I've done a lot of these, though disallowing full casters isn't one of them. But I think I've done the rest of them over my career.
Enforcing alignment in clear and definitive fashion
Imposing an objective morality on paladins, such as disallowing prevarication for selfish gain, torture, baby- (including baby monster) killing and casual sex as inherently evil and/or chaotic
Not providing the "required"/desired magical paraphernalia on schedule
Believing the DM's role is benevolent autocrat rather than either gleeful tyrant or impotent fantasy tour guide
Requiring immersive role-play rather than simple recitation of mechanics
These I support, to one degree or another. Though I don't think I've ever threatened a paladin with falling for having sex, mostly because it doesn't come up, or the paladins in question are in monogamous relationships or are straight-forward and honest about what they expect out of the arrangement; lacking that honesty IS something I'd ding a paladin for, though, especially if done repeatedly.
Occasionally fudging die rolls, and reserving the right to roll behind a screen while requiring players to roll openly
Disallowing (or even placing restrictions of any kind on) full casters
Disallowing classes that violate the campaign's established and specific tone
Refusal to permit evil (or even chaotic neutral) PCs
Retaining control over magical weapons, cohorts, mounts, animal companions, eidolons, etc.
These I never do.
> I may fudge from time to time as a GM, but not often. More to the point, since I play over Skype and we don't use MapTool's die-roller, essentially all players have a GM screen for themselves. We trust each other.> I make a strong point of not banning classes, races, or alignments. I prefer to be a "why not" GM. I have yet to have a combination of any of the above that could not be made to work unless a player was determined to be troublesome about it.
> I allow players to control their own summons, minions, etc., at least in combat. I might take over some NPCs outside of battle, but summons, eidolons, and other things that are actual class features I leave under the control of the player. I have enough things to do.
Taking control of PCs who refuse to role-play honestly when charmed, dominated, etc.
Laying the smack down, hard, on abusive meta-gaming
I have never had this problem but do not see why I wouldn't be able or willing to do so if it became necessary.
Employing prominent NPCs/GMPCs
I have done this on occasion, but one person's "prominent" means "center-stage and gets all the attention over the PCs" while another means "important to the plot and how the PCs interact with him/her may have story consequences" and some people consider one to be as bad as the other. So I'm always a bit wary about how to answer this sort of question, as I'm never sure if what I do qualifies for the person's individual definition of dealing with NPCs of prominence.
I resemble that statement. But what do you mean by:
Employing prominent NPCs/GMPCs
Do you pay the NPCs to show up at your gaming table? Or do you have the player characters pay them to tag along?
Not providing the "required"/desired magical paraphernalia on schedule
I have no idea what you are saying here. What magical paraphernalia and on whose schedule?
I have no idea what you are saying here. What magical paraphernalia and on whose schedule?Not providing the "required"/desired magical paraphernalia on schedule
Some players will complain things like "The game mechanics and Wealth-by-Level charts say we should have a magic weapon by level 4! Why haven't you given us magic weapons yet?!"
In response:
1) I believe rolling in private is actually important for a GM to do, because otherwise players will check die, and result, and know the math behind the enemy. Furthermore, a GM can fudge, but should only use it at proper times. I prefer to use it to give enemies a chance to display themselves properly for a battle to become memorable, instead of the same old; Surprise Round, round 1, battle over.
2) PCs are the spotlight holders. I make NPCS who are memorable, but not meant to do the challenges and battles.
3) The only restrictions I ask for, and I do mean ASK for, are to respect the other players, by not dominating the game with turns that take too long, such as controlling 100 undead somehow, and bringing them to your fights.
4) I expect people to act in line with the various interpretation of alignment. THerefore, if I see someone acting in a way that can be clearly defined as another alignment, I suggest they consider that one instead.
5) I believe that killing a life is inherently evil because it deprives that life of the chance to become good. Killing in self defense, or in defense of others tips that towards Neutral for me. Sparing the aggressor's life is good. Killing a baby of a race, because it's 'whole race' is evil is often misunderstood, and summarily I view killing 'Orc Babies' as pragmatically, prejudice evil.
Ie: Orcs are Societal evils, not inherent evils. Succubi are inherent evils, as the are literally MADE OF EVIL.
