Red Flags (new group woes)

[big teej]

greetings playgrounders,

in an ever ongoing attempt to better myself as a Dungeon Master, I come with another question in a similar vein to the last few threads I've started (houserules and banlists)

when you are joining a new group... what sends up red flags?

this could be anything

overhearing a joke that rubs you the wrong way.
some obvious hygene issues
they're playing an x campaign (where x is whatever you enjoy the least)

*for the record, none of these examples are necessarily red-flags for me.

some examples I've seen other people give.
a huge ban-list
disallowing certain races/classes
playing a disliked system.
etc.


so.... when you come to a new group, what sends up red flags to you?


red flags in this instance being "anything that makes you reconsider (even for a moment) playing with this group.... doubly so if it makes you consider (Is playing with this group better than not playing)

I suppose the only real big ones for me are
1) certain jokes being prolific at the table that make me.... violently vehemently uncomfortable.

2) pre-exsisting personality conflicts with players/DMs.

[askandarion]

All alignments allowed. To a lesser extent, Evil alignments. Sure, some people can do it, but usually at the expense of party cohesion, and in my experience, having both sides of the grid in a game just derails it into a vs. fight, or at the very least generates frustration and aggravation.

[Urpriest]

Groups that won't give me a straight answer regarding the optimization level. If you won't give me an idea of how your group views the mechanics, then you likely don't understand them at all.

[Gnaeus]

DMPCs. Evidence of imbalance in how players are treated (like: you 3 make new level 1 PCs, player y is playing a character from a previous campaign...). Also, what Urpriest said.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Derision towards "Munchkinism" and optimization, and especially the Stormwind fallacy. I optimize. I also get very into character. I find it rather insulting that it is insinuated that I am a bad roleplayer for optimizing, especially when those insinuating same keep being disruptive, with lots of out of character chatter.

An example of what I mean:

I was playing in a Shadowrun 4e game, playing an optimized hacker/gunbunny. My character had a full backstory, beginning with his parents (who were runners in Europe) and his birth in St. Petersburg, the birth of his sisters, his transformation into an ork, their emigration to the United States, his early years as a runner (concurrent to his university years), and why he had subsequently moved to Denver (to watch over one of his sisters while she attended music school). He had hobbies (he was a painter of some repute, both in fluff and mechanically), he had likes, he had dislikes, he had friends and contacts in the world. He had a voice.

Another of our players, I'll call him "Ted" came in with an alcoholic street sam/infiltrator type. He had no background (beyond "head of security at a hotel", no credentials, no contacts, just guns, more guns, and a lot of alcohol. His introduction consisted of him getting a bunch of civilians killed and making the news. His character was belligerent, unhelpful, and had a penchant for making threats to get his way. Mechanically, his dicepools were small (except one or two, which were obscene) and he was only any good at sneaking and fighting, no social skills, B&E, driving, anything. To top it off, Ted would interrupt sessions with longwinded stories about OOC events which were at best tangentially related to something that happened in game, speaking so loudly that I frequently couldn't hear the GM. He would say ridiculous things like "I pull out my Predator and waste Mr. Johnson or other essential (and quasi-friendly) NPC!" And then he would backpedal when I responded, in character, with incredulity.

Eventually, it got so bad (his character had caused so many problems for the other three of us) that we decided we needed him gone. So I, quietly, using a subvocal mic (which he couldn't hear), footage from my cybereyes, and a secure link to the local authorities (Lonestar, in this case) called the police, showing them a video of him pointing a gun at me and threatening to kill me. Meanwhile, his character and mine are walking down to the bar. Lonestar arrives, and begins arresting him. A shootout ensues. I take cover. He proceeds to specifically target my character, who is hiding and taking no threatening action against him, because Ted (not his character) knows I brought the law down on him. I nearly lose my character who I planned to keep throughout the campaign because he can't keep himself from metagaming.

It only got worse with his subsequent characters.

All the while, he took issue with the fact that my dicepool with pistols was higher than his, and because in addition to that I had excellent dicepools for Hacking, social skills, acrobatics, and several other key abilities. He, to my face, called me a munchkin.

Now, which of us is the better roleplayer? The guy who makes every effort to remain in character, who has a character who could be a real person, and tries to work with the group to achieve their ends, or the guy who's character couldn't brush his teeth properly (between his drunkenness and his focus on taking only combat skills), constantly acts disruptive (in and out of character), and attempts to steer the group with violence rather than cooperation.

Another red flag, for me, is an excessive focus on violence, especially sexual violence. Even if I'm playing an evil character, I don't want to rape, kill, pillage, and burn all of the time. I especially find the thought of sexual violence disgusting. If that's what the focus of the game is going to be, be it on the part of the DM or even one of the players, I'll be taking my gear and leaving, thanks.

A third red flag would be playing in an area which doesn't lend itself to getting in character. I've played in basements, dining rooms, classrooms, shops, but never somewhere with a television (at least one that's on), loud music (some music is good, but it's best as a quiet background element), or the internet (this one sometimes gets broken, but only to use the SRD). If we can't be there for the game, and just the game, then I don't think I'm going to be able to enjoy myself.

A corollary to the first and third would be excessive out of character chatter. When the noise-to-signal (that is, ooc-to-ic) ratio gets too high, I lose my sense of verisimilitude. I'm not perfect in this respect, but it's something I try to be aware of.

[Aethir]

The main thing I tend to start looking closer upon hearing is how the DM is a writer. I know it's not best to generalize on the whole, but that sends up a red flag right there because most 'writer' DMs I've had tend to not actually know how to run mechanics and just try to railroad their story into happening.

[Hazzardevil]

My main red flag is when there is a new player who will come along and make a character that fills the same role as you that having a 2nd person doesn't help and then builds a character that is built deliberately to do the job better while not being any good at anything else.
They then complain when you do something else.

I also hate it when you get players who insist that their plan is always best, even though it isn't.

[TheRinni]

I have one big one: while playing, the players seem more interested in something else. Why play D&D if you're just going to be on Facebook the whole session? Such players also have a tendency to ask redundant questions, and not pay attention. They impede the game's flow.

I'm actually contemplating leaving a group right now, because it has two such players in it. Last session, one of them even brought cards so she could play solitaire during the game.

[Etrivar]

My biggest redflag is when people hold to the word of the PHB religiously. I look at every D&D book as a set of loose guidelines at the very best.

Insisting that something is correct, merely by virtue of being in a book, is a mindset that I have never been able to work with.

[Elboxo]

My main red flag is when there is a new player who will come along and make a character that fills the same role as you that having a 2nd person doesn't help and then builds a character that is built deliberately to do the job better while not being any good at anything else.
They then complain when you do something else.

I also hate it when you get players who insist that their plan is always best, even though it isn't.

^ Same here; our current party has a wildshape ranger, a totemist grappler/slasher a changeling rogue ( a player who joined our group recently ), an engineer ( who always plays fighters ) and me a warlock. Until 2 weeks ago we had the guy who is playing the wildshape ranger playing a samurai ( CW ), engineer, totemist and I. None of us had real casting, or skills, the highest intelligence was 14 and that wasn't even the engineer. DM only let the rogue be a rogue if he maxed out UMD to use wands to heal an things. So our games have been pretty much destroyed by anything with any SR and AC, not to mention SLA's ( we nearly all died to a single wood golem ) it's definately better to have a spread of roles, ideally I wouldve wanted the engineer with some skills as the fun but not entirely useful character and then warblade/wizard/cleric for the other roles..... Instead we got
melée x3 and a warlock. At least the rogue has skills. Not having a spread severely limits our gameplay possibilities, our DM Knows this and gives us consistently melée based enemies....

[Vandicus]

A severe lack of attention to the game. Sure I can understand that people some times like to go on tangents while playing or have to take a call, but I don't expect to be sitting there for half an hour while someone shows off his WoW character.
Also a lack of communication. If the group doesn't usually communicate beforehand when rolling up characters about what power level they're going to play and to some degree what classes/concept/set of abilities, I know there's going to be problems when we play. Even worse is when a DM decides to reverse a ruling or ban something essential to a build and waits till the actual session to inform me, meaning I spend the next two hours during the session designing a new character who is probably greatly inferior to what I could be playing(within the given accepted power level). I have a cell phone for a reason. Likewise, I don't expect to have to call a dozen times to get ahold of a person to tell them when the next session is.

[Tetrasodium]

All alignments allowed. To a lesser extent, Evil alignments. Sure, some people can do it, but usually at the expense of party cohesion, and in my experience, having both sides of the grid in a game just derails it into a vs. fight, or at the very least generates frustration and aggravation.

evil alignment in itself isn't a problem necessarily.. CE, and Ne (to a lesser extent) are problematic. Le can be a fine addition to a group and is capable of adding a little spice if done well. A rogue who made his living stealing from people/places the thieves' guild pointed him towards before joining the party would be Le. Mybe he joins up with the party just because he was in the bar when everyone there got attacked... plus "it's hard to make a living if the big-bad kills everyone in town". Having a Le character opens up the group's options by allowing things that don't fit in with the paladin's code. How many times have you seen CG/NG/CN/NN characters that really could have been more true to themselves by simply playing Le (or possibly Ne with L leanings). Bad guys don't think of themselves as "evil", but the alignment system in d&d basically makes it impossible to play a selfish person willing to work with others but still do things like blackmail, murder, occasional torture, etc without an "evil" tag being applied... unless your doing it to an "evil" being to make it a "good" activity no matter your reasons.
a Le character allows the group to do those things they would probably do anyways and still be credibly "good" people by doing things like saying "I'm not sure murder is the best option yet... well... no... I don't have a better idea... Lets look into this [other string] and see what we can turn up [between sessions] but go with your plan if nothing comes up." Knowing this, the GM has the choice of potentially coming up with a cooler option by next session, maybe the big bad has an enemy more palatable & interesting to get involved with next session... who knows

[Rogue Shadows]

Bad guys don't think of themselves as "evil",

Mine do. And I'm not even necessarily talking about the demons and devils when I say that. I enjoy the Lord Zedd-type baddie as much as the "my cause is just!" types, and usually they end up being the "Big Bad" of any given campaign I run, with anyone else along the way being ultimately manipulated by them.

I actually pulled a quadruple blind of my players in my most recent campaign on that...the apparent Big Bad, who was openly and enjoyiably evil, was actually just helping out her Mageknight lieutenant (who was neutral), who in turn became the Big Bad but only because she wanted to re-build her homeworld, which she had accidentally destroyed, but then she was in turn supplanted by a third Bad Guy who wanted to unmake the universe just to understand how it worked (and didn't care that he was evil), before the original Big Bad showed up to try and stop him alongside the player characters, but then pulled out at the last second to let the two fight to the dead, before the third Big Bad was utterly unmade by a fourth, final Big Bad who was basically the living incarnation of Darkness.

Good times.

[Tetrasodium]

Mine do. And I'm not even necessarily talking about the demons and devils when I say that. I enjoy the Lord Zedd-type baddie as much as the "my cause is just!" types, and usually they end up being the "Big Bad" of any given campaign I run, with anyone else along the way being ultimately manipulated by them.

I actually pulled a quadruple blind of my players in my most recent campaign on that...the apparent Big Bad, who was openly and enjoyiably evil, was actually just helping out her Mageknight lieutenant (who was neutral), who in turn became the Big Bad but only because she wanted to re-build her homeworld, which she had accidentally destroyed, but then she was in turn supplanted by a third Bad Guy who wanted to unmake the universe just to understand how it worked (and didn't care that he was evil), before the original Big Bad showed up to try and stop him alongside the player characters, but then pulled out at the last second to let the two fight to the dead, before the third Big Bad was utterly unmade by a fourth, final Big Bad who was basically the living incarnation of Darkness.

Good times.
Thank you you backed up my point exactly with a cool looking campaign ;)


plus "it's hard to make a living if the big-bad kills everyone in town
D&D lacks a distinction between big E Evil and little e evil (likewise with good), it's unfortunate that it & pathfinder doesn't make it clear for folks and sticks with d&d's extreme black & white :(. Your big bad was just trying to help a comrad but was capable of losing their moral compass in doing so.... With nobody to realign the compass it veered off too far for a while until the PC's did the aligning and the new bigbad made the whole "my stuff is here with me & you unmaking reality would be a real pain" card come into play. Little e evil ;)

[Drachasor]

Hmm, things that would turn me off....

Evil groups. That's fine for other people, but honestly I just can't get into it. When I'm a player I want to be a shining beacon of light making the world a better place. That's what I really enjoy.

Paranoid groups are annoying. When I first started playing with my brother and his friends (who are now my friends), that had a few too many campaigns where party members betrayed them. Irrational trust issues grate.

DMs who don't take character abilities into account and then get angry about it. Played a Warlock in one game. Yes, I could be invisible, see invisible, and fly all the time. I knew it was a bit of a concern for the DM, so I told him how to counter everything my character could do in an email. He ignored it, then got pissed off at what my character could do.

Speaking of which, groups where there is an adversarial feel between the DM and players. Everyone should be there to have fun, not "win" over the other.

Major differences in optimizations levels between players (and, imho, often enough less optimized players do not appreciate help). I like to optimize, but I also hate making other people feel like they aren't contributing. So tend to hold myself back. On occasion that has still been a problem.

Pet Peeve with my current group: They always think I'm power gaming even when most of my characters have been underpowered if anything (e.g. gish attempts in D&D where we never got beyond level 5-7). Probably has something to do with my first game of 3.5 playing a Druid, taking Natural Spell, then being 50% of the party's combat power with hardly any effort -- that was also my first game with them. Still, you think after after enough characters that weren't really powerful they'd give me a break. Probably doesn't help that I'm pretty creative with the resources I have.

[Rogue Shadows]

Thank you you backed up my point exactly with a cool looking campaign ;)

The first Big Bad? She was Maleficent.

As in, Disney's Sleeping Beauty Maleficent. Actually her, not just based on her. It was a Kingdom Hearts campaign.

She was pure Evil with a capital E ("And now you face ME, and all the powers of Hell!"), but that doesn't mean she couldn't set aside her overarching scheme and work with the forces of good if it was to her immediate benefit.

But if asked if she was evil, she would reply "yes" without hesitation.

[Tetrasodium]

The first Big Bad? She was Maleficent.

As in, Disney's Sleeping Beauty Maleficent. Actually her, not just based on her. It was a Kingdom Hearts campaign.

She was pure Evil with a capital E ("And now you face ME, and all the powers of Hell!"), but that doesn't mean she couldn't set aside her overarching scheme and work with the forces of good if it was to her immediate benefit.

But if asked if she was evil, she would reply "yes" without hesitation.

choosing to use cartoon villains doesn't change the fact that "bad guys" don't go around thinking of themselves as evil. Your average criminal does't think of themselves as evil, maybe they will admit they are not a good person, but "evil" is for psychopaths, child molesters & rapists. Because of it's cartoon style extreme black & white alignment system, d&d lacks an alignment that could fit your average criminal element well except possibly Le

[Groverfield]

I have a few red flags, nothing worth immediately abandoning ship, but a few:

DM or PC uses a laptop at the table. It's fine for character designing, printing out sheets, and so on, but when it comes down to it, players should just have their character sheets, and perhaps a book or two for spells and reference. When a player does it, there's too high a chance that they're edit-as-you-go'ing their character sheet. When a DM does it, everything smells of fiat.

One of the players is dating or married to the DM. Air of preferential treatment, flirting behavior between that PC and every NPC.... and then some.

[big teej]

I have a few red flags, nothing worth immediately abandoning ship, but a few:

DM or PC uses a laptop at the table. It's fine for character designing, printing out sheets, and so on, but when it comes down to it, players should just have their character sheets, and perhaps a book or two for spells and reference. When a player does it, there's too high a chance that they're edit-as-you-go'ing their character sheet. When a DM does it, everything smells of fiat.

