@Zombieneighbours -- You took everything I said as it referring to you, and took it out of context. None of it was directed at you. I was giving examples of what I've been exposed to in D&D. Again, not a slam at you or CoC games.
*blinks*
Mmmm...can I get a sanity check from other observes? My responce to Kevin's comments above where proportional and relevant right? I didn't just go off on a tangent, having completely misunderstood what he had written.
2) No, no joking. The DM who inspired this one, I swear got a woody every time he killed off a PC.4) Agreed. I'd want to work with the PCs. I find this to be the absolute worst when the DM's also playing favourites. "Here. My girlfriend will be the gold dragon, my best friend will be the cloud giant, my best friend's wife can be the wartroll with PC stats, and you can play this elf commoner." Gee, thanks.
@Zombieneighbours -- I point you to the above. It's a dickish move if you're purposely going after a certain player, and are too happy about killing off the characters on a regular basis. I mean, shouldn't the point of a campaign be to have a player's character last throughout an entire campaign, NOT seeing how many characters you can kill off before your players finally have enough and leave your game? Unless your player's being a dick in game with every character, there's no excuse why you'd kill off every one of his PCs within a few sessions of their creation. DM's shouldn't be proudly putting notches in their belts.
CoC, I've played. A lot my friends have too. It's always hosted at the local convention in all of it's incarnations (Tech, original, etc). If they're not dead by the end of the one-shot, they consider it to be a relatively bad game.
Am I right in thinking that the implication here is that
A, I get a "woodie" from killing PCs
OR
B, I show favoratism
AND regardles of A OR B
C, He thinks that I scalp hunt my players PCs.
|
The "you're" doesn't actually refer to you personally, no. I don't know if you get a woodie from killing PCs or show favortism. I've never met you. I referring to other GMs who fit that bill. I should have properly quoted what I was referring with context to you. I'd been gone long enough for there to be 48 new responses since my last post. You had written four in the time.
Your quote was:
I don't really see taking a certain maniacal joy in character death/insanity as a 'dick move' either.
I was referring to the guy I had dealt with. There's nothing wrong with taking a certain maniacal joy in the above if it's story based or helps move along the plot. However, if you're doing it for reasons in my quote "It's a dickish move if you're purposely going after a certain player, and are too happy about killing off the characters on a regular basis. I mean, shouldn't the point of a campaign be to have a player's character last throughout an entire campaign, NOT seeing how many characters you can kill off before your players finally have enough and leave your game?"
Zombie, you DID misinterpret Kevin and snapped at an attacker that isn't there. Now would you stop de-railing the thread? I wanted to talk about why I agree with Kevin on "Core Only" and "Killer DM Glee" instead of pointing it out when other people take personal offense over things that aren't even directed at them. Both are definitely not pleasant if the players don't agree with the DM, which seems to have been the case at the tables where I've been in.
Sorry guys, but common sense doesn't exist. Anyone who's gone to college or university should know this. It's TAUGHT to you that it doesn't. You pass the course because you agree with that.
Yes, I have been to college. Must've fallen asleep when they taught the whole class about how "Common sense doesn't exist".
I'm not entirely sure at all what you're getting at here. There are a lot of things that are common knowledge to anyone with a completely functioning brain. Hot things are hot. The sun is a thing that exists. People don't like being insulted. All of this is common sense stuff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know several "dickish" GMs. I like to think that I'm finally moving away from being a "dickish" GM. Racking up a toe tag count really is secondary to having fun for the entire group.
All in all being a GM is kind of a "dickish" thing all the way around. On one testicle, we have the learning curve. On the other testicle, we have to weeble wobble around with balancing 'running a fun game' with 'challenging the player characters' without trodding upon the scrotum of 'painful learning curve'. On the third testicle being a GM is a masochistic exercise in trying to please everyone without tilting things too far to any number of extremes.
Guess it all boils down to 'what do you think is fun' with 'what do your current players think is fun' aaaaannnnndddd 'what does the campaign / adventure path tolerate'. It's a tricky balancing act, sometimes one that cannot be easily 'won'.
|
|
Sorry guys, but common sense doesn't exist. Anyone who's gone to college or university should know this. It's TAUGHT to you that it doesn't. You pass the course because you agree with that.Yes, I have been to college. Must've fallen asleep when they taught the whole class about how "Common sense doesn't exist".
I'm not entirely sure at all what you're getting at here. There are a lot of things that are common knowledge to anyone with a completely functioning brain. Hot things are hot. The sun is a thing that exists. People don't like being insulted. All of this is common sense stuff.
Guess you must have been. I'm sure you would have beaten my prof by the end of the week with everything he was doing and saying. Example "Get me to pick up the red pen from all of these items on the table, but know that I don't know which one is the red pen because no one taught me that. It's not common sense to me." If "common sense" tells you that hot things are hot, who tells you that it's hot? Do you just know it's hot? Were you taught that at a young age? Did you find out for yourself through years of research? Did you discover it yourself by touching something hot and learning that way? Regardless of the answer, if that's therefore common sense, why can I then spill HOT coffee on my groin and win a battle in court for millions of dollars because nothing was labled as "hot"? Shouldn't I know that coffee is naturally going to be served hot when I go to a restaurant and have it served to me? Wouldn't that be common sense?
In any case, this is once again derailing the thread.
Guess you must have been. I'm sure you would have beaten my prof by the end of the week with everything he was doing and saying. Example "Get me to pick up the red pen from all of these items on the table, but know that I don't know which one is the red pen because no one taught me that. It's not common sense to me."
It doesn't matter if YOU DON'T KNOW, it is common knowledge to anyone that can distinguish colors which item is red (or whatever red is called in your language). Notice it is COMMON sense or knowledge, not UNIVERSAL sense. Common does not mean it is something EVERYONE knows, it means it is something that the MAJORITY knows.