Torturing something is never a good act. It's inflicting pain to gain something. It's evil.
6) I actually don't know what this means to be honest. Explain?
7) I don't really agree with ANY of those descriptions. I view it as a partnership between friends enjoying a game, where one sets the scene. However, it IS a partnership, not a retail/Customer relationship.
8) I permit any alignment, because in the context of a game, all colors of the spectrum enrich the piece.
9) I've never had to do this without everyone being on board with the idea. Or next game for example is No Magic, or SU or SP class features.
10) Our Metagame agreement is that a DM will call out a player doing it, at which point it's requested that they stop. At the least, to stop vocalizing their metagaming ("His attack bonus is +6, so he needs to roll a 16 to hit, so if you total defense in cover, he can't hit w/o 20")
11) There is a time for either 'Streamlined play" as we call it, and "Roleplay".
12) I've never had to take DIRECT control, but my players probably harbor the urge to attack eachother, and domination gives them the excuse, so...moot point I guess?
13) I consider Magic item (assuming you mean intelligent ones) to be NPCs in my game world, and they are under my control. I consider Eidolons, and other class features to be under the control of players, though they must follow any rules like Handle Animal.
Cohorts are something of a grey area. They are npcs in my game world, but someone spent a resource to acquire them. I usually maintain control of them, because I feel I can trust myself to make them act as PEOPLE, while my players may tend to use them as TOOLS.
Now that I know:
6) I would not enjoy a player demanding that I follow WBL, because they aren't the ones making the calls on that element of the game.
However, I religiously follow WBL as a GM...so it's not often a problem. When I'm a player, I don't even think about magic items truthfully. I make all of builds without considering magic items, because I like my characters to be 'thematically self contained' IE; if I NEED magic items, I need a crutch.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Those are cardinal sins!?!
The only "sin" I can understand would be "purposefully ruin the fun of your players"
If any of those "sins" contribute to make the game more fun for all, I say go for it!
A few I agree with. Others I do understand why you would label them as sins.
Those are cardinal sins!?!
The only "sin" I can understand would be "purposefully ruin the fun of your players"
If any of those "sins" contribute to make the game more fun for all, I say go for it!
Agreed. I guess I am a sinner if these are sins.
I think by "sins" Jaelethe means "things players claim Grognards were Doing Wrong in the past"?
It IS true that players will do things like trying to sell off personally crafted items for higher prices, establish businesses, use spells to generate items for resale, or make Craft/Profession/Perform checks for months on end; but paying attention to WBL has always helped me develop a framework for making sure the players at least don't fall behind.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
- Occasionally fudging die rolls, and reserving the right to roll behind a screen while requiring players to roll openly
- Disallowing (or even placing restrictions of any kind on) full casters
- Enforcing alignment in clear and definitive fashion
- Imposing an objective morality on paladins, such as disallowing prevarication for selfish gain, torture, baby- (including baby monster) killing and casual sex as inherently evil and/or chaotic
- Not providing the "required"/desired magical paraphernalia on schedule
- Believing the DM's role is benevolent autocrat rather than either gleeful tyrant or impotent fantasy tour guide
- Refusal to permit evil (or even chaotic neutral) PCs
- Disallowing classes that violate the campaign's established and specific tone
- Laying the smack down, hard, on abusive meta-gaming
- Requiring immersive role-play rather than simple recitation of mechanics
- Taking control of PCs who refuse to role-play honestly when charmed, dominated, etc.
Not a big fan of GMPCs. The only time I disallowed casters was when I was running a game in a psionic-heavy world in which magic was solely the province of evil monsters and cultists. I generally let PCs run their own minions, because that's one less thing I have to keep up with. Otherwise all things I have done and would do again in the right situation.
Well, all of them. I dunno about benevolent autocrat, though. Maybe more toward the tour guide, depending on your definitions. Smacking down on abusive metagaming would not be an in-game problem to solve to me, but an out-of-game problem. All the others, pretty much, yes. Especially disallowing tone-breaking characters and refusing evil PCs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think by "sins" Jaelethe means "things players claim Grognards were Doing Wrong in the past"?Once again, Orthos has it. I should indeed have placed "sins" in quotation marks.