One of the players is dating or married to the DM. Air of preferential treatment, flirting behavior between that PC and every NPC.... and then some.

I find this amusing, as I fulfill both, and contradict every problem you have with either.

I use my laptop. but all of my players know that I don't flub a single thing, for or against them.

my girlfriend is one of my players, and more than once my group has accused me of being harder on her character than anyone elses.

:smallcool:


EDIT: just out of curiosity, how do you react to either of those things when you show up?

do you call the DM on gaming with their boyfriend/girlfriend and/or using a laptop? or do you just sit there brooding awaiting the "inevitable"?

[Groverfield]

I find this amusing, as I fulfill both, and contradict every problem you have with either.

I use my laptop. but all of my players know that I don't flub a single thing, for or against them.

my girlfriend is one of my players, and more than once my group has accused me of being harder on her character than anyone elses.

:smallcool:

As I noted, it wouldn't be enough to actually drive me away, but those are just some early warning signs...


D&D lacks a distinction between big E Evil and little e evil (likewise with good), it's unfortunate that it & pathfinder doesn't make it clear for folks and sticks with d&d's extreme black & white :(. Your big bad was just trying to help a comrad but was capable of losing their moral compass in doing so.... With nobody to realign the compass it veered off too far for a while until the PC's did the aligning and the new bigbad made the whole "my stuff is here with me & you unmaking reality would be a real pain" card come into play. Little e evil ;)

There kinda is, if you go into Exalted (Book of) for capitol Good, and Vile (Book of) for capitol Evil, adding the additional alignment step kinda helps someone who's just a bit corrupt, and someone who's in it to end it all, or however you want to make capitol Evil. This extra alignment step would raise a lot of questions about alignment, (such as a hero doesn't just need to be anti-evil, but actively good, charitable, and some other degree of "upholding X virtues")

[Greyfeld]

My biggest redflag is when people hold to the word of the PHB religiously. I look at every D&D book as a set of loose guidelines at the very best.

Insisting that something is correct, merely by virtue of being in a book, is a mindset that I have never been able to work with.

Depends on what you mean by "religiously." If the GM is going to run any house rules, they need to be stated up front. Unclear or debatable rules need to be cleared up in a timely fashion. But for anything and everything else, the PHB exists for a reason, and that is so there is a guidebook of rules to play the game by.

If you have no intention of playing by the rules set forth in the system, then why are you playing D&D in the first place? Play a system whose rules you agree with. Or play some freeform.


As far as my red flags go... well, I haven't played a RL game in like 6 years, all the games I play are online PbP. So, one of my biggest red flags is when I see game advertisements with crap like "70% roleplay, 30% rollplay." Generally, people that think they need to explain to applicants that they expect players who actually know how to roleplay end up being stuckup, anti-optimization jackholes.

[big teej]

As I noted, it wouldn't be enough to actually drive me away, but those are just some early warning signs...



I'm afraid I ninja'd ye with a question. if you don't mind I'd still like an answer to it. :smallsmile:

[Groverfield]

I'm afraid I ninja'd ye with a question. if you don't mind I'd still like an answer to it. :smallsmile:

I'll brood about the laptop thing, nothing I can really say, as not everyone wants to have all 30 or so 3.5 non-campaign setting books available with them at all times, but it does take away from the atmosphere.

About the girlfriend part, I don't mind as long as there's equal treatment across the board, but it does give me pause for hesitation

[ShneekeyTheLost]

When the words 'that doesn't fit the flavor' come up, I tend to go the other way very rapidly.

Also, I tend to avoid, on general principle, any group which arbitrarily banns anything on the basis of 'flavor'. I can understand banning a book based on broken content (BoED/BoVD/Races of Wild/Serpent Kingdoms...), but based on flavor?

Doubly so for any game/group which bans ToB 'because it's too blatantly anime'.

I also tend to avoid any group with a 'this is serious business' attitude.

[big teej]

I'll brood about the laptop thing, nothing I can really say, as not everyone wants to have all 30 or so 3.5 non-campaign setting books available with them at all times, but it does take away from the atmosphere.

About the girlfriend part, I don't mind as long as there's equal treatment across the board, but it does give me pause for hesitation

:smallconfused: since when does using a laptop dictate a lack of hardcopy sources?

hell, I explictly ban up front, I do not have in hardcopy (and given that I've yet to play with a group that has more books than me, if I don't have a book with me, it's effectively banned as well, as nobody else can access it.)

I use my laptop for...
charactersheets
adventure/campaign notes
initiative tracker
weather generator
the SRD
and a few other things I'm probably forgetting.


EDIT:


When the words 'that doesn't fit the flavor' come up, I tend to go the other way very rapidly.

Also, I tend to avoid, on general principle, any group which arbitrarily banns anything on the basis of 'flavor'. I can understand banning a book based on broken content (BoED/BoVD/Races of Wild/Serpent Kingdoms...), but based on flavor?

Doubly so for any game/group which bans ToB 'because it's too blatantly anime'.

I also tend to avoid any group with a 'this is serious business' attitude.

heh heh.... you would noooooooot like my groups then. :smalltongue:

[Groverfield]

:smallconfused: since when does using a laptop dictate a lack of hardcopy sources?

hell, I explictly ban up front, I do not have in hardcopy (and given that I've yet to play with a group that has more books than me, if I don't have a book with me, it's effectively banned as well, as nobody else can access it.)

I use my laptop for...
charactersheets
adventure/campaign notes
initiative tracker
weather generator
the SRD
and a few other things I'm probably forgetting.

It doesn't, but why break out your book collection that dwarves your parents three sets of encyclopedias when you can just load it all up on your lappy, or so the thinking goes. Personally, when I'm DM'ing stuff, I use a combination of my lappy and books when designing a campaign, but when running it, anything I might need should be in a book on hand, written down, or printed off.

I guess I should have noted "laptop exclusive using people," but I haven't seen someone use both at a table, so I don't know how I'd feel...
In general I think it might come down to people who use their laptop for dice, (and maybe books.)

[Greyfeld]

When the words 'that doesn't fit the flavor' come up, I tend to go the other way very rapidly.

Also, I tend to avoid, on general principle, any group which arbitrarily banns anything on the basis of 'flavor'. I can understand banning a book based on broken content (BoED/BoVD/Races of Wild/Serpent Kingdoms...), but based on flavor?

Doubly so for any game/group which bans ToB 'because it's too blatantly anime'.

I also tend to avoid any group with a 'this is serious business' attitude.

OH!! That reminds me. I avoid any game advertisement that bans a wide array of official WOTC 3.5 source books to "tone down spellcasters, and keep them from becoming overpowered." Nevermind that the wide majority of the most broken spells in 3.5 are in core.

[MlleRouge]

I'm very comfortable in my group. I'm the primary GM and like it that way, and for the most part, my players and I have similar tastes. This means that going in to other groups, there are a lot of things that I potentially don't like.

That being said, I can give most of it a chance. I don't like Tome of Battle, for example, but that's not enough for a 'red flag'. I don't like hack n' slash, but I can give it a try every now and again. Computers at the table? Distasteful, but I'll ignore it unless it gets too bad.

All things said, I have a pretty well-defined comfort zone, but I am fine taking a stroll outside it once and a while.

But good lord, the one thing I can't handle is a pretentious GM.

I've had civil GMing style discussions with plenty of other DMs/GMs/STs in my area. People with different tastes and styles. But every so often I run in to someone who thinks they are the gods' gift to role players everywhere.

His/Her games are so elegant, so fluid, and just so spiffy-shiny. We mere mortals just can't understand. As a fellow GM, I SHOULD understand, but I just don't. We exchange some notes about style and they immediately start with their condescending 'Yes, but!' statements.

People have different preferences. But if you, as a potential DM that I might play under, decide to spend a lot of time being passive aggressive towards mine, I'm just going to walk away. Disagreeing is fine, but don't be pretentious.

This has only happened a couple of times (literally twice), but it's the only thing so far that earns the person in question an immediate spot on my blacklist.

*End Rant*

TL;DR: DMs who think they are Steven Spielberg. Or Tolkien.


Other things that make he hesitate, but aren't an immediate 'no':

- Hack n' slashy tendencies (I like to optimize, but I'm more here for role playing).
- Stormwind Fallacy (See above)
- Requiring Tome of Battle for melee classes
- Big banlists, especially in the interest of nerfing tier 1 classes. To me, this is a warning sign of a control freak GM
- Hygiene problems in the group. Been there, it's not a good place to be.
- Players who can't seem to get over the fact that I am, in fact, female. Just mentioning this makes me self-conscious because of a certain breed of female gamer out there...you know, the ones who want attention. I'd personally prefer that no one at the table notice my biological sex at all. But I've played with a couple of...pretty sheltered people before. They noticed. Once again, not a good place to be.

[Balor01]

- Hygiene problems in the group. Been there, it's not a good place to be.

WTF Doods?!!? (And doodets) I mean seriously? SERIOUSLY?

I must admit I had ONE person ONCE on my D&D session who was obviously no fan of shower (and was a munchkin. and was a metagamer. and had no clue of roleplay)

But ... well it just amazes me how often this hygiene thing pops up.

And this really fast brings me to a conclusion that large percentage of nerds are passive-aggressive neckbeards who do not like to shower.

Scary.:smalleek:

[Draxar]

DM or PC uses a laptop at the table. It's fine for character designing, printing out sheets, and so on, but when it comes down to it, players should just have their character sheets, and perhaps a book or two for spells and reference. When a player does it, there's too high a chance that they're edit-as-you-go'ing their character sheet. When a DM does it, everything smells of fiat.

See, the 'edit as you go' thing is about trust, and you can still change your character sheet between games or whatever, so the main question is 'Do you trust your players'

I use a laptop 'cause I'm **** at looking after paper sheets, and 'cause I've got loads of gaming books on it, and both myself and my group tend to do fairly intricate things with our characters, needing more books.

I also like the fact that I can copy stuff from the PDFs into the spreadsheet I use for my character sheet, and then have all my character's abilities available to me in one document.


I'll brood about the laptop thing, nothing I can really say, as not everyone wants to have all 30 or so 3.5 non-campaign setting books available with them at all times, but it does take away from the atmosphere.

I'm curious how it takes away from the atmosphere; does the paper in front of you rather than a screen change things so much?

[flumphy]

I will preface my list with the statement that I don't necessarily see any of these things as "bad" or "wrong." Others have perfectly valid reasons for doing them; they just don't suit my personal playstyle.


Banning laptops or electronics. Now, I agree that it's rude to have your focus on things other than the game. You shouldn't be texting or watching videos or whatever. However, I pretty much need a laptop if you expect me to bring my gaming materials, and you really don't want me using yours. If it is in a physical copy, I will somehow unintentionally destroy it if I use it with any regularity. I am the Lennie Small of books and paper. If I can't access my character sheet or books electronically, bad-- and possibly expensive--things will happen.

Banning Tome of Battle. I hate vancian spellcasting. I don't like the flavor of psionics, and a lot of GMs ban it anyway. Without Tome of Battle, the number of viable 3.5 classes I can stand playing at a table is woefully low. Obviously, in an e6 game or a game that bans tier 1s, it isn't as much of an issue, but for some reason I run into far more groups that prefer high-power games to low-power ones.

Playing evil or chaotic stupid campaigns. I am not personally averse to playing an evil character in an otherwise-good group. Nor am I opposed to others doing so, if they can do it non-disruptively. However, I play D&D for mostly escapist purposes, and to feel like a hero...even if my character was forced into it. Other people play for other reasons, and that's cool. It's just not my thing.

Trying to run something in 3.5 to which another system is far more suited. No, you are not going to make a no-magic setting work. You are not going to make complex social intrigue using the existing skill system work. No, your houserules to make them work are not going to be more simple to implement than a different system, and, with the free stuff legally available out there, they need not be cheaper either.

[NOhara24]

2) pre-exsisting personality conflicts with players/DMs.

Going through this now. Another player and myself don't get a long when it comes to in-game judgement calls, and other things. (Him trying to get the game switched to his house despite half the party being allergic to cats...he has two.) It's just lead to us policing each other more than anything, but I'm not one for the passive agressive bull****. Example:

We're a level 5-6-7 party. Upon his character and mine hitting level 6, he said, aloud, to the party "My wolf has 79 HP." (He's a druid.) This set off my BS detector. So what did I do? I did some research and let him know that he was rolling the wolf's HP wrong. How does he react? He tries to talk the DM into letting his wolf have more HP than the Paladin with the +4 CON modifier. His reasoning was "It's up to the DM to balance the game." Thankfully the DM balanced the game by putting his wolf back in check.

A game session later, he goes out of his way to let the entire party know that another player (happens to be my girlfriend) can't cast a specific cleric spell because it happens to be evil (right as she's about to cast it). Wonderful. Derail the entire campaign for a few minutes so she can find a new spell to cast in that one's place. Thanks guy.

Worst part of it? I invited him to the campaign. Not only do I regret it, but I'm seriously considering having my Paladin/Gray Guard just fall to Blackguard to potentially get him out.

[Terazul]

Banning laptops or electronics. More on that below.

Banning Tome of Battle/Psionics/Other things. Also more on that below.

Playing evil or chaotic stupid campaigns. Yup. Especially annoying trying to play a suave LE character when there's a bunch of murderkillsteal Stupid Evils running around.

Trying to run something in 3.5 to which another system is far more suited.


The no electronics thing really bugs me: While I tend to have physical copies of my sheet for the DM's reference, I prefer my personal one in a less eraser-messy notepad format. Same with having my long description abilities in a separate file and organized by level: spellcaster's spells, psionic character's powers (and augments, good lord augments), binding abilities, pre-generated stats for specific forms with a shapeshifter, etc. How do people expect me to fit all that on the dinky lines on the sheet? Do they really want me referencing a book every couple minutes instead of having my ranges, durations, and DCs all precalculated? :smallconfused:

The 2nd and 4th points are things I can still play with (I won't throw a hissyfit that my favorite subsystems aren't included), but are often signs of a conflict in playing style: If they just outright ban it because "It's OP" or something to that extent, it shows me they have little understanding of how the system actually works, and if they ban it because "it's too scifi/animu/lovecraftian/etc", it shows me they're inflexible or are generally just biased. There's a difference between those two types of justification as opposed to "would rather not learn a new system at the moment" or whatnot. That one is acceptable (to me).

There's probably some more to that list, but that sums me up pretty well.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

OH!! That reminds me. I avoid any game advertisement that bans a wide array of official WOTC 3.5 source books to "tone down spellcasters, and keep them from becoming overpowered." Nevermind that the wide majority of the most broken spells in 3.5 are in core.

The most broken spells are in Core, but the PrC's aren't. There's a limit to how much you can break the game without, for example, Incantatrix or Iot7V. Sure, it can still be done, but without access to Genesis, they can't do so every round. Also, there are no metamagic reducers in Core, which is the heart of any truly broken build.

I do, however, see your point. Casting is broken right out of the box.

[Tyndmyr]

1. No list of house rules, character creation rules or allowed stuff at all. This indicates either gross inexperience or disorganization/inability to consistently present information. Both of these are troublesome.
2. Core only. There's really no good reason for core only other than "new to D&D". While training new players in the basics is a fine thing, I've done that. No need to relive it and take a slot from a newbie.
3. A stack of homebrew/custom setting stuff larger than a sourcebook(I once had a ream and a half of paper dropped on my counter. Never touched it). This generally indicates someone too wrapped up in their setting and what stories they want to tell. Also, that's just a lot of reading to expect from someone.
4. Chaotic Stupid anything. It gets old really quick if you're not into weird wish fulfillment fantasies.
5. Players lack basic social ability. This comes up damned quick if it's a problem. You know the type...the guy who just won't stop whining about things, or the guy who will never, ever shut up about how awesome his current/previous character is. Run fast and far.
6. Low/No Magic campaign. This almost invariably means a mundane and boring world run by a DM who can't handle/doesn't like PCs having control and/or power. Before anyone suggests it, KoK is terrible, and despite owning it, I hate it.
7. Lack of knowledge of what the rules actually are. Oh, I dislike when people don't bother to read the source books before trying to host a game.

