What's your rebellion point with your GM?


Gamer Life General Discussion

151 to 200 of 206 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

memorax wrote:
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.

+1 to this. Completely 100% justified.

My question would rather be why the other players didn't up and leave with him.


Orthos wrote:
My question would rather be why the other players didn't up and leave with him.

Because sociology?

Would be nice if everyone just got up and left when it had to be done every time. Not how humans work though.


Tormsskull wrote:

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.

By such an action, the GM basically announced that they didn't want the player there. The player merely took the 'hint.'


Just to play devil's advocate: There could have been good reasons for the dragon's attack. Long-term plot hooks that you didn't know about yet attaching it to you.
As for Perception, passive "do I notice something while not actively looking for it" checks are often rolled by GMs behind the scenes. It could also easily have been invisible until attacking.

If it really was just because she was annoyed by you then there's also the possibility she had reason to be annoyed. I've seen people on these boards suggest similar tactics for dealing with problem players. Mind you, I generally think they're a bad idea.
If the rest of the players were also annoyed with you, that could be why they didn't join in the walkout.

Obviously, I know nothing about the group or why the GM found Thomas Long annoying, if that's what motivated it. Just that our view is one-sided.


Eh. If I'm going to do long-term plot hooks involving an attack, I would have had the dragon hire minions (like kobolds) to do the attack. Something the player could defeat. And then learn from a piece of paper they have about one of the plot hooks.

So, I really don't see the dragon attack as a good plot hook.


MagusJanus wrote:

Eh. If I'm going to do long-term plot hooks involving an attack, I would have had the dragon hire minions (like kobolds) to do the attack. Something the player could defeat. And then learn from a piece of paper they have about one of the plot hooks.

So, I really don't see the dragon attack as a good plot hook.

Unlikely, but I can see ways to use it. The very things that make it seem so wrong on the surface are what give it the air of mystery.

Why did it just attack me? Why didn't it finish us all off?

The GM would need to have good answers to those questions, of course.


For me, the things that have gotten me into arguments with my GM in the past are all character/theme based things.

At one point he told us that he wanted to run a thieves guild type of game, heavy on the role-play and character based things. He wanted us to make characters that actually had something beyond a stat block. I did as he asked - because that's how I always make characters - and everything went fine for a little while.

However, one of the guild members - controlled by another player - started to get rather open about his activities, and wanted to become famous. My character took it as a bad idea and warned theirs IC about continuing down that path.

After the game, my GM spoke to me about it, and told me that he didn't want my character to do anything to prevent the other player's character from doing what it wanted to do, or if I did, I had to make it obvious and go against my character's general style. I was at the time playing an assassin, so the idea of challenging the other character to a non-lethal dual was not in their wheel house. They would of given the other person one last warning, then if it happened again, they would of just killed them in their sleep - or tried to.

I've always seen IC as separate from OoC, with actions in character creating consequences in character. To me telling me that I could not play my character as the character design he accepted, simply so someone else could play their character how they wanted was hypocritical.

I left the game because it just got more and more focused on the other player's character.

TLDNR: Tell me to play a character, and then tell me I can't try to do what the character would do, while at the same time telling another player they can, even if it is disrupting the rest of the party IC and OoC.

Also, when the whole thing focuses on a single character and their exploits.

Webstore Gninja Minion

Removed a post. Please be civil to each other, thanks.

Liberty's Edge

A good point was made about what happened to Thomas Long might have been a long term plot hook. Except if your going to kill the player off it kind of defeats the purpose. A monster suddenly appearing out of the sky to target one player to me looks like a DM that wants to get rid of a player. If a player is doing somwething at the table that bothers a DM why not just wait until the end and try to fix the problem. Killing a player in such a obvious fashion to me is a red flag saying get out and dont ever come back imo.


I did something sort of similar to my Shattered Star group. They went into the Darklands and for the area they ventured to I had a set a 5% chance every so often to to have a purple worm notice them. Well, the chance came up and I rolled below a 5. That was one character dead. Satiated for the time being, it moved on. I wouldn't have done had the source material on the Darklands been as vicious sounding as it was.

