What's your rebellion point with your GM?


Gamer Life General Discussion

101 to 150 of 206 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PsychoticWarrior wrote:


While I can't honestly think of anything in game that a PC could do to totally screw up a campaign

Then you haven't met my herd of cats...er, players. On a whim, I tossed in a an ensorcelled red dragon that was bound inside a series of anti-magic fields by a colony of Lawful dwarfs. A dragon nicknamed 'The Destroyer of Worlds'. How do the level 4 PCs take to this?

They free the dragon so he can act as a distraction while the party raids the dwarven treasure vaults. Which resulted in the colony full of dwarves being annihilated so the party could get some loot.

The only thing to be said in their defense is that the entire party is Chaotic and they felt the dragon was 'enslaved' to power some of the dwarven forges. Nothing says quality like a dwarven weapon forged in the flaming breath of a mighty red dragon, right?

Having released the dragon, they've now spent multiple sessions dealing with angels and inevitables, neither of whom to kindly to the release of a psychotic killing machine as well as the general fallout of releasing a high level sorcerer dragon killing machine. The dragon just recently torched a continent full of elves into ash as part of his revenge kick. On the bright side, I've got a mythic level BBEG in the campaign now...


Gerrinson wrote:
PsychoticWarrior wrote:
While I can't honestly think of anything in game that a PC could do to totally screw up a campaign
Then you haven't met my herd of cats..

Pfft, I once tried to conquer the world with chickens...

Spoiler:
They all died horribly/escaped because trapfinding device. I've told that story before I'm sure.

I've seen plenty of PCs throw things totally off the rails. Really depends on who you game with. Some people are good at doing this without even trying, others try deliberately, and some GMs are extremely lenient but entirely unprepared for the zombie cyborg turducken army that somehow was made and is now ravaging the fire giants.

Imo, the best GM is the one who can handle it without being restraining.


Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
About 40 races, (and many times that including subtypes) isn't enuf?!?

It's not a matter of the raw number of available options, it's the variety in options. Having 50 classes isn't a wide number of options if all the classes are slight tweaks on the druid. Compared to the vast variety of creatures in the Bestiaries, the differences between PC races are mostly small.

This is really to see from the perspective of DMing. When DMing a game, I can make NPCs who are aboleths, dragons, liches, genies, etc. These aren't mindless or unintelligent monsters that exist just to have something for the PCs to slaughter. They're fully sentient creatures. I can develop their characters as much as I can for a human or elf NPC. The players don't have nearly as much variety in their options.

Well, I have played a dragon or two, etc. But any DM can allow the PC's to be of any race. If the DM wants the PC's to be dragons- why not?

As James Sutter said recently: "Just popping in to drop the standard reminder that we never tell you "no" about what you can do in your own games. We may have an official opinion/position for our publications, but you bought the book. It's *yours*. You can redact, modify, or do whatever you want to your copy. If you want all foxes to have Int 6 and speak Common in your home game (though I'm not sure it's worth hearing what they have to say), that's fine with us. Welcome to Pathfinder. The only limit is your mind..."

But even tho I can see WANTING to play a dragon, etc- you'd really walk out on a DM because he limited you to the 40 or so races listed as normally playable in Golarion? THAT'S your "rebellion point"?? "Either I get to play a dragon, or I walk!" wow.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
Tormsskull wrote:
When the PCs do so, the GM is left in the position of either foregoing fantasy realism (the dragon easily kill the PCs), or making up a reason why the dragon decides not to attack, and even flees from the PCs.
The dragon can attack and not kill the PCs. For example, a silver dragon could use her paralyzing breath rather than dealing damage. When all the PCs fail their saves, she can take trophies (the paralysis lasts 1d6 + age category rounds) then taunt them and leave. It's hard to build up a reputation if there aren't any survivors to spread tales of your magnificence.

Yeah... the whole "I used a dragon, they weren't supposed to try and fight it, but they did so I had to have it kill them," thing...