I'm not at all bothered by electronics either way. I feel comfortable using a netbook as my character sheet or paper. Meh. I also feel no particular need for or hatred for balance. I do understand electronic bans though...sometimes people are easily distracted, and a bunch of laptops can take a lot of table space.

Sneeky, Loremaster and Archmage are two fairly highly ranked PrCs for casters. They're not the utter top, but they are definitely quite solid. Also, thanks to items, Casters still can break the game every round. Casters really get a lot less out of non-core than non-casters do.

[TheRinni]

my girlfriend is one of my players, and more than once my group has accused me of being harder on her character than anyone elses.

I play in my boyfriend's games all the time, and I find that this is often the case. I once went through seven characters in one of his games. Seven. They just kept dying on me.

That being said, I do feel more comfortable playing flirtatious characters when he's the one playing the NPCs. So I can understand this being a redflag to someone.

[CTrees]

I have one big one: while playing, the players seem more interested in something else. Why play D&D if you're just going to be on Facebook the whole session? Such players also have a tendency to ask redundant questions, and not pay attention. They impede the game's flow.

I do this sort of thing if I'm bored. Railroading, puzzle encounters with one "really obvious" solution that no one but the GM can guess, repetitive encounters with no apparent purpose... if the GM is being bad at his job, and I'm bored, I'll show it, in the hopes that the hint comes across. Passive aggressive? Yes. Unfortunately, the campaign I'm in is a big group of friends, so I really don't want to leave, and just outright complaining has been less effective a means of persuasion.

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

On laptops in general, it's a whole lot easier to carry around a laptop and a bag of dice than several books, and finding references is a TON quicker, electronically. I see it as a big aid, especially for DM'ing (need to find an obscure rule? Want a picture of what the players see? Want a specific sound effect, or mood music?). I suppose it's mostly a) a trust issue and b) are electronics being used productively, rather than being distractions.

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

My red flags? Fumble rules. House rules not being spelled out and agreed upon ahead of time. Nerfs (that my character would know about, seeing as he's the one with the ability) which aren't followed with respecs being allowed (Animate Dead is changed to rounds/level, but keeps the material component costs? And I can't un-take it or buy something else with the cash I used for all that onyx? It doesn't really feel fair...). Oh god, fumble rules. Fumble rules being applied to ray spells. Not using an actual grid for combat in D&D/PF, just kinda winging it instead (look, I'm willing to go BUY a nice mat myself, if we can just use an actual grid for combat!). "Sure, I have no problem with you making a crafting focused character," followed by zero downtime to craft, ever, during the entire campaign.

Those are really more of pet peeves, as some bother me more than others... but some of them really tick me off.

[Drachasor]

Ahh yes, that does remind me CTrees, I hate fumble rules too. They all stink and honestly it's rather crazy.

[McSmack]

I'm a pretty easy-going player, and I also typically don't play with people I don't know fairly well ahead of time. That said there are a few things that throw up some flags for me.

Monkeys. I hate monkeys. If someone has a monkey I'm turning around and heading straight out the door.

Overly complex character creation. I gamed with a new group once and the DM told me us a point buy system but then roll an additional d4 and add it to each stat. Then it was a houserule that every class got a bonus feat for having more than two levels in a single class, and everyone got two extra feats for free. Then the HD were different than standard for every class. Casters used their caster stat for bonus HP. Everyone could play a race with up to a +2 LA, but those who chose not to could pick up another bonus feat for each LA they didn't take. All told I ended up with a level 10 character with about a dozen feats. My xeph scout/warmage/Eldritch Knight was more than he could handle. Poor guy.

Making huge changes to the rules usually isn't a sign of a good DM. Changes that upset the game balance like that have to be wieghed carefully. So getting hit small novel of rules changes throws up a flag for me.


Also any campaign that starts off with the 'amazing concept' that we play ourselves, but we get sucked into the game world. Look, I'm a fat guy who spends his days at the computer of playing fantasy adventure games at a kitchen table. I don't even remotely have the skillsets to thrive in a quasi-medieval world, and having me roll myself up as a character simply reinforces how mediocre I am compared to the characters I play. So yeah red flag there.

Another one is when at the first session anyone lacks dice, a pencil/pen, or a character sheet.

[Tyndmyr]

Also any campaign that starts off with the 'amazing concept' that we play ourselves, but we get sucked into the game world. Look, I'm a fat guy who spends his days at the computer of playing fantasy adventure games at a kitchen table. I don't even remotely have the skillsets to thrive in a quasi-medieval world, and having me roll myself up as a character simply reinforces how mediocre I am compared to the characters I play. So yeah red flag there.

Oh, yeah, that's a red flag. Don't get wrong, I've played and enjoyed such games. But there's inevitably huge imbalance(I'm in pretty great shape, am a mixed martial artist, do rock climbing, am a terrific archer, and have actual sets of medieval combat weaponry that I routinely use, for instance. Others...do not. This is not great for either of us.), and there's also generally a LOT of subjectivity and disagreement in determining stats. There are a lot of ways for it to go wrong.

Fumble rules are also one I'd forgotten to mention before...

Also, monk bans. I ask why...and if they say "they're overpowered" or some variant of that, I know that balance is not really an understood thing at this table.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Sneeky, Loremaster and Archmage are two fairly highly ranked PrCs for casters. They're not the utter top, but they are definitely quite solid. Also, thanks to items, Casters still can break the game every round. Casters really get a lot less out of non-core than non-casters do.

Harder to do without Celerity, and expending resources is a good thing.

Like I said, I'm not arguing that Core casters don't rule the roost, however there's a power level difference between Core and Non-Core. Celerity, Arcane Thesis, Practical Metamagic, School Metamagic Specialization, ocular spell, twin spell, split ray, Orb of X, and Incantatrix all do a lot more for the arcane caster than anything else does for anything else. Except maybe Planar Shepherd for Druid.

Mailman, Cindy, UPS, CoDzilla (with Divine Metamagic)... all use non-core material.

Celerity alone is more powerful than most non-caster classes. Just that one spell. Because it can be loaded into contingencies. Oh, that reminds me... Craft Contingency. Again, a single ability more powerful than any non-caster and even some full-caster classes.

So yea...no. Granted, most of the broken spells are found in Core, but most of the broken combos require material outside of Core.

[Gnaeus]

"Sure, I have no problem with you making a crafting focused character," followed by zero downtime to craft, ever, during the entire campaign.


Thats a really good one. It can be more broadly applied to DMs letting in any character with a campaign inappropriate tight focus (someone specialized as a party face in a campaign that takes place entirely in wilderness/dungeons, an anti-undead character in a game with no undead, etc.) without a warning.

[Shep]

I've played in campaigns with evil characters (never a campaign where everyone was evil). I've played one evil character myself in 1e days. I've never seen it go well. When I played the evil 1/2 orc, my party turned against me when they felt I was becoming too powerful. I hadn't planned on betraying them, but it didn't matter. He was a 1/2 orc cleric assassin, and if we'd kept playing he would've been irrelevant after he reached levels 4/4. My experience has always been this way. The evil character becomes the source of interparty conflict every. single. time. It may not be intended, but it has always worked out this way. Fortunately, most groups I've been in have remained friends despite ingame scuffles, but this has not always been the case. Emotions can run high in a group, and I've lost friends as a result.

I'll never repeat my evil character experiment, and I frown on evil PC's. I don't ban anything as a DM as long as it doesn't comletely imbalance the game, but I do let players know up front that decisions can have consequences. I will allow PC's to have different power levels based on their experience with generating characters within a given rules set, but if a PC starts to dominate fights, I will have NPC's adjust tactics and focus fire on the biggest known threat if the PC group is famous. Being the frontrunner comes at a cost at times, and not all NPC's or monsters are stupid. If that fighter hits really hard and has a high armor class, don't be surprised if he often ends up having to make will saves. Of course, I don't stop the player from adapting their character with items and feats that boost will saves. I like adaptation, and it works... for as long as I've already statted adventures out. I feel like I have to adapt, too, or I'm just not challenging my players who have a lot of skill at character generation. What's an RPG without at least the possibility of death?

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Thats a really good one. It can be more broadly applied to DMs letting in any character with a campaign inappropriate tight focus (someone specialized as a party face in a campaign that takes place entirely in wilderness/dungeons, an anti-undead character in a game with no undead, etc.) without a warning.

Yea, arbitrary nerfing by negating your primary ability is the hallmark of a lazy GM.

[askandarion]

evil alignment in itself isn't a problem necessarily.. CE, and Ne (to a lesser extent) are problematic. Le can be a fine addition to a group and is capable of adding a little spice if done well. A rogue who made his living stealing from people/places the thieves' guild pointed him towards before joining the party would be Le. Mybe he joins up with the party just because he was in the bar when everyone there got attacked... plus "it's hard to make a living if the big-bad kills everyone in town". Having a Le character opens up the group's options by allowing things that don't fit in with the paladin's code. How many times have you seen CG/NG/CN/NN characters that really could have been more true to themselves by simply playing Le (or possibly Ne with L leanings). Bad guys don't think of themselves as "evil", but the alignment system in d&d basically makes it impossible to play a selfish person willing to work with others but still do things like blackmail, murder, occasional torture, etc without an "evil" tag being applied... unless your doing it to an "evil" being to make it a "good" activity no matter your reasons.
a Le character allows the group to do those things they would probably do anyways and still be credibly "good" people by doing things like saying "I'm not sure murder is the best option yet... well... no... I don't have a better idea... Lets look into this [other string] and see what we can turn up [between sessions] but go with your plan if nothing comes up." Knowing this, the GM has the choice of potentially coming up with a cooler option by next session, maybe the big bad has an enemy more palatable & interesting to get involved with next session... who knows

Characters are irrelevant. When players discuss playing evil alignment in my experience, they aren't talking about a cool character concept that could mesh well with the group while giving that spice of contrariness. If they're playing characters first and foremost, the evil tag will be added at the end. In my experience, any player or DM talking about all alignments allowed or playing evil characters (not an evil campaign) are looking to just do it for the evolz, and/or be a jerk. So far, no one who wants to play "Evil" has wanted to do so in a way that doesn't tear the game apart when the good characters find out, or just derailing the game and stopping it with their own actions. I've yet to see minor evil- everyone has to be baby-eating genocidal rape maniacs. Because, you know, that's interesting. And yeah, I've seen it done with other alignments too. Each time by people who complained they couldn't play evil.

Yeah, I love the idea in theory of different alignments working together, and if people approach the character first it's conceivable, but I have yet to experience that effect, and anyone making the demand for or explicitly stating all alignments allowed are encouraging the game to be utterly torn apart, not become a tense drama. Not in any game I've played, watched, or heard of has a player or DM demanding all alignments or to play evil created a character that would actually play well with others or created a game that sufficiently encourages the sides to work together well. Well, SilverClawShift's campaigns are amazing. And the exception.

This is different from disruptive players in general, which can be harder to spot until you're already in the game, but an emphasis on all/evil has been a clear indicator for me so far.

I just think DMs overestimate what having all alignments will bring to a table in terms of story and interaction, and players overestimate everyone else's willingness to tolerate evil behavior. Everyone wants what you described, but I've seen the attempts fall flat on their faces each time.

[Jalor]

I flat-out refuse to play with:

- Groups that use any kind of fumble/critical failure houserule. With one isolated exception (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Sameo), I've never heard of fumble rules improving the experience in any way. Except maybe for sadistic DMs.

- DMs who ban Tome of Battle. The supposedly broken things in ToB (Ruby Knight Vindicator, White Raven Tactics, Iron Heart Surge) are only broken by VERY stupid interpretations of RAW. "Arcane Swordsage" isn't even a class in the book, it's a suggestion in the Adaptation section of the Swordsage class. Non-initiator martial classes are so underpowered and poorly designed in 3.5 that I consider it the DM's responsibility to present ToB as an option.

- Anyone who calls me out for being a "munchkin" or "powergamer", but doesn't roleplay or have a backstory for their character. Yes, I optimize, but an optimized character isn't necessarily one without depth. If you complain about the damage output of my Warblade, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but if I try to make in-character small talk and you stare at me confused for a minute before quoting Monty Python, I'm probably not coming to the next session.

- Any DM with a DMPC. Don't try to tell me about this one campaign where you had one and it was still fun and rainbows and unicorns. Just because it's been done in the past without failing horribly doesn't mean it should ever be done again.

Yeah, I don't participate in 3.5 games as anything other than the DM anymore.

[Salanmander]

I flat-out refuse to play with:
...
- Any DM with a DMPC. Don't try to tell me about this one campaign where you had one and it was still fun and rainbows and unicorns. Just because it's been done in the past without failing horribly doesn't mean it should ever be done again.


Out of curiosity, does this apply to a dedicated healbot Healer, or a utility-skill-only Expert?

[Rogue Shadows]

- Any DM with a DMPC. Don't try to tell me about this one campaign where you had one and it was still fun and rainbows and unicorns. Just because it's been done in the past without failing horribly doesn't mean it should ever be done again.

What if the campaign (which is still a single campaign) has rotating DMs - say, three of them - so each DM has a DMPC, but that chracter is only a DMPC 1/3rd of the time, and the other 2/3rds of the time is just a regular PC?


Banning Tome of Battle. I hate vancian spellcasting.

But wait, you're okay with Vancian maneuvers?

Remember kids - Tome of Battle is a Vancian system!

[Drachasor]

Out of curiosity, does this apply to a dedicated healbot Healer, or a utility-skill-only Expert?

Or Squeeg the Kobold with low self-esteem?


But wait, you're okay with Vancian maneuvers?

Remember kids - Tome of Battle is a Vancian system!

It isn't really. You're thinking of it the wrong way. D&D doesn't keep track of minute details like foot stance, footwork, subtle openings, etc. Hence, maneuvers are a way to represent taking advantage of those openings and/or take advantage of your own position. Since battle is chaotic, what worked one round probably isn't going to work the next round or even the one after -- too much stuff changes even if no one moves from what square they are in.

Hence, when you use a maneuver, it is expended, not because you've used up some magic power, but because the situation that allowed its use is no longer there. That's why recovering maneuvers makes sense, because they represent that the same openings can appear again later in the battle. The Crusader definitely has the best recovery mechanic in this regard (I'll admit the Warblade and Swordsage aren't perfect). The system perhaps isn't perfect in other regards -- I could see how having a maneuver learned more than once could make sense (allowing you to ready it more than once), signifying a lot of training with finding openings for that maneuver. That said, it does a pretty darn good job.

Vancian casting is really different from this.

[Rogue Shadows]

Vancian casting is really different from this.

Ugh...

Gonna post the definition again.


1. Magical effects are packaged into distinct spells; each spell has one fixed purpose. A spell that throws a ball of fire at an enemy just throws balls of fire, and generally cannot be "turned down" to light a cigarette, for instance.
2. Spells represent a kind of "magic-bomb" which must be prepared in advance of actual use, and each prepared spell can be used only once before needing to be prepared again. That's why it is also known as "Fire & Forget magic."
3. Magicians have a finite capacity of prepared spells which is the de facto measure of their skill and/or power as magicians. A wizard using magic for combat is thus something like a living gun: he must be "loaded" with spells beforehand and can run out of magical "ammunition".

Wikipedia has the same, but shorter, defintion.