To quote the authority on it:

Quote:
Everyone knows that monsters live below. You’ve all heard the stories of the deformed men who dwell in blue-litten tunnels, the shapeless crawling horrors with acid for skin, and the dark-skinned demon worshiping elves. You may scoff at some of the stranger stories, of fish capable of controlling the minds of nations or of hidden lost worlds of primeval wonder and horror. I have been below, and I know better than to scoff. Count your blessings, uplander, since when night falls your sun is never more than a few hours away. Here, the night lasts forever, and the monsters never sleep.

Into the Darklands is written amazingly.


memorax wrote:
A good point was made about what happened to Thomas Long might have been a long term plot hook. Except if your going to kill the player off it kind of defeats the purpose. A monster suddenly appearing out of the sky to target one player to me looks like a DM that wants to get rid of a player. If a player is doing somwething at the table that bothers a DM why not just wait until the end and try to fix the problem. Killing a player in such a obvious fashion to me is a red flag saying get out and dont ever come back imo.

It wasn't clear to me that he was killed.

The dragon breathed on him and left. That's all we were told.

A CR10 Red dragon has a 6d10 breath weapon: average 33 damage assuming a failed save. 3rd level barbarian should survive that with ease. Might be down, but probably not dead.

But yes, killing would generally be a bad plot hook.


thejeff wrote:
memorax wrote:
A good point was made about what happened to Thomas Long might have been a long term plot hook. Except if your going to kill the player off it kind of defeats the purpose. A monster suddenly appearing out of the sky to target one player to me looks like a DM that wants to get rid of a player. If a player is doing somwething at the table that bothers a DM why not just wait until the end and try to fix the problem. Killing a player in such a obvious fashion to me is a red flag saying get out and dont ever come back imo.

It wasn't clear to me that he was killed.

The dragon breathed on him and left. That's all we were told.

A CR10 Red dragon has a 6d10 breath weapon: average 33 damage assuming a failed save. 3rd level barbarian should survive that with ease. Might be down, but probably not dead.

But yes, killing would generally be a bad plot hook.

we had just finished a boss fight, and taken a good bit of damage lol. i survived by "i'm raging still"


Grey Lensman wrote:
By such an action, the GM basically announced that they didn't want the player there. The player merely took the 'hint.'

Yeah, and if leaving impacts only you as a player, then I don't see the problem with that. If I read the post correctly, the group was using Thomas' laptop to facilitate the session. He disagreed with the call, and as such took his laptop away. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that ended the session for all involved.

There's a lot we don't know here. The ages of those involved, the maturity level, why the GM had the dragon attack Thomas' character, etc.

Assuming I have all the information correct, then it seems quite childish to say "We're done", taking the laptop that the group is using, and leaving.

I can see a discussion occurring where the player states their concerns, and then explains that it is clear the GM does not want them there, so they will be leaving. They will have to take the laptop with them of course, as it is their property. If there is a way to pass the info off to the GM or another player before leaving, then do so, etc.

Again, not saying the GM made the right call - based on the information we have, the GM very likely made the wrong call. But pulling the "I'm taking my ball and going home" move isn't the right answer.


As a DM, I dropped a dragon on a PC once, literally. But it wasn't randomly done. I had an opening. I took it. The PC in question had never taken damage, after adventuring for about 6 or 7 levels. He was a wizard, always playing very intelligently; letting the melee PCs take point, conservatively casting spells so as to not draw attention. 6 or 7 levels he never took damage because in-character he rarely gave me a reason to attack him until it was too late for the enemies and the melee PCs were really good at giving their enemies a reason to focus on trying to kill them. Then they fought their first dragon. At the moment of the final blow the dragon was on a rocky outcropping fighting the fighter and rogue. The wizard was behind the dragon, below the outcropping. The fighter swung, the dragon pulled back to avoid the blow, but it didn't make it and the fighter's sword nearly severed its head. The dead dragon fell backward. I gave the wizard a reflex save but he didn't make it. Though it was a small amount of damage, the wizard was far more annoyed about the dirt he got under his fingernails than the actual damage taken from a dragon dropping on him.