Let's just say that I have always used powerful monsters far beyond the sort that a party might be able to reasonably kill, and I have always been able to have the party realize how out of their league they are without someone getting a dead character in the process.

The way to do so is extremely simple, and doesn't even require using a monster like a silver dragon that is built for non-lethal take downs - though that is a very good idea as well.

Here is how you do it, present in step by step format:
1. Think of you and your physical capabilities, special skills, and available objects to use as weapons.
2. Think of an angry toddler.
3. Imagine that you - the immensely powerful monster - are under attack by this angry toddler - the PC that is far too low-level to defeat the monster.
4. Pretend that being evil, even of the worst sort, doesn't mean you respond to every attack with lethal force, or even equivalent effort - i.e. you don't pick up the nearest heavy object and smash a toddler with it for punching you, nor would you ball up your fist and punch the toddler in return.

...then, you just do what a real person (without serious issues, anyway) would do to deal with an angry toddler - which is to say you don't even treat it as a threat, and probably just physically relocate it so it can get over whatever made it angry in the first place.

Example using game terms: Party sees dragon doing dragon stuff, and someone attacks

Ranged attacks: Dragon keeps doing dragon stuffs, has plenty of HP to use to shrug off the pitiful attacks long enough to finish with dragon stuffs and leave at its own leisure.

Melee attacks: Dragon bull rushes you effortlessly into a nearby obstacle so you take a little damage, but see that the dragon is powerful enough to send you skidding backwards even if you manage to penalize it's combat maneuver check by hitting with the attack of opportunity it provoked for not having the right feat - which means it is plenty powerful enough to have just torn you in half instead, but didn't bother because you aren't even worth the effort of washing his hands when he is done.

...or you just outright tell the players at your table "You see a monster that is so obviously more than a match for you that your character knows attempting to fight it is tantamount to suicide," so that they are aware of exactly what they are getting into from an in-character perspective - because then it is their fault if they go attack it and end up dead as a result.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
But even tho I can see WANTING to play a dragon, etc- you'd really walk out on a DM because he limited you to the 40 or so races listed as normally playable in Golarion? THAT'S your "rebellion point"?? "Either I get to play a dragon, or I walk!" wow.

If you read my original post, you'll see that the only thing I listed as a red flag is "core races only". I didn't say that limiting to just PC races is a red flag, merely that it it is a very small slice of what exists in the world. There are legitimate reasons to only allow PC races. It's only when you think this small slice is too big so you narrow it even further that it becomes a red flag.

thenobledrake wrote:

Here is how you do it, present in step by step format:

1. Think of you and your physical capabilities, special skills, and available objects to use as weapons.
2. Think of an angry toddler.
3. Imagine that you - the immensely powerful monster - are under attack by this angry toddler - the PC that is far too low-level to defeat the monster.
4. Pretend that being evil, even of the worst sort, doesn't mean you respond to every attack with lethal force, or even equivalent effort - i.e. you don't pick up the nearest heavy object and smash a toddler with it for punching you, nor would you ball up your fist and punch the toddler in return.

It's too bad calm emotions isn't on the sorcerer spell list. It'd be a great thing to give your dragons for this sort of scenario.


thenobledrake wrote:
...then, you just do what a real person (without serious issues, anyway) would do to deal with an angry toddler - which is to say you don't even treat it as a threat, and probably just physically relocate it so it can get over whatever made it angry in the first place.

Treat the PCs with kid gloves strategy. It can work if that's what the players want. I find it infuriates my players. If they make a poor decision, they want to suffer from that decision. They don't want the DM to suddenly make the chaotic evil dragon interested in preserving human life.

thenobledrake wrote:
...or you just outright tell the players at your table "You see a monster that is so obviously more than a match for you that your character knows attempting to fight it is tantamount to suicide," so that they are aware of exactly what they are getting into from an in-character perspective - because then it is their fault if they go attack it and end up dead as a result.