The system is Vancian because maneuvers 1) are packaged into distinct maneuvers, each one with a fixed purpose; 2) must be prepared (readied) in advance of actual use, and can only be used once before being prepared (readied) again; 3) Martial classes have a finite capacity of readied maneuvers which is the de facto measure of their skill and/or power.

In other words, it really is a Vancian system.

I don't care that it doesn't keep track of the minute details. Of course it doesn't. Neither does attack rolls or armor class. Trying to do that in a D&D game would be the height of tediousness and innanity.

But the system itself is still Vancian, which means I'm confused as to why the poster I quoted doesn't like Vancian magic but is okay with Vancian maneuvers.

[Drachasor]

Wikipedia has the same, but shorter, defintion.

The system is Vancian because maneuvers 1) are packaged into distinct maneuvers, each one with a fixed purpose; 2) must be prepared (readied) in advance of actual use, and can only be used once before being prepared (readied) again; 3) Martial classes have a finite capacity of readied maneuvers which is the de facto measure of their skill and/or power.

In other words, it really is a Vancian system.

I don't care that it doesn't keep track of the minute details. Of course it doesn't. Neither does attack rolls or armor class. Trying to do that in a D&D game would be the height of tediousness and innanity.

But the system itself is still Vancian.

It takes 5 minutes to prepare maneuvers. It doesn't take 5 minutes to regain access (you don't have to ready them again, just do a quick jig/attack or even nothing at all for the Crusader). Initiators can't really run out of bullets because of the recovery mechanic. So no, it really isn't vancian casting. There are a couple similarities, but some major differences.

So really, only (1) holds true for Initiators.

[Jalor]

Out of curiosity, does this apply to a dedicated healbot Healer, or a utility-skill-only Expert?

There's a line between NPC ally and DMPC - a fine line, but a line nonetheless. Generally, if the Healer/Expert/whatever is treated like a PC in the group dynamics of the party and remains present for a long time, it's a DMPC. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but it's not the way I do things for the DM to be so integrated with the party. In baseball, you don't see the umpire or the team manager going up to bat, and I feel the same way about DMPCs.


What if the campaign (which is still a single campaign) has rotating DMs - say, three of them - so each DM has a DMPC, but that chracter is only a DMPC 1/3rd of the time, and the other 2/3rds of the time is just a regular PC?

I've been part of an arrangement somewhat like this before, except we only had two co-DMs. One was me, and we traded off control of the same PC. Technically we still never had a DMPC, but it's similar enough that I think it still applies. The result wasn't horrible, but I still feel like it could have been much better if I or the other guy DMed full time. I wouldn't walk out right away, but I'd be wary of other bad signs (stupid alignments, forced Paladin falling, etc.)

[Drachasor]

There's a line between NPC ally and DMPC - a fine line, but a line nonetheless. Generally, if the Healer/Expert/whatever is treated like a PC in the group dynamics of the party and remains present for a long time, it's a DMPC. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but it's not the way I do things for the DM to be so integrated with the party. In baseball, you don't see the umpire or the team manager going up to bat, and I feel the same way about DMPCs.

Baseball is a zero-sum game with competing sides. RPGs are not.

[Tetrasodium]

Characters are irrelevant. When players discuss playing evil alignment in my experience, they aren't talking about a cool character concept that could mesh well with the group while giving that spice of contrariness. If they're playing characters first and foremost, the evil tag will be added at the end. In my experience, any player or DM talking about all alignments allowed or playing evil characters (not an evil campaign) are looking to just do it for the evolz, and/or be a jerk. So far, no one who wants to play "Evil" has wanted to do so in a way that doesn't tear the game apart when the good characters find out, or just derailing the game and stopping it with their own actions. I've yet to see minor evil- everyone has to be baby-eating genocidal rape maniacs. Because, you know, that's interesting. And yeah, I've seen it done with other alignments too. Each time by people who complained they couldn't play evil.

Yeah, I love the idea in theory of different alignments working together, and if people approach the character first it's conceivable, but I have yet to experience that effect, and anyone making the demand for or explicitly stating all alignments allowed are encouraging the game to be utterly torn apart, not become a tense drama. Not in any game I've played, watched, or heard of has a player or DM demanding all alignments or to play evil created a character that would actually play well with others or created a game that sufficiently encourages the sides to work together well. Well, SilverClawShift's campaigns are amazing. And the exception.

This is different from disruptive players in general, which can be harder to spot until you're already in the game, but an emphasis on all/evil has been a clear indicator for me so far.

I just think DMs overestimate what having all alignments will bring to a table in terms of story and interaction, and players overestimate everyone else's willingness to tolerate evil behavior. Everyone wants what you described, but I've seen the attempts fall flat on their faces each time.


Someone else mentioned bovd/boed, yes those introduce a more extreme version of good/evil, but the base alignments are already in the extreme black & white range to start with, basically they took the extremes and ran them out further instead of giving a middleground. As for askandarion's comments about allowing any alignment... yes it's bad, I already said that CE is a big nono (largely because of the poorly defined extreme black & white good/evil). Le and maybe Ne are a different story, but should require a conversation with the player first in most cases.


As to a peeve of mine that wiggles the redflag... GM's that won't tell you anything anout their campaign or the group's optimization level so you can make a character that fits into it.

[The Glyphstone]

Ugh...

Gonna post the definition again.



Wikipedia has the same, but shorter, defintion.

The system is Vancian because maneuvers 1) are packaged into distinct maneuvers, each one with a fixed purpose; 2) must be prepared (readied) in advance of actual use, and can only be used once before being prepared (readied) again; 3) Martial classes have a finite capacity of readied maneuvers which is the de facto measure of their skill and/or power.

In other words, it really is a Vancian system.

I don't care that it doesn't keep track of the minute details. Of course it doesn't. Neither does attack rolls or armor class. Trying to do that in a D&D game would be the height of tediousness and innanity.

But the system itself is still Vancian, which means I'm confused as to why the poster I quoted doesn't like Vancian magic but is okay with Vancian maneuvers.

ToB only meets 1) and 2) there - in a theoretically endless fight, a martial adept would never run out of maneuvers as long as he was able to take actions to refresh them. A vancian caster would eventually deplete his spell slots.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

- DMs who ban Tome of Battle. The supposedly broken things in ToB (Ruby Knight Vindicator, White Raven Tactics, Iron Heart Surge) are only broken by VERY stupid interpretations of RAW. "Arcane Swordsage" isn't even a class in the book, it's a suggestion in the Adaptation section of the Swordsage class. Non-initiator martial classes are so underpowered and poorly designed in 3.5 that I consider it the DM's responsibility to present ToB as an option.

I'd be interested to hear what "VERY stupid interpretation of RAW" is required for Ruby Knight Vindicator, or even White Raven Tactics (I assume you mean the giving yourself an extra round to play with). With Iron Heart Surge I assume you mean the "I Iron Heart Surge away Death/The Sun/Whatever" interpretation, with which I think you may have a point (technically it could be read this way, but to do so seems nonsensical).


- Any DM with a DMPC. Don't try to tell me about this one campaign where you had one and it was still fun and rainbows and unicorns. Just because it's been done in the past without failing horribly doesn't mean it should ever be done again.

I fail to see how "[having a DMPC] has been done in the past without failing horribly doesn't mean it should ever be done again," makes any sense at all. If something has worked before, isn't that evidence that it could work again?

-----

Another red flag, for me personally, is a condescending attitude on the part of the DM, or the other players. If you play a tier 1, just because you could stomp over everyone doesn't mean you should, or should mention it at every given opportunity. If you're a DM, and you're planning a fairly challenging campaign, letting someone play a Monk (without asking them what it is about the Monk they like, and offering to help them figure out a way to keep those things while remaining effective) is not cool. Stomping over your players is not cool.

On that same note, abusing the DM's position isn't acceptable. If the DM gloats about how s/he is "like unto a god" and is going to make mincemeat of the players, then I'll be leaving, thanks. I'm not looking to compete with the DM - and I'm not looking to compete with the players, either (not that it doesn't happen). I'm here to play a (mostly) cooperative game and have some fun.

[Drachasor]

ToB only meets 1) and 2) there - in a theoretically endless fight, a martial adept would never run out of maneuvers as long as he was able to take actions to refresh them. A vancian caster would eventually deplete his spell slots.

It arguably doesn't meet 2, since there's a difference between what maneuvers you have readied and which maneuvers you have that aren't expended. The process for readying new maneuvers is different than the one for making all readied maneuvers unexpended.

[Rogue Shadows]

It takes 5 minutes to prepare maneuvers.

So? The defininition cares that they have to be prepared at all, not how long it takes to prepare them.

Note that under the definition, sorcerers and bards and the like are not, strictly speaking, using a Vancian system.


It doesn't take 5 minutes to regain access (you don't have to ready them again, just do a quick jig/attack or even nothing at all for the Crusader). Initiators can't really run out of bullets because of the recovery mechanic.

So? That just means that these guns can be reloaded faster than the wizard. The definition cares that they have to be reloaded at all, not how long it take to reload them.

For an example of a non-Vancian system at work, see something like Psionics. Or better yet, the Force Power system, from either Revised or Saga Star Wars d20 RPG.


I've been part of an arrangement somewhat like this before, except we only had two co-DMs. One was me, and we traded off control of the same PC. Technically we still never had a DMPC, but it's similar enough that I think it still applies. The result wasn't horrible, but I still feel like it could have been much better if I or the other guy DMed full time. I wouldn't walk out right away, but I'd be wary of other bad signs (stupid alignments, forced Paladin falling, etc.)

In our case we each of us had our own individual characters. The closest my character was to being special was that she started out with a Keyblade (basically an artifact tailor-made to her stats), but by the end of the same session where she was introduced another character had gotten their own Keyblade, and a stated goal was to give all the players their own Keyblades by campaign's end.

That was a good campaign. Especially some of the names we came up with for weapons. "Jubilant Perforation."

[Tyndmyr]

Harder to do without Celerity, and expending resources is a good thing.

Not even a little. No celerity just means that you need to either win initiative, or use your contingency set to a command word(Oh look, talking is a free action). Foresight is a critical component of that pwnage, and that IS core. Also, casters have much better access in core to initiative boosters...so, they'll probably win that anyway.


Like I said, I'm not arguing that Core casters don't rule the roost, however there's a power level difference between Core and Non-Core. Celerity, Arcane Thesis, Practical Metamagic, School Metamagic Specialization, ocular spell, twin spell, split ray, Orb of X, and Incantatrix all do a lot more for the arcane caster than anything else does for anything else. Except maybe Planar Shepherd for Druid.

Mailman, Cindy, UPS, CoDzilla (with Divine Metamagic)... all use non-core material.

Celerity alone is more powerful than most non-caster classes. Just that one spell. Because it can be loaded into contingencies. Oh, that reminds me... Craft Contingency. Again, a single ability more powerful than any non-caster and even some full-caster classes.

So yea...no. Granted, most of the broken spells are found in Core, but most of the broken combos require material outside of Core.

Wee, you found the mailman build. Chain gating is core. A solar is more powerful than the rest of the party, most likely. Chain gating is core. Wish loops are core.

The caster can break the game wide open in core. The caster can break the game wide open outside of core. However, the incidence of broken caster stuff outside of core is MUCH lower. Try looking for broken combos that DONT rely on core.

Contingent Celerity? Relies on Foresight.

Level 1 pun-pun? Relies on core wish loops.

Those three books have the majority of broken stuff in them.


And outside of core, melee gets nice things. Like ToB.


Out of curiosity, does this apply to a dedicated healbot Healer, or a utility-skill-only Expert?

It does for me. I've made exceptions repeatedly in the past. I've always regretted doing so.

If I go out and find a hireling...that's not a DMPC. If the DM's like "hey, I've got this character sheet made up, so I can DM AND play"...then it's time to run.

[The Glyphstone]

So? The defininition cares that they have to be prepared at all, not how long it takes to prepare them.

Note that under the definition, sorcerers and bards and the like are not, strictly speaking, using a Vancian system.



So? That just means that these guns can be reloaded faster than the wizard. The definition cares that they have to be reloaded at all, not how long it take to reload them.

For an example of a non-Vancian system at work, see something like Psionics. Or better yet, the Force Power system, from either Revised or Saga Star Wars d20 RPG.



It still fails the 3) qualifier (as does Saga's Force Powers, to a lesser degree). A Vancian caster cannot have infinite spell slots without resting - he can abuse rules to have his 'rest' time be shrunk to a meaningless amount, such as fast-time personal demiplanes - but he still needs to rest. A martial adept can theoretically continue performing maneuvers forever (the Warblade is the only one who could not perform a maneuver every turn for the rest of time, the Swordsage and Crusader could).

[Rogue Shadows]

If I go out and find a hireling...that's not a DMPC. If the DM's like "hey, I've got this character sheet made up, so I can DM AND play"...then it's time to run.

I actually take offense to that. Relena was a great character who contributed to the game immensely but never once showed up any other member of the party, did anything the party couldn't, or whatnot. I did a great job balancing PC and DM responsibilities.

Heck, there was a situation where Relena was going to die - in a setting where coming back from the dead wasn't really possible - and I made all my rolls out in the open in full view of the players, just to show that I wasn't going to fudge anything!

(she ended up surviving, but due to direct PC involvement and some...wacky...hijinks on their part, not my rolls).

And I wasn't even DM 2/3rds of the time!

I'd say that this depends entirely on the DM. Being a DM can be a real chore sometimes, so if you get a DM who wants to run a DMPC, give them a chance, don't just blanket assume that they're a bad idea. And I'd say do that per-DMPC, not per-DM.

[Gnaeus]

I'd say that this depends entirely on the DM. Being a DM can be a real chore sometimes, so if you get a DM who wants to run a DMPC, give them a chance, don't just blanket assume that they're a bad idea. And I'd say do that per-DMPC, not per-DM.

I would say that you are wrong. That they are always a bad idea, under any DM. However, I would say that in the DMPCs - A way to do them Right? thread currently being debated in the Roleplaying section, so as not to derail this otherwise interesting thread with a discussion that is being had elsewhere.

[Rogue Shadows]

It still fails the 3) qualifier (as does Saga's Force Powers, to a lesser degree). A Vancian caster cannot have infinite spell slots without resting - he can abuse rules to have his 'rest' time be shrunk to a meaningless amount, such as fast-time personal demiplanes - but he still needs to rest. A martial adept can theoretically continue performing maneuvers forever (the Warblade is the only one who could not perform a maneuver every turn for the rest of time, the Swordsage and Crusader could).

Number 3 is defining that at any one given point, a Vancian system user can have only so many powers prepared. Again, it's caring that there is this limit at all.

Basically it's checking to see if the "maneuvers readied" column exists, it's not checking anything else.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Number 3 is defining that at any one given point, a Vancian system user can have only so many powers prepared. Again, it's caring that there is this limit at all.

Basically it's checking to see if the "maneuvers readied" column exists, it's not checking anything else.

Crusaders never run out of maneuvers. Ever.

[Drachasor]

So? That just means that these guns can be reloaded faster than the wizard. The definition cares that they have to be reloaded at all, not how long it take to reload them.

Bah, by your way of looking at things a crossbow is a Vancian system. Heck, a bow is too -- reloading might be a free action, but it is still reloading. And if you are that liberal in applying the term, then it loses almost all of its meaning and certainly all of its stigma.

[Shadow Lord]

Bah, by your way of looking at things a crossbow is a Vancian system. Heck, a bow is too -- reloading might be a free action, but it is still reloading. And if you are that liberal in applying the term, then it loses almost all of its meaning and certainly all of its stigma.

A Crossbow is not a Vancian system because it does not fill the first requirement.

[Tyndmyr]

I actually take offense to that.

And I wasn't even DM 2/3rds of the time!

I'm pretty sure that it can't be a DMPC when you're not the DM.

