PDA

View Full Version : What are your starting rules as a DM?



WarKitty
2010-08-17, 08:53 AM
As a DM what do you tell your players starting out before character creation? Or what would you like to tell them? My ground rules are:

- All alignments are allowed in the game. Please make sure your characters are ok with this. Paladins will have the "associating with evil characters" clause waived provided they attempt to keep the evil character pointed in the right direction. (Think Roy/Belkar, all my players read OOTS)

- While inter-party conflict is allowed, any character that would fireball the party out of boredom is banned.

- similarly, any character that would get the party arrested in every town is banned.

- Either the DM or one of the trusted players looks over characters before they are played. (Trusted is based on experience - I count on my party to be honest but some of them don't read things like prerequisites real well.) The DM has an updated copy of the sheet at all times.

- You will get a basic idea of the starting plot prior to character creation. It is your job to figure out why your character is there.

Minor houserules in spoiler:

- fixed DC skill checks will be replaced by scaled DC's. So your level 3 rogue can use a minor wand, but unless you're epic level don't even think of UMD'ing that artifact.

- I reserve the right to hand out new toys to players with less optimal classes.

- Asking anything like "what was this quest about again?" means you have to buy the DM her favorite candy. Also, if you're not paying attention the other characters may paint your character bright green or otherwise abuse them.

- Yes, the DM cheats. It works in your favor as often as it works against you.

- If you want an ability that isn't written up anywhere, talk to the DM and we'll work something out.

- Races do not have LA. Racial abilities will be worked into the class progression somehow, exactly how depending on the power of the abilities.

- Favored classes and multiclass penalties do not exist.

- If it's cool enough you can do it, even if the rules say no.

dsmiles
2010-08-17, 09:00 AM
As a DM what do you tell your players starting out before character creation? Or what would you like to tell them? My ground rules are:

- All alignments are allowed in the game. Please make sure your characters are ok with this. Paladins will have the "associating with evil characters" clause waived provided they attempt to keep the evil character pointed in the right direction. (Think Roy/Belkar, all my players read OOTS)

- While inter-party conflict is allowed, any character that would fireball the party out of boredom is banned.

- similarly, any character that would get the party arrested in every town is banned.

- Either the DM or one of the trusted players looks over characters before they are played. (Trusted is based on experience - I count on my party to be honest but some of them don't read things like prerequisites real well.) The DM has an updated copy of the sheet at all times.

Good starting rules.
- I also require a character history prior to character creation. (even just a few sentences jotted down on a napkin is ok, but more detail is better, since I use character histories as plot hooks.)
- No character is "unplayable."
- If something looks like it will break the game, I will overrule it.
- No Pun-Puns allowed, and this is not the Tippyverse.
- I will review the characters beforehand, and make copies of them every *ding*. I like to know what your skill modifiers are for when I make rolls behind the screen.
- Bribing the DM with food and Mountain Dew is acceptable, but won't get you far.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-17, 09:05 AM
No infinite loops.

No tainted casters.

Third party materials must be approved first.

Have fun.

Telonius
2010-08-17, 09:07 AM
My two key house rules:

- Don’t try to break the game. I reserve the right to say no to any race/feat/class/PrC/equipment/whatever combination. If you’re not sure, ask; I’m willing to work with you if it’s not too ridiculous.
- Add Pun-Pun as an over-deity of Cheese, Exploits, and Metagaming. Pun-Pun is aware that he is a god in a fictional gaming world. Anyone that slips something past me in an attempt to break the game will bring down his wrath. He is jealous of his ultimate power, and will personally act to prevent any player/character from approaching it.

Full list of house rules under the spoiler.

Character Creation
- One free 18. Roll d8+10 five times, rerolling any one, once. (If it comes up as another one, it was meant to be). Arrange as desired.

Race
- Half-Elves get one extra skill point per level.
- Half-Orcs lose the CHA penalty and gain a +4 racial bonus to Intimidate.

Class
- Remove favored classes. Multiclass is free.
- There can be Lawful Barbarians, Lawful Bards, and Chaotic Monks.
- All Clerics are Cloistered Clerics.
- Clerics gain proficiency with their deity's favored weapon. (War domain still gives them the Weapon Focus feat).
- Paladins take the alignment of their deity (if any) and must act as a prime example of the ideals of their deity, philosophy, or cause.
- Monks get full BAB, proficiency with Gauntlets (which are also a Monk weapon), and can spend time/gold/xp enchanting their own body as though it were a weapon/armor.
- Sorcerers get free Eschew Materials at first, and their HD improves to d6.
- Rogues get an additional Rogue Ability at level 20.
- Knowledge (Religion) is now on the Druid class skill list.
- Druids use the Shapeshift variant

Skills
- Open Lock and Disable Device are rolled into one skill.
- Balance and Tumble are now one skill.
- Listen and Spot are now one skill.
- Hide and Move Silently are now one skill.

Feats
- Remove the +1 BAB requirement for the Weapon Finesse feat
- Spells modified by Metamagic feats do not take more time for spontaneous casters
- Natural Spell is stricken from the game.
- The Two-Weapon Fighting feat now scales to include extra attacks with each iterative Attack. Improved Two-Weapon fighting lessens the penalty by 1 for each attack. Greater Two-Weapon fighting lessens the penalty by an additional 1.
- Toughness grants you HP equal to your current HD.

Spells
- The following spells are stricken from the game: the Polymorph school, Time Stop, Wind Wall, Contingency, Knock.
- Divine Power is no longer a standard Cleric spell. It is still on the War domain list.

Miscellaneous
- SR does not have to be turned off in order to receive a beneficial spell.
- All adventurers are issued the following items free, not counted against WBL:
1 Handy Haversack, 1 MW armor or MW weapon, 10 trail rations (kept in the haversack), 1 spellbook (if a wizard), 1 holy symbol (if a cleric or paladin)
- There are no Vorpal weapons in my game. If you ever encounter a Vorpal weapon, you can be assured that you will soon be facing a Jabberwocky, which will be an epic-level foe.
- Dust of Sneezing and Choking does not exist.
- Don’t try to break the game. I reserve the right to say no to any race/feat/class/PrC/equipment/whatever combination. If you’re not sure, ask; I’m willing to work with you if it’s not too ridiculous.
- Add Pun-Pun as an over-deity of Cheese, Exploits, and Metagaming. Pun-Pun is aware that he is a god in a fictional gaming world. Anyone that slips something past me in an attempt to break the game will bring down his wrath. He is jealous of his ultimate power, and will personally act to prevent any player/character from approaching it.

Xefas
2010-08-17, 09:23 AM
I like to say "Alright, we're all friends here. And adults. Please act like adults... who are also friends."

Does much more really need to be said? If everyone is just considerate of the feelings and expectations of everyone else at the table, and communicates in a rational and mature manner, then 99% of problems will solve themselves.

I feel like explicitly stating stuff like "Don't use this thing you know is stupid and you shouldn't use" and "Don't purposely disregard the feelings of others" is a little condescending.

Comet
2010-08-17, 09:25 AM
I have a new set of 'rules' for every game/adventure/campaign/story/whatever.

Basically, I (with some cooperation from the players) brainstorm a setting, a starting point and several directions in which the story could go. Then we just make sure that the players and their characters have some business actually being in that story. Background, motivation, mechanics etc. are all made to hopefully lead to a cool, naturally evolving story.

Apart from that, "Don't be a d-bag and have fun" is usually enough as far as rules go.

WarKitty
2010-08-17, 09:27 AM
I like to say "Alright, we're all friends here. And adults. Please act like adults... who are also friends."

Does much more really need to be said? If everyone is just considerate of the feelings and expectations of everyone else at the table, and communicates in a rational and mature manner, then 99% of problems will solve themselves.

I feel like explicitly stating stuff like "Don't use this thing you know is stupid and you shouldn't use" and "Don't purposely disregard the feelings of others" is a little condescending.

Yeah, that too. A lot of my rules are designed more to prevent problems when two players have different ideas of what's fun. Like I have a few players that enjoy high conflict and PvP, and several that really dislike PvP. So PvP is banned in general, but there are certain arena areas where players can fight things out.

Or just solving stuff that needs to be planned before hand. Like "My character wouldn't do <<thing that's necessary to get the plot rolling>>" is avoided by telling them the plot beforehand.

Vangor
2010-08-17, 09:27 AM
Only had to give a rule (more of a notice) for one of my campaigns which was the intent of this campaign is to wreck your day. Do not plan for longevity but to nova. Everyone loved that, fortunately, but every time we play people have to make sure we are not fighting flame-throwing tornadoes.

DemLep
2010-08-17, 09:33 AM
- While inter-party conflict is allowed, any character that would fireball the party out of boredom is banned.

- similarly, any character that would get the party arrested in every town is banned.


This is pretty close to a lot of my campaigns. I don't think I've had a game start where the characters don't get arrested and it last more than one session. Jails a great meet and greet.

#1 Rule: Have fun and let other have fun.

Any other rule depend on the campaign setting.

Quietus
2010-08-17, 09:37 AM
I have a lot of "unspoken rules", the ones that come up off the top of my head being..

MAD - in the line of Mutually Assured Destruction. If you can do it, so can I. And I have a whole lot more characters available than you do.
Rule of cool - If it's awesome, I'm PROBABLY going to at least let you give a decent crack at it.
Cheating - It happens. I'm going to do it, and so are you. Don't get caught, and don't do it all the time.

Then, of course, there's the ones that I generally spell out :

Optimization - some is good, and I'll help you if you'd like me to.
Let's make a deal - Screw flaws and traits. You want something, come to me and I'll see if we can work something out.

I'm sure there's a lot more than I don't really remember right now. :smalltongue:

valadil
2010-08-17, 09:38 AM
I only have one real rule. In my games, collaborative storytelling comes before gaming. You'll have more fun playing a character than a build.

Other than that I treat the players like adults and they act that way.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-17, 10:01 AM
- While inter-party conflict is allowed, any character that would fireball the party out of boredom is banned.

- similarly, any character that would get the party arrested in every town is banned.

Oh, these are specifically allowed by me, and it's caught on among a lot of people in the area. Punishments exist in realistic force, though, and new characters come back in 1 level lower.

One DM I know still uses the example of the time his character sold my rogue into slavery to illustrate how to deal with party conflict.

jiriku
2010-08-17, 10:50 AM
1. No drama.

2. No cheating.

3. No PvP.

4. Yes to Rule of Cool.

5. Yes to powergaming if the PCs are roughly on par with one another.

6. Yes to bribing the DM with food.

Telasi
2010-08-17, 11:16 AM
General
- Munchkins are not tolerated. You get warned about this at character creation, and the character is banned if you ignore my warning. Repeat offenders will be asked to leave.
- All characters are subject to my approval. That means you bring me the sheet and I look it over quickly while you give me a brief summary.
- I'm flexible with the rules. Especially when it's to do something cool.
- I reward good RP. Try it, you'll get better results than a straight die roll.

AD&D 2e
- Most optional rules in the PHB/DMG are in use.
- Stats are 3d6 six times and assign.
- Non-standard class/race combos are negotiable; adventurer's often defy norms.
- No class level cap, but slower progression after the normal maximum.
- Unless it's Dark Sun, no psionics. End of discussion.

D&D 3.5
- You are restricted to the PHB for character creation. Other materials considered, but not guaranteed.
- My games are not for optimized characters. Do not optimize.
- MM races are encouraged, within reason. I like it when you want to play a kobold (not Pun-pun) or a drow, but half-dragon is asking for trouble.
- Stats are rolled by the standard method, unless I am persuaded to use standard point buy. In my experience, it encourages min/maxing, so don't count on it.
- I'm favorably inclined toward alternate versions of classes, like non-caster rangers.

D&D 4e
- I run harder-hitting, more fragile monsters. Expect PC death, given the chance.
- Skill challenges are not used in my games, usually.
- No psionics, unless it's Dark Sun.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-17, 11:35 AM
It varies a lot from system to system. Most of the common rules listed above (in short: don't be jerks) are implicit in the exercise so I've never stated them. Only non-Evil Alignments is a corallary of Rule 1 :smallamused:

I guess the only one I have to add is: if you have a problem with my game, say so. If there's something you'd like more of, say so.

