would you sit down for a game with me?

[big teej]

greetings playgrounders,

long story short, I'm curious who amongst you would actually want to sit down and play at my table (if I was DMing). so below are all of my various houserules and basic philosophy on how I DM. you're free to ask any questions you like before giving your answer.

but basically what I want to know is "would you play with me?"


anyways.... here is the list of sources, houserules*, as well as anything else I found relevant.

*houserules that I have remembered to codify, there are a few missing ones. so sue me.



sources and source rules
my rules on sources are rather simple.
Anything not EXPLICITLY MENTIONED on the source list is out of bounds.
Online supplements, dragon magazine, eratta, etc. if I can’t lay my fingers on it in meat space, you can’t use it.
Furthermore, before you go through the BOED or the BOVD, I need to know why and approve it.
Anyways, source list

Arms and Equipment Guide
Book of Exalted Deeds
Book of Vile Darkness
Cityscape
Complete Adventurer
Deities and Demigods
Dungeon Master’s Guide
Dungeon Master’s Guide II
Dungeonscape
Expanded Psionics Handbook
Psionics Handbook
Magic of Incarnum
Monster Manual
Monster Manual II
Monster Manual III
Player’s Handbook
Player’s Handbook II
Races of Stone
Races of the Wild
Unearthed Arcana
Oriental Adventure’s
Sword and Fist
Song and Silence
Enemies and Allies
Tome and Blood
Defenders of the Faith
Masters of the Wild



Houserules
For the record, this is a combination of houserules, and basic explanation for my players.
And this is by no means exhaustive, as I tend to only develop houserules on things that come up.


Class Houserules
We do not use the Monk, the Soulborn, or the Soulknife as written, we use homebrewed ‘fixed’ versions that I have pre-approved.

Racial houserules
Skarn – must be Lawful
Rilkan – must be Chaotic

Alignment Houserules:
Druids must be True Neutral
Paladins must be Lawful Good, variants are banned.
*any alignment restriction built into the class must be adhered.

Deity
All clerics must worship a diety, “cleric of a cause” is banned

Gender house-rule
No gender bender characters (I.E. if you are male, so is your character)


Traits/flaws
Any given character is allowed up to 2 traits, and 2 flaws – flaws subject to my approval

Spellcasting houserule
A spellcaster gains his casting stat modifier in bonus spells per level

Feats taken
Any feats granting a +x to AC (example: dodge) give a flat +x bonus, not a bonus against a specific target.

Power shot: exactly as power attack, but can be used on thrown weapons and normal bows (not crossbows, nor slings)

Skills
All characters are allowed to add 2 knowledge skills of their choice to their class list at creation
All classes that already possess knowledge skills gain a + 2 bonus to them.
We will use the “fixed” diplomacy rules created by Rich Berlew

Weapons
All “exotic” weapons are treated as martial weapons provided two rules are followed
1) The character/player’s reasoning behind using the exotic version over a martial equivilant satisfys me.
2) It is nto abused (I.E. the spiked chain)
If a weapon is listed as “racial something or other” (I.E. orc double axe, dwarvven waraxe) that race is considered proficient in the weapon, regardless of class.

Armor./Shields
Exotic armor is NEVER worth a feat, as such, ignore any and all feats regarding exotic armor. The extra cost is built into the gold piece price.

In summary
If you are proficient in a given type of armor (light, medium, heavy, shields) you are considered proficient in “exotic” armors of that type.

Items and possessions
Provided you have extra dimensional space (handy haversack, bag of holding, a normal backpack, etc.) in somewhat proportion to your carried gear, I completely ignore encumberance rules.

Example: if it’s not 6 feet tall and/or made of solid rock, I really don’t care.

Languages
Everyone gets speak language as a skill, classes with it on their list gain 1 free language of their choice.

XP:
In addition to normal combat XP and “overcoming challenges” XP I award “world-building”: and “stitches” XP

World building XP is gained whenever something I create something for your charcter (a unique weapon, a location, some backstory element, etc.) and I like it enough that I plan on keeping it in my setting, 250 xp per creation

Stitches XP – whenever I am incapable of continuing due to laughter, you gain stitches XP – 50 xp


NO MULTI CLASSING PENALTIES EVER
EVER
Ignore favored class rules, ignore multi-classing penalties, etc.