Edit: Also, ya'll are correct, Maneuvers are not a Vancian system. It bears certain similarities, yes, but it's not a straight clone. That said, I have no troubles with Vancian Casting or Maneuvers as systems. I just quibble over certain implementations at times.

[CTrees]

Bah, by your way of looking at things a crossbow is a Vancian system. Heck, a bow is too -- reloading might be a free action, but it is still reloading. And if you are that liberal in applying the term, then it loses almost all of its meaning and certainly all of its stigma.

I was just thinking, that if we're going this liberal with the definition of Vancian casting, real world firearms are Vancian. While admittedly "bullet" is a pretty darned powerful spell, it's a little silly.

Personally, I think one of the defining elements of Vancian magic is second word - magic.

[Hiro Protagonest]

A Crossbow is not a Vancian system because it does not fill the first requirement.

You ready arrows and bolts by putting them in your quiver. Your quiver can only hold so many, so you can only ready a certain amount.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Not even a little. No celerity just means that you need to either win initiative, or use your contingency set to a command word(Oh look, talking is a free action). Foresight is a critical component of that pwnage, and that IS core. Also, casters have much better access in core to initiative boosters...so, they'll probably win that anyway.



Wee, you found the mailman build. Chain gating is core. A solar is more powerful than the rest of the party, most likely. Chain gating is core. Wish loops are core. Umm... no. Mailman can take out a number of solars equal to his number of 4th+ level spell slots. Less a Plane Shift to go back to his Genesis, so he can abuse the Time trait of his pocket-dimension, and come back with his spells refreshed, the next round. Well, subjectively, it will have been 24 hours, but to outside viewers, it's only 6 seconds. Quite bluntly, Mailman can kill Solars faster than Solars can chain-gate more Solars. And they STILL won't be able to touch him.

For that matter, UPS can destroy every solar so far gated with a full-round action, through negative levels. No save, no SR, just die.


The caster can break the game wide open in core. The caster can break the game wide open outside of core. However, the incidence of broken caster stuff outside of core is MUCH lower. Try looking for broken combos that DONT rely on core. Everything relies on Core, because Core is the basis and foundation of all D&D. What you have to prove is that Core is more broken than Core + splatbooks. Or rather, that Core + Splatbooks is worse for casters than non-casters.


Contingent Celerity? Relies on Foresight. Wrong. Contingent Celerity obviates Foresight, because your contingency goes off before your Foresight would warn you about it.


Level 1 pun-pun? Relies on core wish loops. Which requires Serpent Kingdoms. Which doesn't exist in Core only.


Those three books have the majority of broken stuff in them. Wrong. I'll agree, they do have some very broken things in them (Contingency, PaO, Gate...), but the chains go completely off when you pick up things like Incantatrix or Craft Contingency. It also gives them access to Nerveskitter, which is more Initiative, weapons of Warning and... whatever the other enhancement was that further increased Initiative. So they get access to more initiative-boosting stuff out of core than anyone does in core. So again, net sum wizard.


And outside of core, melee gets nice things. Like ToB. And casters get JPM and get to do 9th level spells *AND* maneuvers. Thanks, now I win even harder.

[Rogue Shadows]

Crusaders never run out of maneuvers. Ever.

But they can have only so many known and readied at a given time, yes?


Bah, by your way of looking at things a crossbow is a Vancian system. Heck, a bow is too -- reloading might be a free action, but it is still reloading. And if you are that liberal in applying the term, then it loses almost all of its meaning and certainly all of its stigma.

Technically it's TVTropes way of looking at things, which is just an expanded version of Wikipedia's, which are the only two definitions of Vancian casting I have ever been able to find on the Internets.

In any event, a crossbow being Vancian actually makes perfect sense, because a crossbow is similar to a gun, and that's essentially what Vancian casting is - magical guns.


Personally, I think one of the defining elements of Vancian magic is second word - magic.

Well, that's why I haven't used the term "Vancian magic" but rather "Vancian system," since even leaving aside ToB, the system could easily be used to express things that aren't strictly speaking magic.

There are numerous alternatives, even within the d20 system. Psionics, Binding, Truenaming, Force powers (Saga and Revised), Slayers d20, and I'm pretty sure Monte Cook's World of Darkness, though I havent finished reading it. Heck, spell-like abilities.

[Shadow Lord]

You ready arrows and bolts by putting them in your quiver. Your quiver can only hold so many, so you can only ready a certain amount.

Incorrect. By the rules, there is nothing that prevents your quiver from holding lesser infinite arrows.

[Drachasor]

A Crossbow is not a Vancian system because it does not fill the first requirement.

Oh, you are right. Well, ToB isn't magic, so it doesn't either. All three have stuff prepackaged into distinct effects. A Crossbow Bolt is a distinct effect that is loaded into the Crossbow before being fired, has a fixed effect, etc. As someone else said, guns are like that too. If we ignore the magic part, then you could argue that tons of things are Vancian, because they are, but it is pretty meaningless to have that wide a definition, imho. "Reload" speed and when you can reload is a very significant factor, for instance.


Incorrect. By the rules, there is nothing that prevents your quiver from holding lesser infinite arrows.

Well, the quiver is technically the reload supply. A arrow is "readied" when you nock it and pull the string back. It is used when you release. After that you have to "ready" the bow/arrow again before firing. In D&D this readying process isn't even an action, but it still exists and so it is still vancian if we go by the supplied definition in this thread -- ease of re-readying doesn't matter.

[Hiro Protagonest]

In any event, a crossbow being Vancian actually makes perfect sense, because a crossbow is similar to a gun, and that's essentially what Vancian casting is - magical guns.

I must remember to save this and show it to people whenever you bring up this argument.

Edit:

Incorrect. By the rules, there is nothing that prevents your quiver from holding lesser infinite arrows.
What about in real life? Because that makes them Vancian in real life.

[Tyndmyr]

Umm... no. Mailman can take out a number of solars equal to his number of 4th+ level spell slots. Less a Plane Shift to go back to his Genesis, so he can abuse the Time trait of his pocket-dimension, and come back with his spells refreshed, the next round. Well, subjectively, it will have been 24 hours, but to outside viewers, it's only 6 seconds. Quite bluntly, Mailman can kill Solars faster than Solars can chain-gate more Solars. And they STILL won't be able to touch him.

That's irrelevant. Broken game is broken game. D&D is not primarily about PVP.

It doesn't particularily matter who wins in a punch out.

It's about if, in an encounter, the wizard destroys the entire enemy army before anyone else gets an action. That happens either way. Broken is broken.

[quoe] Everything relies on Core, because Core is the basis and foundation of all D&D. What you have to prove is that Core is more broken than Core + splatbooks. Or rather, that Core + Splatbooks is worse for casters than non-casters.[/quote]

Nah. My next D&D campaign is quite literally every book but core. This is not very problematic at all. Rules Compendium is lovely. Plenty of base classes. Plenty of spells. Plenty of Prcs.

And yknow, it has a HUGE lack of horrifically broken things.

ToB alone, though, does wonderful things for the melee/caster balance. Even underappreciated classes like, say, the bard, get lovely things for them in splatbooks. And ToB runs just fine without relying on core things.

And yes...if core is broken, then of COURSE core + splatbook is broken. That doesn't really make it the splatbooks fault, though.

[Shadow Lord]

I must remember to save this and show it to people whenever you bring up this argument.

Edit:

What about in real life? Because that makes them Vancian in real life.

This discussion is about a game. Real life is pointless in a discussion about a game.

[Rogue Shadows]

I must remember to save this and show it to people whenever you bring up this argument.

What? It's true - in fact that's what Jack Vance wanted his magic system to be like, so the resemblance isn't a coincidence.

And crossbows do resemble guns, at least insofar as the analogy is concerned. Both are ranged weapons with limited ammunition that must be reloaded once that ammunition is expended. An M16 may hold more ammunition than a crossbow but both eventually run out. And both bullets and bolts really serve only a single purpose and can't generally be "toned down" without loading a different kind of ammunition.


What about in real life?

Catgirls, etc.

[Hiro Protagonest]

This discussion is about a game. Real life is pointless in a discussion about a game.


Well, the quiver is technically the reload supply. A arrow is "readied" when you nock it and pull the string back. It is used when you release. After that you have to "ready" the bow/arrow again before firing. In D&D this readying process isn't even an action, but it still exists and so it is still vancian if we go by the supplied definition in this thread -- ease of re-readying doesn't matter.

What he said.

[Drachasor]

What about in real life? Because that makes them Vancian in real life.

If we pretend that somehow the quiver is the readied spells (which it isn't, again that's the arrow that's nocked). There are limits in the game. Everyone has a carrying capacity, arrows have weight. There's a limit to how many you can carry.

Again though, it's nocking the arrow that is readying. The quiver just means you have a limited number of times you can re-ready your arrow (that's worse than wizards!).

Edit: Really I think one of the key defining traits of Vancian casting is that it is actually rather onerous to ready spells. You can only do so once per day, need about 8 hours of rest, and then IIRC a full hour to prepare them. Going by the supplied definition, a game system when you picked a spell to cast on one round, readied it that round, then released it on the next would be vancian. That really misses the mark.

[Greyfeld]

Characters are irrelevant. When players discuss playing evil alignment in my experience, they aren't talking about a cool character concept that could mesh well with the group while giving that spice of contrariness. If they're playing characters first and foremost, the evil tag will be added at the end. In my experience, any player or DM talking about all alignments allowed or playing evil characters (not an evil campaign) are looking to just do it for the evolz, and/or be a jerk. So far, no one who wants to play "Evil" has wanted to do so in a way that doesn't tear the game apart when the good characters find out, or just derailing the game and stopping it with their own actions. I've yet to see minor evil- everyone has to be baby-eating genocidal rape maniacs. Because, you know, that's interesting. And yeah, I've seen it done with other alignments too. Each time by people who complained they couldn't play evil.

About 10 months ago, I joined a game who was looking for new players. I joined with a Neutral Evil Ranger of Lolth, while all the other characters were some semblance of good or neutral with good leanings.

The character himself was actually pretty moderate. He was definitely the "tree hugger" type, but to a little bit of the extreme. He had no problem operating within the party for the most part, but due to the way he was raised, he found it his duty to kill on sight anybody that he believed to be defiling nature. In addition, he also had a bit of a bloodlust about him. He didn't actively look for people to kill, but when given the opportunity, he would be on the front lines so he could feel the life draining away from his enemies with his bare hands.

He ended up doing things his own way a lot of the time, away from the group. Doing tracking, and scouting, and laying down the occasional threat when necessary. One time, he was left out of a side mission to rescue some miners from a collapsed mineshaft, because his beliefs would require he execute every one of those miners for tearing into the earth.

In the end, there were very few actual clashes with the other party members (except the one time when a new player who rolled up some sort of spellcaster completely ignored what I said and blatantly killed the woman I was trying to interrogate... when he passed out from using too much energy at once, my character slit his throat), but I still had him replaced, because the roleplay was becoming too intense, with the distinct differences in views clashing with one another.

I guess my point is, just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean people can't pull it off. Though it does take a special sort of character to really go along with a good-aligned group and not just feed them to the wolves.

[Rogue Shadows]

If we pretend that somehow the quiver is the readied spells (which it isn't, again that's the arrow that's nocked). There are limits in the game. Everyone has a carrying capacity, arrows have weight. There's a limit to how many you can carry.

The quiver is spells-per day, the arrows are the spells. Firing the arrow is casting the spell. The arrow serves only one purpose; to achieve a different purpose (boxing glove arrow! Handcuffs arrow! Bomb arrow!), you have to nock a different arrow.

[Shadow Lord]

If we pretend that somehow the quiver is the readied spells (which it isn't, again that's the arrow that's nocked). There are limits in the game. Everyone has a carrying capacity, arrows have weight. There's a limit to how many you can carry.

Again though, it's nocking the arrow that is readying. The quiver just means you have a limited number of times you can re-ready your arrow (that's worse than wizards!).

Incorrect. Extradimensional Spaces mean that you can have an infinite amount of things.

Each arrow does not have a distinct effect, therefore it does not qualify the first requirement.

[Rogue Shadows]

Incorrect. Extradimensional Spaces mean that you can have an infinite amount of things.

Well, there's usually a practical limit, unless your extradimensional space opens to the Elemental Demiplane of Arrows.


Each arrow does not have a distinct effect, therefore it does not qualify the first requirement.

No, each arrow has only a limited effect: hit something to put a hole in it. For different effects you need different arrows. Like this guy.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_aLzwvFGTR20/StOXNi058TI/AAAAAAAAAf4/qSC48x44apY/s320/250px-TrickArrow.jpg

[Drachasor]

The quiver is spells-per day, the arrows are the spells. Firing the arrow is casting the spell. The arrow serves only one purpose; to achieve a different purpose (boxing glove arrow! Handcuffs arrow! Bomb arrow!), you have to nock a different arrow.

Naw, because you have to ready an individual arrow before firing it. You prepare one arrow before using it, then you have to prepare another. This is particularly explicit with crossbows and bolts (without feats anyhow). According to you Vancian isn't about "X per day" effects, it is about "Prepare X, use X, need to prepare X again". The latter is exactly how each arrow works.

You can't say that Maneuvers don't fit into a "X Per day" scheme and then try to cram Arrows into one. That's not how either works. If we propose that a Vancian system needs a "X per day" system as part of it, then neither maneuvers nor bows would fit in (same as if we require an onerous re-readying system).


Incorrect. Extradimensional Spaces mean that you can have an infinite amount of things.

They have finite capacity and have weight. You can only hold so many of those spaces at once. No matter how you slice it, you can only hold so many arrows at once.* Again, this is rather irrelevant, though kinda interesting -- I suppose this whole side track of the thread is that too.

*Well, there might be a magical item that creates arrows as you use them...I think there is.

[Shadow Lord]

Well, there's usually a practical limit, unless your extradimensional space opens to the Elemental Demiplane of Arrows.



No, each arrow has only a limited effect: hit something to put a hole in it. For different effects you need different arrows. Like this guy.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_aLzwvFGTR20/StOXNi058TI/AAAAAAAAAf4/qSC48x44apY/s320/250px-TrickArrow.jpg

Incorrect, Practical Limits are useless in this discussion. An infinite amount of arrows can be created.

Defined by rules there is only one arrow, which can only have one effect, that being to injure things.

[Rogue Shadows]

You can't say that Maneuvers don't fit into a "X Per day" scheme

When did the provided definition ever mention days? It could be limited to 1/swift action and it still fits. What matters is that there's a limit at all.


and then try to cram Arrows into one. That's not how either works. If we propose that a Vancian system needs a "X per day" system as part of it, then neither maneuvers nor bows would fit in (same as if we require an onerous re-readying system).

Vancian systems need an "X per Y" system. The Y is usually, but it does not have to be, per day.

It also needs a "Cast X and it is expended until recovered," and "you can have only so many of X prepared at a given time."

[Tyndmyr]

I propose a new red flag: DM's that believe that crossbows are a Vancian casting system.

The resulting game will be very pedantic and terrible.:smallbiggrin:

[Rogue Shadows]

I propose a new red flag: DM's that believe that crossbows are a Vancian casting system.

Revision: DMs that care whether or not crossbows are Vancian.

:smalltongue:

[Tyndmyr]

Revision: DMs that care whether or not crossbows are Vancian.

Despite being suspiciously pedantic, I'll accept it!

[CTrees]

I just want to say, this discussion is both off topic and mindnumbingly tedious.

Edit: Swordsage'd, in an arguably vancian manner.

[Rogue Shadows]

Despite being suspiciously pedantic, I'll accept it!

Cool.

Personally, I don't care that crossbows are Vancian. In fact, it's what I expect: like I said, Jack Vance modeled his spellcasting system on guns, guns resemble crossbows, so of course crossbows resemble Vancian magic. But that doesn't bother me.