I've pretty much gone off houserules with D&D4 - I change the fluff, to be sure, but so long as it's in a published book (i.e. no Dragon magazine or modules), I'm OK with it.

In other games I've been tinkering with the rules sets so I will announce the rules before character creation - if possible - and allow players to alter their characters if I introduce one mid-game. I prefer to lay out all houserules before play has started, of course.

dsmiles
2010-08-17, 11:41 AM
It varies a lot from system to system. Most of the common rules listed above (in short: don't be jerks) are implicit in the exercise so I've never stated them. Only non-Evil Alignments is a corallary of Rule 1 :smallamused:

I also have an parallel to rule 1. All players must agree on the overall alignment of the party. Good, Neutral, or Evil. I usually write adventures to allow for all three outcomes.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-17, 11:45 AM
Oh! Important: DM's Privilege

"The DM has permanent dibbs on the last item of any consumable. In addition, any player that has arisen to fetch a snack may be called upon by the DM to fetch him one as well."

It's a very important rule :smallbiggrin:

Tyndmyr
2010-08-17, 11:46 AM
I'm curious, how many of you are absolutely horrified by the starting rules of someone else? As in, "I'd never play under THAT"...

dsmiles
2010-08-17, 11:48 AM
jiriku's #5 rule. Absolutely horrified of playing with powergamers. To me, it makes the game no fun when everyone is out to one-shot a deity.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-17, 11:54 AM
I'm curious, how many of you are absolutely horrified by the starting rules of someone else? As in, "I'd never play under THAT"...
Meh. I just played in a game with the worst set of houserules imaginable - these barely phase me.

Telasi
2010-08-17, 11:55 AM
I also have an parallel to rule 1. All players must agree on the overall alignment of the party. Good, Neutral, or Evil. I usually write adventures to allow for all three outcomes.

I tend to encourage different alignments in the same party. It's interesting to see different characters working together. It works out fine, barring stuff like stupid evil or stick-up-the-arse good characters.

Edit: Of course, bear in mind that I don't view conflict within the party as a bad thing, just not desirable from the player's perspective. I've also had some serious conflict happen among characters with unopposed alignments.

dsmiles
2010-08-17, 11:57 AM
Yeah, I said overall. Depending on the players, I may allow the oddball evil character in a good group, as long as he/she plays well with others (or is sneaky and underhanded enough to get away with using the good characters to do his dirty work for him).

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-17, 11:57 AM
I tend to encourage different alignments in the same party. It's interesting to see different characters working together. It works out fine, barring stuff like stupid evil or stick-up-the-arse good characters.
To be honest, at this point I'd like to have a stick-up-the-arse good character show up at this point :smallsigh:

I still can't believe that CG PCs willingly entered the slave trade and that I had to convince Good PCs not to lethally experiment on a prisoner to determine how a magic weapon was supposed to work :smallannoyed:

Ichneumon
2010-08-17, 12:08 PM
1. if you want to do something, but you're not sure if I'll allow it, ask me and I'll see if we can make it work.

2. I encourage you to be clever and creative, I certainly do not mind and actually enjoy it if you come up with alternative ways to deal with the problems that present themselves in game. I'll not punish you for deating my villains before I had planned them too, disrupting my plan for the game, etc.

3. If you want to do something that you would think would be awesome, but is against the rules or if there a no rules for doing something like that, discuss it with me, and I'll see if we can make it work

4. I allow all alignments, even evil ones, but remember that a character's alignment isn't an acceptable excuse for the plauer to run the fun of the other players. If you want to play evil, find a way to make it work in a non-evil party.

5. If you have any questions about the rules or about how I use them, ask them. If you think I make mistake or use the rules unfairly, say so.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-17, 12:09 PM
To be honest, at this point I'd like to have a stick-up-the-arse good character show up at this point :smallsigh:

I still can't believe that CG PCs willingly entered the slave trade and that I had to convince Good PCs not to lethally experiment on a prisoner to determine how a magic weapon was supposed to work :smallannoyed:

"good" is a label to show what team you're on...I've been utterly amazed at how willing "good" players are to use horrible things on "bad" guys.

My favorite was the paladin, with regulation stick firmly implanted. The party ranged from chaotic neutral to all shades of evil. He was the one that began to slaughter the party unprovoked, because we wanted to rescue a helpless elderly man from an island.

Telasi
2010-08-17, 12:10 PM
To be honest, at this point I'd like to have a stick-up-the-arse good character show up at this point :smallsigh:

I still can't believe that CG PCs willingly entered the slave trade and that I had to convince Good PCs not to lethally experiment on a prisoner to determine how a magic weapon was supposed to work :smallannoyed:

I was a paladin's slave, once. Granted, the particular instance saved my character's life, but still. Incredibly, the same characters who were fine with that had the nerve to tell me I couldn't torture a Sahuagin that I had captured. (I wasn't planning to, and had said nothing about doing so; they just assumed my character was chaotic evil for being drow. So, yeah.) Sad thing was, that was the only game I ever had any serious rp repercussions over my choice to play a member of a usually chaotic evil race. "Good" characters really don't tend to be that good. There's also no disincentive for non-paladins to act in a manner befitting good alignment.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-17, 12:13 PM
@Telasi

I was a paladin's slave, once. Granted, the particular instance saved my character's life, but still. Incredibly, the same characters who were fine with that had the nerve to tell me I couldn't torture a Sahuagin that I had captured. (I wasn't planning to, and had said nothing about doing so; they just assumed my character was chaotic evil for being drow. So, yeah.) Sad thing was, that was the only game I ever had any serious rp repercussions over my choice to play a member of a usually chaotic evil race. "Good" characters really don't tend to be that good. There's also no disincentive for non-paladins to act in a manner befitting good alignment.
Well, aside from playing the Alignment they chose :smallsigh:

Though to be honest, I'm unsurprised to find a Paladin enslaving a Drow. Slavery is perfectly Lawful and provided the Paladin's "slavery" didn't degrade your dignity as a sentient being there's not much problem there. Since Drow are notoriously CE and Detect Evil doesn't actually work as an Alignment Scanner (well, in TSR D&D) having you under armed parole makes good sense.

jiriku
2010-08-17, 12:15 PM
I'll admit to being slightly horrified at how many DMs permit or even encourage intra-party conflict. I've never seen such things end well, it's a common source of bad feelings between people, and the whole point of D&D is that it's a cooperative game between a team of players versus NPC opponents.

But then again, diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks, and if it suits others at different gaming tables, my only requirement is that my players check those habits at the door when they come to my games.

@ dmsiles: In jiriku's campaign setting, Deity one-shots You! :smalltongue:

Seriously though, I know many DMs who aren't comfortable with powergaming, and I can fully agree with you that if the DM isn't ok with it, then powergaming should be a no-go.

MariettaGecko
2010-08-17, 12:19 PM
Looking over the rules I see here, I like a large percentage of them, and I may steal a few for myself. That said, when I DM, I usually have just a few rules I employ:

1. I reserve the right to severely nerf any character I feel is unreasonably breaking my game.

2. There is enough drama in the game as it is. If you have your own, leave it at the door.

3. Players making the game not fun for others may be asked to leave.

Everything other than that is dealt with on a per-game basis.

Greenish
2010-08-17, 12:21 PM
Spells
- The following spells are stricken from the game: the Polymorph school, Time Stop, Wind Wall, Contingency, Knock.
What, you removed Knock? (In addition to some of Evocation's stronger spells, but meh, I don't blame you for Contingency.)

But are PCs supposed to just break all magically locked doors down with force?

dsmiles
2010-08-17, 12:22 PM
I'll admit to being slightly horrified at how many DMs permit or even encourage intra-party conflict. I've never seen such things end well, it's a common source of bad feelings between people, and the whole point of D&D is that it's a cooperative game between a team of players versus NPC opponents.

But then again, diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks, and if it suits others at different gaming tables, my only requirement is that my players check those habits at the door when they come to my games.

@ dmsiles: In jiriku's campaign setting, Deity one-shots You! :smalltongue:

Seriously though, I know many DMs who aren't comfortable with powergaming, and I can fully agree with you that if the DM isn't ok with it, then powergaming should be a no-go.

I can't agree more. I'm sure powergamers have just as much fun as non-powergamers. In their own way. However, they probably wouldn't have fun playing in my campaign world, where there is more story/plot than combat.

Yora
2010-08-17, 12:22 PM
- All characters are made at the beginning of the first seassion, after the players have checked with each other what everyone wants to play.
- Please try to make characters that are willing to cooperate reasonably to achieve the campaigns goal.
- I award XP for overcomming obstacles that stand in the way of achieving the groups goals. XP do not depend on the number of creatures killed. Killing things doesn't get the characters to gain XP faster, and in many situation might even get them fewer XP than other solutions.

That's really about everything I ask from my players. Which races and classes can be picked depends on the campaign and is agreed upon with the entire group before making characters.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-17, 12:24 PM
Presumably it's a safeguard against arcanists infringing on a rogue niche.

Seems silly. It's good to keep a scroll of it handy, but if you're actually wasting slots on knock every day when you have a rogue around, you're a terrible wizard.

Contingency itself isn't so bad. Craft Contingent Spell is a lot more worrying.

Kurald Galain
2010-08-17, 12:25 PM
My houserules?

(1) Don't be a jerk.

(2) The Dodge feat gives a permanent +1 bonus to AC, because it's a common feat and players having to think every turn on whom to select as "dodge target" is annoying.

(3) I don't enforce alignment, but feel free to pick one for your character if you think it helps. Arcane versions of Protection From Foo or Detect Foo don't exist; the divine versions have a result dependent on your deity's dogma. No game table discussion of "you can't do X because your alignment is Y".

(4) There is no Magic Mart; do not expect to automatically be able to buy whatever item you want in whatever city you are.

(5) Blatant powergaming may result in a small amount of your feats, features, items, or spells being forcibly retrained. I see no need for a priori veto lists. In practice, it has been extremely rare that I have to enforce this.

(6) Bring snacks.

That is all.

MightyTim
2010-08-17, 12:26 PM
The Rule of Cool is really my only big one. That being said, munchkining, metagaming, and other attempts to break/take advantage of game mechanics are highly frowned upon.

Dusk Eclipse
2010-08-17, 12:26 PM
Oh! Important: DM's Privilege

"The DM has permanent dibbs on the last item of any consumable. In addition, any player that has arisen to fetch a snack may be called upon by the DM to fetch him one as well."

It's a very important rule :smallbiggrin:

I am so going to steal thar rule when I actually finish writing my campaing;I alreadyhave most of the plot and the encounters planned but I haven't stated them)

Tyndmyr
2010-08-17, 12:27 PM
I can't agree more. I'm sure powergamers have just as much fun as non-powergamers. In their own way. However, they probably wouldn't have fun playing in my campaign world, where there is more story/plot than combat.

Power gamers definitely do have fun. They're just playing the game on a different difficulty level. It's just hard to play a game when some people want to play on god-mode, and some want to play on novice.

Power gaming and optimization isn't all combat-centric, though. There's plenty of overlap with good roleplayers.

Gnaritas
2010-08-17, 12:27 PM
General
- I'm flexible with the rules. Especially when it's to do something cool.

D&D 3.5
- You are restricted to the PHB for character creation. Other materials considered, but not guaranteed.
- My games are not for optimized characters. Do not optimize.
- MM races are encouraged, within reason. I like it when you want to play a kobold (not Pun-pun) or a drow, but half-dragon is asking for trouble.
- Stats are rolled by the standard method, unless I am persuaded to use standard point buy. In my experience, it encourages min/maxing, so don't count on it.
- I'm favorably inclined toward alternate versions of classes, like non-caster rangers.


So...they are restricted to the PHB for character creation....and how exactly does that encourage them to take MM races? Or take alternate versions (which are not in the PHB).

arguskos
2010-08-17, 12:28 PM
My baseline Play Rules (different than houserules, of which I have many and don't feel like writing out here):

-We are not playing D&D 3.5. Instead, we are playing the closely related derivative game called Arguskos' Game. The ramifications of this are that if a rulebook and the DM disagree, the DM generally wins. You are welcome to disagree with a DM Call at anytime. You get 1 minute (timed) to make your case, and then I will rule on it again. At that point, the matter is settled until the session is over, since more argumentation takes time and we'd all rather play.