If everyone but one person in the world knows that the Earth is round, does that mean that the fact that "The Earth is round" is not common knowledge?
If the majority of society agrees that insults are insulting, and result in a negative reaction from the insulted party, that makes it common sense, regardless of the minority party.
Logic like this is where you get those inane pseudo-intellectual statements like "What if insane are teh sane ones, and EVERYONE ELSE is insane?" which make sense right up until you realize that insanity is relative to society, so any individual greatly diverging from the norm is insane by definition.
If "common sense" tells you that hot things are hot, who tells you that it's hot? Do you just know it's hot? Were you taught that at a young age? Did you find out for yourself through years of research? Did you discover it yourself by touching something hot and learning that way? Regardless of the answer, if that's therefore common sense, why can I then spill HOT coffee on my groin and win a battle in court for millions of dollars because nothing was labeled as "hot"? Shouldn't I know that coffee is naturally going to be served hot when I go to a restaurant and have it served to me? Wouldn't that be common sense?
It's also common knowledge that the court system in this country (I assume you also live in the US anyway) when it comes to lawsuits is an absolute joke.
And I think you're misconstruing what is likely feigned ignorance for a lack of common sense.
In any case, this is once again derailing the thread.
Maybe it is but I think it's a pretty interesting discussion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In any case, this is once again derailing the thread.
yes, you decided to entirely derail the thread by starting an off-topic conversation about "common sense" so that you didn't have to respond to me about your inappropriate responses to brvheart, and the way you used vulgar language to insult him, which is against messageboard rules.
So just stop. You apologised to all, dealing with what I brought up, that's all you had to do. Relax. Go back to your topic. It's your thread man!
I've had fairly good luck over all. Been playing RPGs for 30 years and only three 'dick DMs'... two of whom eventually recovered.
The least bad was one who felt that it was improper to tell the players anything that they didn't ask about or assume that their characters did anything which they didn't specifically state. Sounds harmless? Actual scenario;
'Ok, we'll stop at this inn for the night and then continue down the road in the morning. We pay the innkeeper and go to our rooms. Anything happen during the night?'
DM: 'Nope'
'Great, we continue down the road.'
DM: 'Ok, you are surprised by three 80' tall giants.'
'Isn't this area open grassland?'
DM: 'Yes'
'So how did we not see three 80' tall giants approaching?'
DM: 'You didn't say you were looking for giants.'
'Arggghhh.... oh hell, nevermind. We draw our weapons and attack.'
DM: 'You don't have any weapons.'
'What?! Why?'
DM: 'You didn't say you brought your weapons with you when you left the inn.'
Eventually that actually turned into a great DM... but only after I spent an entire game session telling him everything my character did and asking a billion non-stop questions about the environment around us. We made it through two EMPTY rooms in five hours... but it was worth it to convince him to actually tell us what the characters see/hear/etc and take obvious character actions for granted.
The other two... well, let's just say they made the first guy look good.
I had a GM like this once. He wouldn't tell you anything EVEN OBVIOUS INFORMATION unless you asked about it first. Still he was easy to handle, we just learned to be VERY thorough in what we did... lest we wander into the middle of an undead horde again without any warning. We had to do quick thinking to get out of that one. I seem to remember nearly killing myself leaping off a 100 foot bridge they had me trapped on. It was role master and a +100 attack resulting in a very nasty impact critical ... I was very lucky to survive that incident.
Of course one of the other players was a halfling who could hide anywhere... literally his hide modifier was SO high that Impossible hide feats were easy to him. He once hid while trapped in a glass box filled with even light and no shadows. His character made it away from the undead without much trouble at all.
Still this was part of the GMs weird charm. His games were fun, even when you forgot to look out for something. So it didn't come off as dickish even though it probably does qualify.
Sorry guys, but common sense doesn't exist. Anyone who's gone to college or university should know this. It's TAUGHT to you that it doesn't. You pass the course because you agree with that.Yes, I have been to college. Must've fallen asleep when they taught the whole class about how "Common sense doesn't exist".
I'm not entirely sure at all what you're getting at here. There are a lot of things that are common knowledge to anyone with a completely functioning brain. Hot things are hot. The sun is a thing that exists. People don't like being insulted. All of this is common sense stuff.
Guess you must have been. I'm sure you would have beaten my prof by the end of the week with everything he was doing and saying. Example "Get me to pick up the red pen from all of these items on the table, but know that I don't know which one is the red pen because no one taught me that. It's not common sense to me." If "common sense" tells you that hot things are hot, who tells you that it's hot? Do you just know it's hot? Were you taught that at a young age? Did you find out for yourself through years of research? Did you discover it yourself by touching something hot and learning that way? Regardless of the answer, if that's therefore common sense, why can I then spill HOT coffee on my groin and win a battle in court for millions of dollars because nothing was labled as "hot"? Shouldn't I know that coffee is naturally going to be served hot when I go to a restaurant and have it served to me? Wouldn't that be common sense?
In any case, this is once again derailing the thread.
This must have been a Law class... Nowhere else is common sense ignored.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been in my share of groups. Over the course of my gaming life, I've had the misfortune of meeting LOTS of dick DMs.
Either you've had the misfortune of playing with the wrong people, or perhaps the root of your problem isn't external.
Have you ever tried to run a game yourself? I guess from the way you speak, you haven't. Do not underestimate the level of dividing attention and juggling of mental notes that goes into running a game.
There's a 'disruptive player' archetype, the player who likes to joke around, distract from current affairs, simply because he thinks that's funny, not considering the consequences of the distraction.
To those players, and I'm explicitly not saying that you're one, I'd like to say: news flash, it's not all about you; it's about you all at the table. Let others have their shining moment. Shut up for once. If you don't agree with a decision, be an adult, discuss it. Often a rule can be overseen in the heat of juggling a million plot threads and monster feats. And for pity's sake don't go ranting in the internet.