It also doesn't answer my original question: why does the poster not like Vancian magic, but he's okay with Vancian maneuvers?

[TurtleKing]

@Askandarion: What about my Vivisectionist? Check out that tread by the same title. To me that character is not so much as insane as just having a skewed perspective or a little bit off if you will.

I also don't like where in the first sentence the character is described as evil. I have seen some played well that was the corporate/beaucratic type Le by Silus. That kind of evil is fine with me. The kind that is not is the kleptomanic stabs-in-the-back with each character because he couldn't get the last one were he wanted it. That would be alright but the player gets his kicks out it. Seriously he was beaming when he did it. :furious::furious::furious::furious::furious:

I'll be nice enough to omit his name since he is an ok Dm, but never ever let him play.

Other than those I don't really have any except for when the DM or PCs actions are just Abyssmal.

As for the Laptops if I do have a hardcopy then I will use it otherwise it is just easier since the vast majority of mine on the laptop. It also helps to keep me sitting still than just pacing due to my ADHD.

[CTrees]

It also doesn't answer my original question: why does the poster not like Vancian magic, but he's okay with Vancian maneuvers?

My guess? The easy method to regain expended maneuvers makes it feel significantly different than Wizard-style casting. "I'll recover a maneuver now" isn't quite analogous to "guys, my adventuring day is over, I need to take a nap and sit with my books, giving enemies several hours to do whatever/ambush us." Kinda like reloading a modern pistol is a lot different in feel than reloading a mideival ballista, despite some similarities between the two weapons.

[Greyfeld]

Revision: DMs that care whether or not crossbows are Vancian.

:smalltongue:

Seriously. I just skipped over an entire page of this thread, because I just don't CARE.

[Drachasor]

Red Flag: Groups that can't have a nice pedantic discussion now and then. Even if...no ESPECIALLY IF no one cares.

Edit: I agree with CTrees on why someone can like ToB maneuvers and not like Vancian casting.

[Rogue Shadows]

Seriously. I just skipped over an entire page of this thread, because I just don't CARE.

Good for you! That is a perfectly valid stance to take.

But some people did.

Nyoro~n...

[ShneekeyTheLost]

It also doesn't answer my original question: why does the poster not like Vancian magic, but he's okay with Vancian maneuvers?

One refreshes every combat, and in some cases, every round. The other refreshes daily.

One also breaks the game, multiple ways, simultaneously, the other has a couple of open-to-interpretation abilities which STILL are not game-breaking, even at the most powerful interpretation.

One is not like the other.

[CTrees]

Red Flag: Groups that can't have a nice pedantic discussion now and then. Even if...no ESPECIALLY IF no one cares.

Don't get me wrong - in a D&D group? I'm likely the one that initiated it. In a thread? Where it's off-topic, and drags on endlessly? I'm less supportive of it :smalltongue:

[Rogue Shadows]

One refreshes every combat, and in some cases, every round. The other refreshes daily.

That they have to refresh at all is what Vancian is checking. Contrast to Truenaming. A Truenamer can use each Utterance they know at will, IIRC. They get harder to utter the more often they're used within X time limit, but they are never actually "expended" and do not have to be refreshed.


One also breaks the game, multiple ways, simultaneously, the other has a couple of open-to-interpretation abilities which STILL are not game-breaking, even at the most powerful interpretation.

This is completely irrelevant to whether or not maneuvers are Vancian.

[Shadow Lord]

One refreshes every combat, and in some cases, every round. The other refreshes daily.

One also breaks the game, multiple ways, simultaneously, the other has a couple of open-to-interpretation abilities which STILL are not game-breaking, even at the most powerful interpretation.

One is not like the other.

Iron Heart Surge All Broken Spells?

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Iron Heart Surge All Broken Spells?

I...

I think I have found my new campaign plotline

Thank you.

[Arbane]

I propose a new red flag: DM's that believe that crossbows are a Vancian casting system.

The resulting game will be very pedantic and terrible.:smallbiggrin:

Where's the thumbs-up button on this system?

ANYway, one of my red flags is GMs who've been "working on their world for years." This often indicates that the PCs are going to be insignificant plankton whose purpose is to be led on a guided tour of the Land Of Awesome, and woe betide them if it looks like they might break any of the exhibits. :smallyuk:

[Rogue Shadows]

ANYway, one of my red flags is GMs who've been "working on their world for years." This often indicates that the PCs are going to be insignificant plankton whose purpose is to be led on a guided tour of the Land Of Awesome, and woe betide them if it looks like they might break any of the exhibits. :smallyuk:

Ugh, I ran into this once. I got especially worried when he produced a nine-page map linked together of the campaign world...and then I was told that one of the races is essentially...

...um, I forget the character's name. From Tekken, the guy who looks like a ripped version of Dr. Wily. Like, they had a name based off of his (Haihachi? Something like that?) and obscene racial abilities with no LA.

Did I mention the campaign setting was based off of the Scottish Highlands?

Oh, and then we met someone named Vedrox. Here's what he said when he first appeared:

Voila! In view humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the “vox populi” now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a bygone vexation stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin, van guarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition.
The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous.
Verily this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it’s my very good honour to meet you and you may call me Vedrox.

So, yeah. Spent a long time making his world's flavor. Never thought of game balance, or an actual campaign. The entire thing was basically a re-telling of V for Vendetta, in the Scottish Highlands.

[Greyfeld]

Don't get me wrong - in a D&D group? I'm likely the one that initiated it. In a thread? Where it's off-topic, and drags on endlessly? I'm less supportive of it :smalltongue:

yeah, this is pretty much my stance. If you want to continue this ridiculous discussion, make a new thread. Don't derail this one.

[Rogue Shadows]

yeah, this is pretty much my stance. If you want to continue this ridiculous discussion, make a new thread. Don't derail this one.

Railroad plots. That's another red flag. Unfortunately they can be difficult to spot unless you've actually played a few sessions or know the DM's style ahead of time.

[askandarion]

In the end, there were very few actual clashes with the other party members (except the one time when a new player who rolled up some sort of spellcaster completely ignored what I said and blatantly killed the woman I was trying to interrogate... when he passed out from using too much energy at once, my character slit his throat), but I still had him replaced, because the roleplay was becoming too intense, with the distinct differences in views clashing with one another.

I guess my point is, just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean people can't pull it off. Though it does take a special sort of character to really go along with a good-aligned group and not just feed them to the wolves.

That right there in bold. That's what keeps happening. It can be done for a while, but each time the conflict (whether through legitimate roleplaying[questionable] or jerkery) just overloads the game, unless someone pulls back like you did. I could accept temporary characters causing strife in a group, but so far people want the EVIL to be their main PC, so I don't see it being pulled off if the clashes keep occuring and escalating.

@TurtleKing: Interesting idea in theory. Anyone I know doing this would end up turning the game into a PC conflict once their tendencies became known, unless they A. kept it quiet and managed to prevent any chance of PCs knowing, thus putting the character's central idea on the back burner (OR dragging the game down by demanding they play out everything separate from the group, turning it into a spectator session where they lovingly describe the disgusting stuff they're doing to everyone JUST BECAUSE OMG IT'S SO IMPORTANT TO THE CHARACTER DON'T TREAD ON ME)

Or B. seriously (or humorously) playing as though not knowing any better and being "educated/trained", and getting chided and limited in fulfilling the character concept by the group(getting bonked on the nose and told "NO!" when they tried to approach the prisoner with a fork).

I knew someone who played a gnoll spirit shaman once, including keeping a goblin in a bag as a snack. Played for laughs and stuff, but the player eventually admitted he was having to constrain the character's actions to remain with the group. I don't know what the outcome would have been if he hadn't moved away, but he was the sort to put the disagreeable stuff on the back burner to keep game moving.

I guess another red flag for me is banning of materials because the DM doesn't like it or doesn't know it. I guess I like DMs who can roll with the unexpected, or are willing to learn about outside material, or at least are open to it. Doesn't mean I have to use splat, but I enjoy having more options. I understand if a DM wants to control what's accessible to stay sane while running the game, but if they need that control then I'm going to end up pushing the wrong buttons as likely as not, and it's better to not mess up the DM's soup. This is also true of stuff for "story reasons". The worst games I have ever been in involved certain things being banned "for the story".

Oh, and pregenerated characters being handed out by the DM. Same worst game as banning certain things for story reasons. I guess any sign I take as the DM being a control freak is a red flag.

[KoboldCleric]

stuff about vancian casting

A heap of sand becomes a pile when there are 5,387 grains, don't ask me how I know.

On topic: Pride is a major red flag. People who are unwilling to compromise. I'm at the table to have fun, if I have to play peacemaker it's not fun anymore. If you don't know the rules, I can teach you; if you refuse to learn the rules, why are you calling your game d&d? I can't read minds; if your game only accepts traditional fantasy themes, please tell me before I bring my dinosaur-riding half-aboleth totemist to the table. I don't like Gnomes or Jar-Jar Binks, if you like either one we can't be friends. If I ask, please tell me the party make-up of your last campaign; I'm not buying that it's a state secret. I'm just trying to understand your power level (and likely playstyle) in a way I can understand it; just because you think your epic level fighter/monk/samurai was powerful doesn't mean I agree. Finally, people who ramble on and on and on, particularly if they don't split their posts into paragraphs. Those are the worst :)

[Rogue Shadows]

A heap of sand becomes a pile when there are 5,387 grains, don't ask me how I know.

...no, no. I have to ask. How do you know this?

[Jalor]

I'd be interested to hear what "VERY stupid interpretation of RAW" is required for Ruby Knight Vindicator, or even White Raven Tactics (I assume you mean the giving yourself an extra round to play with).



"You can expend a turn or rebuke undead attempt to gain one additional swift action this round."

One action this round, I would assume, means ONE action this round. What's more, both of the examples concern ONE SINGLE additional action. So no, you can't run at supersonic speeds using it with Travel Devotion.



"When you use this maneuver, select an ally in range."

Last time I checked, "Target: an ally" meant you can't target yourself. If they meant for you to be able to use it on yourself, it would say "Target: self or an ally" or something like that

[KoboldCleric]

...no, no. I have to ask. How do you know this?

Well you see, my people have this Oracle ...

[TurtleKing]

Thanks for the input I was curious as to what could happen. That is also a reason why I am leaving the cannibalistic part at maybe since it could go that way or not based on the interactions with others.

Pregenerated characters is another one that just irks me.

[Sucrose]

That they have to refresh at all is what Vancian is checking. Contrast to Truenaming. A Truenamer can use each Utterance they know at will, IIRC. They get harder to utter the more often they're used within X time limit, but they are never actually "expended" and do not have to be refreshed.



This is completely irrelevant to whether or not maneuvers are Vancian.

And whether maneuvers are Vancian is likely irrelevant to flumphy's enjoyment of them.

You do not have any indication that what flumphy disliked about Vancian casting was specifically that it was Vancian. It could be that he dislikes having to prepare the right tools for an entire day, but is fine with preparing the right tools for a given fight. It could be that he dislikes the length of reload time for Vancian casters, and is fine with the shorter reload time of initiators of maneuvers.

As has been pointed out, there are major differences between the types of Vancian systems that casting and maneuvers are. It likely isn't the fact that reloading occurs at all that bothers flumphy, since he's mentioned that he does, in fact, enjoy Tome of Battle classes.

Finally, I'll point out that your definition of Vancian is uselessly broad. It doesn't just include bow and gun attacks: sword strikes in a full attack would fall under it as well.
1)Each has a discrete effect, a chance to cause HP damage to the enemy, at progressively decreasing odds of success
2)Each must be prepared by first having the proper weapon on hand, and second by raising your weapon to strike. In addition, if you fail to prepare properly by getting adequate sleep for the night, you suffer decreased odds of successful attack (fatigue).
3)There is a limit to the number of attacks you can make before your next full attack (you reload on your next turn).

On-topic, red flags for me as a player are:
-Tendencies to see classes as in-game constructs. I can work around this, but it indicates Stormwindish leanings frequently enough that if it's one of the first things I learn of a group, I will often shy away from it.
-Serious Business attitude. We are in someone's basement, or on the net, pretending that we are elves and dwarves. This is not some incredibly important thing that absolutely must be done without off-topic chatter. It's still a social gathering, so not showing up or showing up late without informing the host is still rude, but so long as everyone's enjoying themselves, there's nothing wrong with shooting the breeze for a while before getting down to business.

[Circle of Life]

Groups that flatly disallow homebrew: Yes, some of it is dross. Perhaps that's what these people have seen so far, I don't know. But when you give me that pretentious "published classes are the only ones done right" BS with whatever wording you like, I want to turn around and leave right there.

DMs that follow RAW religiously: This is not the same as abiding by the rules for the most part, before someone jumps on me for wanting to play freeform. This is for all the times I've heard "well the rules don't say you can do that, so you can't, end of discussion". Yes, I realize the climb skill doesn't specifically mention swinging on chandeliers; I wouldn't have asked you what the DC to do so and reach that balcony was if it did, now would I? So much for my dramatic escape, guess I'll use the front door. Thanks, guy.

[BoutsofInsanity]

hmm, body odor and facial care, if you arent putting on deoderant or shampooing your hair and stuff before you get to my table, you can leave and then come back. (games are normally at my house) Also dressing nice is somthing I prefer, not ratty sweatpants and a dirty t shirt, its just depressing. Lets not spread the nerdy sterotype anymore please.
I have personal experiance to where my entire house smell changed from body odor. It was awful. Thats the main one.

People who get too excited
People who like to out of game chatter to much
Large groups 6+
Young players
Players who wont get into character
And dms who say no more then they say yes.

[Dusk Eclipse]

One action this round, I would assume, means ONE action this round. What's more, both of the examples concern ONE SINGLE additional action. So no, you can't run at supersonic speeds using it with Travel Devotion.



Last time I checked, "Target: an ally" meant you can't target yourself. If they meant for you to be able to use it on yourself, it would say "Target: self or an ally" or something like that

Iirc the PHB defines yourself as an ally (due the wording of inspire courage) in the glosary; but I am afb right now so I can't check

[darksolitaire]

You're recalling is indeed very correct.


ally: A creature friendly to you. In most cases,
references to “allies” include yourself.

[The Glyphstone]

Where's the thumbs-up button on this system?

ANYway, one of my red flags is GMs who've been "working on their world for years." This often indicates that the PCs are going to be insignificant plankton whose purpose is to be led on a guided tour of the Land Of Awesome, and woe betide them if it looks like they might break any of the exhibits. :smallyuk:

I've been working on my world for years, but that's mainly because I have the progress and motivation of an anemic snail, so it's still hardly done, and unsuitable to run any games in yet...

[Andorax]

Not the only issue, but the only one that is absolute non-negotiable with me.

I will not DM for, nor play with, anyone who is 'fuzzy' about the differences between a completely fictional game and real life. Anyone who starts talking about casting "real" spells, and you would have a hard time measuring the time it takes me to be out of there in whole seconds.

Sadly, I've had to deal with this before.

[Rogue Shadows]

And whether maneuvers are Vancian is likely irrelevant to flumphy's enjoyment of them.

Perhaps, but I want to know why he's specified he doesn't like Vancian spellcasting, but he does like maneuvers, which are Vancian. Is the flaw with the Vancian system? If so then he might not actually know what Vancian means. Is it he just doesn't like how in D&D, magic is obscenely powerful? That's not the Vancian system's fault, that's the fault of the individual spells, which simply exist inside the system.


You do not have any indication that what flumphy disliked about Vancian casting was specifically that it was Vancian. It could be that he dislikes having to prepare the right tools for an entire day, but is fine with preparing the right tools for a given fight. It could be that he dislikes the length of reload time for Vancian casters, and is fine with the shorter reload time of initiators of maneuvers.