-All alignments are permitted, but know that I do enforce them, so if you write Chaotic Neutral on your sheet, you better damn be semi-crazy.

-If you are an ******* to myself or to other players, you forfeit your right to play. Don't be a ****, please.

-Leave your personal drama at the door. Inter-player conflicts need to be resolved out of game. I is happy to help in this regard.

-I am a skilled mechanical player, and I expect you will be at least semi-effective mechanically. I don't want you to show up with a character that can't do ANYTHING in combat or out of it, and just serves as an RP platform, you can do that with something mechanically useful. If you need help making your character mechanically able, I'm happy to help.

-I run dangerous worlds that respond rationally to PC actions. If you do something blatantly suicidal, such as tackle the Red Dragon at level 2 because "we're PCs!" then you are all going to die. Please, think stuff through and when in doubt, ask me.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-17, 12:30 PM
-I run dangerous worlds that respond rationally to PC actions. If you do something blatantly suicidal, such as tackle the Red Dragon at level 2 because "we're PCs!" then you are all going to die. Please, think stuff through and when in doubt, ask me.

I like your rules. I use this one in practice, I just don't tell them about it in advance.

Greenish
2010-08-17, 12:30 PM
I can't agree more. I'm sure powergamers have just as much fun as non-powergamers. In their own way. However, they probably wouldn't have fun playing in my campaign world, where there is more story/plot than combat.True, powergamers don't RP, at all, since that's for sissies and n00bs. Powergamers just want to become Physical Gods and stomp down endless streams of monsters for no discernible reason. Who cares about stories and plots in an RPG?

Also, everyone who optimizes (to the same level as the other players) is a "powergamer".

Presumably it's a safeguard against arcanists infringing on a rogue niche.On lower level it costs spell slots you can't afford to waste, at higher levels rogue can wand it.

Though I could see it removed from standard wiz/sorc list, provided beguilers, bards (they've got it, right?), factotums, binders and the like still get access.

valadil
2010-08-17, 12:33 PM
I'm curious, how many of you are absolutely horrified by the starting rules of someone else? As in, "I'd never play under THAT"...

I don't see any here that I wouldn't play under. These are mostly attitude rules that show you what type of game you're getting into. The type of game I'd like to avoid is one with too many ill conceived houserules. IE wizards are too good, so schools of magic other than the one they specialize in are learned as though the spells were two levels higher. Or something like that.


I'll admit to being slightly horrified at how many DMs permit or even encourage intra-party conflict. I've never seen such things end well, it's a common source of bad feelings between people, and the whole point of D&D is that it's a cooperative game between a team of players versus NPC opponents.


I strongly disagree with you twice.

I've never liked the attitude that it's players versus GM. I think the GM should be on the same side as the players. When he starts getting adversarial is where players start breaking out Pun Pun and such.

There are different levels of intra-party conflict. When I encourage it, I'm not asking for a player to run a dwarf who kills all elves on sight. I'm asking for characters with strong opinions. Just not opinions they'd kill someone over. Characters can argue about their preference for Mac or PC (or Linux!) without getting into a fistfight over it.

arguskos
2010-08-17, 12:35 PM
I like your rules. I use this one in practice, I just don't tell them about it in advance.
I ALWAYS announce this now. I figured it was pretty apparent when I describe the game world to my players, but no one ever gets it, so I clarify over and over that this **** will be scary, and if you jerk powerful NPCs and monsters around, you'll die like a bitch, so don't do that. :smalltongue:

My players never listen, and inevitably anger someone important.
Them: "We thought that releasing a crate full of angry Yuan-ti into the ambassador's dinner party was a good idea at the time!"
Me: "You have got to be joking. And you're pissy now that he sent teams to capture and interrogate you as to why you tried to assassinate him?"
Them: "It wasn't assassination! We knew he'd survive!"
Me: "...I don't even know how to respond to that."
:smallsigh:
This is a real dialogue, which is scary.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-17, 12:37 PM
I don't see any here that I wouldn't play under. These are mostly attitude rules that show you what type of game you're getting into. The type of game I'd like to avoid is one with too many ill conceived houserules. IE wizards are too good, so schools of magic other than the one they specialize in are learned as though the spells were two levels higher. Or something like that.

That would worry me. Not the actual rule, mind you. The heavy tendancy to houserule. Everyone I've seen with a long list of house rules never writes them all down, leading to you discovering things halfway through the game that lead to your character not working like you thought he would. Even worse, they tend to change rules midgame. Any ruleset is fine...Im even fine with choosing from pre-selected character sheets. But change my character arbitrarily later, and we have issues.

Kurald Galain
2010-08-17, 12:38 PM
-I run dangerous worlds that respond rationally to PC actions. If you do something blatantly suicidal, such as tackle the Red Dragon at level 2 because "we're PCs!" then you are all going to die. Please, think stuff through and when in doubt, ask me.
This, to me, is not even a house rule.

Of course you aren't guaranteed to get Four Level Appropriate Encounters per day. Some things in the world are much weaker than you are, other things are much stronger, and the latter may squish you if your character is being stupid. Also, don't expect every villager to be a level-1 commoner; low-level fighters and rogues are pretty common, and authority figures tend to be of moderate level. This means that if you are level 3-5 and try being a public menace to society, then yes, a team of city guards can take you down.

This doesn't mean I'm trying to kill the PCs; it simply means that their actions have consequences.

dsmiles
2010-08-17, 12:38 PM
I like your rules. I use this one in practice, I just don't tell them about it in advance.

Same here. And just to be sure we're clear, I never said that powergamers can't roleplay, I specifically said non-powergamers on purpose (not trying to toss grenades in the punchbowl or anything, here).

valadil
2010-08-17, 12:38 PM
-We are not playing D&D 3.5. Instead, we are playing the closely related derivative game called Arguskos' Game. The ramifications of this are that if a rulebook and the DM disagree, the DM generally wins.

That sounds an awful lot like a game I run called Valadil's Game. I like this technique because not only does it reinforce rule 0, it helps break down the players' expectation that your game is just another D&D game. When you do this, the players don't automatically assume the world is the standard D&D one. It gives you room to do things like run sessions without dice, without disappointing the PCs who expected a big combat.

arguskos
2010-08-17, 12:40 PM
This, to me, is not even a house rule.

Of course you aren't guaranteed to get Four Level Appropriate Encounters per day. Some things in the world are much weaker than you are, other things are much stronger, and the latter may squish you if your character is being stupid. Also, don't expect every villager to be a level-1 commoner; low-level fighters and rogues are pretty common, and authority figures tend to be of moderate level. This means that if you are level 3-5 and try being a public menace to society, then yes, a team of city guards can take you down.

This doesn't mean I'm trying to kill the PCs; it simply means that their actions have consequences.
You'd think that, Kurald, but sometimes, it's better to SAY it than not.


That sounds an awful lot like a game I run called Valadil's Game. I like this technique because not only does it reinforce rule 0, it helps break down the players' expectation that your game is just another D&D game. When you do this, the players don't automatically assume the world is the standard D&D one. It gives you room to do things like run sessions without dice, without disappointing the PCs who expected a big combat.
You know why it sounds like Valadil's Game? Cause I got the rule from you. :smalltongue:

Tyndmyr
2010-08-17, 12:41 PM
Me: "...I don't even know how to respond to that."

With violence. Lots of violence.

I chuckle whenever I hear something like "eh, he's probably downgraded because we're only level 4" or "he won't kill us all on the first night". There's usually at least one player in the group who knows me, though, or who has knowledge of the monster manual, realizes I'm referencing it directly for stats, and that I make all rolls in the open. Usually, I see a lightbulb flash on as he puts the pieces together.

valadil
2010-08-17, 12:42 PM
That would worry me. Not the actual rule, mind you. The heavy tendancy to houserule. Everyone I've seen with a long list of house rules never writes them all down, leading to you discovering things halfway through the game that lead to your character not working like you thought he would. Even worse, they tend to change rules midgame. Any ruleset is fine...Im even fine with choosing from pre-selected character sheets. But change my character arbitrarily later, and we have issues.

Yup. It wasn't so much the example that worried me as the mindset of a GM who would do that. I'll readily houserule things that I don't think work, but I try to keep them as unintrusive as possible. I don't assume that I'm a better rules writer than WotC and I respect the rules and the need for consistency within rules.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-17, 12:45 PM
-All alignments are permitted, but know that I do enforce them, so if you write Chaotic Neutral on your sheet, you better damn be semi-crazy.
Why?


A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it.

Chaotic neutral is the best alignment you can be because it represents true freedom from both society’s restrictions and a do-gooder’s zeal.
As far as I can tell, there's nothing loopy (or even "semi-crazy") about 3.5's CN.

Frozen_Feet
2010-08-17, 12:46 PM
I don't have any system specific starting rules set, mostly because my players tend to be new to the hobby anyway, and rarely abuse the rules because they don't actually know one whiff about them.

So, the rules:

- Shut up when others talk. Most importantly, shut up when I talk.

- When you do speak, speak loudly and clearly. I need to hear you across the table, dammit!

- OOC arguments that take more than two minutes to solve will be solved after game. Untill then, flip a coin, or I'll do it for you.

- Freedom of choice does not mean freedom of consequences. Thinking is allowed, even encouraged. If something would be stupid or outright fatal in the real world, it tends to be so within the game as well.

- Not listening to the DM will deprive you of snacks.

arguskos
2010-08-17, 12:49 PM
That would worry me. Not the actual rule, mind you. The heavy tendancy to houserule. Everyone I've seen with a long list of house rules never writes them all down, leading to you discovering things halfway through the game that lead to your character not working like you thought he would. Even worse, they tend to change rules midgame. Any ruleset is fine...Im even fine with choosing from pre-selected character sheets. But change my character arbitrarily later, and we have issues.
You know, I have a lengthy list of houserules. I tend to remember them when they're brought up. However, I pride myself on not crushing a player who's concept relies on something I have a houserule about if SOMEHOW it didn't come up when he told me the character for the first time, so I often bend my own houserules to accommodate player wishes.

Now, if you spring something on me mid-game, I'm typically a little less lenient about it. Players need to TALK to me about rule changes and character creation.

@Oracle: CN has always stood for massive unpredictability, which is why I said "semi-crazy", not "loopy" or "fullbore-crazy". Semi implies that you're only partially not quite there, and this manifests as being very hard to predict and deal with. Also, picking on a random example made away from books seems a bit nitpickish. :smalltongue:

dsmiles
2010-08-17, 12:50 PM
So, the rules:

- Not listening to the DM will deprive you of snacks.

Ouch. (obligatory extra characters)

Kurald Galain
2010-08-17, 12:50 PM
I chuckle whenever I hear something like "eh, he's probably downgraded because we're only level 4" or "he won't kill us all on the first night".
Heh.

One of the first games I DM'ed went like this. The PCs had escaped from an enemy city, and a bunch of enemies appeared on the city walls to stop them. Paraphrased from memory,

Me: A bald man in blue robes appears on the wall, sparks dancing around his hands, as stormclouds gather around the towers.
PC: How far away are we from the city walls?
Me: About 200 meters.
PC: Then we're safe, because the Lightning Bolt spell has a range of only 190 meters.
Me: *glare* If you speak like this again, the next wizard will have a custom spell that goes 210 meters.
PC: ... we run!

In other words, don't assume that everything always happens according to the most common set of rules. If you know the MM by heart, I will occasionally send you something with class levels that is more dangerous than it ought to be, or something with bluff skill or illusion powers that appears very dangerous but really isn't. Don't meta too much.