I've been in my share of groups. Over the course of my gaming life, I've had the misfortune of meeting LOTS of dick DMs.Either you've had the misfortune of playing with the wrong people, or perhaps the root of your problem isn't external.
Have you ever tried to run a game yourself? I guess from the way you speak, you haven't. Do not underestimate the level of dividing attention and juggling of mental notes that goes into running a game.
There's a 'disruptive player' archetype, the player who likes to joke around, distract from current affairs, simply because he thinks that's funny, not considering the consequences of the distraction.
To those players, and I'm explicitly not saying that you're one, I'd like to say: news flash, it's not all about you; it's about you all at the table. Let others have their shining moment. Shut up for once. If you don't agree with a decision, be an adult, discuss it. Often a rule can be overseen in the heat of juggling a million plot threads and monster feats. And for pity's sake don't go ranting in the internet.
And apparently you (yes, YOU!!) forgot to read the first post.
He has been a DM for quite some time. He has run games during that time.
Overlooking that and then posting a small rant doesn't really help you or anyone else.
I've been in my share of groups. Over the course of my gaming life, I've had the misfortune of meeting LOTS of dick DMs.Either you've had the misfortune of playing with the wrong people, or perhaps the root of your problem isn't external.
Have you ever tried to run a game yourself? I guess from the way you speak, you haven't. Do not underestimate the level of dividing attention and juggling of mental notes that goes into running a game.
I've also stayed to being the DM, which my players like because I'm more than fair.
*Desperately searches for :rolleyes: smiley*
There's a 'disruptive player' archetype, the player who likes to joke around, distract from current affairs, simply because he thinks that's funny, not considering the consequences of the distraction.
What are the "consequences of distraction" pray tell?
Dad blasted jokesters, always making the other people laugh and have fun instead of paying rigid attention to the VRYSRSBSNS game at hand!
*Shakes fist at sky*
To those players, and I'm explicitly not saying that you're one, I'd like to say: news flash, it's not all about you; it's about you all at the table. Let others have their shining moment. Shut up for once. If you don't agree with a decision, be an adult, discuss it. Often a rule can be overseen in the heat of juggling a million plot threads and monster feats. And for pity's sake don't go ranting in the internet.
None of this has anything to do with any of the things he posted in his OP.
Please read before you post.
|
|
for the record, Icyshadow, that's a very unfriendly tone.
The point remains; If you don't agree with a decision, be an adult, discuss it. I know I explain to my disruptive players that my mind can only handle so many off-topic jokes before I simply lose control of the game. And no one wants the game to stop, so we find a way that works.
This must have been a Law class... Nowhere else is common sense ignored.
I studied philosophy.
I beg to differ :)
for the record, Icyshadow, that's a very unfriendly tone.
The point remains; If you don't agree with a decision, be an adult, discuss it. I know I explain to my disruptive players that my mind can only handle so many off-topic jokes before I simply lose control of the game. And no one wants the game to stop, so we find a way that works.
If I went too far with that, then I apologize.
However, it's rude to the OP to not read the first post.
There's also the risk of unintentionally derailing the thread.
I shouldn't be, but I'm somewhat surprised how many people took offense to the OP and/or didn't even read the whole thing.
@ KV: For what it's worth, I've never GMed a ttrpg that I didn't house rule, and I don't think your OP is offensive.
Lesson: There's no such thing as 'just letting off a little steam' on the internet.
4) Is that a slam? No, I don't want 15 point buy thank you very much. However, I also don't want to play the 32 point buy gay pedophile half-human that sodomizes the fey and is currently on the run from the masses, and is secretly CE and eats the bodies of little boys. I walked away from that group the second I found out what kind of depraved crap they were into. And gamers wonder why people thing D&D is all about devil worship and the dark forces.
5) The Complete Warrior was SO not broken. My 10th gray elf wizard...
Not meant to be a slam. My array is 16-16-14-14-12-10. I use it to start all players on a level playing field, not to dictate what character you play. FYI, I don't even allow evil characters in my game so I would never make your character secrectly CE. I would walk away from that group in a heart beat.
As for your Samarai, I won't comment on its strengths as I don't allow Oriental based characters in my campaign. They don't fit the setting I am running. Nor are my elves gray. I have had a lot of elven variants, just not that one. It goes back to when Oriental Adventures was released by TSR for AD&D. They made it clear not to mix the settings. I never have. However if you are ever in the area you are welcome to create a wizard and show your stuff. The party could always use one. My players create their own character that are quite varied under only a few character creation rules. I don't force characters on people. I do have pregens for people to play who are new, however. They are pretty plain Jane. If the players are not having fun they will vote with their feet. Mine, some times over abundently, keep showing up!As for Dick DM's yes we have had one or two over the years and we do ask them to run their game elsewhere. One repeatedly attempted to kill off my wife's character game after game as some sort of personal vendetta. I asked him to cease and disist and then he went after mine. That was when we asked him to leave. Hey, I have no issue with killing off player characters. I have killed 9 since August, but it is a deadly campaign and the players knew that coming in and yes I put up coffins on the board to record the deaths. It is Rappan Athuk after all!
No maniacal laughter though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whaaa? No Muuhwahwahwa'ing? sad panda face ;)
|
|
This must have been a Law class... Nowhere else is common sense ignored.
That would be a correct assumption. Business and Philosophy also taught the same thing. I had to take all three for my degree.
Either you've had the misfortune of playing with the wrong people, or perhaps the root of your problem isn't external.
Have you ever tried to run a game yourself?
I've had very bad luck with groups. Mostly for the favortism aspect. I'm in two good groups now. One PFS and one homebrew. Both GMs are decent at what they do, and stick to pre-made adventures that they revise some to fit their homebrew worlds.
I'm also running a game with another group, and haven't had any issues.