Oh I figured as much. But yes, I'm a sinner. I have committed these "sins" in the past and even today for many of them. Some people may claim that it is doing it wrong; I'm not really all that concerned about what they think.
A few I agree with. Others I do understand why you would label them as sins.
Curse my lack of contractions. I meant to say "Do not understand."
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a quick baker's dozen:
I have committed at least ten of these at one point or another during my nefarious DMing career, and still unswervingly swear by at least eight or nine of them.
- Occasionally fudging die rolls, and reserving the right to roll behind a screen while requiring players to roll openly
- Employing prominent NPCs/GMPCs
- Disallowing (or even placing restrictions of any kind on) full casters
- Enforcing alignment in clear and definitive fashion
- Imposing an objective morality on paladins, such as disallowing prevarication for selfish gain, torture, baby- (including baby monster) killing and casual sex as inherently evil and/or chaotic
- Not providing the "required"/desired magical paraphernalia on schedule
- Believing the DM's role is benevolent autocrat rather than either gleeful tyrant or impotent fantasy tour guide
- Refusal to permit evil (or even chaotic neutral) PCs
- Disallowing classes that violate the campaign's established and specific tone
- Laying the smack down, hard, on abusive meta-gaming
- Requiring immersive role-play rather than simple recitation of mechanics
- Taking control of PCs who refuse to role-play honestly when charmed, dominated, etc.
- Retaining control over magical weapons, cohorts, mounts, animal companions, eidolons, etc.
Which of these do you espouse? Which are at least comprehensible to you, even if they're not quite your style? Which do you find abhorrent? Which of you think I should be found, shorn, tarred, feathered and run out of town? (Note that last may have nothing to do with this thread, but feel free to make your feelings known.)
#1 is far more "new school" to me. None of us back in the late '70s and '80s cried like babies when our characters died. And, um, disallowing "full casters"? Yeah, that's post 3x nonsense. Never had to back in the day. And, frankly, most of 1e was "meta-gaming". They actually ENCOURAGED it by including it in the 1e DMG play example (character bringing up Shakespeare to figure out there might be something about an unusual rock formation in a pool).
Yeah, most of these are modern conventions, and sound nothing like old school gaming. ;-)
|
|
Eidolons: Outside the linear obedience and intelligence scale of sentient and nonsentient companions are eidolons: intelligent entities magically bound to you. Whether you wish to roleplay this relationship as friendly or coerced, the eidolon is inclined to obey you unless you give a command only to spite it. An eidolon would obey a cruel summoner's order to save a child from a burning building, knowing that at worst the fire damage would temporarily banish it, but it wouldn't stand in a bonfire just because the summoner said to. An eidolon is normally a player-controlled companion, but the GM can have the eidolon refuse extreme orders that would cause it to suffer needlessly.
I'd be willing to sacrifice my control over pretty much anything, even up to a paladin's mount and a caster's familiar. The eidolon, though, is magically bound, usually sympathetic to the PC, and about half of the class' flavor and power. I can't envision myself wanting to play a summoner under Jaelithe's rules.
Maybe if the penultimate bullet point applied to magically-controlled GMPCs, too . . .
I have a rule against arguing about rules (rule-lawyering); which is near pare with my rule against whining.
Thus answering all the points of the OP!
Does this rule apply to the GM?
"You can't cast fireball yet, your only 4th level."
"Hmmm, I wrote on my character sheet and we don't argue about the rules so, that's 18 damage reflex 19 for half."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, rules-lawyering has always been the GM's label to apply. And it's usually much more extensive than two sentences of back-and-forth.
That said, none of my games have ever had restrictions against rules-lawyering. Even as kids we could sense when debates got tedious and the other players wanted to move on. And we'd just move on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Metagaming?
That knowledge is beyond your clearance! Report to the nearest termination booth immediately, you commie mutant traitor!
Only two of these. I've adjusted or overlooked die rolls when it would improve the game (nearly always to the benefit of the players), and I frequently use a support NPC (support, not star). Many of the rest prompt me to cringe, as they go against my style as a DM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- Employing prominent NPCs/GMPCs
- Believing the DM's role is benevolent autocrat rather than either gleeful tyrant or impotent fantasy tour guide
- Requiring immersive role-play rather than simple recitation of mechanics
I'm a grognard but from the op's list of sins these are about it for me.