Christopher K.
2010-08-17, 12:53 PM
Last time I started a campaign with brand new(also relatively young) players, I had a really great introductory speech that I'd made up on the spot. Here's the gist of it:


Let me begin by introducing the game. This, above anything else, is a game. If I catch you or hear of you ever doing anything stupid, dangerous, or simply illegal and blaming our game, you can kiss your spot at this table goodbye. We may be friends in real life, but that doesn't mean anything here except that I invited you. When you sit down at the table, you are committed to this game session. Cell phones sit on the table where we all can see them, and if you ever have an ipod playing, you'd better be ready to roleplay your character's gruesome death as they hang themselves with earbuds. There will be pizza. There will be Chinese. There may even be - god forbid - chips to eat during play. What there will be depends on how much people want to chip in. We're all here to have fun, and it's not just up to me to make that happen. You are, above all, a team, and should act like one, if only in a dysfunctional sort of way. People don't know this, but I take this game seriously to the extent that I will be upset if people get off-track with side conversations if they cut into game time.

Now that we've got all that covered, let's roll some dice!

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-17, 12:55 PM
@Oracle: CN has always stood for massive unpredictability, which is why I said "semi-crazy", not "loopy" or "fullbore-crazy". Semi implies that you're only partially not quite there, and this manifests as being very hard to predict and deal with. Also, picking on a random example made away from books seems a bit nitpickish. :smalltongue:
I was mostly curious because CN in AD&D was "the alignment of the insane" but starting in 3.0 WotC decided to alter both Neutral and CN (and tidy up their internal Alignment language) such that you couldbe Neutral without being TN and CN was no longer the alignment of the insane.

So when you said "I follow Alignment strictly" and then required behavior out of a CN player that was not required of their Alignment, I had to ask.

Also: the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/) is an online compilation of pretty much all the basic 3.5 rules that WotC foolishly gave away for free. So if you can post to this forum, you can check the language I cited as well :smallcool:

Telasi
2010-08-17, 12:57 PM
So...they are restricted to the PHB for character creation....and how exactly does that encourage them to take MM races? Or take alternate versions (which are not in the PHB).

Note the "other materials considered." I could certainly have explained/phrased that better. I meant that the only book players have automatic access to is the PHB, but I'm willing to approve specific material from other books. I tend to approve MM races, so long as they aren't overly powerful. I'm sorry for that confusion.

@oracle_hunter:

It was certainly justifiable, and to be fair I was actually neutral evil. (Not that he checked.) My complaint is that the paladin was an a**hole about it. We wander off topic, however.

Telonius
2010-08-17, 01:04 PM
What, you removed Knock? (In addition to some of Evocation's stronger spells, but meh, I don't blame you for Contingency.)

But are PCs supposed to just break all magically locked doors down with force?

No, they're supposed to cast Dispel Magic on it, find another way in, or break them down with force.

The one common theme of all the spells I ban, is to prevent spellcasters from being able to fill all roles, or make certain builds obsolete. The Wizard should never be better at breaking and entering than the Rogue (Knock is banned). A run-of-the-mill Cleric shouldn't be a better fighter than the Fighter (Divine Power is moved to the War domain, where it makes sense). Neither should Wizards and Druids (Polymorph is banned, shapeshift variant for Druids). Ranged weapons should never be entirely shut down, at least not with something as minor as a 3rd-level spell (Wind Wall is banned).

Greenish
2010-08-17, 01:07 PM
Let me begin by introducing the game. This, above anything else, is a game. If I catch you or hear of you ever doing anything stupid, dangerous, or simply illegal and blaming our game, you can kiss your spot at this table goodbye.You mean "young" as in Kindergarden?
We may be friends in real life, but that doesn't mean anything here except that I invited you.Ouch.
When you sit down at the table, you are committed to this game session. Cell phones sit on the table where we all can see them…Yeah, no interruptions is good, but your tone makes me want to start dancing naked on the table. :smallwink:

[Edit]:
The Wizard should never be better at breaking and entering than the Rogue (Knock is banned).What about other casters and pseudocasters? Knock seems to be perfectly in line for, say, bard and beguiler.

Yukitsu
2010-08-17, 01:12 PM
1: No loops.
2: I'm the best theoretical optimizer at the table. Don't make me use it.
3: There is no rule 0 during a session. Any rules complaints will be dealt with RAW until I've adressed it after the session.
4: If you want to play sim city, or any other economics sim instead of adventure, your current characters will be retired and re-written in a mercantile fashion.
5: Interparty conflict is acceptable, but must have an in character reason, and cannot be disruptive. You may not build a character after the first session that will not mesh with the party.
6: If you take too long, stuff will happen. Be it in combat, or in the world at large.

Some things I sometimes have to add:

Just because something's funny to you doesn't mean you can't get killed over it.
Doing something for lols is not going to be rewarded with automatic success.
Dieties and demigods doesn't actually state how many followers you need. Ergo, saying you need infinite doesn't constitute a violation of rule 3.
The rule of cool is only in effect if you can pull off the cool thing you were trying to do, unless I can't find a way to pull it off RAW, and it's reasonable, in which case it succeeds.
Sex is dealt with on a "fades to black" basis. You can imagine your own perverted non-sense.
Just because my player characters always get attacked by tentacle monsters when the DM does open rolls on the encounter table, doesn't mean you should attack all the female NPCs with evard's black tentacles in my campaign.
Any statement regarding the rules that I utter without a mug of coffee or a can of redbull in my hands should be regarded as hearsay.

Tharck
2010-08-17, 01:14 PM
I have only one house rule: Unlike life, the game is fair.

No one cheats, not even myself as the DM. Dice fall where they may. You play the character you make, start to finish. They can't change their feats or skills after selecting them. I wont change them later on.

I am a power-gamer and a min/maxer. That said, the story is more important to me as a DM than anything I control or play. I purposely tailor encounters and NPCs to be challenging but not powerhouses. IE: He's an 18th fighter who just missed his Weapon Supremecy feat because his girlfriend convinced him to enter into a horse race and he wants to win... and thus took Skill Focus: Ride. (That's an example, not a case.)

I'm lucky enough to have a group of people where I dont need to have more rules. But overall when building a campaign I built it with a mind that everyone will have fun a majority of the time. And some of the people will have more fun at specific parts. (The PC who LOVES PvP might get charmed, or dominated, or be playing a Clone of his past character who is trying to kill some of the PCs now ect.)

I find the challenge shouldn't be stopping people from playing how they enjoy but instead building a foundation that can support so many different play-styles. Not simply my own.

Christopher K.
2010-08-17, 01:16 PM
You mean "young" as in Kindergarden?
More like 5th grade.


Ouch.…
Well, actually, come to think of it, this was my little brother's group. No idea why I said they were invited. Dern kids.

Yeah, no interruptions is good, but your tone makes me want to start dancing naked on the table. :smallwink:
That might just be my rugged good looks. :smallwink: (I'm not sure I follow.)

Telonius
2010-08-17, 01:29 PM
[Edit]:What about other casters and pseudocasters? Knock seems to be perfectly in line for, say, bard and beguiler.

Hm, hadn't considered it for Bard - mainly since it's not on the Bard list to begin with - but it would definitely be consistent with a Beguiler's schtick.

Drascin
2010-08-17, 01:43 PM
- Rule 0: Don't be a ****

- Rule 1: Rule of Cool. If something is awesome, and yet the rulebook says nothing about it, don't assume it's not allowed - give me your pitch and we'll work something out.

Other Generalities:

- Please make characters able to work together. Characters that will banter and argue are okay. Characters with viewpoints so utterly irreconcilable that they will inevitably split up after the third session are not. Characters that will break into an all-out free-for-all firefight five minutes after introductions are only allowed if we're playing Paranoia :smalltongue:.
- Don't try to break the game. Optimizing is fun, and I have nothing against powerful characters at all, as long as the whole party is roughly in the same level (so break out that Op-fu and help your fellows build their sheets). I even like it when the party is pretty good, lets me get creative with the antagonists! But when you try to break the game, remember I'm pretty likely a better optimizer than you and I have unlimited resources and a desire to return the spotlight to the other players. Hint hint :smallamused:.*
- Collaborate to the snacks fund, either by money or by actual food. Almost anything goes, so don't worry.
- If we don't know how something works, I'll make a ruling that seems appropiate off the top of my head and then after the session we can address it in more detail.
- I only have one head and two ears, much as I'd love to be a hydra. This means, please try to address me one at a time, and don't start chattering loudly when another player is trying to.

And I think that's about it for ground rules, really.

*Actually, I'd just say no and shut the idea down before the game starts, but for some reason the threat phrasing seems to work a lot better on most new players. People around here have been too conditioned by the resident adversarial DMs. I needed months to get people to realize that sometimes a beggar with a name is just a little NPC, not a disguised doppelganger spy out for their doom.

PersonMan
2010-08-17, 01:47 PM
My baseline rules are(3.5 DnD):
HP: Roll or take average, whichever is higher.
Stats: 4d6b3+1d4 for two stats, 4d6b3+1 for the rest.
Books: Most stuff is allowed, unless it's broken in either direction.

The rest change with the campaign and what I feel like doing at the time.


D&D 3.5
- My games are not for optimized characters. Do not optimize.

This is one rule I couldn't play under. In fact, I don't even understand it. I'm assuming that you're fine with baseline optimization(ie Fighters with good physical stats, Wizards with good intelligence, etc.), but I don't get what this really...means. I can understand that you wouldn't want single characters to dominate, but saying "do not optimize", implying that there's no optimization...Ehh. Could you clarify what you mean with this?

Greenish
2010-08-17, 01:52 PM
Hm, hadn't considered it for Bard - mainly since it's not on the Bard list to begin withIt isn't? Meh.
- but it would definitely be consistent with a Beguiler's schtick.Yeah, it's pretty cool when you can spontaneously toss out a silenced knock when bound & gagged and just sneak away.

Other than those, pseudocasters such as Factotum and Binder can get it as SLA (though the former only 1/day), and it's consistent with their role.

TheEmerged
2010-08-17, 02:10 PM
Rules for any gaming session.

1> I'm the GM. If I don't allow it, I don't care what the rulebook, rules as written, rules as intended, or whatever message board post from whoever -- it isn't allowed, and I'm not going to change my mind in the middle of the session. I am subject to reasonable debate when it won't waste precious "time at the table".

2> We have children playing with us now. If you wouldn't do it in front of their mothers, don't do it. And this rule is NOT subject to debate. (For the record their fathers are also at the table, and the children are <10 years old.)

3> The object of the game is to have fun. We will NOT be wasting previous "time at the table" with activities that are not fun. This includes arguing the rules, ranting, misbehaving, trying to steal the DM's dice, etc.

4> No powers/skills/etc that can "subvert a mystery". So no mind-probing, postcognition, precognition, etc. Things that are borderline (X-Ray vision, ESP, the ability to detect superpowers/psionics/magical beings) will be limited.

-------------------------

D&D 4th Edition Character Rules.

1> Use the character generator software. You cannot take anything specific to Eberron or Forgotten Realms at this time (and probably Dark Sun when it is in the tool). Be sure to take 1 Background and the attached benefit.

2> Attributes: decide one attribute to be an 18, and put a 10 for it. Decide one other attribute to start at 8. Spend 22 points on the other attributes, then assign an 18 to the attribute you chose initially.

3> The "official" equipment rule (one item at L+1, one item at Level, one item at Level -1) is in effect.

4> For the current campaign world, the Artificer and Warlock classes are disallowed as being out of campaign flavor. Similarly, the races of Tiefling and Warforged are out of flavor.

5> The traditional 9-box alignment system is being used. Keep in mind it has little "crunchy" effect now (much like the races that aren't considered human). Debating alignment of fictional characters during "table time" is a violation of meta-rule #3.

6> No ritual or power which subverts a skill roll will be allowed. So there will be no rituals to open non-magical locks (as an example).

---------

We are looking into disallowing "perfect" race/class combos in our next campaign. We're trying to work out some specific cases, and it's going to be months before our current campaign ends.

jiriku
2010-08-17, 02:11 PM
I strongly disagree with you twice.

I've never liked the attitude that it's players versus GM. I think the GM should be on the same side as the players. When he starts getting adversarial is where players start breaking out Pun Pun and such.