@thejeff -- I was referring to the man who spill McDonald's coffee on himself, and it was standard temperature. When it was tried again in Britain, it was thrown out of the court.
@Rynjin -- I'm from Canada.
@brvheart -- In the Tier Classifications, The Samurai barely made Tier 5, that's how terrible it is. The internet says that it's as powerful as an NPC warrior. I could agree. The fighter's a much better class as at least you can choose your bonus feats instead of having them dictated to you at inappropriate levels. It's a terrible class. If it's ever offered to you, run.
With Pathfinder, I use the 25 point system, or 32 point with 3.5, but I let my players build their own array. Some people just prefer having that dump stat lower for roleplaying purposes, and I'm okay with that. I also allow Flaws. The grossest character we've had so far was a Flatulent Dwarf Barbarian with a 6 Charisma. The flaw gives you -2 to all Charisma and Stealth checks. He didn't do any diplomacy. I tend to always have an extra NPC for the group (usually a cleric because no one likes playing one apparently), so if I get a newbie, that's what I give them for the first session. If they like the game, I'll sit down with them and we can come up with their own character.
I'm not against killing off PCs either, it's just that it shouldn't be a GM's secret personal hobby. The campaign I'm running right now we've gotten pretty close a couple of times, but others who have run it say their players are on their third or fourth character already. So I know it's a major possibility.
I have taken business classes, none of them said any such thing. I haven't taken Philosophy but I can't imagine why they would say that, except as part of a specific philosophy that didn't believe in common sense. At least with Law it makes sense that lawyers would want to over define everything. Common sense might seem very alien to a lawyer. Although there was a judge recently who used common sense in his court room, that judge is my hero.
Common sense doesn't need to be taught, but I suppose it can be. It is the knowledge you absorb by simply living in a culture. A lawyer might demand proof of training... but if you live in an area you pick up accents, etiquette, and all manner of small bits of knowledge without any need to be trained.
I know one tip as a DM is at the end of the session, ask for criticism (or at least ask how was that for folks) especially if you're dealing with players you may not know that well. Of course you can pick things up as you run about playstyles but nothing helps more than direct open discussion. If the DM doesn't offer you a chance to comment then I'd suggest politely expressing your opinion (hopefully there would some positives along with your negatives). 9/10 should be sorted with honest talk. Sure there is 1/10 that things just won't work and it does sound like the Op has had some bad luck.
Well, now that I think about it, I did get the "forget about common sense" bit in Quantum Mechanics. But that's sort of a specialized case.
OTOH, "Common sense is what tells you the world is flat."
Indeed common sense is of no help with post-Newtonian physics but even then, professors I knew would ask you to "put aside your common sense" rather than convince you that it doesn't exist in the first place.
I must say that, myself working and teaching in a (Canadian) university, the statement that colleges teach you that "there is no such a thing as common sense" surprises me. I've been in classes where you are asked to go against common sense, or in which common sense was too vague to provide an adequate and well-articulated answer; but I can't remember anyone denying the existence of common sense itself.
But I digress. Kevin, I'm sorry you seem to have fallen with a bunch of rotten DMs, but a DM who doesn't play the way you like it best isn't necessarily a dick. As for what to do other than sit in the DM's seat: that answer is usually "talk with your DM". If no compromise can be found, then try a new group/DM. Players can be incompatible without any "dickiness" involved.
OTOH, "Common sense is what tells you the world is flat."
The fact that there is a horizon line begs to differ.
|
|
The last point about core only, while a bit draconian isn't so bad. For a long time as a GM in 2nd ed as well as Palladium games I had the opinion to let players use things from outside sources and/or other games. Big mistake. Even worse in 3rd ed and Pathfinder I would imagine.
I had a DM in 4e recently who didn't allow Dragon magazine stuff for our game, seemed a bit harsh and certainly made a couple of builds much less viable but meh. I certainly wouldn't say it was a dickish thing.
Having said that, WoTC put out some pretty awful power creep stuff in some 3rd ed materials at times, sometimes easier to out-right just ban books in general.
I have to jump in and say that being a DM is a pretty thankless job at times. I got way burnt out doing it for years when I first started playing. Last I checked 3.5 (and I assume PF) occasionally struggles with nobody wanting ot man up and run the game. May want to wonder as players why that happens :/
|
|
But since we're all talking classwork lemme just chime in. In my MPA course on ethics and management (something or other don't remember the title) our prof did mention that often you have to be wary of those who seek to run things, often having an axe to grind or some other agenda besides that of the betterment of the organization. Perhaps some DMs as well :/
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are a lot of things that are common knowledge to anyone with a completely functioning brain. Hot things are hot.
Common knowledge =/= common sense.
"Hot things are hot" is a function of experience and memory, not of some mystical "common sense." Or else no child would ever try to touch a hot stove, even barring ever having been near one. Children are taught not to touch the stove, or else they touch it and learn that lesson themselves. No magic "Spidey sense" protects them -- certainly not one that occurs often enough to be called "common."
Regarding common knowledge, in a lot of places I've lived, it's "common knowledge" that being gay is evil and that countenancing it in any way will usher in destruction of our entire civilization. I mean "common knowledge" in the sense that > 50% of the population vehemently and fervently believes it to be self-evident. Is it therefore true?
This must have been a Law class... Nowhere else is common sense ignored.That would be a correct assumption. Business and Philosophy also taught the same thing. I had to take all three for my degree.
Either you've had the misfortune of playing with the wrong people, or perhaps the root of your problem isn't external.
Have you ever tried to run a game yourself?
I've had very bad luck with groups. Mostly for the favoritism aspect. I'm in two good groups now. One PFS and one homebrew. Both GMs are decent at what they do, and stick to pre-made adventures that they revise some to fit their homebrew worlds.
I'm also running a game with another group, and haven't had any issues.
@thejeff -- I was referring to the man who spill McDonald's coffee on himself, and it was standard temperature. When it was tried again in Britain, it was thrown out of the court.