- Fudging die rolls I never do. The randomness is a necessary part of the game even if the randomness isn't going your way on a particular day.
- Restrictions on full casters doesnt make sense to me. I love most casters and magic. On the other hand I hate psionics (mostly duplicate magic effects) or do one of the few things I dont like magic to do, which is mind control.
- I try to at least remind my group that alignment is objective in this system and not subjective. I have had plenty of party members that are pretty good at being shameless wanton murderhobos despite writing 'good' on their character sheets...
- Its a bad idea to play paladins in my campaign. Not because of me, but because its rare to find a table where anyone cares about playing nice with the paladin.
- I also care not a lick for wbl. I have been criticised for being too generous with resources.
- I wouldnt ban an evil pc. Its an option provided by the system and I'd like to think i'm a good enough gm to make an evil campaign fun. Chaotic neutral doesnt mean crazy. It means being not beholden to anyone elses ideals. It's my bread and butter. Of course I allow it.
- I dont disallow any classes. I might roll my eyes at crazy race/class combinations though.
- I would never dissalow a race or a class on the grounds of being antithematic... what the players want to play *sets* the theme. I don't like warforged or kender though.
- I prefer not to use charm effects in my games. I dont like taking away a player's control over their character. Its the only thing they can control.
|
I roll openly, unless the PCs couldn't possibly know about how well/poorly something was done.
For example, Perception checks should be secret when you're actively trying to look for something, because if you can see the die roll and it's low, you distrust your own senses without any reason to distrust them beyond looking at the die, which your character cannot do. Whereas, when the group rolls perception checks to see if they're surprised, you get to know that some of the party are more perceptive than others, even if the stealth check roll of the baddy is unknown.
When you're in combat with a visible opponent, those die rolls should be in the open. This means that the players gradually find out how good their opponents are. This matches real life, where you quickly get to know this. It's not perfect in real life, nor is it perfect in the game. If you or the baddy roll 19 and hit or 2 and miss it doesn't tell you much. But if you or the baddy roll 19 and miss or 2 and hit it tells you a lot.
Although the characters have no concept of die rolls, this process closely matches what happens in real combat. If there is some reason that the characters couldn't know or work out this information by experiencing it, then I might roll in secret, but that hardly ever happens.
As for alignment, when I run a game I have the players create their characters as a group, and have them create characters who will willingly go on the adventure I've made. What's the point of creating an adventure if half the players say that their characters wouldn't do that? This is why I usually say 'no Evil', but even then I can work with them to include an Evil PC so long as they explain why their PC will choose to go on this adventure, work with these guys as part of a team, and not be a total dick.
Which of these do you espouse?
We do most of those; but only half of certain lines.
By strict logic, the player is the one arguing here.I have a rule against arguing about rules (rule-lawyering); which is near pare with my rule against whining.
Thus answering all the points of the OP!
Does this rule apply to the GM?
"You can't cast fireball yet, your only 4th level."
"Hmmm, I wrote on my character sheet and we don't argue about the rules so, that's 18 damage reflex 19 for half."
arguing =! arguing about rules.
The DM is the one arguing rules there, the player just declares an action on his sheet, gives damage, and save DC.
Yeah, rules-lawyering has always been the GM's label to apply. And it's usually much more extensive than two sentences of back-and-forth.
That said, none of my games have ever had restrictions against rules-lawyering. Even as kids we could sense when debates got tedious and the other players wanted to move on. And we'd just move on.
I think more than anything I hate the idea of someone "banning rules lawyers" because if you are having problems with rules lawyers it's almost certainly because you are having problems with the rules. In my experience, DM's who bend rules for story reasons every once in a while don't even get challenged on the calls (even by people whom other GM's have labeled rules-lawyers) and even if someone says "how did they do that?" The GM need only say "they can do that." If you find yourself having rules arguments that are longer/worse than that then you should take a deep look at (1) your system mastery, (2) the kind of game you are running.
