an anti-social, dark brooding, loner. It provided no reason for him to want to be with the group. No matter what happened or what the group wanted to do he always said something along the lines, “Why would Sithiss care about that?” It felt like the group spent almost half their time trying to contrive reasons for him to go along with them. Eventually they stopped trying. Then he was upset that they were trying to leave him out of the game just because he was playing his character’s personality. He said it was the GM's fault for not supplying him any motivation. None of us could see any motivation for that character to do anything but sit in a bog and rot.
I was GM. PC Kender rogue. I won’t go into this except to say he played the stereotype to the hilt. Drove the other players nuts and destroyed all their interpersonal relationships and plans. The group almost broke up over this one. Just because it is amusing to read about in a novel does not make it a fun companion to try to accomplish things with. I was told that, as GM, I had not provided enough reasons for the kender to behave and want to go along with the plans and activities.
Elf Pirate is an entitlement player. The world is supposed to revolve around him and he gets upset when you don't make it so. Last time people discussed this type of situation the best thing to do is talk to them and if they don't shape up then uninvite that player.
The NG cleric is a special snowflake player. They don't want to look like everyone else they want to be special and unique. Maybe they were hoping to become the driving force behind some inter-party role play... but really it was foolish to surprise the other players with this if that's what he wanted... maybe they just did that to become the center of attention too. If he wanted this to work he needed to discuss it with the other people first.
Sithiss is a classic example of what I call player burnout. This player has lost all motivation to play and reflects that in his character and hopes that other players or the GM will "rescue" them from themselves. The best thing here is to give the player a few weeks off from playing the game. A few weeks cold turkey will spark his imagination, and he will come back into the game fresh and involved.
The Kender sounds like some one who wanted to recreate the fun of a character from a book. BUT in the book people react to your wrongs in a positive light for the sake of the story... in real life people don't react favorably to being robbed. In my house rules the Kender would be an NPC villain after first meeting the group since theft from the party is NOT allowed.
These are good reasons to have a face to face session where people build their characters together as a team... I know I have been shouted down in the past for promoting that. But what is one session of team building and character creation when it means a happy well motivated party?
I was the GM. Told the party ahead of time, most of the adventures would be in Underountain, a lost dwarven stronghold. One of the players decides he wants to play an elf pirate. I tell him there will be no ocean going or ships involved, so most of the skills will be useless. He says he’s ok with that. He wants to be the guy learning how to cope out of his element. Seems weird to me, but fine you can do it. After a few game session, he gets upset that I’m picking on him and won’t let his PC do anything special. He actually said that since he was playing a pirate, I should have re-written things to let him shine sometimes.
And you probably should have done so. Every GM should do so, within reason. Was it impossible to throw a few climbing challenges or cases in which his sailor's knowledge of ropes could be useful? Maybe had an encounter at an underground river with creatures similar enough to ones he might know about on the surface ocean?
I understand that the player chose a background to contrast with the setting with his eyes wide open, but surely you could have met him part way.
Funny, I would have loved to have a sailor/pirate character in an underdark campaign. Anytime my groups come up to water underground, they always go, "Oh hell no! Nobody get anywhere near that water. There is probably aboleth and giant albino blindsight equipped sharks and kraken and ... Nope, we'll find another way around. Hell somebody give me a pick, I'll just dig another tunnel of my own."
Unless I am mistaken Bill Undermountain is a purchased campaign setting. The GM may have been uncomfortable modifying it. Still it can't hurt to toss a few challenges his way if he is trying his best... But I get the impression the player wanted ocean adventures and was hoping to control the game from the players seat.
... And you probably should have done so. Every GM should do so, within reason. Was it impossible to throw a few climbing challenges or cases in which his sailor's knowledge of ropes could be useful? Maybe had an encounter at an underground river with creatures similar enough to ones he might know about on the surface ocean?
I understand that the player chose a background to contrast with the setting with his eyes wide open, but surely you could have met him part way.
As I said "...He probably could have at least done something with knot tying skills and acrobatics. He neither attempted nor even suggested anything like that. He specifically said that if I was a good GM, I would have written some ocean encounters into the campaign because he was a pirate captain. ..."
There was quite a bit of climbing and ropes involved. He neither brought any ropes or tried to make use of what the others had brought. There were various creatures in the water. He never tried to make use of his knowledge. As far as I could tell, he was waiting for the chance to go out on the ocean and be a pirate captain.
Unless I am mistaken Bill Undermountain is a purchased campaign setting. The GM may have been uncomfortable modifying it...
If there was already a published one called that, we didn't know it. It was just me extending the dungeons that the other GM had already started down into the deeps.
These are good reasons to have a face to face session where people build their characters together as a team... I know I have been shouted down in the past for promoting that. But what is one session of team building and character creation when it means a happy well motivated party?
I find this to be extremely valuable. I always run a "Session 0" for a new campaign where the players hash out character concepts and I talk about & answer questions about the setting, campaign goals, types of encounters, which character concepts are appropriate, etc. It doesn't always prevent expectation mis-matches (I.e. in my current campaign, one player didn't realize I meant it when I said the campaign would include "strong horror elements" and kind of freaked out when they encountered a villain who removed victims' faces as trophies), but it sure helps.
... And you probably should have done so. Every GM should do so, within reason. Was it impossible to throw a few climbing challenges or cases in which his sailor's knowledge of ropes could be useful? Maybe had an encounter at an underground river with creatures similar enough to ones he might know about on the surface ocean?
I understand that the player chose a background to contrast with the setting with his eyes wide open, but surely you could have met him part way.
As I said "...He probably could have at least done something with knot tying skills and acrobatics. He neither attempted nor even suggested anything like that. He specifically said that if I was a good GM, I would have written some ocean encounters into the campaign because he was a pirate captain. ..."
There was quite a bit of climbing and ropes involved. He neither brought any ropes or tried to make use of what the others had brought. There were various creatures in the water. He never tried to make use of his knowledge. As far as I could tell, he was waiting for the chance to go out on the ocean and be a pirate captain.
I fear I must agree with Aranna on this one. He was trying to turn the adventure into something other than it was.
Profession: Bandit. best profession in the entire game. it doesn't even require skill ranks.
other good professions for adventurers include
Assassin: again, no skill ranks are needed. you just need a means to not get punished.
Serial Murderer: no skill ranks are required, you just need corpses you are legally murdering
Executioner: no skill points required either, just murder a wanted man in public
Bounty Hunter: just kill a guy and bring proof of his death, no skill points required for this one either
Lawyer: you need someone to get you out of legal trouble.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Barbarian, survival, done. I don't need you're stupid money, I'll just go kill a deer with my pure hatred and eat it.
But yeah, I like how you can do that and just be a wild warrior. You can be totally built to slaughter and it still makes sense from a roleplay standpoint.
That's why I don't like fighters, because OMG it's so hard to have a fluff skill like Profession: whatever when you get so few skill points. It's one of the things that makes the system totally bent towards humans when it comes to filling out character concepts. (And they won't even let me be a lizardfolk... sigh...)