@Rynjin -- I'm from Canada.
@brvheart -- In the Tier Classifications, The Samurai barely made Tier 5, that's how terrible it is. The internet says that it's as powerful as an NPC warrior. I could agree. The fighter's a much better class as at least you can choose your bonus feats instead of having them dictated to you at inappropriate levels. It's a terrible class. If it's ever offered to you, run.
With Pathfinder, I use the 25 point system, or 32 point with 3.5, but I let my players build their own array. Some people just prefer having that dump stat lower for roleplaying purposes, and I'm okay with that. I also allow Flaws. The grossest character we've had so far was a Flatulent Dwarf Barbarian with a 6 Charisma. The flaw gives you -2 to all Charisma and Stealth checks. He didn't do any diplomacy. I tend to always have an extra NPC for the group (usually a cleric because no one likes playing one apparently), so if I get a newbie, that's what I give them for the first session. If they like the game, I'll sit down with them and we can come up with their own character.
I'm not against...
Perhaps you are not old enough to remember prelawsuit McDonald's coffee. It was NOT standard temperature. I can't recount the number of times I scalded my hands and my tongue. It was near the boiling point. I for one was glad they were sued. You could not add enough ice or cream to cool it down. Now their coffee is drinkable. And it was not a man, it was a 79 year old woman in 1992.How much coffee where you drinking 21+ years ago? I don't allow characters with stats less than 8. IMHO they are inviable, but that is just me. Perhaps they do things differently in Canada, but here in Texas we try and be neighborly to our fellow players.
You have the right to allow flaws, 25 point buys or whatever you like in your game. All I know is that standard Pathfinder is 15 so I am well above that at 32. Point buys are something I generally don't like due to min/maxing. I want characters to be viable through an extended campaign and a 6 CHR doesn't work well for role playing for long.Well I am done here so I will just say howdy and go on to the next thread.
|
|
Meh, I remember having players b**%+ now and again (we were all friends so wasn't a big deal), I told them feel free to run something. Only one of them had a campaign make it past the 2nd adventure. If I'm in a group running I don't mind someone else taking the reins awhile, though that would have to be in 4e cause my understanding is PF/3.5 can be a royal pain in the ass to prep
There are a lot of things that are common knowledge to anyone with a completely functioning brain. Hot things are hot.Common knowledge =/= common sense.
"Hot things are hot" is a function of experience and memory, not of some mystical "common sense." Or else no child would ever try to touch a hot stove, even barring ever having been near one. Children are taught not to touch the stove, or else they touch it and learn that lesson themselves. No magic "Spidey sense" protects them -- certainly not one that occurs often enough to be called "common".
And it is something every human creature that doesn't grow up in a bubble learns through experience. Everything that is learned through general experience in your formative years is common sense. How to speak, how to walk, what things it is and is not good to touch or stick in your mouth (it is common sense that it is not good to eat nails, for example).
You and Kevin are too focused on the meanings of the separate words "common" and "sense" to see the meaning of the PHRASE "common sense".
Regarding common knowledge, in a lot of places I've lived, it's "common knowledge" that being gay is evil and that countenancing it in any way will usher in destruction of our entire civilization. I mean "common knowledge" in the sense that > 50% of the population vehemently and fervently believes it to be self-evident. Is it therefore true?
It is true in that culture, yes. Evil is 100% entirely subjective. If a culture is taught all their lives that bunny rabbits eat your soul if you get too close, then it is common sense in that culture to run like the wind if a bunny rabbit comes near.
Like I said up thread, "common" and "universal" are not the same thing. Pine trees are extremely common where I live. Is that true everywhere? No.
Does that make the sentence "Pine trees are pretty common" any less true? No.
It is subjective, it is not 100% subjective.
For the purposes of the game, most of the time evil is determined largely by what a specific god would view as evil.
Who adjudicates the opinions of the gods....
In-game, yes, but I doubt Kirth lives in the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Things that make me leery are:
1) House rules that make me completely question a GM's sanity.
One thing I always question is when a DM/GM feels he or she has to use an excessive number of house rules. I would say is "If you have to change so much of the rules, this isn't really the game I know any more. Maybe you should try some other system?"
A few simple house rules might actually be fun and add flavor to a campaign. I would say keep it around 25 words or a single page if you are a really experienced DM.
I once played in a campaign where the DM handed out a 100+ page booklet of house rules. Complicated house rules. Very boring house rules. Yeah, I suspected he might be suffering from OCD.
2) Evil cackling and giggling whenever they know full well that they're about to kill a character off in a battle that none of us had a chance of winning.
Come on, GMs do lot of hard work, they need to have some fun every now and then! Seriously, GMs who take an adversarial relationship to their players are probably playing the wrong game. I always try to make it difficult but not impossible. I do like to see players enjoying a heroic struggle that seems to be "against all odds" but I also enjoy seeing them win in the end.
3) Obvious favoritism towards a particular player. Namely their significant other, or their best friend they've known for forever, while the rest of us are destroyed regularly, or kept out of the loop for information. "Military" campaigns are especially bad for this (where their best friends are captain and lieutenant, but you're just a grunt who's not allowed to do anything unless your commanding officer says so).
Agreed. I hate this. I once played in a campaign where one of the other players owned a monopoly on everything in town and the DM allowed him to run NPCs who were actually his employees. Conflict of interest? Yeah.
4) Not being allowed to build your own characters. At all. Only the GM gets to roll your stats, pick your race, class, background history, etc. Because only he knows what'll fit in his campaign and you can't.
This is a mistake. If the GM wants people to be immersed in their characters, he must allow you to create them. Players, however, should also be considerate and ask if a particular character they want to create would fit.
Bottom line: Work together!