Money:
10 copper to 1 silver
10 silver to 1 gold
100 gold to one platinum

Combat
If you have iterative attacks (such as from a high BAB, but not from TWF) you may divide these attacks as you wish amongst enemies you can reach

If you roll a natural 20, you automatically score a critical hit and roll accordingly

If you roll a natural 1, you must roll a confirmation roll, if you confirm the critical (by missing again) your turn ends, and you suffer at least one attack of opportunity from adjacent foes.

If you crit-fail on a ranged weapon, the weapon breaks in some manner, bowstring snaps, firing mechanism breaks, etc.

If you roll a natural 1, followed by a natural 20 on the confirmation roll, the attack is resolved as if you rolled a 10

If you roll a natural 1 on iterative attacks, they are simply treated as “auto-miss” not critical failures


out of game rules
this is a little speech each and every one of my players get prior to being admitted to the group.

Rule 1: no rape jokes at the table, I *will* bodily eject you from the game if necessary.
Rule 2: no real world political/religious discussion, period. I don’t care if the whole damn table has the EXACT same viewpoint, I do not want to hear it.
Rule 3: if you make my life easier, I will reward you, make my life difficult, so help me I will make you pay.

And finally, we’re here to have fun. You jeapordize this priority at your own risk.



playstyle stuff

I prefer low-op games.
I treat classes as in-game constructs (and if you’re playing under me, so will you)
The more dead set you are on something, the less likely I am to restrict it (I’m looking at you lady who wanted to play a succubus!)
I have set in stone policies on various character types and actions (such as PVP, or “singularity” characters)



I…. THINK that’s everything….
Whether it is or not, it’s everything I can think of right now, and I can always add stuff in later if need be.


So yea, that’s basically it, given the above information, do you have any questions for me?
if not, would you play with me? Why or why not?

[Pigkappa]

Are you proposing to play for real or are you just asking if we find something unacceptable on those houserules?

In the second case, I'd tell you that a few of them sound a little stupid (unreasonable alignment restrictions, for example) and contradictory ("low-op" and the crazy "Spellcasting houserule"), but not so awful to be a reason that would prevent me from playing with you.

[big teej]

Are you proposing to play for real or are you just asking if we find something unacceptable on those houserules?

In the second case, I'd tell you that a few of them sound a little stupid (unreasonable alignment restrictions, for example) and contradictory ("low-op" and the crazy "Spellcasting houserule"), but not so awful to be a reason that would prevent me from playing with you.

I'm asking a hyothetical question.

would you actually sit down and play at my table from week to week given the above information.


yes I realize the closest playgrounder is several hundred miles away. that's why it's a hypothetical :smalltongue:

[Diefje]

Anyone with the "don't be a douche" rule is A-okay by me.

[Pigkappa]

The given information isn't enough to decide. Most people wouldn't probably refuse any game just for its houserules (well, unless the DM is trolling. Something like "you can only play wizards, but spells don't exist in this game").

[Bhaakon]

I'm not a big fan of the critical miss thing, and some of the stuff seems pretty ticky-tack (altering the money exchange rates?) but there's nothing there that would keep me from playing.

What "came up" to for you to ban cross-gender PCs? Just curious.

[King Atticus]

I don't see why not. Nothing there looks too earth-shattering to me. The way I see it, as long as you know the expectations and restrictions going in to something, it's not that hard to abide by them.

[Flickerdart]

No, I would not. Online content contains incredible gems like the Swiftblade and most of Mind's Eye, and ignoring errata for materials is patently absurd. The Paladin ban is pointless, the bonus spells are redundant. Critical failures are always a terrible idea, further nerfing TWF by forcing them to focus on one enemy is just plain weird. A lot of these houserules do not accomplish anything in terms of game balance, and when they do it's detrimental.

[Darth_Versity]

NO TOME OF BATTLE!? HAND IN YOU DM STRIPES INSTANTLY!!!

But seriously, I see no real problems apart from "Anything not EXPLICITLY MENTIONED on the source list is out of bounds". I'd personally allow players to approach with an item from another book/homebrew if they can show it in advance so as to be approved.

For example, if someone wanted to play a Changeling, its not really that big of a deal to say yes so long as they have the required source as it could easily fit into any campain world (unless dopplegangers dont exist)

But then, your table, your rules.