As for OP: I left a group because the DM railroaded and was way too loose with the rules for my comfort. He used miniatures for combat but would move PC characters without asking if that's what you wanted to do, let alone even what you want to do. Homebrew campaign system and cobbled-together rules from D&D 2, 3.5, another non d20 system, and his own additions with nothing being clear. Other players seemed to be enjoying it though, so figured it was my problem not theirs even though it was the only group I've left in my ~30 years of gaming.

GM Deus ex machima is something I hate with a passion, though not enough to make me leave the game. I was in a long running campaign where the GM introduced an artifact to the party, in the possession of one PC, around mid-levels. Anytime we got close to TPK, artifact activate and we'd be saved though usually with half the party getting some random polymorph effect that would last for a week or until the artifact was activated again. After fighting the same BBEGs several times with them either escaping or the artifact getting used to save us it was just too much. Felt like no matter what choices my character (or the party as a whole) made it wouldn't matter...but BBEGs would just get away and if they should have legitimately killed us we wouldn't be granted an honorable death in fighting the good fight. But overall it was still a great/fun campaign to play in.


PsychoticWarrior wrote:


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'.

I called him 'Destroyer of Worlds' on a whim since they ignore 'subtle' hints that things are a BAD IDEA that perhaps their characters would not want to do.

And yes, I did have an overarching plot for the entire campaign. The object they wanted out of the vault was one of the 7 key pieces of that plot.

Now, the main plot I had planned the campaign around has pretty much fallen by the wayside in favor of the PCs seeking out draconic powers, metallic dragon allies, dragon-bane weapons, etc. All in the name of stopping the Destroyer of Worlds.

So, yes, this is a PC driven campaign. But, they drove the entire plot I had planned for levels 3 - 15 right off the rails. I'm trying to figure out how to bring it back, but the only way I've got at the moment involves time travel. Because I gave specific dates and time frames for when things happened at the beginning of the game. Next campaign everything in history simply happened 'Long ago'.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There only so many times a player can turn the cheek. It's one thing if Thomas did something dumb in character and payed for his mistake. The impression I'm getting is that for whatever reason the DM was annoyed with the player and "poof" Dragon appears to target Thomas character. Nothing would kill the fun for me at a game if it happened to me. I would just want to leave the table asap and screw everyone else. Next time the DM does not go out of his way to screw over a player. Does it suck for the other players a Tom table yes. Too bad the DM did not care or expect such a reaction. How a DM would fail to see killing a player on purpose as anything but negative is beyond me but there you have it. Again actions have consquences. Sometimes god or bad.

Sovereign Court

Tormsskull wrote:
Grey Lensman wrote:
By such an action, the GM basically announced that they didn't want the player there. The player merely took the 'hint.'

Yeah, and if leaving impacts only you as a player, then I don't see the problem with that. If I read the post correctly, the group was using Thomas' laptop to facilitate the session. He disagreed with the call, and as such took his laptop away. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that ended the session for all involved.

There's a lot we don't know here. The ages of those involved, the maturity level, why the GM had the dragon attack Thomas' character, etc.

Assuming I have all the information correct, then it seems quite childish to say "We're done", taking the laptop that the group is using, and leaving.

I can see a discussion occurring where the player states their concerns, and then explains that it is clear the GM does not want them there, so they will be leaving. They will have to take the laptop with them of course, as it is their property. If there is a way to pass the info off to the GM or another player before leaving, then do so, etc.

Again, not saying the GM made the right call - based on the information we have, the GM very likely made the wrong call. But pulling the "I'm taking my ball and going home" move isn't the right answer.

He had every right to leave and especially to take his laptop with him. Not his problem that they don't have another medium to work from.

Also, if other players didn't rally to his support of this obvious GM dick move, they deserved to have the session cut short.