5) This is more for 3.5 but "Core Only". Why? Because everything else is broken and therefore not allowed. Bull. That's a stupid rule. Complete Warrior wasn't broken. You can't tell me that Samurai class was better than the fighter.
Ever hear of Pun-Pun? That's your reason for wanting core only. It doesn't sound like you are one of them, but there are some people out there--Min/Maxers, Power Gamers, etc--who study ways to break the system. The more books you allow to be used, the more the odds that such a players will find the "I win!" loophole and create a character that will give you a headache. Remember, GMs do a lot more work than players in preparation. Would you like it if somebody created characters that would make your hard work worthless? The samurai from CW is a bad example. Yes, he's not that much better than a fighter, but then you add all the feats, spells, other classes, prestige classes, and so on in that book, you can see how it makes a GM's job progressively more difficult. The rest of the Complete books in 3.5 had even more exploitable content, getting worse with each release over time. Pathfinder is the same way to some extent, but I believe Paizo has much better quality controls in place. I still restrict which Pathfinder books are allowed to Core, APG, UM, and UC.
|
|
I'm sorry you seem to have fallen with a bunch of rotten DMs, but a DM who doesn't play the way you like it best isn't necessarily a dick. As for what to do other than sit in the DM's seat: that answer is usually "talk with your DM". If no compromise can be found, then try a new group/DM. Players can be incompatible without any "dickiness" involved.
I don't disagree with this. It's quite fair to say that not everyone is going to agree with what the GM has to say, or how things should be ruled. There will be arguments, and hopefully both people will grow from this. However, if the GM refuses to grow because "I'm right, and you're wrong, nananana boo boo." then yes it's definitely time to try a new group/DM.
@Aarontendo -- I've definitely seen my fair share of GMs not allowing anything from a magazine. Even the GM I have now will allow things from the Dragon Magazine, but only on a case by case basis, and only after he's been given a week to look it over. He seems most okay with races, and flavorful alternate class progressions.
As for no one wanting to step up to being a GM for 3.5 and PF, that's half true. At least around here it is. Most people here are burnt out from d20 in general, and either only play E6 (which I've got no problem with and wish I could join in), play MMOs (99.9% it's WoW), or play a completely different system that's been out for years and isn't D&D (CoC, BESM, HARN, etc). The other half is not from people not wanting to step up, but rather they want to play too badly. I can admit to this. Especially the current evil campaign we're playing. I want to play it, not run it. PFS games are impossible to find around here. They're constantly petitioning for people to GM a PFS game on Mondays and Thursday because more and more players show up each time. Unfortunately, there's just not enough people who have the time or don't want to play the game themselves.
@brvheart -- Oh, I'm old enough. I just never drink the stuff. I'm actually allergic to all forms of coffee. I drink tea, and even that's served lava hot.
32-pt buy in 3.5 was for those campaigns that were likely to hit level 18-24. In Pathfinder, that changed to 25 points. The PFS games only ever get to level 12 (higher now with the Season 4 rules) but standard buy was 20 pts. I'm not sure what kind of campaign would have 15. That's always confused me. That's the elite array given to NPCs with class levels.
Rynjin -- All you have to do is watch reality shows to know that "common sense" isn't all that common. How some of those people are still alive will forever baffle me.
@darth_borehd -- 1) Got a GM who has 15 pages worth of house rules. I'm glad that's not my toner being used. But 100+ pages? Sheesh. I would never be able to keep track of all that.
2) Some fun yes, but if you're keeping track of a character's death by putting another notch in your belt, you're running the game for the wrong reason. I too enjoy giving the PCs a hard time, and if they survive, that look of relief and satisfaction that the dice weren't completely against them, makes it worthwhile.
4) Agreed. With the exception of one-shots where you're not really caring about investing yourself into the character all that much, it's kind of hard to care about the campaign if your background, stats, etc are all being dictated to you. I've even seen GMs who level up your character for you.
5) Oh, I know all about Pun-Pun. However, my Friday DM also knows about him and welcomes you to try and break his game with it. Pun-Pun is nothing compared to the DM's power, and we should know that by now.
I've got pretty good players. They never try to break the game. If anything, I sort of push them to try and break it just to see if they can, and if I can compensate. I'm usually okay about half of the time. I find it good practice for myself. I've seen the min-max power gamers though. More so in PFS. These players have been both asked to leave (and never return) or retire that character and play something more sensible. Unless ALL of the players are like that, it kind of kills the experience for those who are just there to have fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry guys, but common sense doesn't exist. Anyone who's gone to college or university should know this. It's TAUGHT to you that it doesn't. You pass the course because you agree with that.What class? You do know that not everyone takes the same classes in college? I'm pretty sure that one wasn't a requirement when I went.
If "common sense" tells you that hot things are hot, who tells you that it's hot? Do you just know it's hot? Were you taught that at a young age? Did you find out for yourself through years of research? Did you discover it yourself by touching something hot and learning that way? Regardless of the answer, if that's therefore common sense, why can I then spill HOT coffee on my groin and win a battle in court for millions of dollars because nothing was labled as "hot"? Shouldn't I know that coffee is naturally going to be served hot when I go to a restaurant and have it served to me? Wouldn't that be common sense?Just for the record, since the misinformation on this comes up regularly: Common sense may tell you that coffee is hot, however the particular coffee in this case was much hotter than normally served, the woman suffered 3rd degree burns requiring skin grafts and offered to settle for the medical costs. The original $2.7 million in punitive damages was reduced to $480,000.
And to add to this correct statement, I'd add she originally offered to settle for 20,000 dollars. McDonalds wouldn't offer more than $800.00. The nonpunitive damages were $200,000.00 reduced to $160,000.00 for 20 percent fault for her. McDonalds was aware that their coffee was anywhere from 30-40 degrees hotter than any other similar company, and had other cases of people receiving 3rd degree burns on their crotch, and still hadn't made changes. In fact they knew of over 700 cases over the previous 10 years.They Admitted both those facts during the trial. McDonalds at the time made 1.3 million dollars a day off of their coffee. The punitive award is meant as just that. To punish. Does 20 or 30 thousand dollars punish a company making 1.3 million off of one product?