There are different levels of intra-party conflict. When I encourage it, I'm not asking for a player to run a dwarf who kills all elves on sight. I'm asking for characters with strong opinions. Just not opinions they'd kill someone over. Characters can argue about their preference for Mac or PC (or Linux!) without getting into a fistfight over it.

It's odd how two people can read the same text and see different things. For example, your description of how you "disagree" with me looks exactly like how I run my games. :smallbiggrin:

Lord Vampyre
2010-08-17, 02:26 PM
1. Life is not fair, and neither is the game. I may have a trusted player play a more powerful character than the rest of you. This is what I like to call the Gandalf factor, it is more of an NPC and will more than likely be taken out sometime during the campaign.

2. Lying to the rest of the party about your character OOC, is a legitimate defense against metagaming. Don't lie to your DM.

3. Magic items are not common. They require a considerable expenditure of the creators life force. Deal with it.

4. Real life comes first. I understand this. However, experience is only awarded to the active participants within the game. If time allows, I will work with you on getting your character up to speed.

5. If you choose to switch characters during a campaign, just understand that this comes with a stiff penalty and is strongly discouraged.

6. Focus more on having a good time, than what your character can and cannot do.

Gnaritas
2010-08-17, 02:30 PM
I would be very much displeased with rule 1, where another player plays a more powerfull character (and i assume you mean a higher level).

valadil
2010-08-17, 02:34 PM
It's odd how two people can read the same text and see different things. For example, your description of how you "disagree" with me looks exactly like how I run my games. :smallbiggrin:

It's true. Forums are not the best means of communication. I think I misinterpreted your line of PCs vs NPCs as players vs GM. Care to elaborate on the amount of intra party conflict you find acceptable?

arguskos
2010-08-17, 02:35 PM
I was mostly curious because CN in AD&D was "the alignment of the insane" but starting in 3.0 WotC decided to alter both Neutral and CN (and tidy up their internal Alignment language) such that you couldbe Neutral without being TN and CN was no longer the alignment of the insane.

So when you said "I follow Alignment strictly" and then required behavior out of a CN player that was not required of their Alignment, I had to ask.
I said I follow alignment, not use it as a straightjacket, to use a term I've seen you use in the past.

In my reading and understanding, saying "semi-crazy" to denote extreme unpredictability (as is called out specifically in the text you quoted) is fine. I just used a colloquialism instead of the exact words, is all. Chillax dude. :smallwink:

Lord Vampyre
2010-08-17, 02:45 PM
I would be very much displeased with rule 1, where another player plays a more powerfull character (and i assume you mean a higher level).

I know. Most players are, however this character is an NPC. I use the other player to make the rest of the party forget that it is an NPC. I got tired of my players using metagame thinking. One time I had one of the characters replaced by a doppleganger, when the party realized that he was a higher ECL many of them couldn't handle it. They failed to realize that they were meant to actually kill the character. Unfortunately, I can only do this with mature roleplayers who aren't so caught up with whose character is what level.

The other benefit of me using another player, is that they will often times have the NPC act in ways that I hadn't thought of.

Telasi
2010-08-17, 02:45 PM
This is one rule I couldn't play under. In fact, I don't even understand it. I'm assuming that you're fine with baseline optimization(ie Fighters with good physical stats, Wizards with good intelligence, etc.), but I don't get what this really...means. I can understand that you wouldn't want single characters to dominate, but saying "do not optimize", implying that there's no optimization...Ehh. Could you clarify what you mean with this?

Absolutely. I'm hardly the best at saying what I mean concisely, so I apologize for the confusion and poor wording. You are correct, I have no issue with fair primary stats and such; indeed, my 3.5 experience has led me to expect a 16+ in a character's primary stat. that said, characters for my (rather rare) 3.5 games should be fairly low-powered and based on characterful decisions rather than mechanical ones. The purpose of the "Don't optimize" rule isn't to tell players to deliberately build bad characters, but rather to encourage them to build flavorful ones.

It is my understanding that 3.x has a general expectation of building powerful combat characters, in general. I have a preference for a more social, roleplay focused campaign, so I'm telling the players that they needn't bother building that combat character. Of course, the same principle applies to any character with an extreme focus on a particular area.

Does that clarify my statement?

PersonMan
2010-08-17, 02:53 PM
Yes, to an extent. However...Well, I disagree.

And besides, what some people(at least, I do) is take a fun concept and then optimize it until what could otherwise not work or be weak becomes something both fun and strong. Because half of the fun I get from my characters is seeing them be effective-which is what I envision them as.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-17, 02:57 PM
I said I follow alignment, not use it as a straightjacket, to use a term I've seen you use in the past.

In my reading and understanding, saying "semi-crazy" to denote extreme unpredictability (as is called out specifically in the text you quoted) is fine. I just used a colloquialism instead of the exact words, is all. Chillax dude. :smallwink:
Oh, no harm intended. I was more curious as to whether you noticed the difference between TSR CN (which, IMHO, was dumb) and WotC CN (which actually fits in the Nine Alignments System) :smallsmile:

potatocubed
2010-08-17, 02:59 PM
When playing 3.x:

1. No alignment.
2. No paladins.
3. Nothing from a book I don't own, and not everything from books I do own.

I also generally frown on optimising, but I'm not sure I could put a definition of that into concrete words. It's more an open-ended list of things that go "if you ... you might be optimising too much" and there's a vague tipping point beyond which I just roll my eyes and ask you to try again.

The reason for this is that a) I have neither the time nor the inclination to go book-diving and stat up suitably ferocious enemies and b) I'm not very good at optimising, so the point at which I start failing to challenge your character will come sooner - and beyond that point is "you have an aneurysm and die; new character time!"

I don't have any house rules for 4e yet, other than a general willingness to let characters use their powers in inventive ways and a distaste for skill challenges. I have a whole bunch lined up for Dark Sun when I get round to running it, but they're mostly either options in the campaign setting (reckless breakage, fixed bonuses) or class and race limitations to reflect the nature of Athas.

Telasi
2010-08-17, 03:01 PM
Yes, to an extent. However...Well, I disagree.

And besides, what some people(at least, I do) is take a fun concept and then optimize it until what could otherwise not work or be weak becomes something both fun and strong. Because half of the fun I get from my characters is seeing them be effective-which is what I envision them as.

You're free to do so. I have no problem with more optimized campaigns, it just isn't my style. Mostly, that's because I'm horrible at optimizing and feel guilty if I try. I also tend to play some odd race/class combinations because I think it'll be fun.

Amphetryon
2010-08-17, 03:01 PM
The only ones I have that are significantly underrepresented here comes as a result of DMing in a public space, where I am not allowed by house rule to turn away interested players:

1) You have to be here. Nobody will play your character for you. S/he just goes off into the Elemental Plane of DM, safe and, relatively, sound, only to die in case of TPK or your decision to cease attending.

2) Don't suicide your characters. Repeatedly suicide your character in order to try out a 'cool new concept,' and I hand you your next character rather than letting you make another. Suicide that character, and you'll be invited to be an observer the next time you show up, rather than a player.

TheThan
2010-08-17, 03:03 PM
Generally I try to talk to my players before a game starts and get to know what they are expecting from the game. I let them know what I am expecting from them and what sort of game I plan on running.

But aside from that here are some general warnings/rules etc.


RPGs is a cooperative hobby, getting competitive with other members of the party is neither necessary nor encouraged. I do not have a “me vs you” attitude and I expect the same from my players.

Powergaming/munchkining is not necessary in my game. See the above. I reserve the right to ban things before, during and after that “thing” hits the table. If you feel you have to ask me about something, then its probably too powerful. Additionally I can optimize just as well as you can.

Talk to me about any concerns you may have about the game, outside of the game. The gaming table is not the place to discuss that sort of thing and please keep it civil.

The golden rule: treat others the same way you wish them to treat you.

We’re all here to have fun, so try to have fun.

If you can’t make it to a session, please contact me or another group member ahead of time. (you'd be amazed how many people don't do this and just become no-shows).

arguskos
2010-08-17, 03:04 PM
Oh, no harm intended. I was more curious as to whether you noticed the difference between TSR CN (which, IMHO, was dumb) and WotC CN (which actually fits in the Nine Alignments System) :smallsmile:
Oh yes, yes I did. I've been playing since well before 3.5, and I recall the old system. It made me rofl.

Gnaritas
2010-08-17, 03:06 PM
I know. Most players are, however this character is an NPC. I use the other player to make the rest of the party forget that it is an NPC. I got tired of my players using metagame thinking. One time I had one of the characters replaced by a doppleganger, when the party realized that he was a higher ECL many of them couldn't handle it. They failed to realize that they were meant to actually kill the character. Unfortunately, I can only do this with mature roleplayers who aren't so caught up with whose character is what level.

The other benefit of me using another player, is that they will often times have the NPC act in ways that I hadn't thought of.

I failed to eloborate my post. It is not the fact that the other player plays a more powerfull character (i have had this happen when i joined a group where i had to start half a level below the lowest character at that point, which meant i was 2 levels behind the highest character. When a character dies, your new one is 1 level lower in our games). This was no problem at all.

I would not be bothered by a scheme between a player and the DM. If done well this can be amazing.

What would bother me is that one player would gain preference over other players. If i were to be invited in a game where you said your "trusted" player would play a few levels higher than the rest, for whatever reason you have, i would definitly not play that game. I think i have not seen any other DM rule in this thread that would make me say that.

By making the player play the NPC, you have not made the players forget that it is an NPC....it is no longer an NPC....a Non Player Character is not played by a player.....which is what it literally says...

Earthwalker
2010-08-17, 03:24 PM
Not rules for shadowrun I try to point out the following, not rules as such.

I know you are all criminals but I ask that you play good guys. No sociopaths with no friends who would murder someone for 20 nuyen.

Have a reason to be running.

Answer the 20 questions, I do not just use friends and family as kidnap victims.

Make characters not just numbers, ask yourself how did someone get to 40 years of age with only skills in pistol, athletics and sword.

If you find broken rules, why not tell me about it, instead of making a broken character with them.

This is the most important, if you die in my game it will not because you needed 2 more imitative points or more armour. It will
be because you messed up to be in the situation to roll infinitive or your armour.

Lord Vampyre
2010-08-17, 03:43 PM
By making the player play the NPC, you have not made the players forget that it is an NPC....it is no longer an NPC....a Non Player Character is not played by a player.....which is what it literally says...

You fail to understand. This isn't meant as an indefinite scenario, but a tool to get away from metagaming. At most the player runs with the NPC for 3 to 4 sessions at which point the party finds out and kills the character or the character has served its purpose and is sent away. At this point the player brings in his actual character (who is probably a lower level than the rest of the group at this point). While the player is playing the NPC, he is not actually a player, but a DM's assistant.

Understand that for many years, I have done live-action RPGs. This is a standard tactic in live-action to maintain consistency and at the same time allow for a more dynamic setting. It also has the advantage of freeing the DM from the actual roleplay of that character and focus on arbitration of the rules or to run another NPC.

Now, just like not everyone is qualified to be a DM, not everyone is qualified to be a DM's assistant. I generally test a player's capability by seeing how they roleplay their character being under the effects of domination. If they do well, I will consider them for the job when the story calls for it. If they don't I will pick someone else. The player isn't actually getting preference, he is doing the DM a favor without getting much in return.

Honestly, I have found this working best when the gaming group consisted of a group of experienced GMs.

Theodoxus
2010-08-17, 04:05 PM
I don't have many, but the one I've completely enjoyed is from my latest campaign, and will probably be for every 'regular' game I run:

The PCs are all created - either like warforged and are living constructs, or by the gods... for whatever reason. But the players have all enjoyed the fact that while they aren't all the same, they have a legitimate reason to be together beyond "we met in a tavern and decided to not kill each other, but instead, team up to kill everything else".

The current campaign, where they are living constructs from a creation forge built in the Forgotten Realms has been very fun for all involved. A definite 'us vs the world' feel. Even incorporating new players is a snap - they pop out of the forge with all the knowledge they need to find their 'brothers'. Common goals and history... at least this first game it was very refreshing and removed all the tension of how to get the party together.

My other house rules are actually just alternate rules taken from UA: Spell points being the largest deviation.