Well, that was the point of my question, wasn't it? I wanted to understand what he meant, and why he specified Vancian casting but seems fine with maneuvers, which are Vancian.

Is he okay with Binding and Truenaming? Neither are Vancian. What about at-will spell-like abilities?


Finally, I'll point out that your definition of Vancian is uselessly broad.

It's not my definition. It's TVTropes' definition, which is an expansion and clarification of Wikipedia's definition, which are the only two places I have ever found that actually define Vancian in a useful sense. It's the closest thing to an official definition there is.


It doesn't just include bow and gun attacks: sword strikes in a full attack would fall under it as well.
1)Each has a discrete effect, a chance to cause HP damage to the enemy, at progressively decreasing odds of success
2)Each must be prepared by first having the proper weapon on hand, and second by raising your weapon to strike. In addition, if you fail to prepare properly by getting adequate sleep for the night, you suffer decreased odds of successful attack (fatigue).
3)There is a limit to the number of attacks you can make before your next full attack (you reload on your next turn).

Note that (2) doesn't actually work, because while you need to have the sword in hand, the sword is not expended when you have completed the full attack. The same sword can be used to make as many full attacks as you are capable of, as often as you are capable of. On the other hand, once you cast fireball, it is expended entirely if you prepare spells. You can cast another prepared fireball, but it is just that: an entirely seperate spell, not the same spell used again.

(casters who do not prepare spells, i.e. sorcerers and bards, are not, technically speaking, Vancian casters)

[Tetrasodium]

can we take the vanican debate elsewhere?

[Rogue Shadows]

can we take the vanican debate elsewhere?

...why?

EDIT
This is the third page in a row where I've managed to grab the first post of the page. Woo!

[Claudius Maximus]

Because it seems off topic, and several posters have expressed a desire not to read it in this thread?

Seriously, you should make a new thread for it, if only to prevent such complaints. Call it "What Makes a System "Vancian?"" or something.

[Bovine Colonel]

Because it seems off topic, and several posters have expressed a desire not to read it in this thread?

Seriously, you should make a new thread for it, if only to prevent such complaints. Call it "What Makes a System "Vancian?"" or something.

+1.

On topic, well, I can't actually really say anything since I've only ever been in one group. :smalltongue:

[CTrees]

+2

(+1 Keen, if I have the choice)

[Howler Dagger]

Because it seems off topic, and several posters have expressed a desire not to read it in this thread?

Seriously, you should make a new thread for it, if only to prevent such complaints. Call it "What Makes a System "Vancian?"" or something.

+3.

More on topic, i really hate DMPCs that always magiclly make monsters rolls minimum damage and always suceed saves. And when the players protest, he says, "What do you mean im fudging rolls in favor of my DMPC?" and also refuses to make his rolls out in the open, or lets us(the players) do some rolls for him.
Also, DMs who cant understand the CR system. IIRC 1 monster of a CR 1= Good encounter for 4 level 1 PCs. So he sends 3 of them at us. He does know that their are monsters with fractional CR for a reason, right?

[The Underlord]

okay in know specifaclly that SID is talking about me because what REALLY happended was i sent some CR1 snake (3) for an ecounter, my DMPC barbarian rolled minimum damge for the bite and passed the fort saved(not suprising good con and good base fort save) Then his cleric gets bit by a snake and rolls minimum damage and fails the fort save. Then when he hits the snake and almost kills him and the 3rd snake movevs to him, he explodes at how i was 'favoring my DMPC" when he got same damage and failed the save. Also about the CR thing, their are challenging encounters for a reason.
Im not gong to go any further with this so im done.

[Knaight]

I will not DM for, nor play with, anyone who is 'fuzzy' about the differences between a completely fictional game and real life. Anyone who starts talking about casting "real" spells, and you would have a hard time measuring the time it takes me to be out of there in whole seconds.

Sadly, I've had to deal with this before.

Seriously? I've never seen this issue crop up with people in role playing games, and it just seems odd that it would. There goes what little optimism I had left.

[Claudius Maximus]

There's a guy in my group who appears to have at least some belief in magic (and seems to be a worshiper of the old Norse gods). It's not a big deal or disruptive at all though because we have an unspoken agreement to keep politics and religion out of our conversations.

Also my aunt literally wrote a book about casting spells. So these people are definitely around, though they can be perfectly reasonable and agreeable folks and thus aren't a red flag for me personally.

[Angry Bob]

Four-page argument about vancian spellcasting

VLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRGGGGGGGJGJJJJJLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLFFFFFFFFF

Ahem.

Red flags:

DMPCs, already been mentioned. I've had a pretty bad one and a tolerable one, but this would be a red flag, not a reason to quit instantly. After all, I may get to kill it one day.

Declaring your game "low magic" doesn't really do anything. In fact, it just makes people want to play casters since we now know there won't be any magic items on sale anywhere. What are you going to do? Tell us that only one of us can play a wizard and the rest of us have to be fighters?

The DM having NPCs hit on the female player's character. Seriously not smooth, especially when it got to the point where the rogue decided to sneak attack the guy and the psion burn the body to ashes just to make the slimy feeling go away.

Anyone using the term vancian. After reading the aforementioned arguement, I appear to have developed a rash over a significant area of my skin. Just typing the word makes it itch violently. I do not feel that I could play a game with anyone that used that word more than once a month or argued about its definition for any length of time.

[big teej]

hmm, body odor and facial care, if you arent putting on deoderant or shampooing your hair and stuff before you get to my table, you can leave and then come back. (games are normally at my house) Also dressing nice is somthing I prefer, not ratty sweatpants and a dirty t shirt, its just depressing. Lets not spread the nerdy sterotype anymore please.
I have personal experiance to where my entire house smell changed from body odor. It was awful. Thats the main one.

People who get too excited
People who like to out of game chatter to much
Large groups 6+
Young players
Players who wont get into character
And dms who say no more then they say yes.

gee.... sounds familiar... :smalltongue:

slightly serious..... your house's odor changed after those sessons? :smalleek: I don't remember it being that bad...... tho that sounds totallly in character for me...



can we take the vanican debate elsewhere?

please.



...why?


because I started this thread to better myself as a DM and find out what sends up red-flags for people.

not to discuss a magic system taht I can't even figure out how to pronounce.

[BoutsofInsanity]

Yes, my whole kitchen and downstairs was changed, you werent there, it was during school, there is a reason we have all our games outside. Ps. I was at the beach with the intent to work on my dand stuff, it did not occur.:smallannoyed: I instead enjoyed many books and the beach and a tiki bar that served sweet tea.:smallbiggrin:

[Rogue Shadows]

not to discuss a magic system taht I can't even figure out how to pronounce.

Van-see-an. It's named after Jack Vance, who's last name is pronounced like the word "lance."

[big teej]

Yes, my whole kitchen and downstairs was changed, you werent there, it was during school, there is a reason we have all our games outside. Ps. I was at the beach with the intent to work on my dand stuff, it did not occur.:smallannoyed: I instead enjoyed many books and the beach and a tiki bar that served sweet tea.:smallbiggrin:

oh, so not one of the sessions with -that- particular person who shall not be named?



Van-see-an. It's named after Jack Vance, who's last name is pronounced like the word "lance."

thankee... I've been trying to pronounce it like vatican the whole time :smalltongue:

[MlleRouge]

WTF Doods?!!? (And doodets) I mean seriously? SERIOUSLY?

I must admit I had ONE person ONCE on my D&D session who was obviously no fan of shower (and was a munchkin. and was a metagamer. and had no clue of roleplay)

But ... well it just amazes me how often this hygiene thing pops up.

And this really fast brings me to a conclusion that large percentage of nerds are passive-aggressive neckbeards who do not like to shower.

Scary.:smalleek:


I'm not trying to imply any sort of negative gamer stereotype :smalltongue: If I were to guess why this keeps getting mentioned, I'd guess it's because this particular problem is...memorable. Not common, but memorable.

That's why I mentioned it, for sure. Plus, this is off-putting in all aspects of life, not just gaming.

[Balor01]

@MlleRouge
Yeah, I guess so. Often as not, when something strange happens (rarely) like someone being ultra anti-social or stinky, I remember to a comment a friend of mine (Epic D&D player, very nice, very social) once said: "Hey, what do you expect, it's D&D?", meaning there is a percentage of stereotype-like people in this game too and they will pop up now and again. Of course, they do not need to be accepted into our group.

[Ashram]

Yes, my whole kitchen and downstairs was changed, you werent there, it was during school, there is a reason we have all our games outside. Ps. I was at the beach with the intent to work on my dand stuff, it did not occur.:smallannoyed: I instead enjoyed many books and the beach and a tiki bar that served sweet tea.:smallbiggrin:

On your previous post, I can understand going through basic hygiene, that's a courtesy and a given. But really, some parts of it, like "facial hair" and "dressing nice", kinda sound like you want D&D time at your house to be like going to church.

I shower every day. I also don't shave for stretches of time, because I like having a beard, and my line of work doesn't really care. I also like to wear comfortable (Not tacky) clothes. Does this mean I would be potentially turned away from your house because I'm too "nerd" for you?

Anyway, a few red flags for me:

- Any DM who fancies himself a writer/his campaign to be very story-heavy (Already mentioned)
- Someone mentioning that another player has an erratic work/school schedule
- Someone mentioning that another player is a moocher in any capacity
- The DM saying no more than yes (Sometimes known as a hard-ass) or visa versa (Sometimes known as a pushover)
- The DM having a history of really bad fiat decisions because "he said so" with no legitimate reasoning
- A would-be DM saying, "I need more time" when writing his super-special D&D/Pathfinder game.

[Tyndmyr]

On your previous post, I can understand going through basic hygiene, that's a courtesy and a given. But really, some parts of it, like "facial hair" and "dressing nice", kinda sound like you want D&D time at your house to be like going to church.

Why not? Both of these things are social activities.

Also, there's a difference between dressing nice and dressing up. He doesn't seem to demand suit and tie, but having clothing be clean, appropriate, and well fitted is just basic social stuff. I fear though, it can't be taken for granted at any given game shop among the clientele.

There's also a difference between having facial hair and just not taking care of facial hair. Far too often, the bearded types are just "I stopped shaving and caring about how it looks".

[bokodasu]

The DM having NPCs hit on the female player's character. Seriously not smooth, especially when it got to the point where the rogue decided to sneak attack the guy and the psion burn the body to ashes just to make the slimy feeling go away.

Ugh, this. Especially when the female player is playing a male PC and the DM still has male NPCs hitting on him, but not in an "all NPCs are mysteriously gay" sort of way which would actually be ok (if somewhat odd), but rather in an "ooh, girl at the table, let's bust out the fakey olde-tymey talk and shiver her spine with chivalry!" sort of way, which is 100% CREEPY AND WEIRD.

Although that's not really a red flag, more of an array of 150-decibel klaxons and a full set of red-and-blue strobe lights going off, with a firework finale that spells out "RUN AWAY NOW DON'T EVEN STOP FOR YOUR COAT GO GO GO!"

Red flags are more things like being overcontrolling - "here's your character sheet, it has your prepared spells listed on it and you don't even have to worry I'll redo them between sessions" or "you head into the forest. After resting for the night, you find that you've all been teleported to the place I wanted you to go but I couldn't just SAY that because then you'd accuse me of being controlling" or unprepared "You're, uh, like, in a tavern" or "hay guyz let's all spend the next four hours making my character ok?" (I mean, ONE That Guy is ok, but an entire group of them is a big warning sign that very little fun is in the works.)

[Gnaeus]

Seriously? I've never seen this issue crop up with people in role playing games, and it just seems odd that it would. There goes what little optimism I had left.

I've seen it. I have never actually seen it in a tabletop game, but I have seen it in LARPs, and if it can happen there it could happen in tabletop. For the person that springs to mind, it got creepy when he started answering the phone with his character's name, and the fit he threw when that character died was unreal.

Edit: Some people do practice magic as part of their religion. Taking offense at them for casting "real" spells would probably be rather insulting to them. But that isn't a game/reality issue.

[Andorax]

There's a guy in my group who appears to have at least some belief in magic (and seems to be a worshiper of the old Norse gods). It's not a big deal or disruptive at all though because we have an unspoken agreement to keep politics and religion out of our conversations.

Also my aunt literally wrote a book about casting spells. So these people are definitely around, though they can be perfectly reasonable and agreeable folks and thus aren't a red flag for me personally.

Nothing personal against folks like that...they're welcome to their beliefs, and (assuming no other disturbing behaviors) would have them over for a bbq.

I just won't game with them.

[Gnaeus]

Nothing personal against folks like that...they're welcome to their beliefs, and (assuming no other disturbing behaviors) would have them over for a bbq.

I just won't game with them.

Why? If you don't have a problem with them in your house, what is the problem with them at your gaming table? I can assure you that most neopagans and other practitioners of ritual magic can tell the difference between their religious practices and a game of D&D. I'm sure that there are a few who can't, but there are crazy people in any religion or absence thereof.

[The Glyphstone]

Great Modthulhu: While this could be a potentially fascinating topic, discussion of real world religion or religious practices (even in context of gaming) is an Inappropriate Topic. Please cut off this line of discussion, or take it to private PMs for now, before it goes any further.


On-topic, a lot of my personal red flags have been mentioned. "Psionics is broken" is a big one, because it says a lot about the group's knowledge of the game as a whole.

[BlueInc]

Honestly, I'm most concerned about Vatican spellcasting. Have you ever played a game DMed by the Pope?

Me: "I shoot an arrow at the Rampaging Gazebo!"

Pope: "You can't do that."

Me: "Why not?"

Pope: "I'm the DM and I'm infallible. What's your AC again?"

[Greenish]

One action this round, I would assume, means ONE action this round. What's more, both of the examples concern ONE SINGLE additional action. So no, you can't run at supersonic speeds using it with Travel Devotion.You know the RAW reason why you can only use Divine Impetus once a round?

It's a standard action.


Good encounter for 4 level 1 PCs. So he sends 3 of them at us. He does know that their are monsters with fractional CR for a reason, right?Meh, the CR system really isn't very accurate. See, for example, That Damn Crab or Revived Fossil Baboon.


My red flags?

Not being told the houserules beforehand. "I'll tell you when they come up" is not cool. Same for using a printed setting and not telling what chances you're made to the setting ("Oh, and by the way, king Boranel is a half-dragon. Yeah, Argonnessen is totally cool with that.").

"Core-only". There's nothing wrong with that, but it tells me you want to run a different game than the one I want to play in.

[big teej]

Why not? Both of these things are social activities.

Also, there's a difference between dressing nice and dressing up. He doesn't seem to demand suit and tie, but having clothing be clean, appropriate, and well fitted is just basic social stuff. I fear though, it can't be taken for granted at any given game shop among the clientele.

There's also a difference between having facial hair and just not taking care of facial hair. Far too often, the bearded types are just "I stopped shaving and caring about how it looks".

to clarify slightly (as I am 99% sure I know who he's talking about)

allow me to contrast slightly.
when I show up to a game, I show up comfortable. if we're gaming inside someone's house and we're meeting at like 8-10 am, I will most likely show up in some combination of baggy T shirt, sweatpants/gymshorts and/or muscle shirt.

if we're gaming outside in the heat, again, I'm most likely to show up in a muscle shirt and some shorts.

I also have a rather impressive goatee, and occaisionally I get lazy and don't keep close-shaven. but I'm still presentable (I'm going out in public after all)


contrast this player, who seems to view Hygiene as "something that happens to other people" and positively reeks. to the point where more than once I became self conscious and began to wonder "is that me?" and then I realized, it was not.... I then realized the offending player was at the opposite side of the table. we were sitting on opposite ends.... long ends!

this player didn't maintain their facial hair (or their head hair) in the slightest.

this was all nicely contrasted by them (without fail) wearing khaki pants and a collared shirt.

twas lovely....