I'd also add that after the reduction, the case was settled for a nondisclosed amount. It's likely more than the $480,000.00 but less than the original 2.7 million. You know, two days sales.
|
|
Getting back to the topic, just heard from a friend of mine looking for a game. He's quit his current group due to him and the DM having words that escalated in him getting kicked out. Unfortunately, my group's full with six players. Another player also walked out when he did, but the remaining four are going to stay. Probably because they not only had no problem with the outcome, but had been helping it come into effect.
The other player now no longer has any interest in any gaming whatsoever. He's currently lost his faith in humanity. Especially those he used to consider friends.
It's a pet peeve of mine as well, but not specifically listed. Mostly due to how rare this actually is so I sometimes forget about it. When it does come up, I always find myself going "People still pull that crap?" It kind of falls under multiple categories I guess. I call it "dogpiling the new guy". You guys might have a better way of phrasing it. This is when you're essentially the new guy, and while you try to fit in, you'll forever be the black sheep because the group as a whole doesn't really want to accept you, even though they were the ones who invited you in the first place. They might tolerate you, but the second they don't agree with something you say or do, they turn on you. Hopefully in the end, you at least make one actual friend from the deal.
1) 32 point system for stats.
2) WotC approved stuff only (no 3pp).
3) Pick only something that fits my campaign world. We can discuss this only if history, or background story, fits.
4) No trying to break his homebrew world or there'd be trouble.
5) DM has final say over everything. Don't try to undermine me.
My friend had joined the group two years ago at the start of the last campaign. It was pretty mediocre, and didn't have much flare. The people were nice though so he thought he'd stick around. Everyone in that group played pretty simple classes and races that game. Not necessarily Core, but nothing extravagant either. You'd heard of these classes and races without need to look them up, or asking for reference material.
When the new campaign started up, everyone was once again picking fairly simple classes and races. Their reasons for why they were doing it wasn't anything new. Just, a party should always have these kinds of classes, and it's what we know best. They're safe. Since all of them were also MMO players, he understood what they meant. A party should always have a mage, a tank, a healer, a thief/trap finder, and a back up person that could do all of the above if they had to.
Long story short, he did something no one else had ever done. Brought into the game, the concept of psionics. The setting was 20 years after their previous characters had retired. During the night, the sky started to fall and some of the meteors hadn't burned up in the atmosphere so were hitting nearby farmlands, houses, etc. The world was changed somewhat due to the radiation that was given off by the fallen meteors. Various creatures were introduced to the world, new templates were brought in, etc. The group seemed pretty pumped. My friend's background, after it was approved, was that he was a half-giant psychic warrior. The story was that his parents were a father fire giant and a mother human. The meteor had struck close to their home, and the radiation given off from it had changed his character somewhat, into what he was now, and it was the reasoning for his psionic abilities. While not 100% convinced about using psionics, the DM allowed it because of the convincing tale, and it followed his stated rules.
Now my friend had never played anything even remotely close to this, and was quite excited. He did everything he could to make sure he understood everything as clearly as possible, and not break the game. The other player who left confirmed this, so it's not just his word. For the record, the other player was a half-orc cleric.
Over the course of the first few sessions, the two decided that they should maybe try to build their characters around each other so they could compliment one another. There didn't seem to be any problems with that either. However, something went wrong by the time they were level 4. It was at this point that my friend realized that the majority of the attacks always seemed to be coming after him. He didn't think too much about it as the DM kept saying that he was rolling for attacks ("1-3 it's the wizard, 4-6 it's you. It's a 5."), but even he had to admit that even the dice seemed to have it in for him. Then came the villagers that they'd see in various towns who'd whisper whenever the group was there. Again, nothing alarming. That tends to happen when you see a group of adventurers. What flagged him though was when he couldn't seem to get his gear upgraded, or everyone was too busy to give him any business. He'd have to get the other party members to buy his stuff for him. That's when he personally asked if any of the others had any issues. There was a half-elf and a half-orc in the party, but they seemed okay. So it couldn't really be discrimination against his race, could it? The rogue gather some information, and nope, not discrimination. They had no problem with half-breeds of any kind. Even tieflings were welcome with open arms. Okay... so no half-breed prejudice on this world.
In the final village they visited, the villagers were at the edge waiting for the party. They had pitchforks, torches, and hired mercenaries. Apparently, in the DM's world, he'd given all the commoners and bad guys e-mail and Twitter. Granted "Sending" works for that, but this was rather overkill. As soon as they saw each other, it was an outright war. Only my friend was attacked. If the PCs interfered, which only the half-orc cleric did, they would be attacked with a "natural 20", but all non-lethal damage, every time. The other PCs didn't put up a fight at all, like they were expecting this from the beginning. And just in case my friend and cleric got in lucky hits, they were facing off against CR 10 commoners and mercenaries. When everything was said and done, the villagers said they had been told by various people that my friend's PC was actually an alien version of a witch trying to take over the world with his alien magic (ie. psionics). He was stung up, and burned at the stake, then tied to a bolder and thrown into the lake. My friend flipped. The cleric player were confused as well. The DM only said that "I am willing to overlook this slight to me that you tried to pull" and allowed him to make a new character, that wasn't psionic. Their next mission would be to find out who had started the rumours.