Hama wrote:

He had every right to leave and especially to take his laptop with him. Not his problem that they don't have another medium to work from.

Also, if other players didn't rally to his support of this obvious GM dick move, they deserved to have the session cut short.

Unless of course, it was the OP being the dick and the GM just slapping him down.

Just playing devil's advocate again, I don't have any more reason to believe that than to believe the GM was being a dick, but it would explain why the other players didn't rally to his support.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
thejeff wrote:

A CR10 Red dragon has a 6d10 breath weapon: average 33 damage assuming a failed save. 3rd level barbarian should survive that with ease. Might be down, but probably not dead.

But yes, killing would generally be a bad plot hook.

we had just finished a boss fight, and taken a good bit of damage lol. i survived by "i'm raging still"

That can't be right. At third level you only get 6 hp from Rage and that's not enough to keep you up from an attack that would have killed you if you weren't Raging. And as soon as you go down, you lose the Con bonus and the HP, so you would die.

Unless those 6 hp kept you on your feet, but then you weren't close to actually dying.


thejeff wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
thejeff wrote:

A CR10 Red dragon has a 6d10 breath weapon: average 33 damage assuming a failed save. 3rd level barbarian should survive that with ease. Might be down, but probably not dead.

But yes, killing would generally be a bad plot hook.

we had just finished a boss fight, and taken a good bit of damage lol. i survived by "i'm raging still"

That can't be right. At third level you only get 6 hp from Rage and that's not enough to keep you up from an attack that would have killed you if you weren't Raging. And as soon as you go down, you lose the Con bonus and the HP, so you would die.

Unless those 6 hp kept you on your feet, but then you weren't close to actually dying.

Raging Vitality maybe? Its a tax some barbarians nab.


MrSin wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
thejeff wrote:

A CR10 Red dragon has a 6d10 breath weapon: average 33 damage assuming a failed save. 3rd level barbarian should survive that with ease. Might be down, but probably not dead.

But yes, killing would generally be a bad plot hook.

we had just finished a boss fight, and taken a good bit of damage lol. i survived by "i'm raging still"

That can't be right. At third level you only get 6 hp from Rage and that's not enough to keep you up from an attack that would have killed you if you weren't Raging. And as soon as you go down, you lose the Con bonus and the HP, so you would die.

Unless those 6 hp kept you on your feet, but then you weren't close to actually dying.

Raging Vitality maybe? Its a tax some barbarians nab.

I thought everyone took that? Bumps that 6 hp to 9, fortitude saves by 1 while raging, and didn't mean auto death.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
I thought everyone took that? Bumps that 6 hp to 9, fortitude saves by 1 while raging, and didn't mean auto death.

I just make it a bonus feat barbarians get for free.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rebellion Point: DM is trying to write an "epic story" that, in his or her mind, is perfect. He/she doesn't want any input that conflicts with what's going on in his/her head already. In other words, not interested in playing a cooperative game, or in creative input, but is more looking for people to help him/her mentally masturbate.

Ugh.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:

Rebellion Point: DM is trying to write an "epic story" that, in his or her mind, is perfect. He/she doesn't want any input that conflicts with what's going on in his/her head already. In other words, not interested in playing a cooperative game, or in creative input, but is more looking for people to help him/her mentally masturbate.

Ugh.

Heh.

You always sound like the quintessential "no zealot like a convert" to my ears (metaphorically speaking) when grinding this particular axe, Kirth. (And you've ground it to a molecule fine edge over time.)

Do you have a story about your own epic debunking you'd like to share? ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

On Railroading:

As far as railroading goes, I find that it's relatively simple to keep players on the tracks by simply making them WANT to be on the tracks: if you throw in the right motivations, they'll go where you want them to go. Just use the carrot instead of the stick.

On Atheism in Fantasy Worlds:

This is why I don't have objective proof in my campaign setting that deities exist: clerics believe their powers come from gods, and certain powerful spellcasters can summon outsiders, but most outsiders don't know any more about gods than mortals do, and the ones that are powerful enough to perhaps know either stay silent or seem to go along with whatever suits them best.