I use this strategy as well for truly unbeatable encounters. Other encounters are just epically difficult, and while I drop as many hints as possible to the players, sometimes they really think they can handle it or just want the challenge.


Tormsskull wrote:
Treat the PCs with kid gloves strategy. It can work if that's what the players want. I find it infuriates my players. If they make a poor decision, they want to suffer from that decision. They don't want the DM to suddenly make the chaotic evil dragon interested in preserving human life.

I'm not talking about kid gloves, though I can see how you take that away from what I said. I'm talking about how "chaotic evil" doesn't mean the creature has to answer annoyance with violence.

You annoy a powerful Chaotic Evil wizard, and he certainly does something to respond - but it's probably not dropping his most potent attack spell currently prepared on your soon to be corpse, especially because he is a busy fellow and doesn't have the time to waste with actually paying attention to you, and anyone that might see him kill you and decide that now is the time to seek vengeance.

As another example of what I am talking about, look at how extremely rare it is that people are killed (or even injured) for annoying someone in the real world - like the number of people that actually get crashed into on purpose, or shot at, or followed to where they are going and beaten for cutting someone off in traffic... it's barely a drop in the bucket when compared to all the times that someone cuts someone else off and the most that happens are angry shouts, obscene gestures, and retaliation without escalation (cutting off the guy that cut you off, rather than trying to actually cause a crash).

Tormsskull wrote:
I drop as many hints as possible to the players, sometimes they really think they can handle it or just want the challenge.

I've run into that too... and players that think the warnings you are giving them are actually just the adventure hooks - and then they get all upset because you "told" them to fight that thing/go that way and "killed their character on purpose."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A lot of dragons get Prestidigation as a spell.

So, an idea... the dragon responds to those annoying mortals by paralyzing them, turning their armor pink, dropping the temperature of it twenty degrees, and then soiling the inside of it. And then, chuckling to themselves, they fly off.

Cue humiliated characters who just got a taste of what it's like to irritate a very, very powerful spellcaster who could have killed them with a shrug.


Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
The dragon can attack and not kill the PCs. For example, a silver dragon could use her paralyzing breath rather than dealing damage. When all the PCs fail their saves, she can take trophies (the paralysis lasts 1d6 + age category rounds) then taunt them and leave. It's hard to build up a reputation if there aren't any survivors to spread tales of your magnificence.

My favorite example of that is the Half-Fiend Dragon with Blasphemy.


Have to be careful with Blasphemy though, if you're TOO far below the dragon it just outright kills you.


Buri wrote:

Are there any rules or quirks your GM has that you completely ignore?

The first time I heard my GM say my paladin couldn't worship a CG god I thought "screw you, I'll worship who I want." I wouldn't force an issue for a class that mechanically relies on the god worshiped, but for roleplay I'll write down whatever deity I want regardless of the character's alignment. That's about it for me.

I once made a character who was Deist. He believed that the gods exist but he refused to worship them. He was a ranger that lost his family and blamed the gods for his misfortunes.

Note: I’m not sure I’m using the term Deist correctly but I think it is as close as I can get.

Anyway at around 4th level when the GM realized my character felt this way he said I need to pick a deity. In his mind not having a patron deity was not an option. I ended up just taking one out of spite. It might have been nice to have some sort of spiritual journey played out in the game but that did not happen.

It was not much of a "rebellion", but I made my case strongly and he made a GM call and I acquiesced. He was running a decent game and had this particular bee in his bonnet about this detail.

-MD


This GM didn't happen to be playing in Forgotten Realms, did he? Or be a frequent FR GM/player? FR's pretty notorious for being very harsh on characters who don't worship a deity.


That probably would have been a deal breaker for me. Even Paizo talks about atheism and pantheists. The Empyereal Lords are often venerated as a group but called upon for particular needs and vocations. I would liken them to saints in Catholicism.

Unless the campaign was centered on the concept somehow it should bear zero importance. That should be a detail revealed at character creation, though. I just think there are, in fact, certain things that are off limits to even GMs.