But I've been enjoying reading this thread... I think I'll steal the more social ones (DM Privilege being my favorite - lol).

Kurald Galain
2010-08-17, 06:14 PM
6> No ritual or power which subverts a skill roll will be allowed. So there will be no rituals to open non-magical locks (as an example).
...really? What about such powers as Master of Deceit (rogue utility 2, gives a bluff reroll)? Heck, what about Memory of 1000?

WarKitty
2010-08-17, 07:19 PM
Oh yeah I forgot 2 more that I found help things:

- If I forgot to mention a houserule in advance, that particular scenario gets played out in whichever manner is most favorable to the player. Any players whose builds are affected have leave to re-work whatever portions were affected.

- Takebacks are allowed in the following situations: either the player did not understand the rules, or the DM failed to describe the scene clearly enough to indicate it was a bad idea. However if you try something remotely similar you keep the same roll.

When I said "gets the party arrested", I didn't mean "gets in trouble with the law sometimes or even frequently" simply. I've had to deal with a character or two that literally could not be allowed in any sort of civilized area without taking actions that would get them lynched. If every time we take your character in town he finds the most expensive shop and smashes its windows in broad daylight, you need a new character.

As a devotee of evil characters myself, I personally dislike no evil games. Most of my players enjoy a certain amount of inter-party drama, but not all of them like it up to the point of getting stabbed in the back while they're sleeping. Alignment conflicts can be fun with my group; as a DM I won't penalize any lawful or good character for being in the same group as long as they reasonably try to RP their alignment out. And I try to provide in-game reasons why they need to be with the particular sorcerer that is another pc in the group, rather than any sorcerer they can find in a big city.

The no PvP is in part because I tend to run low-lethality games, which is the way my players prefer it. For a player that's strongly attached to their character, being stabbed in the back by a fellow PC is just too anticlimactic. PvP may take place only if both players agree to it OOC.

kyoryu
2010-08-17, 08:11 PM
0. Rule 0 is in effect, but it will be used as sparingly as possible.
1. Random rolls will not kill PCs doing reasonable things. Death may occur, but it will occur as a result of PC choice.
2. You're playing a character in a world. The rules describe the 'physics' of the world, not necessarily the availability of things. That being said, most things can be attainable, but some won't be easy.
3. We're here to have fun. Don't be disruptive. Most of the rules after this are variations on this theme.
4. The point of the game is not to live out every anti-social impulse you have in real life.
5. All alignments are allowable. Please note that "Nuts," "Disruptive," "Rude," and "Antisocial" are not alignments.
6. Anything you can do, I can do - and then some. See Rule 0.
7. Disagreeing on the rules is fine - make your case, I'll consider it, and make a decision. If you still disagree, take it up after the game.
8. Reasonable levels of optimization are fine - but any reasonably complex game system has combinations that will break balance. I reserve the right to disallow builds - and I will generally find a way to make the 'min' part of any min-maxing actually hurt you.
9. Intra-party conflict is fine, so long as it stays at the RP level. Actively messing with other PCs is not fine.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-17, 08:33 PM
Heh.

One of the first games I DM'ed went like this. The PCs had escaped from an enemy city, and a bunch of enemies appeared on the city walls to stop them. Paraphrased from memory,

Me: A bald man in blue robes appears on the wall, sparks dancing around his hands, as stormclouds gather around the towers.
PC: How far away are we from the city walls?
Me: About 200 meters.
PC: Then we're safe, because the Lightning Bolt spell has a range of only 190 meters.
Me: ....about.
PC: ... we run!

Only way this could have been more awesome.

Khatoblepas
2010-08-17, 08:40 PM
Since I play BRP and not D&D anymore, my rules are:

1) I have final arbitration on the rules of the game. If I cannot remember the right rule and I don't have time to look it up, I will rule something and then at the end of the game, we can see how it really works. Rules lawyering me after arbitration makes me rule against your favor.
2) Feel free to play monsters. I will help you balance them to the other players. I love monsters. Humans are mostly racist (as OD&D) but won't automatically attack you en masse.
3) Don't attack other players, unless you are a victim of Charm or Dominate.
4) Want to do something? Just ask. I'll try and make something up.
5) Be sensible. Attacking NPCs for no reason is a one way street. So is punching them. For no reason.
6) NPCs you hire are directed by you, but have their own agenda. They will not do something diametrically opposed to their affiliations. And yes, you can hire the troll under the bridge. You can hire the bound demon. You can even hire the dragon. Expect them to make their own demands on the party, however.
7) Earn fate points by making me laugh, or be impressed.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-17, 08:40 PM
Absolutely. I'm hardly the best at saying what I mean concisely, so I apologize for the confusion and poor wording. You are correct, I have no issue with fair primary stats and such; indeed, my 3.5 experience has led me to expect a 16+ in a character's primary stat. that said, characters for my (rather rare) 3.5 games should be fairly low-powered and based on characterful decisions rather than mechanical ones. The purpose of the "Don't optimize" rule isn't to tell players to deliberately build bad characters, but rather to encourage them to build flavorful ones.

Er, stormwind much?

If you want them to build flavorful characters, require that they do so. Fuzzy optimization standards will not make characters flavorful.


It is my understanding that 3.x has a general expectation of building powerful combat characters, in general. I have a preference for a more social, roleplay focused campaign, so I'm telling the players that they needn't bother building that combat character. Of course, the same principle applies to any character with an extreme focus on a particular area.

Does that clarify my statement?

No. Optimization does not just apply to combat.

TheEmerged
2010-08-17, 10:26 PM
...really? What about such powers as Master of Deceit (rogue utility 2, gives a bluff reroll)? Heck, what about Memory of 1000?

Operative word, "subverts". I don't view reroll powers/feats/etc as subverting them -- in fact, I pretty much encourage/reward players that take them. I view feats of this nature the same way I do Skill Focus: a way for the players to improve their skill rolls. Memory of 1000 is the Deva "reroll with a +1d6 bonus" racial? Same basic thing.

Where I have a problem (and this is more theoretical than real at the moment), based on past experience, is that I don't want the party casting a spell/ritual/magic item where they should be making a skill check. I *want* the players to feel like they got their feat's/racial ability's worth when they take it.

Fuzzie Fuzz
2010-08-18, 12:28 AM
Among others, this is one that I am employing in my upcoming campaign:

Preferably all characters will be on the Good axis. Neutral is OK too, but anyone trying to play Chaotic Stupid will be hung by the toes until dead.

Also:
I am open to a small amount of rule debate, but at some point I will make a ruling, which will stand until the end of the session. If at that point you wish to continue to challenge/debate my ruling, make a note of it and we'll revisit it at the end of the session.

darkpuppy
2010-08-18, 12:40 AM
My general rules are these:

- Metagaming is actively punished. What's Out of Game stays Out of Game. We're having fun, not picking at old fights.
- All alignments and types allowed, so long as there is reasonable IC justification for them being there, with the group they are now.
- Before 3rd Level or its equivalent, I will cut you a little slack. From there, all gloves are off.
- Character roleplaying is rewarded.
- The GM can be bribed, but works on a sliding scale. (RL only)
- The GM is open to critique on his adventures. Honesty is respected. Just saying "it sucked" without justification, however... is generally ignored.
- So long as everyone's having fun, I'm cool.

And, some informal rules based on past games (for your amusement):
- If the GM says his eyes are open and existent in a vacuum, don't question... it's a warm hard vacuum, after all...
- Every party must have one player with a healing skill. Skill in making brooches doesn't quite cut it.
- Kender are to go nowhere near the Disks of Mishakal. We had to sandwash them last time that happened.

Grogmir
2010-08-18, 07:58 AM
Only DM 4E now,

1) Point Buy
2) PvP = NPC

Thats the only ones I insist on - each setting has its our specific rules.

Popertop
2010-08-18, 11:54 AM
jiriku's #5 rule. Absolutely horrified of playing with powergamers. To me, it makes the game no fun when everyone is out to one-shot a deity.

But there are so many things you can do to screw with the players when they're trying to commit deicide.

I mean, srsly, there's Ao.
I'm pretty sure he would have a problem with somebody trying to kill a god.
Then you have to deal with divine ranks, and all sorts of confusing **** the gods could do(ie completely disregard certain rules).
It's not like it would be the first time they have had to defend their station.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-18, 12:04 PM
And, some informal rules based on past games (for your amusement):
- If the GM says his eyes are open and existent in a vacuum, don't question... it's a warm hard vacuum, after all...

Just so you know, eyeballs don't actually explode in a vaccum or pop out of your head. That's just movie physics.

Drascin
2010-08-18, 12:27 PM
I mean, srsly, there's Ao.
I'm pretty sure he would have a problem with somebody trying to kill a god.

No, actually. Ao doesn't really give a crap if someone kills a god, long as afterwards you're willing to take the portfolio. Ao simply wants there to be a God of X - who the God of X is, is totally unimportant to him :smalltongue:.

Popertop
2010-08-18, 12:38 PM
No, actually. Ao doesn't really give a crap if someone kills a god, long as afterwards you're willing to take the portfolio. Ao simply wants there to be a God of X - who the God of X is, is totally unimportant to him :smalltongue:.

even better, now the players have to deal with that guy too.

Greenish
2010-08-18, 12:58 PM
Only DM 4E now,

1) Point Buy
2) PvP = NPC

Thats the only ones I insist on - each setting has its our specific rules.What does that second one even mean? That you can only fight against players, not their characters?


even better, now the players have to deal with that guy too.They are "that guy" now. Ao believes in Klingon Promotion (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KlingonPromotion).

Obviously, you'll have to fend off other candidates, but that's what divine ranks are for.

Telasi
2010-08-18, 02:25 PM
Er, stormwind much?

If you want them to build flavorful characters, require that they do so. Fuzzy optimization standards will not make characters flavorful.



No. Optimization does not just apply to combat.

In order:

No, never.

I do tell them to build flavorful characters. I also want them to be relatively low-powered characters, as I stated.

I'm well aware of this. Combat, however, is what players usually optimize for, in my personal experience. I direct you to the last sentence of that paragraph for the generalization of the principle.

Finally, I am not here to defend myself. If you take exception with my rules (which are based on my DMing experience), then you are free to disagree. I'm willing to clarify on request, but I should not have to put up with this sort of confrontational response from complete strangers on the internet for answering a question about the expectations I have for players in my games. :smallannoyed:

Greenish
2010-08-18, 02:30 PM
If you take exception with my rules (which are based on my DMing experience), then you are free to disagree.It seems that people take exception not to the rule, but to the assumptions about a playstyle they like that are behind it.

Telasi
2010-08-18, 02:34 PM
It seems that people take exception not to the rule, but to the assumptions about a playstyle they like that are behind it.

Please explain. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying correctly.

Greenish
2010-08-18, 02:42 PM
Please explain. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying correctly.Your goal is to have flavourful characters in a roleplay-heavy game, but the rule you use to achieve that is "don't optimize".

The obvious implications are that optimized builds aren't flavourful, or that optimization is harmful to roleplaying.

You can see how people would draw such a conclusion, no?

Telasi
2010-08-18, 02:53 PM
Your goal is to have flavourful characters in a roleplay-heavy game, but the rule you use to achieve that is "don't optimize".

The obvious implications are that optimized builds aren't flavourful, or that optimization is harmful to roleplaying.

You can see how people would draw such a conclusion, no?

I can see how they might infer that, but I've also said I want low-powered characters. When I ran 3.5 (it's been a while, since it's my least favorite of the editions I've played), I tended to see players doing their level best to make the most powerful characters they could and largely ignoring all else.

Greenish
2010-08-18, 03:00 PM
I tended to see players doing their level best to make the most powerful characters they could and largely ignoring all else.See, that's not what most people (here) mean with optimizing. (We already know the most powerful character that can be made within the rules.)

Different definitions, eh?

Tyndmyr
2010-08-18, 03:02 PM
Your goal is to have flavourful characters in a roleplay-heavy game, but the rule you use to achieve that is "don't optimize".

The obvious implications are that optimized builds aren't flavourful, or that optimization is harmful to roleplaying.