I just find it more compelling that way. Clerics can have as much doubt and second-guessing as the other characters. In the alternative, where the gods are objectively real, I'm not sure that we would use the same terms to describe people who don't worship deities.


Quote:
In the alternative, where the gods are objectively real, I'm not sure that we would use the same terms to describe people who don't worship deities.

I've tried to get the terms "apatheism" and "misotheism" (for those who don't care about or hate the gods, respectively) to catch on but not with much luck. That's what I use in my own setting - I definitely prefer the "the gods certainly, undeniably exist" design, but I dislike Faerun's approach of "horrible things happen to people who don't have a patron". I've never been a big fan of "a cleric's power is based off their own faith". Even clerics in my games who don't directly worship a deity themselves are still getting their power from one who happens to empathize with their mindset, even if unrecognized.

RE: Raging Vitality ... Uh, I didn't even know that feat existed >_>


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:
You always sound like the quintessential "no zealot like a convert" to my ears (metaphorically speaking) when grinding this particular axe, Kirth.

Yup. A hard look at how I DMed when I was a teenager, vs. how I should be doing it, made me embarrassed as hell and anxious to change. I've learned to embrace the players' stories and our cooperative group story, even if they contradict the story in my head, because doing so makes for a much better game, IMHO.


Ellis Mirari wrote:
As far as railroading goes, I find that it's relatively simple to keep players on the tracks by simply making them WANT to be on the tracks: if you throw in the right motivations, they'll go where you want them to go. Just use the carrot instead of the stick.

You have had far different experiences than I. I've found the motivations do matter... if the players have already decided they don't want to do the quest, adding in the right motivations just makes them run away from it faster.

Then again, I had a group of players lose 5 characters each to a dragon because they mixed up East and West and ignored the warning signs outside the cave. I mean, when you see skeletons on the ground and a sign that says "Warning! Dragon Lair! Do Not Enter" as you approach...

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can handle railroading if it's done artfully. What makes me see red is when I get railroaded to failure. I don't like impossible scenarios that inexorably, unavoidably result in the PCs getting hosed. I don't mean encounters I can't win... that's acceptable and lends verisimilitude. What I'm talking about is when EVERY encounter is way over the PCs heads, and when, through skill, luck, and clever plans, we triumph anyways, the bad guys suddenly develop plot armor and we lose.

What will make me pack up my bags as a GM is when the group agrees to do a published adventure and then, once we're playing, decides they want to go do something else. We all agreed to do something that involves a certain amount of railroading. If we decided to do the "Explore the Haunted Mansion" adventure and instead you want to "Investigate the Thieves' Guild," I have nothing for you. Let's order pizza and watch a movie and next time don't ask me to prep something you don't really want to play. Corollary to this one is when players bring character concepts that are totally incompatible with the adventure that we all agreed to do, e.g., a typical paladin in an adventure in which the PCs are members of an assassin's guild.

It all boils down to expectation management. I don't like getting bait-and-switched, regardless of whether I'm playing or GMing.


Orthos wrote:
Quote:
In the alternative, where the gods are objectively real, I'm not sure that we would use the same terms to describe people who don't worship deities.

I've tried to get the terms "apatheism" and "misotheism" (for those who don't care about or hate the gods, respectively) to catch on but not with much luck. That's what I use in my own setting - I definitely prefer the "the gods certainly, undeniably exist" design, but I dislike Faerun's approach of "horrible things happen to people who don't have a patron". I've never been a big fan of "a cleric's power is based off their own faith". Even clerics in my games who don't directly worship a deity themselves are still getting their power from one who happens to empathize with their mindset, even if unrecognized.

RE: Raging Vitality ... Uh, I didn't even know that feat existed >_>

Those terms are more appropriate. the Gods Existing sort of thing is totally fine, especially for games that want to be more steeped in mythology. I just find it less likely for someone who, knowing that gods exist unquestionably, and thus knows that there is an afterlife, would deliberately choose to not worship a deity at least as a front, unless you get into misotheism, in which case there's a lot more emotion and less rationality behind it to begin with.