Assuming (2) is the issue; if you advertise a pathfinder game "because otherwise no one will join," or "because that's what everyone plays these days," then you should bare that in mind. [hyperbole] Don't lie about running a pathfinder game, when you are really running your house-rules ad&d variant, dressed up to look like d20 and with pathfinder books on the table. [/hyperbole] Seriously, people came to play pathfinder, if you don't want to play pathfinder or you have severe house rules in place (E6 counts as a severe house rule) then you should be upfront about the game you are running. Don't waste people's time just because no one will answer your ad unless you put pathfinder on it. You are just causing grief for yourself, and hollaring on the messageboards about "rules lawyers" is the natural result of that behavior.
- I rarely fudge die rolls. Almost exclusively when it will kill a character in a non-fun kind of way. Ex: In one of the adventures there was a trap that launched a greataxe with +0 to hit +3 to damage at a random member of the party. Random member was the sorc and I rolled a 20 followed by an 18 to confirm and the damage roll was an 11. That would have been 42 points of damage on a 3rd level sorc (insta-kill) about 10 minutes into the start of the campaign by trap that was only supposed to make the party nervous. I either had it miss or not crit. Don’t remember which.
- I use NPC’s all the time. You pretty much have to as a GM unless the party is fighting each other. I haven’t used GMPC’s in decades. I have too many horror stories that boil down to GMPC=bad.
- I place restrictions on any classes if the campaign calls for it.
- I rarely say anything about alignment unless the players is going way off track for what he has written down.
- I do make paladins follow their code as they define it as long as they stay within the bound of reason.
- My current group basically insists on the magic-mart type of magic item availability. It isn’t my favorite, but I can deal with it. Though I am sometimes a little lean on disposable wealth. May start a new campaign/group with more restricted magic items, but the players will know it ahead of time.
- Not entirely sure what you mean here. Gaming is a partnership, but the GM does have more responsibility and authority than the players. Pretty much a necessity.
- I rarely permit Evil or CN characters in the party. I have had too many bad experiences with it and very few good experiences with it. If I believe the entire group can handle it, I will allow it. But I have rarely felt that the entire group can handle it.
- Same as above. If the campaign requires limitations, then they are in place.
- Rarely had any problems with abusive meta-gaming. Usually a simple reminder like “How does R’al know that?” is more than sufficient.
- I am not an actor and certainly don’t require others to be. To be honest, I don’t like it when the player and/or GM gets too far into the acting. It feels creepy to me.
- Rarely seen any need. Nearly every occasion, I can say “You are suddenly convinced the tall man in the cloak is your best friend!” and the players run with it. Dominate is a bit different. Player might not know what they are trying to do or why. Kinda depends what the commands are.
- Nearly always allow the PC all decisions regarding these as long as they aren’t going outside of the established personality, obviously suicidal for non-fanatic characters, or contrary to special purpose.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmm...
1. Occasionally fudging die rolls, and reserving the right to roll behind a screen while requiring players to roll openly
Guilty. And unashamedly so. I've gone on record numerous times to say that I won't let a bad die roll derail a perfectly good plot. I use Hero Points in my game, so the same goes for the PCs, to a lesser extent.
2. Employing prominent NPCs/GMPCs
Not exactly sure what you mean here. I don't like to add permanent NPCs to the party. If the party needs extra hands, I'll give out a free Leadership feat to the most responsible player and let them add a cohort. I will occasionally have an NPC join the party for an adventure if it's germaine to the plot. And NPCs should never overshadow the PCs-- that's just not fun!
3. Disallowing (or even placing restrictions of any kind on) full casters
There is much talk on the boards about casters being overpowered with respect to martial characters. This has never been my experience in 30+ years of playing D&D and its derivatives, including PFRPG.
As for restrictions: One big one I use in my Pathfinder game is that only the spells from the Core Rulebook are generally known. Those are the only spells you can get "for free" at start or when you level up. That goes for divine casters too: clerics can only choose from the CRB at start. If you want a spell from a non-Core source, you have to either find it as treasure or research it yourself using the spell research rules.
4. Enforcing alignment in clear and definitive fashion
Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive. You play your character-- I'll decide what your alignment really is. If it mis-matches what's written on your character sheet, then you'll be surprised if you get caught in an alignment-dependent spell (e.g. unholy blight).