You can see how people would draw such a conclusion, no?

Exactly. I have no problem with encouraging roleplaying. Or with setting standards regarding levels of optimization within a party. I simply feel that your stated solution of acheiving roleplaying by banning optimization is like encouraging nacho consumption by banning blue shirts.

Satyr
2010-08-18, 03:06 PM
I usually tell my players which I expect from the game - dedication to the game, the notion that everybody contributes to the fun of the game by being nice and pro-active; things I expect as a matter of fact, like punctuality and reliability, but also roleplaying and character acting.

dsmiles
2010-08-18, 03:10 PM
Exactly. I have no problem with encouraging roleplaying. Or with setting standards regarding levels of optimization within a party. I simply feel that your stated solution of acheiving roleplaying by banning optimization is like encouraging nacho consumption by banning blue shirts.

You mean there's nachos???

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-18, 03:28 PM
I simply feel that your stated solution of acheiving roleplaying by banning optimization is like encouraging nacho consumption by banning blue shirts.
Hmm... if I had more attractive players, I might think about your proposed house rule :smalltongue:

dsmiles
2010-08-18, 03:36 PM
Hmm... if I had more attractive players, I might think about your proposed house rule :smalltongue:

It wouldn't work, they'd just all come in yellow shirts.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-18, 03:52 PM
It wouldn't work, they'd just all come in yellow shirts.
Very well!

Rule #1 - only shirts that are blue ("Blue Shirts") may be worn during a gaming session

Rule #2 - no Blue Shirts may be worn during gaming sessions

:smallamused:

JohnnyCancer
2010-08-18, 04:03 PM
IN my experience the only thing that really makes a game bad is when one person insists on making a lone wolf character who refuses to compromise on anything and does their best to not be a part of the group.

Tharck
2010-08-18, 04:20 PM
IN my experience the only thing that really makes a game bad is when one person insists on making a lone wolf character who refuses to compromise on anything and does their best to not be a part of the group.

I did that, but I was playing a female, halfling, prostitute, assassin who loved bears.

She was killed by a Werebear when she killed a Druid as part of an assassination. She lost to the Werebear because she refused to kill it.

nyarlathotep
2010-08-18, 04:43 PM
As an optimizer myself there are very few things that I ban whenever I DM (beholder mage, the dark chaos shuffle, etc.), but that comes with the caveat that everyone knows the people at the table who aren't optimizers will be getting better treasure and more favorable point buys.

Skorj
2010-08-18, 06:06 PM
On the topic of aggressive optimization: You must explain to me how your optimized build works - what's the cheese that makes it powerful. Optimization must be done in the open - you must show everyone your tricks if you want to get clever. A given aspect of your character can be cleverly optimized, or secret, but not both.
I rarely have any problem with optimized builds - the DM is not on a point buy system! - but being surprised by them is a different matter, as is inter-party balance.

Maybe my experience isn't typical, but I've yet to meet an optimizer who wouldn't help someone who needed help in that department (in fact, getting them to stop is often the problem), and the sort of player who refuses such help ususally doesn't care if their chaarcter is useless in combat (or in whatever is being optimized for). Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether everyone contributes equally, it matters whether they enjoy encounters.


I chuckle whenever I hear something like "eh, he's probably downgraded because we're only level 4" or "he won't kill us all on the first night". There's usually at least one player in the group who knows me, though, or who has knowledge of the monster manual, realizes I'm referencing it directly for stats, and that I make all rolls in the open. Usually, I see a lightbulb flash on as he puts the pieces together.

Thanks for this example, Tyndmyr! I've rarely been a fan as a DM of making all my rolls in the open (except for DMPCs!), because I often need the slack to "cheat easy" to balance encounters. However, you make a very strong point that this is expected these days, when it wasn't in the Gygaxian days when I learned the game. While rolling in the open is "DMing on hard mode", at least for me, it does set some very obvious expectations for an interesting game.

WarKitty
2010-08-18, 08:48 PM
New rule as of tonight:

If you're not paying attention the other players may do as they wish to your character. You will not get a save when the rogue tries to pickpocket your character. You also forfeit your share of the treasure.

dsmiles
2010-08-19, 04:40 AM
New rule as of tonight:

If you're not paying attention the other players may do as they wish to your character. You will not get a save when the rogue tries to pickpocket your character. You also forfeit your share of the treasure.

And they can feel free to draw mustaches on your character's lip and write, "The Captain was here!" on his/her forehead, right?

potatocubed
2010-08-19, 04:52 AM
Thanks for this example, Tyndmyr! I've rarely been a fan as a DM of making all my rolls in the open (except for DMPCs!), because I often need the slack to "cheat easy" to balance encounters. However, you make a very strong point that this is expected these days, when it wasn't in the Gygaxian days when I learned the game. While rolling in the open is "DMing on hard mode", at least for me, it does set some very obvious expectations for an interesting game.

I find that rolling in the open helps to establish the tone of the game - I've set up the world, you've set up your characters, now everything is in the hands of fate. It establishes the paradigm as Players vs. World rather than Players vs. GM - if they all die it's because of bad luck or biting off more than they can chew, not my malevolence.

dsmiles
2010-08-19, 04:57 AM
I find that rolling in the open helps to establish the tone of the game - I've set up the world, you've set up your characters, now everything is in the hands of fate. It establishes the paradigm as Players vs. World rather than Players vs. GM - if they all die it's because of bad luck or biting off more than they can chew, not my malevolence.

I see your point, but I like to be able to fudge in favor of the characters from time to time (in dire circumstances).

WarKitty
2010-08-19, 07:26 AM
And they can feel free to draw mustaches on your character's lip and write, "The Captain was here!" on his/her forehead, right?

Of course.

Talon Sky
2010-08-19, 08:26 AM
IN my experience the only thing that really makes a game bad is when one person insists on making a lone wolf character who refuses to compromise on anything and does their best to not be a part of the group.

I had a player recently do this, several times. Finally, I stopped inviting him....yes, his character got to go off on his own. Doesn't mean we have to actually play through the story.

He died of squirrel aids at some point later on, I believe.

WarKitty
2010-08-19, 08:34 AM
IN my experience the only thing that really makes a game bad is when one person insists on making a lone wolf character who refuses to compromise on anything and does their best to not be a part of the group.

I've actually had more problems with bat**** insane characters personally. The kind that cause TPK's.

MariettaGecko
2010-08-19, 08:47 AM
Ok, so I have decided that I like quite a few of the rules other players here have. Some I am going to steal point blank, others I like but I'm going to modify to suit me. I definitely like the idea of having Pun-Pun as the overdiety of cheese, metagaming, and etc.

I don't really like the idea of three nat20s being a one-shot kill, so I've decided to modify that rule somewhat. Here's what I came up with. Please critique and tell me if you think this is unreasonable.

Critical Hits:
When rolling to hit, players roll 1d20. If they hit, they do regular damage. If they threaten a critical, they roll a critical hit normally. If they threaten a critical by rolling a natural 20, then the rolls get more interesting. At this point, they roll a second d20, as normal. As usual, if it misses, the character simply does normal damage. If it hits, but doesn't roll natural 20, it is normal critical damage. If it hits and rolls a natural 20, then the character threatens max damage. The player will then roll a third d20. If this misses, normal critical damage is hit. If this hits, all damage is maxed. If it hits and the player rolls a natural 20, the character threatens a one-shot-kill. The player would then roll a final d20, and either hits or misses. If it hits, the creature is killed outright. If it misses, it's simply a max damage hit.

I also decided to do this:
I am not malevolent. I am not out to kill characters. For the most part, the dice do that. That said, if characters do something stupid, expect them to suffer for it.

Greenish
2010-08-19, 08:56 AM
I don't really like the idea of three nat20s being a one-shot killYeah, it's one of my least-favourite houserules too.


Critical Hits:
When rolling to hit, players roll 1d20. If they hit, they do regular damage. If they threaten a critical, they roll a critical hit normally. If they threaten a critical by rolling a natural 20, then the rolls get more interesting. At this point, they roll a second d20, as normal. As usual, if it misses, the character simply does normal damage. If it hits, but doesn't roll natural 20, it is normal critical damage. If it hits and rolls a natural 20, then the character threatens max damage. The player will then roll a third d20. If this misses, normal critical damage is hit. If this hits, all damage is maxed. If it hits and the player rolls a natural 20, the character threatens a one-shot-kill. The player would then roll a final d20, and either hits or misses. If it hits, the creature is killed outright. If it misses, it's simply a max damage hit.Uhm, so, if you roll nat 20 on the (first) crit confirmation, you'd need to confirm again or the hit won't be a crit?

Anyway, it's needlessly complicated for something that'll come up very rarely.

WarKitty
2010-08-19, 08:59 AM
Yeah, it's one of my least-favourite houserules too.
Uhm, so, if you roll nat 20 on the (first) crit confirmation, you'd need to confirm again or the hit won't be a crit?

Anyway, it's needlessly complicated for something that'll come up very rarely.

If I'm interpreting correctly:

Critical hit confirmation works normally.

If the critical confirmation rolls a 20 also, make a second confirmation roll. If it hits the crit damage is maximized. If it misses roll a normal crit.

If this also rolls a 20, roll a third confirmation roll. If it hits you get an insta-kill.

MariettaGecko
2010-08-19, 09:08 AM
Warkitty has the right of it. I agree that it will come up very rarely, but I think it should be possible. By my calculations, if the target has an AC of 10, this will result in a 1:16000 chance of insta-kill. Assuming an average AC of 15, this makes the number 1:32000. I think this is a pretty reasonable level.

dsmiles
2010-08-19, 09:12 AM
Good starting rules.
- I also require a character history prior to character creation. (even just a few sentences jotted down on a napkin is ok, but more detail is better, since I use character histories as plot hooks.)
- No character is "unplayable."
- If something looks like it will break the game, I will overrule it.
- No Pun-Puns allowed, and this is not the Tippyverse.
- I will review the characters beforehand, and make copies of them every *ding*. I like to know what your skill modifiers are for when I make rolls behind the screen.
- Bribing the DM with food and Mountain Dew is acceptable, but won't get you far.

Oh yeah, I forgot this one (arguably the most important, and controversial, houserule):

- You get three classes/prestige classes. If you have a good IC justification for why your character would go learn to be something else, you may be allowed a fourth. If you present me with a purely mechanical explanation, you will be denied. (So, no: 1 level in this class, 2 levels in this class, 1 level in this other class, 2 levels in yet another class, etc, etc. This is just sillyness, and, yes, this is to prevent powergamers becoming munchkins. Never actually had to enforce this one, though, I generally play only with like-minded people.)

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-19, 09:15 AM
Warkitty has the right of it. I agree that it will come up very rarely, but I think it should be possible. By my calculations, if the target has an AC of 10, this will result in a 1:16000 chance of insta-kill. Assuming an average AC of 15, this makes the number 1:32000. I think this is a pretty reasonable level.
One thing to remember: PCs get targeted by a lot more attacks than any given monster.

So every time you make it easier to one-shot something, you're actually making the game more lethal for your PCs.

I just left a game with the 20-20-hit Insta-Kill rule where one of the more mathematically inclined Players tried to argue for more frequent insta-kills - before it was politely pointed out to him that this rule applied against PCs as well :smalltongue:

WarKitty
2010-08-19, 09:20 AM
Oh yeah, I forgot this one (arguably the most important, and controversial, houserule):

- You get three classes/prestige classes. If you have a good IC justification for why your character would go learn to be something else, you may be allowed a fourth. If you present me with a purely mechanical explanation, you will be denied. (So, no: 1 level in this class, 2 levels in this class, 1 level in this other class, 2 levels in yet another class, etc, etc. This is just sillyness, and, yes, this is to prevent powergamers becoming munchkins. Never actually had to enforce this one, though, I generally play only with like-minded people.)

Ironically, one of mine is: All multiclass penalties are off the table, as are favored classes. Class fluff will for the most part be ignored unless it directly ties into the class (like with blackguard and the evil outsider thing). As long as you have a consistent characterization and a reason to have all those different abilities you can have as many classes as you like.