My games also tend to be a bit more modern, with a late 17th/early 18th century motif, so unconfirmed religion suits it better.


Ellis Mirari wrote:
I just find it less likely for someone who, knowing that gods exist unquestionably, and thus knows that there is an afterlife, would deliberately choose to not worship a deity at least as a front, unless you get into misotheism, in which case there's a lot more emotion and less rationality behind it to begin with.

One apatheist character I GMed for was of the mindset that the only difference between a LG deity and a Lantern Archon was one of scale. Ditto for an imp an an LE god, a dretch and a CE one, and so forth. In other words, deities were just "hopped up outsiders" and the next thing above solars/pitfiends/balors/whatever in the local power scale, and since he saw no reason to worship solars, pitfiends, or balors, he saw no reason why being one rung up on the totem pole should change that mindset.

It doesn't work in a world like Faerun where not worshiping someone gets you a horrible torment of an afterlife, but in the default assumption of "you get shuttled off to an afterlife on a plane that matches your alignment" then so long as you don't mind becoming a baby protean after living a CN mortal life then you gain or lose nothing by being or not being religiously devoted to a specific deity who could instead scoop you up into their own personal realm.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
You always sound like the quintessential "no zealot like a convert" to my ears (metaphorically speaking) when grinding this particular axe, Kirth.
Yup. A hard look at how I DMed when I was a teenager, vs. how I should be doing it, made me embarrassed as hell and anxious to change. I've learned to embrace the players' stories and our cooperative group story, even if they contradict the story in my head, because doing so makes for a much better game, IMHO.

Your "opinion" is incontrovertible fact, dude. What matters is that you did change.

I've some horror stories of my own. Certain of my players in my teens and early 20's got serious time off in Purgatory putting up with my egocentric ar-TEESTE crap.


Orthos wrote:
Ellis Mirari wrote:
I just find it less likely for someone who, knowing that gods exist unquestionably, and thus knows that there is an afterlife, would deliberately choose to not worship a deity at least as a front, unless you get into misotheism, in which case there's a lot more emotion and less rationality behind it to begin with.
One apatheist character I GMed for was of the mindset that the only difference between a LG deity and a Lantern Archon was one of scale. Ditto for an imp an an LE god, a dretch and a CE one, and so forth. In other words, deities were just "hopped up outsiders" and the next thing above solars/pitfiends/balors/whatever in the local power scale, and since he saw no reason to worship solars, pitfiends, or balors, he saw no reason why being one rung up on the totem pole should change that mindset.

I could even see an atheist cleric with that mindset.

The "gods" are really just hopped up outsiders (or in some cases humans), but if we can make a deal for our mutual benefit, why not? I'll worship you as long as you keep sending the "divine" power my way.

I've actually got a setting in mind, based very loosely on Zelazny's Lord of Light where the Gods are real and active and powerful and probably play a larger role than in most games, but really are just powerful humans (and others) faking it.
Is it realistic to be an atheist in that setting? More or less so than in Golarion?


Hence why I don't like the use of "atheist" in such settings, and prefer the two terms I used above.


thejeff wrote:
Orthos wrote:
Ellis Mirari wrote:
I just find it less likely for someone who, knowing that gods exist unquestionably, and thus knows that there is an afterlife, would deliberately choose to not worship a deity at least as a front, unless you get into misotheism, in which case there's a lot more emotion and less rationality behind it to begin with.
One apatheist character I GMed for was of the mindset that the only difference between a LG deity and a Lantern Archon was one of scale. Ditto for an imp an an LE god, a dretch and a CE one, and so forth. In other words, deities were just "hopped up outsiders" and the next thing above solars/pitfiends/balors/whatever in the local power scale, and since he saw no reason to worship solars, pitfiends, or balors, he saw no reason why being one rung up on the totem pole should change that mindset.

I could even see an atheist cleric with that mindset.