[Mooncrow]

Eh, most likely not. That's a fairly restrictive set of build rules, and that's something that tends to irritate me. I own 99% of 3.0/3.5/Dragon/PF in hardcopy - so it's a little frustrating when most of the collection is banned, especially when there's no solid reasoning behind it.

Most of your individual rules are fine, but there's just this sense of, hrm, I can't really explain it - maybe "daddy knows best"? Don't get me wrong, there are some good things on that list, and I use the same "out of game" rules at my table too, but I get the feeling that our playstyles wouldn't mesh well.

(also, crit fails can DIAF)

That said, if you lived around me, I would give it a shot anyway and see how it goes^^

[Weezer]

Probably not. There is no reason to ban official web materials, if you want I can print them off and hand them to you. There now they are in meatspace. Increasing alignment restrictions, adding critical failures and buffing spellcasters are all extremely problematic houserules. The big one however is banning gender bending, why ban an opportunity to roleplay differently? Banning it seems completely arbitrary and makes me think what other arbitrariness you'll bring to the table. Especially since it's about gender, which is a touchy subject for me.

[Claudius Maximus]

Not a fan of some of these. It seems like you made some of these in response to player stupidity, and that's just not my preferred way of handling those issues. I see no real reason to outright ban things like gender-bending characters. If someone is being terrible with them, it's that player's fault, not the idea of a differently-gendered character. I'm also bothered by the classes-as-in-game-construct thing, the spellcaster buffs, and the crit failures.

I actually get your source reasoning, other than the errata hate. I've never seen someone rule against errata before. Your out-of-game rules are fine.

Also, a character is normally able to split attacks however they please. Your attack splitting rule just nerfs TWF through reverse application, like Flickerdart said.

I'd still be willing to play a game with you despite these misgivings. Possibly precisely because of them even. Almost everyone I know shares certain playstyle preferences that you don't. Why not give different ones a shot for once?

[Thefurmonger]

No.

For several reasons.

One is your list of what you allow, it seems an odd mix of 3.0/3.5 that you just mashed together.

Also the Male must play a male thing. Thats just odd.

Really overall your rules come off as heavy handed and "my way or the highway".

I feel a DM and players should work together to mold a game we can all enjoy.
With your games (From the sound of it) its like enlisting.

So all in all, No, no I would not.

[Kenneth]

I can only take guesses at what you mean by 'in game consturct' in regards to classes.

but honestly i only ever have 3 requiremnts for a DM. 1)tell an amazing story
2)own up to mistakes ( its hard to do sometimes LOL i know) and 3) no shades of grey/evil stuff.. i play D&D to be the hero and do heroic things.. not be an evil bastard or a good guy that mayyy be evil or maaay be good.. the latter angers me even more.

[Yahzi]

I would have 3 objections.

1) More bonus spells for spellcasters? Don't they get enough? (I say this even though I always play a spellcaster.)

2) Critical failures are not a good idea. The game is random enough as it is.

3) You allow too many source books for my taste. :smallsmile:

[MagnusExultatio]

You seem like a cool guy, but your games don't sound like my kind of things. Especially the out of game rule 1. Also various rules seem like they're there for the sake of being there.

[GnomeGninjas]

I don't like the spell casters get more spells and I think there would be someway to exploit one pound of platnum costs 500 gp but one pound of platnum in coins is worth 5000 but I'm not sure how. I still would play though.

[big teej]

What "came up" to for you to ban cross-gender PCs? Just curious.


big fan of "preventive" measures.

banning it outright in advance prevents a few problems I don't feel like dealing with.

problem 1 - not everbody is capable of handling an opposite sex character.

we've all heard the stories of the hyper-nympho-lesbian played by some poor excuse of the male race (typically in his teens)

banning transgenders in advance means I don't have to weed through the masses and make calls on who can or can't handle it.

problem 2 - lets say bob is capable of this, but steve is not. I now have to diplomatically explain to steve why bob can play a girl, but he cannot.


NO TOME OF BATTLE!? HAND IN YOU DM STRIPES INSTANTLY!!!

But seriously, I see no real problems apart from "Anything not EXPLICITLY MENTIONED on the source list is out of bounds". I'd personally allow players to approach with an item from another book/homebrew if they can show it in advance so as to be approved.