Then again, my main problem as a DM tends to not be with powergamers as much as making sure my roleplayers create useable characters.

dsmiles
2010-08-19, 09:27 AM
Ironically, one of mine is: All multiclass penalties are off the table, as are favored classes. Class fluff will for the most part be ignored unless it directly ties into the class (like with blackguard and the evil outsider thing). As long as you have a consistent characterization and a reason to have all those different abilities you can have as many classes as you like.

Then again, my main problem as a DM tends to not be with powergamers as much as making sure my roleplayers create useable characters.

No, no. No problem with powergamers. The problem starts when they start to munchkin-ize (is that even a viable word?). Also, I reference my previous rule that "No character is 'unplayable'."

Oh yeah, and my "old school" mentality...sometimes character generation is 3d6 in order (but not very often, it's usually 4d6, best 3). I usually get the "WTF?" stare on that one, and I have used it in 4e already.

WarKitty
2010-08-19, 09:36 AM
No, no. No problem with powergamers. The problem starts when they start to munchkin-ize (is that even a viable word?). Also, I reference my previous rule that "No character is 'unplayable'."

Oh yeah, and my "old school" mentality...sometimes character generation is 3d6 in order (but not very often, it's usually 4d6, best 3). I usually get the "WTF?" stare on that one, and I have used it in 4e already.

It's more a problem of different power levels. Most of my group are decent roleplayers. But I have to convince some of them that they can up their power level a bit without sacrificing roleplaying ability. Otherwise I get one fighter that can drop an opponent in one round and another fighter that can't manage to get a hit in against the same opponent in 3 rounds.

Curmudgeon
2010-08-19, 09:57 AM
No dice rolling during player creation or advancement: use point buy, and average + ½ for all hit dice.
If you've got an exploit, I've got a counter. Want to make a one-trick übercharger? Too bad; there aren't many straight stretches of ground without difficult terrain. Want to call in something with Wish 1/day? That's a precious commodity, and it's already been used up when you cast your spell. Alter Self/Polymorph/Shapechange? Your character doesn't know diddly about any of those forms until they've encountered them in my game.
Third party material? Forget it.
Your character has no digital readouts. I'll tell you if you're lightly wounded, bloodied, or hurt really badly. You get the actual numbers at the end of the encounter. Want more info? Make a Heal check or cast Status.
The world around you doesn't come with an inventory list or status lights. I'm not going to tell you some enemy has a boot blade, or is dressed in duke's livery, unless your character has the skills (Spot, Knowledge: Nobility and Royalty) to notice. The same goes for detecting difficult terrain in advance of stepping on it, and you'll only hear when the crickets stop chirping if you've got decent Listen numbers.
A Lawful Good character who spends most of their time and energy mistrusting companions they suspect aren't up to their high standards is a poor party member. A Chaotic Evil character who dithers about whether to brutally slaughter opponents or make them flee in terror is still contributing usefully by overcoming obstacles and is thus a helpful party member. It's not character alignment but rather actions that matter.
I'll populate the world with valuable stuff at around the standard encounter rate. If you sunder all the weapons don't expect me to make up the difference. If some party members are better at accumulating things than others I'm similarly not going to balance things out. The world is full of opportunities, not run on a schedule of guaranteed income.
The DMG says fully 5% of all encounters should be of overpowering difficulty. If you never run away you will die.
Your time is your own. If you trance rather than sleep you've got an extra 4 hours nightly to do with as you will. On the other hand, the world's events won't stop if you want to spend days crafting magical gear; you could lose out on some profitable opportunities.
I encourage you to use flaws. The extra feats promote character diversity, and the flaws are exploitable weaknesses that your enemies are certain to eventually find out about and take advantage of.
Animal companions, mounts, and pets are run by me, not the players. If you want some particular behavior, show me the Handle Animal or Ride checks. For familiars, convince me that you can communicate what you want them to do strictly by emotional content in empathic link.
Every intelligent raiding party in the D&D world knows the effectiveness of attacking when spellcasters are trying to prepare their daily spells. Don't whine about it.

MariettaGecko
2010-08-19, 09:58 AM
One thing to remember: PCs get targeted by a lot more attacks than any given monster.

So every time you make it easier to one-shot something, you're actually making the game more lethal for your PCs.

I just left a game with the 20-20-hit Insta-Kill rule where one of the more mathematically inclined Players tried to argue for more frequent insta-kills - before it was politely pointed out to him that this rule applied against PCs as well :smalltongue:

I understand this. I may make this a one-sided rule, such that the players can't be one-shotted, but the monsters can. As it is, I am thinking of changing the standard 50-hitpoint fortitude-save rule. I don't think that it's fair to the players that, when they get to higher levels, they can be (effectively) one-shotted by way of taking 50 HP worth of damage. I am thinking that I may modify it as follows:

If you lose 50% or more of your HP in one shot, you roll a fortitude save or become fatigued. If you lose 75% or more of your HP in one shot, you become exhausted. A loss of 90% of your hit points in one hit results in the character becoming disabled. Note that this is total hitpoints, not remaining hit points. Also, in all of these cases, there is a minimum loss of 25 HP in one shot before these effects can potentially occur.

I think this should increase the survivability of the characters somewhat, particularly at high levels, and it also prevents the wizard from taking 2 points of damage from something and dying instantly. Thoughts?

potatocubed
2010-08-19, 10:01 AM
- You get three classes/prestige classes. If you have a good IC justification for why your character would go learn to be something else, you may be allowed a fourth. If you present me with a purely mechanical explanation, you will be denied.

I follow something similar: "having more than three classes" is one of the criteria on my fuzzy list of how much optimisation is too much.

I ignore multiclass xp penalties and favoured classes though.

dsmiles
2010-08-19, 10:06 AM
I understand this. I may make this a one-sided rule, such that the players can't be one-shotted, but the monsters can. As it is, I am thinking of changing the standard 50-hitpoint fortitude-save rule. I don't think that it's fair to the players that, when they get to higher levels, they can be (effectively) one-shotted by way of taking 50 HP worth of damage. I am thinking that I may modify it as follows:

If you lose 50% or more of your HP in one shot, you roll a fortitude save or become fatigued. If you lose 75% or more of your HP in one shot, you become exhausted. A loss of 90% of your hit points in one hit results in the character becoming disabled. Note that this is total hitpoints, not remaining hit points. Also, in all of these cases, there is a minimum loss of 25 HP in one shot before these effects can potentially occur.

I think this should increase the survivability of the characters somewhat, particularly at high levels, and it also prevents the wizard from taking 2 points of damage from something and dying instantly. Thoughts?

Survivability of characters, you ask?
My answer: Don't get too attached. People die in combat, sometimes it only takes one hit (that sword just slides through your eye like jelly, straight into your brain). I like my combats nice and lethal. I generally do not pull punches (unless you being dead stops the story in its tracks, which is to say: almost never).

EDIT: I use the "3 crit rule" for insta-kills. 1st critical roll threatens a critical, 2nd roll is in your threat range - roll for insta-kill, third roll is in your critical threat range - insta-kill. So that guy with a +1 keen kukri (threat range 15-20) is in better shape for insta-kills than the guy with the +5 greatsword of OMG-ness.

potatocubed
2010-08-19, 10:13 AM
An interesting and tangential point that I've been considering lately in light of the 4e Dark Sun release:

As the lethality of a game goes up, the ease of character generation needs to increase also. If it takes an hour to generate a character but only one encounter to slay him, you're going to spend far more time generating characters than playing. If you can gen a character in five minutes (such as with a lot of the retro-clones) it doesn't matter so much if they die brutally half an hour later.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-19, 10:19 AM
Survivability of characters, you ask?
My answer: Don't get too attached. People die in combat, sometimes it only takes one hit (that sword just slides through your eye like jelly, straight into your brain). I like my combats nice and lethal. I generally do not pull punches (unless you being dead stops the story in its tracks, which is to say: almost never).
So, there's a difference between "lethal combat" and "randomly lethal combat."

A lethal combat system (like SR) is uniformally lethal. A stroke of bad luck might lay you out in one shot, but everyone understands that combat is a chancy proposition all around.

A randomly lethal combat system (like low-level 3.5) is one where combat is usually dangerous, but usually still a good idea - except that one time. You can go through dozens of combats without being in danger of dying when suddenly a goblin with a x3 crit gets a 20 on you and takes you from full to -11. Here, combat doesn't feel lethal and dangerous, it feels random.

Adding in more low-probability, high-cost rules like Insta-Kills doesn't make combat feel more dangerous - the usual outcome of a combat is still the same - but more arbitrary; it doesn't really matter what the Player is doing when a double 20 is rolled, he just dies.

Despite the "realism" that critical hits provide, I'd advocate against including mechanics that randomly convert an HP-based system into a OHKO system.

dsmiles
2010-08-19, 10:22 AM
Again, just my answer. Take it or leave it.

WarKitty
2010-08-19, 10:26 AM
Survivability seems to be another one of those traits that varies greatly within the game. I tend to run games where, barring PC stupidity, characters generally survive. My players seem to like it best that way; they wouldn't enjoy a high-lethality game because most of them would ask "well why am I here if I'm likely to get killed?" Some people do enjoy a high lethality game; it's a play style.

Shademan
2010-08-19, 10:28 AM
"When I DM I am your GOD. And you will treat me as such."
Most of my friends are diehard atheists* :smallfrown:




*so am I, except I worship myself

Tyndmyr
2010-08-19, 10:29 AM
I find that rolling in the open helps to establish the tone of the game - I've set up the world, you've set up your characters, now everything is in the hands of fate. It establishes the paradigm as Players vs. World rather than Players vs. GM - if they all die it's because of bad luck or biting off more than they can chew, not my malevolence.

I agree with that. It adds a lot more tension to the table when fighting close fights...where with games in which nobody ever seems to die, and in which the DM is rolling behind a screen, it's just missing. You can play that way, sure, but there's just something about knowing that what happens, happens that sweetens your successes, and makes your risks much more real.

I don't use crit tables or instant kills or anything of that nature. It's a game of strategy and immersion, not "I just killed the tarrasque with a shuriken, lolz".

A large assortment of class dips are only useful if you want to boost the weaker classes, such as monk, which should only be taken for two levels. The truly nasty builds require very few classes. A straight wizard/incantatrix/Iot7v will be three classed for forever(thanks to epic incantatrix progression). And he'll be like unto a miniature god. A monk2/Fighter 2/Barb 1/Whatever else you want will be a competent melee fighter...but not anywhere close. Limiting PrCs mostly just screws up the weakest builds.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-19, 10:30 AM
Again, just my answer. Take it or leave it.
I was just trying to point out an important difference between running a lethal game and a randomly lethal game.

Even AD&D wasn't so much a randomly lethal game since nobody had much HP, so every combat was potentially lethal even without critical hit. 3.5 combat, OTOH, is usually not dangerous; turning it into a game of Russian Roulette isn't going to make people feel like your game is dangerous, just that it's arbitrary.

Instead of OHKO rules, why not just reduce the amount of HP everyone has? Go back to a AD&D style combat system (i.e. limited heals, lower CON bonuses to HP) and your combats will be more dangerous and less arbitrary.

Yukitsu
2010-08-19, 10:33 AM
"When I DM I am your GOD. And you will treat me as such."
Most of my friends are diehard atheists* :smallfrown:




*so am I, except I worship myself

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misotheism

My play group has two of these. :smallconfused:

dsmiles
2010-08-19, 10:41 AM
@Tyndmyr: As I said, I have almost never had to enforce that rule. The gamers I play with tend toward single-class with prestige class, 2-class multiclass with prestige class, or just 2-class multiclass characters. Most of us don't feel the need to make these "super-powerful" builds to have a good time gaming. And, yes, some of us have fun playing straight-classed monks.

@Oracle: Personal preference for my group. When we started 4e, very little changed (except that using the RAW became less lethal, and gave even low-level characters the chance that they could get raised).

WarKitty
2010-08-20, 03:28 PM
*sigh* and then there's the "why do I even have to say this?" rules.

Players are not allowed to make jokes about rape. Period. The rare player that can make one that's truly funny is outweighed by the majority that are merely insensitive.