The "gods" are really just hopped up outsiders (or in some cases humans), but if we can make a deal for our mutual benefit, why not? I'll worship you as long as you keep sending the "divine" power my way.

I've actually got a setting in mind, based very loosely on Zelazny's Lord of Light where the Gods are real and active and powerful and probably play a larger role than in most games, but really are just powerful humans (and others) faking it.
Is it realistic to be an atheist in that setting? More or less so than in Golarion?

But I don't really like that sort of exchange, because it makes virtually the same as a wizard binding outsiders. the only difference is the mechanic abilities you get.

That's why I prefer the idea of divine casters drawing power from their faith—their belief in powerful forces that watch over them. Whether or not those forces actually exist doesn't matter so much as they continue to believe they do.

So in this way, every spellcaster draws their power from some inborn ability, but it's tied to different thing. If wizard doesn't study his spells and loses focus, his magic wavers. If a cleric doubt his belief that his magic will work, it will waver.


*shrug* There's enough divine ambiguity in real life. I like my fantasy worlds knowing the answer definitively.


That's a fair point. The "crisis of faith" character arc is just a type of character arc that I find interesting and I don't want to throw it out the window entirely.


Oh by no means. But I prefer the variant of that that includes the character having a beef with their deity and the resulting conflict - whether caused by doubt, hostility, or misbehavior - causing the deity to withdraw their sponsorship until the rift is repaired. As stated before, I'm not a big fan of the "powered by my own faith" variant of divine casting.


thenobledrake wrote:

My single "rebellion point" is when a GM tries to backtrack or "re-do" something because my character dies - such as the GM having the party ambushed by half a dozen ogres, and one of them scoring a high-damage critical hit, then I mention that my character is dead and the GM starts spouting something like "Oh, uh... I meant less damage than that," or "That kills you? Well... [house-rule that makes it possible to save my character's life that didn't actually exist until my character died]."

Nothing else has quite such a potent ability to make me feel zero confidence in a GM.

Same here. A couple of DM's I've played with have done that; when they realize you're dead, they backpedal, try and think of some excuse that saves you, etc. I have had to openly insist that my character dies, in several campaigns.

I'm all about making a good, memorable story. Sometimes heroes fail, sometimes they die. Sometimes I'm bored with my current character, and really want to play something new.


wraithstrike wrote:
Randomely making up house rules on a constant basis. I need consistency to enjoy a game. :)

Oh, geez. You'd hate me, then. When my group runs into a wall where we don't know the rule, we spend 30 seconds discussing the situation and coming to an amicable solution rather than spending 5 minutes looking it up.

Needless to say, there are certain varieties of people who get scared away by this. In the end, I retain players who enjoy having the rules bent, sometimes heavily, in order to make something fun and strange work. It's made publishing any of my adventures a painful exercise, though.

Still, I maintain that a campaign that opens with the party as cadets in a cornfield with their teachers wearing masks and LARPing as the monsters has to be going somewhere good.

Liberty's Edge

Letting a player run roughshod over other players' PCs, be a complete jerk to the same players, even off the game, and saying nothing.


Josh M. wrote:
thenobledrake wrote:

My single "rebellion point" is when a GM tries to backtrack or "re-do" something because my character dies - such as the GM having the party ambushed by half a dozen ogres, and one of them scoring a high-damage critical hit, then I mention that my character is dead and the GM starts spouting something like "Oh, uh... I meant less damage than that," or "That kills you? Well... [house-rule that makes it possible to save my character's life that didn't actually exist until my character died]."

Nothing else has quite such a potent ability to make me feel zero confidence in a GM.

Same here. A couple of DM's I've played with have done that; when they realize you're dead, they backpedal, try and think of some excuse that saves you, etc. I have had to openly insist that my character dies, in several campaigns.

I'm all about making a good, memorable story. Sometimes heroes fail, sometimes they die. Sometimes I'm bored with my current character, and really want to play something new.