Orthos wrote:
This GM didn't happen to be playing in Forgotten Realms, did he? Or be a frequent FR GM/player? FR's pretty notorious for being very harsh on characters who don't worship a deity.

Actually yes, that is an astute observation! He was at the time a big fan/reader of the FR book and this was his custom realm that was heavily influenced by it.

Buri wrote:
That probably would have been a deal breaker for me. Even Paizo talks about atheism and pantheists. The Empyereal Lords are often venerated as a group but called upon for particular needs and vocations. I would liken them to saints in Catholicism.

Deal breaker as in walk out?

Had I walked out then I would have missed out on 10 more years of great games. I have been fortunate to have had a weekly game group with very little turnover for 15+ years.

-MD


Muad'Dib wrote:
Orthos wrote:
This GM didn't happen to be playing in Forgotten Realms, did he? Or be a frequent FR GM/player? FR's pretty notorious for being very harsh on characters who don't worship a deity.
Actually yes, that is an astute observation! He was at the time a big fan/reader of the FR book and this was his custom realm that was heavily influenced by it.

Yeah, non-worshipers - AND multi-worshipers, those who worship more than one deity - are very roughly treated in FR.

Atheists or people who otherwise don't have a particular god's attention, or "The Faithless", are made into bricks in the death god's wall in the afterlife.

"The False" - those who worshiped more than one deity, those who switched patrons too often, or those who faked divine powers using alternate means (such as Razmirians in Golarion) - become slaves in the Fugue Plane, the death god's realm.

If you are either those and you die, you cannot be raised, reincarnated, or resurrected (even with true resurrection). The spells simply fail, because your soul is already moving on to the wall or your work in the Fugue; you need a god to "catch" you after you die in order for your soul to be brought back to mortality.

This is mostly tied into the "gods require belief" mechanic FR uses, where a god that doesn't get worship fades away into nothing. So their cosmology requires all mortals have a patron, otherwise the gods punish them. It's pretty common knowledge even among commoners in Faerun that Bad Things Happen if you don't worship someone.

Sovereign Court

One of the reasons i refuse to play in Golarion is because of the way Pharasma deals with atheists.


If you're talking about the Groetus thing, that's exclusively for atheists who denied the existence of the gods completely; the ones who recognize they exist but choose not to worship them are just let loose to wander the planes in a spirit existence or some such, from what I remember.

Golarion's one of the few settings I've seen who have something for atheists at all. Greyhawk assumes they get scooped up by a deity who fits their morality, or just funneled off to the appropriate plane to be reborn as an outsider, and as mentioned above FR is pretty straight-up mean to them. Eberron I have no idea because I never played it.

Sovereign Court

I don't mind the greyhawk thing. Sould should go to the plane of their particular Alginment. Deity or no deity.


Muad'Dib wrote:

Deal breaker as in walk out?

Had I walked out then I would have missed out on 10 more years of great games. I have been fortunate to have had a weekly game group with very little turnover for 15+ years.

-MD

Deal breaker in that I would tell the GM it wasn't a point of the campaign and ask why it matters. Failing that I would ask when it was decided our character concepts were predetermined. Failing that, yes, I would walk out. I'm fine working with a GM in my characters. However, that requires them to set clear expectations. Arbitrary, surprise requirements are something I'm not cool with.


Orthos wrote:

If you're talking about the Groetus thing, that's exclusively for atheists who denied the existence of the gods completely; the ones who recognize they exist but choose not to worship them are just let loose to wander the planes in a spirit existence or some such, from what I remember.

Golarion's one of the few settings I've seen who have something for atheists at all. Greyhawk assumes they get scooped up by a deity who fits their morality, or just funneled off to the appropriate plane to be reborn as an outsider, and as mentioned above FR is pretty straight-up mean to them. Eberron I have no idea because I never played it.