"What do you mean I take full damage?! I'm not evil!"
"Um, yes, you are."
5. Imposing an objective morality on paladins, such as disallowing prevarication for selfish gain, torture, baby- (including baby monster) killing and casual sex as inherently evil and/or chaotic.
Not sure what you mean here. Paladins have to be lawful good, and have to live up to their code. At the same time, I love the paladin class, and encourage players to run one. I have never and will never trick a paladin into "falling." If a player has different ideas on what constitutes the paladin's code, we'll have an out-of-game discussion over it. A paladin losing her powers for making hard choices should be a satisfying role-playing occurance, not an arbitrary punishment.
6. Not providing the "required"/desired magical paraphernalia on schedule
Guilty. Those things are boring, and there are creative ways around them. Like offering more interesting alternatives that use the "required" item slots.
7. Believing the DM's role is benevolent autocrat rather than either gleeful tyrant or impotent fantasy tour guide
Unashamedly guilty. The GM's role is to provide a fun adventure that the players enjoy running through. Challenging the players is part of the fun; acting like a jerk on a power-trip isn't.
8. Refusal to permit evil (or even chaotic neutral) PCs
Often guilty. At the start of a campaign, I usually give the players a choice of what sort of campaign they want to go on. If they want to go on a heroic adventure, then they need to be, um, heroes.
9. Disallowing classes that violate the campaign's established and specific tone
Unashamedly guilty. If you want to play something weird, you have to convince me why it's a good idea, and to give me a compelling in-game reason why you're playing catfolk gunslinger/ninja in a game set in Nirmathas.
10. Laying the smack down, hard, on abusive meta-gaming
Unashamedly guilty. Just because you, the player, may have memorized all the stats to all the monsters in Bestiaries 1-4 does not mean that your second-level fighter with no knowledge skills knows that proteans are immune to acid and polymorph effects. If you do that more than once, we're having an out-of-game chat.
11. Requiring immersive role-play rather than simple recitation of mechanics
Guilty, though it's by example. I pretty much always GM NPCs first-person, and try to engage the PCs in a like manner. Most players just play right along.
12. Taking control of PCs who refuse to role-play honestly when charmed, dominated, etc.
I will if I have to, but I prefer not to.
Retaining control over magical weapons, cohorts, mounts, animal companions, eidolons, etc.
I will to a certain extent if the player is abusing them, but I usually have too many other things going on to police those.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Occasionally fudging die rolls, and reserving the right to roll behind a screen while requiring players to roll openly
I don't do this as much anymore. Sometimes I get tempted, sometimes I 'forget' to add modifiers, but for the most part I roll openly. No one pays any attention to my dice.
Employing prominent NPCs/GMPCs
Absolutely. I'm of the opinion that yes there are good DMPCs.
Disallowing (or even placing restrictions of any kind on) full casters
Kind of vague. For the most part I don't have to place any limits, as the players experience limits them without my help.
Enforcing alignment in clear and definitive fashion
LOL NO
Imposing an objective morality on paladins, such as disallowing prevarication for selfish gain, torture, baby- (including baby monster) killing and casual sex as inherently evil and/or chaotic
Sure, but I don't think we have the same objective moralities.
Not providing the "required"/desired magical paraphernalia on schedule
Nope, what they buy is what they get.
Believing the DM's role is benevolent autocrat rather than either gleeful tyrant or impotent fantasy tour guide
I'm just the player resolving the action.
Refusal to permit evil (or even chaotic neutral) PCs
I only let people I trust play Evil.
Disallowing classes that violate the campaign's established and specific tone
Nothing is sacred. Anything can be banned.
Laying the smack down, hard, on abusive meta-gaming
I use gentle reminders, until hard force is required.
Requiring immersive role-play rather than simple recitation of mechanics
This is a thing? Seriously? I find coaxing role-play works better than mandates.
Taking control of PCs who refuse to role-play honestly when charmed, dominated, etc.
Never had a problem with dishonest role-play.
Retaining control over magical weapons, cohorts, mounts, animal companions, eidolons, etc.
I have enough on my plate rather than run every companion the PCs have. I will give advice on how the creature would realistically react.