My DM did that in a good way. When one PC died, he let it go, but decided that bad guy weapons never have more than a X2crit (but sometimes that increased the thread range, of course. More Falchions, less greataxes)


Interjection Games wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Randomely making up house rules on a constant basis. I need consistency to enjoy a game. :)
Oh, geez. You'd hate me, then. When my group runs into a wall where we don't know the rule, we spend 30 seconds discussing the situation and coming to an amicable solution rather than spending 5 minutes looking it up.

If it matters, the fact it goes up for discussion makes it look much nicer to me than just houserules on the go. I've had a few GMs who do that. I've also had ones who refuse to do anything not written in the core rule book and others who think the rule book is the most important thing and that you have to follow it to the letter, but then they have interesting interpretations of things. Like TWF giving you an extra attack for every TWF feat you have, per attack with your main hand. 12 or so attacks from the ranger took a while to go through.


MrSin wrote:
I've also had ones who refuse to do anything not written in the core rule book and others who think the rule book is the most important thing and that you have to follow it to the letter, but then they have interesting interpretations of things. Like TWF giving you an extra attack for every TWF feat you have, per attack with your main hand. 12 or so attacks from the ranger took a while to go through.

To be fair, that's a good rule so long as ITWF and GTWF aren't allowed.


Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
MrSin wrote:
I've also had ones who refuse to do anything not written in the core rule book and others who think the rule book is the most important thing and that you have to follow it to the letter, but then they have interesting interpretations of things. Like TWF giving you an extra attack for every TWF feat you have, per attack with your main hand. 12 or so attacks from the ranger took a while to go through.
To be fair, that's a good rule so long as ITWF and GTWF aren't allowed.

Aye, but instead we ended up with a crazy rogue catfolk with no strength hitting 12 or so times for like D8+2. We also had pounce on any attack we moved more than 10 feet, and we had xp divided by damage done in battle(I was a buffer mage...) and a whole number of other rules that were just made up on the spot. We also had a lot of houserules made up on the psot when a character got assassinated, and my walking point in that game was the GM letting someone who told me repeatedly they were going to kill my PC attempt to counterpick me.

Silver Crusade

MrSin wrote:
and we had xp divided by damage done in battle(I was a buffer mage...)

Harsh!


Ellis Mirari wrote:
That's a fair point. The "crisis of faith" character arc is just a type of character arc that I find interesting and I don't want to throw it out the window entirely.

Personally, I kinda hate the crisis of faith character arcs. Mostly cause we've got one player that does them all the time. I mean seriously.. We're gearing up to go to hell and take out some of the BBEBG's high level minions.. When one of the dark gods we're suppose to stop comes along, reveals herself to actually be more of an ally tasked with guarding her own prison. The Oracle suddenly has a crisis of faith.. And when she sees the rest of the group getting ready to do their things and preparing to take out of the enemies shortly after (As in 5 minutes after seeing the dark god) begins having a crisis of faith in herself.

Same character, alternate world, has ended up hinging her entire mental psyche on following my character and plotting against him. Having grown tired of the adventuring and stuff, plus that I wasn't feeling the character anymore and we needed someone who wasn't a go with the flow type character, I make a new mage to cover our holes and put someone in to get the party to start moving together.

Suddenly though, her character breaks down again, because I suppose she was tasked by her god (not really) to follow my character or something. So.. Now we've spent about 2-3 sessions dealing with her mental breakdown.. again.

My other rebellion Point is when a DM says "No guns because they didn't exist back then" or especially "Guns don't belong in fantasy."

This almost always will spark within me the desire to make Iron Man. A Wizard/Fighter/Ek who gets in full plate andamatine armor, and uses scorching ray wands embed into his gauntlets.


@MrSin: Those house rules do seem rather... bad.


Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
@MrSin: Those house rules do seem rather... bad.

Was interesting. The upside was I was able to stay a step ahead of most everything he did. Sort of a long story because I was playing with them from level 1 to 11. That last day I was with them was a mess. Had a guy who wasn't playing talking about how the GM loved him more and the teenage necromancer trying to explicitly kill me but he was so awful he tried to play without spells.

151 to 200 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.