For Eberron, the deities really don't matter (and, by all evidence, probably don't even exist). You can be an evil worshipper of a god of good, one religion worships an evil lich but mostly has neutral or good-aligned followers, and the warforged have their own religion in which they worship one of their own kind. Plus, there's a number of people who don't worship anything and get power anyway.

Pretty much, Eberron was their attempt to reproduce early 1900s Earth as a medieval fantasy setting. Earth just after World War 1, given setting details, with the exception of someone having set off a nuke one war early.

They never really did go into much detail about the dead, but it's pretty safe to assume the dead just went to the appropriate planes and that was it.


thenobledrake wrote:
As another example of what I am talking about, look at how extremely rare it is that people are killed (or even injured) for annoying someone in the real world

That's because there are consequences in the real world for shooting someone that cuts you off. In the type of fantasy world I typically run, a red dragon doesn't have to worry about such consequences. There's no one keeping the red dragon in check for his decisions (unless the PCs are powerful enough.)

thenobledrake wrote:
I've run into that too... and players that think the warnings you are giving them are actually just the adventure hooks - and then they get all upset because you "told" them to fight that thing/go that way and "killed their character on purpose."

That can definitely happen. I think it all comes down to how long you've been playing with your group. After a while, you are able to develop a rapport with them to the point that they should have a pretty good idea when something is too strong for them.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

How can a character be an atheist in a setting where the gods are objectively and actively real? Atheism exists in the real world because God doesn't.

I know Pathfinder tries to be the PC all encompassing of everyone's beliefs, all possible genres and archetypes, but, frankly, not believing the gods exist in a setting where they most definitely do is insanity. I think FR has the right of it there.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
houstonderek wrote:
Atheism exists in the real world because God doesn't.

That's a controversial claim.

houstonderek wrote:
frankly, not believing the gods exist in a setting where they most definitely do is insanity

The question is: how would someone in the setting know that the gods do exist? As the audience, we may know certain facts about the setting, but that doesn't mean that knowledge is available to characters in-setting. There are people who profess to follow certain deities and they have magical powers, but there are also people who have magical powers because their great-grandmother's a dragon or because they just studied really hard. Further, someone could accept the existence of beings who grant spells to their follows but not think they are gods in a meaningful sense.


What's referred to as "atheism" in Golarion should probably be more accurately termed "misotheism" (hatred of deity) or "apatheism" (lack of care or concern about/toward deity). But those aren't as well-known terms.


Buri wrote:
Muad'Dib wrote:

Deal breaker as in walk out?

Had I walked out then I would have missed out on 10 more years of great games. I have been fortunate to have had a weekly game group with very little turnover for 15+ years.

-MD

Deal breaker in that I would tell the GM it wasn't a point of the campaign and ask why it matters.

As mentioned above, if you don't have a patron in FR you can't be raised/rezzed if you die. I can imagine an FR (or FR-style-favoring) GM either wanting to know who of his players are Faithless early on so that if one of them dies they know they're in for perma-death even if they have a cleric in the party, or just outright banning Faithless characters so they don't have to deal with the headache of later having to not allow that character to get raised/rezzed because they have no patron.

Sovereign Court

Just flat out refusal to worship a powerful outsider because it can alter reality at a whim.


Hama wrote:
Just flat out refusal to worship a powerful outsider because it can alter reality at a whim.

Well yeah, what has he done for me lately?


MrSin wrote:
Hama wrote:
Just flat out refusal to worship a powerful outsider because it can alter reality at a whim.
Well yeah, what has he done for me lately?

"Yesterday, you were a housecat. Today, you're a human. You're welcome!"

I would actually have a voice boom that from the heavens if a PC asked that, just to in-character mess with their heads. The source of the voice doesn't even have to be a deity.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
houstonderek wrote:
How can a character be an atheist in a setting where the gods are objectively and actively real? Atheism exists in the real world because God doesn't.

Read Death's Heretic.


houstonderek wrote:

How can a character be an atheist in a setting where the gods are objectively and actively real? Atheism exists in the real world because God doesn't.