When my friend asked just what the heck was going on, and why this happened, the DM accused him on purposely trying to break the rules by making a half-giant psychic warrior. A race and class, that when combined, is one of the most broken builds imaginable. At least according to the forums he had personally been to. The DM admitted to being naive enough to let it go at the beginning, but now he was immediately house ruling that there were to be no more psionics because they were far too broken. He even went on to say that my friend was lucky that he was even still playing with the group. The majority of the group had discussed it with the DM and they all agreed that the character was far too powerful and broken at too early a level, and that WotC must have been on drugs when they came out with the books. Not only that, if those were the kinds of characters he was going to try to sneak into the game, then maybe he didn't have any business playing with them. Then the DM referenced Pathfinder going on to say that if Paizo didn't take on the mantle of psionics, and left it to Dreamscarred, then it was even more obvious that it was broken. Why? Because only 3pp can ever be broken.
My friend and the other player couldn't believe it. It'd been a secret coup since the beginning. The other players and the DM had been basically researching the race and class, and refused to not only give my friend the benefit of the doubt, but also didn't take him aside and go "Look. I've been looking into this build, and it seems that it had the chance of becoming broken without really trying. Do you think we could discuss other options?" That's all that needed to be done. Instead, the PC was killed off, and my friend was on trial like someone being accused of witchcraft without any proof to back their claims. It was at this point the other player backed up my friend, and asked any of them had looked up the tier classifications, and if they knew that wizards, druids, and clerics are "42". It was at that point the DM snapped back at that player asking if he was confessing to cheating this whole time too.
That was it for the both of them. They packed up their stuff, and left. The other player was concerned that it was only a matter of time before the group turned on him too as he was getting tired of the same 'meat and potatoes' stuff, and was hoping to branch out to different races and classes, later.
They've both received e-mails from the DM's back up e-mail account stating that if he sees their names on the convention's sign up sheets for any of his games, he's going to automatically deny them. And because he's one of the committee members, he's got that right. They've brought it up to a couple of the others, but they have agreed that any GM does have the right to deny certain players from games if there's a possibility that various antics could ensue.
It always sucks to be the odd man out. But from the sound of it, they may be better off. If they find a group that suits them better anyway. That can be a big "if", and unless you are located in an area with a lot of gamers it can take time. Sometimes people define who is "in" a group by who is not. Pack ethics. Every pack has alphas and some poor b@stard who's on the bottom. Typically, but not always, the new guy. Not nice, but typical. Yes, age and experience do make you cynical.
|
|
It always sucks to be the odd man out. But from the sound of it, they may be better off. If they find a group that suits them better anyway. That can be a big "if", and unless you are located in an area with a lot of gamers it can take time. Sometimes people define who is "in" a group by who is not. Pack ethics. Every pack has alphas and some poor b@stard who's on the bottom. Typically, but not always, the new guy. Not nice, but typical. Yes, age and experience do make you cynical.
Unfortunately, it's not always about being aged and cynical. It comes from experience, which is sometimes where wisdom comes from as well. And bad experiences might make you always look for the bad side of things first, but at least you're cautious and not going to jump into something head first. If for no other reason it might help makes things hurt les. What's really sad is that it wasn't until the new game that they started throwing him under the bus. At least he got one coffee buddy out of it.
Glad you read the whole thing.
As for him finding a new group to join, I'm trying to convince him to run his own group. However, he's not exactly confident in being a GM. He knows the rules well enough, he just doesn't like being the center of attention. Especially if you're surrounded by stranger. I can understand that. If anything, I'm at least hoping to get him to join PFS. That might help break the ice a little. We've got a few friends doing that so at least he wouldn't feel like a complete stranger. But yeah, it's harder when you're in a smaller city.
Wow kevin video... That is horrible.
If this had happened to me the GM would be sorry very quick.
I know how to file a complaint to a committee that would include a saved copy of that very email. It would also go on in very unflattering terms about the GM. I would let the world know in a big way. And if the initial outrage didn't get this guy permanently banned from the committee or any event associated with them then I am sure a letter from a lawyer uncle would.
On top of that I make friends easily, and it would be unlikely this guys home game would survive my calls to all the players as well.
I have only been kicked from a group twice. The first time was GM favoritism and my refusal to put up with it. The second time was my fault totally and I even apologized and forgave them for kicking me out. I really didn't mean any harm by what I did so I did eventually get invited back after nerves had calmed. But it was a learning experience for me. I didn't even complain that one of them had stolen my rulebook I was so shocked at my own behavior.
|
|
Well, like R_Chance said, it probably worked out for the best. Obviously the group's pretty heavy on paranoia issues. I know I couldn't have handled things like he did. Likely not. No lawyer relatives so he's just going to avoid the guy, and the players. I think he's swearing off the convention this year, which I don't blame him.
I've been kicked out of a group twice as well. Both times they were me and the GM(s) not agreeing on how things should be run. The first group more because everyone was pining to be GM, with their own game. And favoritism was very heavy in it as well. Girlfriend or wife weren't enjoying themselves as much as the guys? Cancelled. We've since made up, and I've even asked to come back, but I've been denied. They don't want things like that possibly happening again. It was likely because of the "You make me want to punch you in the face" remark. The other group, I wouldn't want to go back even if they asked. The GM and I most definitely have different ideas on how players should be treated.
I've never been kicked from a group, but I've had to leave a group three times. The first time was in an online 3.5e campaign (was the best game I ever had) with some awesome houserules (that I reccomend to others since they are available online) we played through IRC, due to time zones and a lack of sleep. Between work and waking up at 04:00 AM every wednesday morning, I had to place my health above the awesome game and reluctantly take my leave.
The two other times were due to that one DM, and those are stories I'd need to dig up from older threads.
|
|
I've never been kicked from a group, but I've had to leave a group three times. The first time was in an online 3.5e campaign (was the best game I ever had) with some awesome houserules (that I reccomend to others since they are available online) we played through IRC, due to time zones and a lack of sleep. Between work and waking up at 04:00 AM every wednesday morning, I had to place my health above the awesome game and reluctantly take my leave.
The two other times were due to that one DM, and those are stories I'd need to dig up from older threads.
The house rules are available somewhere online?