I'm leaving out all other issues, instead focusing purely on hygiene, as I'm afraid the forums may cower over full exposure to his sterotypicalness.

[Rogue Shadows]

Pope: "I'm the DM and I'm infallible. What's your AC again?"

Technically he's only infallible under certain, specific conditions - ex cathedra proclamations, which have only been done twice in modern history. DMing a game probably isn't one of those incidents.

Probably.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Technically he's only infallible under certain, specific conditions - ex cathedra proclamations, which have only been done twice in modern history. DMing a game probably isn't one of those incidents.

Probably.

You would also insta-kill any fiends you swing at, though you always miss when you attack celestials.

[Tyndmyr]

Nothing wrong with khaki's and a collared shirt...but it's certainly not a substitute for basic hygiene, I agree.

[big teej]

Nothing wrong with khaki's and a collared shirt...but it's certainly not a substitute for basic hygiene, I agree.

was referring more to the irony.

everyone else at the table was fairly casual (with me probably ranking the most casual) and he was without fail the "nicest" dressed....

except that.............. not. :smalltongue:

[TurkeyBlizzard]

Me: "I shoot an arrow at the Rampaging Gazebo!"

Your post made me literally lol.

"I attack the darkness, I'm using 'Magic Missile'". Anyone?

I've fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your view) mostly played in a groups of people that I was previously friends with, and on occasion, a friend of a friend would join and either stick or not stick with the group. So, most redflags that people have mentioned were usually dealt with by throwing small items at the offender- at least in our immature high school days (I've known these guys for a quite a while).

Things that bother me:

DMs who don't take their job seriously. Yes, its a game, its meant for fun, but its also escapism, like a good book. Once a groupmember DMed, and my lv1 sorcerer somehow was made to believe (due idiotic knowledge of the bluff rule) that the dungeon he was in was literally filling up with melted cheese. Needless to say, that individual is barred from DMing.

People who play child characters. In a world of fantasy violence and potential sexuality (I'll talk about that one next), a child hero rarely belongs. One groupmember tried to play a 10-year-old girl monk, who was childish despite living magically in a monastery for 1000 years and not-aging. It didn't sit well with anyone in the group, and that character was subsequently possessed by our groups enemies (and the DM), and the rest of us joyfully destroyed her.

Sex in D&D. If you want to go have sex, go do it in real life. Flirtatious behavior in general (especially in a group of males, or in a situation where one of players in another girlfriend), it leads to awkwardity. No need for that. If you wanna go track down a prostitute for your toon, fine, but the words "Galstaff goes and tracks down a prostitute for fun" sums it up pretty well.

[BlueInc]

Your post made me literally lol.

Never heard the story of the killer gazebo (http://www.dndadventure.com/html/articles/gaming_stories.html)?

[TurkeyBlizzard]

Hahah, excellent. No, I hadn't heard that story, its a gem!, but I was laughing also at your pope references. I was glad I wasn't the only one who kept thinking "Vatican" when someone said "Vancian".

[Greenish]

Never heard the story of the killer gazebo (http://www.dndadventure.com/html/articles/gaming_stories.html)?He probably laughed because he's familiar with the story. :smallamused:

[Edit]: …Or not. :smalltongue:

[TurkeyBlizzard]

I've witnessed my fair share of mistakes and DM frustration though. I almost want to start an entirely new thread for people to post those :D

[Hiro Protagonest]

I've witnessed my fair share of mistakes and DM frustration though. I almost want to start an entirely new thread for people to post those :D

There already is one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192060).

[Alanzeign]

Most of mine have been mentioned by other people.

A big one for me though is sandbox games. If 3 people sit down at a piano and start improvising, it probably isn't going to be very good. If they get lucky and latch on to something they find in common, maybe they can start something but it is so small and undeveloped.

If three people sit down with a style in mind and a theme to work with (campaign setting maybe?) then their improv will probably be loads better. Having a world built or a general design for things doesn't seem bad to me, it seems good. If the DM is unable to be flexible when the PCs come in and tear around the world like the crazy people they are then there's the real problem.

I guess I don't see content as a problem, but rather the inability to adjust and compromise.

-edit- I don't hate sandbox games, but I have to be in the right mood for them. Usually I'd like more content that isn't drummed up out of thin air on the spot, cause it's usually better. Good improv is the hallmark of a great DM, but if they have to do it for everything rather than when responding to the PCs 90% of the time it seems to go downhill in quality fast.

[Salanmander]

... Good improve is the hallmark of a great DM, ...

I totally agree with your thoughts on sandbox (well, that and I tend to get bored with sandboxy things in general), but I have a minor...really, inconsequential nitpick.

I just have to point it out...

Because I'm neurotic...

The shortening of "improvisation" is "improv", not "improve".

[Alanzeign]

That's what I get for not proofreading. Thanks!

[Yahzi]

2. Core only. There's really no good reason for core only
Except for flavor. I ban monks, too, because they don't fit the flavor. To be fair I'm probably trying to recreate the flavor of 1E though.


The only real screaming red flag I have is a DMPC.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Another red flag - DMs who can't separate flavor from mechanics.

[Greyfeld]

Except for flavor. I ban monks, too, because they don't fit the flavor. To be fair I'm probably trying to recreate the flavor of 1E though.


The only real screaming red flag I have is a DMPC.

What's the flavor, exactly? Tolkien?

Because I hear there are systems out there dedicated completely to LotR if you want to play a tolkien game that badly.

[Greyfeld]

Another red flag - DMs who can't separate flavor from fluff.

I fixed that for you. Not because I'm trying to be a jerk, but because I think the issue really comes down to the fact that a lot of people don't seem to understand the difference between fluff and flavor.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

I fixed that for you. Not because I'm trying to be a jerk, but because I think the issue really comes down to the fact that a lot of people don't seem to understand the difference between fluff and flavor.

I fear I may be one of those people - would you care to enlighten me? Perhaps, if you view it as necessary, in a different thread (as to not derail this one)?

[Grendus]

Oddly enough, I've never had problems with DMPC's, so long as they're inconsequential to the story. If the DM wants to roll up a barbarian and cleave monsters with the rest of the group, that's fine. Now, if the DM decides to roll up a rogue and then has a dungeon with a lot of traps, that's a problem, he's arbitrarily making his character more useful. If the DMPC becomes the focus of an arc, that's a problem. If the DMPC starts having rolls fudged in his favor, or starts having tailor made loot show up, or starts showing greater leeway in builds than other characters, that's a problem.

But if the DM just wants to build a hack and slash character so he can win battles without it being a TPK, that's fine. Works better in hack and slash heavy groups though, I can see where DMPC's in an intrigue based game could be problematic.


Biggest red flag to me is too many people. Once you get past five or six the game becomes a litany of "wait, what" and "why are we here again". Doubly so if some of the players are younger and have limited attention spans.

[Salanmander]

Another red flag - DMs who can't separate flavor from mechanics.

So, the flavor /of the in-game world/ is pretty separate from mechanics. But based on Yahzi saying that he was trying to recreate the flavor of 1e, I think he was talking about the feel of the game system itself. Is that correct Yahzi?

At that point, the mechanics will drastically influence how the game feels. If you want to play a game like 1e, 3.5 core only will do it better than 3.5 with everything. (Of course, 1e will do it better still, but that's somewhat tangential.)

[Greyfeld]

I fear I may be one of those people - would you care to enlighten me? Perhaps, if you view it as necessary, in a different thread (as to not derail this one)?

While the concepts of Flavor and Fluff are linked fairly tightly together, they're distinctly different in their interactions with a game's mechanics.

On the one hand, fluff is about creating a plausible explanation for an ability that holds true to the rules of the world the character operates in. It's about creating an RP-centric reasoning for how a Warblade is able to clear the poison in his system by focusing really hard (Iron Heart Surge, anybody?).

On the other hand, flavor deals directly with the feel of how the mechanics operate. While fluff is directly involved with how something is roleplayed and presented in the world, flavor is influenced by whether the action being taken is a spell, or a maneuver, an innate racial ability, or anything in between. A level 5 Fighter with the ability to Power Attack something for massive damage and a Rogue that sneak attacks the same target can both fluff their attack as a "focused, powerful strike to the enemy's unprotected area," but the reasoning for the extra damage from each class gives them both distinctly different flavors.

Bare in mind, this is just my own interpretation for my personal use, and may not be agreed upon by others.

[Groverfield]

-6 WIS penalties.... damn Modthulu... oh well, I got some nice +6CHA for my troubles

The issue of psionics, it is broken if the DM's understanding of it is flawed. Nothing else seems to have this problem. I find myself saying things like "No, you can't spend more than your manifester level in power points, unless you have a feat or class feat that lets you do that," "No, you do not become a 'being of pure thought' because you're an epic manifester, if you get it for a class feature (psionic uncarnate,) or template (modified PC race to 'unbodied' race,) or something else." "No you do not get to apply metapsionic feats without adjusting the amount of power points you spend... and that 'don't go over your manifester level without class feats or feats still applies."

I've had quite a few ignorance problems, some of them were even my own fault...I'll own up to them, but I that doesn't mean I won't purge them from my memory after the correct data has been stored.

also: Fumble rules suck. Some kinds of standardized fuble rules I can get behind.

[Yahzi]

But based on Yahzi saying that he was trying to recreate the flavor of 1e, I think he was talking about the feel of the game system itself.
Yes, exactly. Game mechanics of course affect flavor; if you have a mechanic for resurrection you're going to have a very different world than if you don't.

In any case I should have said 2E, which was very much a Vancian picaresque, with random city-states, forgotten gods, and ancient magics & technology. In 2E no one (except NPC super-wizards) ever made magic items; in Vance's stories only the named super-NPCs made magic items. Usually his characters just found ancient, inexplicable odd ball items... which is exactly like 2E.

However, 2E as a system has a lot of flaws. It's just plain incomplete compared to 3E. As for flavor, 3E provides a more cohesive, rational world. In 2E all you can ever have are picaresques; footless adventurers whacking unique monsters for random treasure. In 3E I feel like you can construct nations and even a cosmology that is less dues ex machina. This lets me create stories with greater scope. As an example, Vance's Dying Earth sagas contain battles, but not wars.

[BoutsofInsanity]

[QUOTE=Ashram;11665984]On your previous post, I can understand going through basic hygiene, that's a courtesy and a given. But really, some parts of it, like "facial hair" and "dressing nice", kinda sound like you want D&D time at your house to be like going to church.

I shower every day. I also don't shave for stretches of time, because I like having a beard, and my line of work doesn't really care. I also like to wear comfortable (Not tacky) clothes. Does this mean I would be potentially turned away from your house because I'm too "nerd" for you?

QUOTE]
Not at all, this was mainly when gaming in the house, I don't care half as much when outside. To clarify the dress issue, I prefer to treat the game as a social gathering, showing up in dirty gym shorts and a t-shirt that visibly is unclean bothers me. Showing up in clean gym shorts and a t-shirt that doesnt have fresh tomato and sweat stains on it is not cool. (makes me sound like a clean freak.) Exceptions of course apply. And no one has ever been turned away. Again, this was mainly when gaming inside. Outside when its hot or cold, I really dont care.

On another note, dm's who hate to lose. When the dm's build an encounter and then the party steamrolls it because they were just on the ball that day and the dm becomes upset, it really sucks the fun out of the game. In my mind, the dm dms for the players, not himself.

[Serpentine]

Wellup, I might have a couple to add to the list now :smallsigh:

1. A game that doesn't start with a reason for the party to work together.

2. A character/player determined to be uncooperative.

Played in an Evil drow game yesterday. We all had different types of characters, for the most part with quite different backgrounds. It was decided that a few of the characters knew each other - basically one of the Rogues was an "informant" for groups with which the others were associated. But one of the characters... had no connections with anyone. And was following us around.
My character and another girl's character noticed that second Rogue following us around. I called him out - said I know you're there, now tell us what you want. He didn't. So we blasted him - combination of Entangle, dodgy reading of the Spark spell, that Spike spell (forget its full name...), and pot-shots with hand crossbows as he hung onto a wall. He flat out refused to talk to us, and when the other Rogue rescued him, he flat out refused to talk to her.
So now, in a drow campaign, there's a suspicious male Rogue with a reputation as a cut-throat following us around, who knows we know he's been following us, who refuses to tell us what the Hell he's doing.
So our characters are left with very few reasons to bring him along, and a whole lot of reasons to murder his arse (well, we've already put 2 bolts in it...).

Argh :sigh:

[big teej]

Argh :sigh:

RE: evil drow nincompoop.
...
ninkonpoop

nimconpoop
....

whatever.

gank him.
he's begging for it. in all honesty if I had a player pulling that sorta stunt they'd already be relegated to "sit there and watch the party have fun while I ask them every 15 minutes if they'd like to contribute" status.



the dm dms for the players, not himself.

the DM is also a player.

his enjoyment and fun is just as valid a requirement, provided it not come at the expense of another.



soo..... last night I met a player's new girlfriend and girlfirend's best buddy.

they mentioned they were trying to put a group together with the player as the DM.

now, being the huge dnd nerd that I am, I leapt at the opportunity to play more often (I just came off a whole summer of DMing)

which is great.....

and then they stuck around to chat.


and I lost count of all the red flags and warnings that were popping up.

now, the conflict between our real world beliefs is inappropriate for these forums, so I won't describe it.

I will however discuss the issues that arose from that.

I consider it my obligation to my buddies that if/when they introduce me to their buddies, if our views don't match up, I don't begin to point out and dismantle the inconsistencies and errors of their beliefs. (especially heresy, which is a bit of a hot-button for me)

in return however, I expect people to not give me something to object to every time they open their mouth

or to summarize
my obligations: be respectful, do not be my normal sarcastic self
their obligations: do not come off as a completely socially inept, out of touch heretic.

/venting rant.

EDIT: i've actually got a few more red flags on this particular incident.

the player who plans to DM this group's girlfriend is going to be an ongoing observer. not observer-plans-to-play. observer-who-sits-there-makes-comments-and-offers-suggestions-to-the-DM.

observers are masssive red flags for me.

the DM, more than once alluded to plans to "get even" and "get revenge" on player actions. my observation/advice on "never solving OOC problems IN game" didn't seem to have a whole lot of effect.

last, the DM.... I just have hard time seeing him putting forth a good experience, I mean, I hope I'm wrong.... but... I've been gaming with him for a year. and I just don't see it.

[Tyndmyr]

now, the conflict between our real world beliefs is inappropriate for these forums, so I won't describe it.

I will however discuss the issues that arose from that.

I consider it my obligation to my buddies that if/when they introduce me to their buddies, if our views don't match up, I don't begin to point out and dismantle the inconsistencies and errors of their beliefs. (especially heresy, which is a bit of a hot-button for me)

in return however, I expect people to not give me something to object to every time they open their mouth

Reasonable. I don't care what your RL beliefs are...but D&D/RPGs are clearly fantasy, and one in which RL beliefs need not be included or relevant. I too would be worried at a lack of separation, regardless of what the beliefs were.


the player who plans to DM this group's girlfriend is going to be an ongoing observer. not observer-plans-to-play. observer-who-sits-there-makes-comments-and-offers-suggestions-to-the-DM.

observers are masssive red flags for me.

That seems unusual. I get the whole "I want to just watch for a bit before I decide to play" or whatever, but this sounds almost like a co-DM. Sort of.


the DM, more than once alluded to plans to "get even" and "get revenge" on player actions. my observation/advice on "never solving OOC problems IN game" didn't seem to have a whole lot of effect.

Yeah...if that's not a joke, that's worrying. Revenge is a terrible motivation for a DM.