I know Pathfinder tries to be the PC all encompassing of everyone's beliefs, all possible genres and archetypes, but, frankly, not believing the gods exist in a setting where they most definitely do is insanity. I think FR has the right of it there.

C'mon. You've been around these boards long enough to have seen this discussion a dozen times.

Even if you don't like or accept the answers, you know what they're going to be. Don't pretend astonishment at the concept.

As for FR, there's a long distance between believing in gods and picking one to be your personal patron.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Atheism exists in the real world because God doesn't.

That's a controversial claim.

houstonderek wrote:
frankly, not believing the gods exist in a setting where they most definitely do is insanity
The question is: how would someone in the setting know that the gods do exist? As the audience, we may know certain facts about the setting, but that doesn't mean that knowledge is available to characters in-setting. There are people who profess to follow certain deities and they have magical powers, but there are also people who have magical powers because their great-grandmother's a dragon or because they just studied really hard. Further, someone could accept the existence of beings who grant spells to their follows but not think they are gods in a meaningful sense.

This. I played an atheist sorcerer in a Ravenloft campaign once. His point of view vis a vis divine spells was "So what? I can cast spells without studying too." Clearly all the organized faith was just an excuse to control people/make money (especially Ezrans). He wasn't very in-your-face about it, and I'm not sure the group's inquisitor or paladin ever figured it out but hints came out here and there over the course of the campaign.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Buri wrote:
Muad'Dib wrote:

Deal breaker as in walk out?

Had I walked out then I would have missed out on 10 more years of great games. I have been fortunate to have had a weekly game group with very little turnover for 15+ years.

-MD

Deal breaker in that I would tell the GM it wasn't a point of the campaign and ask why it matters. Failing that I would ask when it was decided our character concepts were predetermined. Failing that, yes, I would walk out. I'm fine working with a GM in my characters. However, that requires them to set clear expectations. Arbitrary, surprise requirements are something I'm not cool with.

Really? You would seriously walk out? It would take a LOT more than that to make me walk out on a game if I count friends around the table.

In every great GM's past are the ruins of calamitous adventures. The best GM's learn from the past, adapt, and get better. I'm certainly glad we as players had patience with him as he crafted his skill. He rewards us these days with greatly improved storytelling and more trust/respect for the players when crafting characters.

-MD


TOZ wrote:
Read Death's Heretic.

Read it, reviewed it- and he’s not really a atheist. He just refuses to be a worshipper. He knows that the deities exist (in fact he’s the servant of one) , he just chooses not to worship them

Shadow Lodge

No True Scotsman.


TOZ wrote:
No True Scotsman.

Naw, Salim doesn't wear kilts, drink scotch, play the pipes.....

what's the point? "Name a Logical fallacy"?

Umm, Red herring! False Dilemma! Ad Hominen! Straw man!


DrDeth wrote:
what's the point?

Indeed.


DrDeth wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Read Death's Heretic.
Read it, reviewed it- and he’s not really a atheist. He just refuses to be a worshipper. He knows that the deities exist (in fact he’s the servant of one) , he just chooses not to worship them

I haven't read it. Does he know that these entities exist and call themselves gods? Or does he know that they are gods?

Whatever that actually means. Is there actually a hard and fast definition of deity in PF? Or Golarion?

Some non-gods can grant spells, so that's not it.


Gerrinson wrote:
PsychoticWarrior wrote:


While I can't honestly think of anything in game that a PC could do to totally screw up a campaign

Then you haven't met my herd of cats...er, players. On a whim, I tossed in a an ensorcelled red dragon that was bound inside a series of anti-magic fields by a colony of Lawful dwarfs. A dragon nicknamed 'The Destroyer of Worlds'. How do the level 4 PCs take to this?

They free the dragon so he can act as a distraction while the party raids the dwarven treasure vaults. Which resulted in the colony full of dwarves being annihilated so the party could get some loot.

The only thing to be said in their defense is that the entire party is Chaotic and they felt the dragon was 'enslaved' to power some of the dwarven forges. Nothing says quality like a dwarven weapon forged in the flaming breath of a mighty red dragon, right?

Having released the dragon, they've now spent multiple sessions dealing with angels and inevitables, neither of whom to kindly to the release of a psychotic killing machine as well as the general fallout of releasing a high level sorcerer dragon killing machine. The dragon just recently torched a continent full of elves into ash as part of his revenge kick. On the bright side, I've got a mythic level BBEG in the campaign now...

OK. So how did this 'ruin' the campaign? This sounds like a freaking awesome PC-driven campaign with real repercussions for something they (and you as DM) did on a whim. This stuff fires my DMing skills up like nothing else. I'm not seeing the 'ruin' here. Did you have a huge over arching storyline on the go at the time? You said the 'Destroyer of Worlds' was thrown in on a 'whim'.

Liberty's Edge

A DM that railroads the adventuring party. Nothing says a lack of fun when the DM refuses to deviate from the script.

A DM that allows players to behave badly at a table and refuses to control them.

DM that try to guilt trip me and make me feel bad because he or she bought the books and builds adventures. Being both a player and a DM when I run the game I choose to take the responsability that comes with it. I don't want my players to treat me any differently for it. Nor should I get some sort of special consideration for buying the core books. I bought them because I wanted to. Not because the players forced me to. Try some sort of pity parade on me and I'm out the door before your finished.

Dms that take joy in killing PC or have NPCs that can never ever be surprised. What's the point of adventuring when even the non-intelligent creatures like oozes can never ever be surprised.

DMs who refuse player choices yet are very rude about it. I'm not saying a DM has to agree with everything I ask for. No reason to be rude about it. The same goes for players

DMs who are opposed to a certain race. class etc. Yet tell you that you can't take it use if after you created the character. Either tell me upfront or don't allow it. My time is precious don't waste it.


Muad'Dib wrote:

Really? You would seriously walk out? It would take a LOT more than that to make me walk out on a game if I count friends around the table.

In every great GM's past are the ruins of calamitous adventures. The best GM's learn from the past, adapt, and get better. I'm certainly glad we as players had patience with him as he crafted his skill. He rewards us these days with greatly improved storytelling and more trust/respect for the players when crafting characters.

-MD

Absolutely. Arbitrary GMs are THE WORST. If they introduced themselves as new and were up front that they don't know what they like and might tweak things as they go that's perfectly fine. I can work with that. I can work with almost anything as long as it's presented as a condition of the game. I simply loathe arbitrary decisions. Hell, back to your example of needing a deity. If that were me and I were pulled to the side and was just explained to that it was a matter of setting propriety to stick to a single deity that would be fine. But in the middle of play basically being told to write in one with no further explanation? No.


thejeff wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Read Death's Heretic.
Read it, reviewed it- and he’s not really a atheist. He just refuses to be a worshipper. He knows that the deities exist (in fact he’s the servant of one) , he just chooses not to worship them

I haven't read it. Does he know that these entities exist and call themselves gods? Or does he know that they are gods?

Whatever that actually means. Is there actually a hard and fast definition of deity in PF? Or Golarion?

Some non-gods can grant spells, so that's not it.

Mechanically/on paper the main differences I've seen is true Gods offer five domains, demigods (such as demon lords, archdevils, empyreal lords, The Eldest, and such like) only offer four (or less); and that true gods don't have stats, because they're powerful enough to not be able to be properly represented by game statistics.

In-universe I imagine it's a power scale. These entities are creatures of a certain power that makes them considered gods.

Iron Gods sounds like it might provide more insight into the nature of gods, demigods, and deific ascension, so we might have to wait for that for any further information.


Orthos wrote:
Iron Gods sounds like it might provide more insight into the nature of gods, demigods, and deific ascension, so we might have to wait for that for any further information.

Alternatively, it varies between author to author and your not going to get to know anything!

There is however a scale for what characters get 3, 4, or 5 domains. I forget what it is however. I know its hidden somewhere though...


Probably in the Mythic rules, I know the Divine Source ability lets you grant spells to followers and pick up domains bit by bit.


Buri wrote:
Muad'Dib wrote:

Really? You would seriously walk out? It would take a LOT more than that to make me walk out on a game if I count friends around the table.

In every great GM's past are the ruins of calamitous adventures. The best GM's learn from the past, adapt, and get better. I'm certainly glad we as players had patience with him as he crafted his skill. He rewards us these days with greatly improved storytelling and more trust/respect for the players when crafting characters.

-MD

Absolutely. Arbitrary GMs are THE WORST. If they introduced themselves as new and were up front that they don't know what they like and might tweak things as they go that's perfectly fine. I can work with that. I can work with almost anything as long as it's presented as a condition of the game. I simply loathe arbitrary decisions. Hell, back to your example of needing a deity. If that were me and I were pulled to the side and was just explained to that it was a matter of setting propriety to stick to a single deity that would be fine. But in the middle of play basically being told to write in one with no further explanation? No.

I didn't read that as an arbitrary chance, but as an established setting condition he didn't realize you didn't know.

He assumed the OP had a deity to start with and made him correct as soon as he realized the error.

Mind you I don't particularly like the rule, but ...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Mess with the dragon, you get the claw/claw/bite/wing/wing/tail slap.

Had a gm who got annoyed with me. Dropped a dragon CR 10 on my level 3 barb from nowhere in the sky, breathes fire on me, and immediately leaves, ignoring all other PC's.

No experience, no perception to see it coming from clear blue sky, nothing.

The module was on my laptop and from my account. I literally said "we're done," took my laptop from her and walked out ending the session for that night.


That's quite the rebellion point. Did she learn to keep her adventures on her own materials?


Buri wrote:
That's quite the rebellion point. Did she learn to keep her adventures on her own materials?

Sorta, she really doesn't run anything for anyone anymore. She has this campaign she's been making for a few years but even that I've probably come up with more design work and ideas and gming tips than she has.

Liberty's Edge

Thomas Long 175 wrote:


Had a gm who got annoyed with me. Dropped a dragon CR 10 on my level 3 barb from nowhere in the sky, breathes fire on me, and immediately leaves, ignoring all other PC's.

No experience, no perception to see it coming from clear blue sky, nothing.

The module was on my laptop and from my account. I literally said "we're done," took my laptop from her and walked out ending the session for that night.

I wonder sometimes if DMs think things through properly. Or get caught up too much with the "me vs players" syndrome. Targeting the player who is probably the only one with access to the module than proceeding to screw him over. I don't blame you for walking out. If a game was being held at my place and a DM tried that BS he or she would be asked to leave.

Thomas Long 175 wrote:


Sorta, she really doesn't run anything for anyone anymore. She has this campaign she's been making for a few years but even that I've probably come up with more design work and ideas and gming tips than she has.

Chances are she may have had not many takers for a new game imo. If I was in a game and a DM did the same to me or another player chances are good I would drop out of the game. If the DM is willing to target one player who knows if my character would be the next target .


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
The module was on my laptop and from my account. I literally said "we're done," took my laptop from her and walked out ending the session for that night.

While clearly a poor decision on the GM's behalf, deciding to end the night for all of the players at the table seems a bit selfish. I would have asked the GM why you didn't get the Perception check. If there was a good reason, then I wouldn't worry about it.

Worst case scenario, you stick it out for the rest of the session, and then decide you don't want to participate in that group anymore.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

What the DM did was a dick move. I don't see why Thomas Long should have stayed until the end. At the very least if the DM apologized for doing such a obvious attack on a character then maybe he should have reconsidered. Actions have consquences. People forget that. The DM should have never did what she did. I would have done the exact same thing. Apologized to the rest of the group and walked out. It's the only to get people to understand that what they are doing is not good behavior in general.

101 to 150 of 206 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / What's your rebellion point with your GM? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.