For example, if someone wanted to play a Changeling, its not really that big of a deal to say yes so long as they have the required source as it could easily fit into any campain world (unless dopplegangers dont exist)

But then, your table, your rules.

eh, my library is a work in progress. :smalltongue:

and it's more of a rule of convience. out of all my players, I've got the most books, there are maybe 4 or 5 sourcebooks floating out there amongst my 15 players or so that I don't have. so it's not quite as restrctive as ti sounds.

also, changlings are in MM III and on the approved list.



You seem like a cool guy, but your games don't sound like my kind of things. Especially the out of game rule 1. Also various rules seem like they're there for the sake of being there.

honestly, if you're the type of person to make rape jokes often enough for that to be a big deal for you.


I'd rather not play or DM with you.

no offense, but that's sort of a hot button for me.

[nedz]

These rules seem fine, well OK the Gender rule is a bit immature (IMHO), but what ever works for you. There is nothing here I would find too annoying. What are your CharGen rules BTW ?

Ed: OK you seem to have ninja'd me slightly on the Gender rule; you have immature players :smallbiggrin:

[Bhaakon]

ell OK the Gender rule is a bit immature (IMHO)

Depends on who you are playing with. That's why I'm interested in why he implemented it. It's heavy-handed, but it also cuts off a lot potential problems. Especially if you're dealing with a lot of new/immature players.

[Kenneth]

{Scrubbed}

[CockroachTeaParty]

Yeah, you seem a little heavy-handed. I approach games with an open mind, listen to what my players want, and try to adapt accordingly. The gender-bend rule, while rarely seen in my RL games, seems pretty pointless. It's like saying you can't play any other race than human unless you're not human; it's a role playing game, and I don't like having potential roles limited by my actual chromosomal distribution.

Most of your houserules seem... pointless? If you use any pre-made modules, you'd have to go through statblocks with a fine-tooth comb for NPC spellcasters, and they don't do anything to fix balance issues regardless. Critical failure rolls are an exercise in frustration, and few people I know enjoy consequences worse than a simple (frustrating/boring) auto-miss.

That said, I've seen a lot worse lists of house rules (in relatively recent memory, no less).

So it would in the end depend on your personality. I'd sit down for a trial game, but if I was getting a bad feeling, I'd probably save myself the trouble in the future.

[The Dark Fiddler]

sources and source rules

The rather hard "anything I don't say is good is bad, no exceptions" isn't something I agree with or enjoy playing under personally, but not exactly something I'd dock you for if I were considering playing under you. The lack of ToB is disappointing but not a deal breaker.


Houserules

I dislike your houserules regarding alignment in all. I feel alignment is too restrictive, and prefer to play under DMs that agree, but still not a deal breaker, I suppose.


Gender house-rule
No gender bender characters (I.E. if you are male, so is your character)


This, on the other hand, MIGHT be a deal-breaker by itself. I think I know why you want to do it (one too many guys playing a slutty female elf?) but it just really pisses me off. I don't mind being restricted in my roleplaying due to the setting or anything, but this is inexcusable as far as I'm concerned.


Spellcasting houserule
A spellcaster gains his casting stat modifier in bonus spells per level

As somebody already pointed out, this flies in the face of your low-op preference.


Power shot: exactly as power attack, but can be used on thrown weapons and normal bows (not crossbows, nor slings)


I'd ask about how two-handedness interacts with this.


Skills
All characters are allowed to add 2 knowledge skills of their choice to their class list at creation
All classes that already possess knowledge skills gain a + 2 bonus to them.
We will use the “fixed” diplomacy rules created by Rich Berlew


I'd point out that too many classes can't afford the skills they already have, so adding more to their lists isn't going to help anything.


Combat
If you have iterative attacks (such as from a high BAB, but not from TWF) you may divide these attacks as you wish amongst enemies you can reach


This isn't a houserule.


If you roll a natural 1, you must roll a confirmation roll, if you confirm the critical (by missing again) your turn ends, and you suffer at least one attack of opportunity from adjacent foes.

This would make me worry a bit; I don't like the idea of my turn instantly ending if I crit fail. I would thank you for requiring a confirmation though.


If you roll a natural 1 on iterative attacks, they are simply treated as “auto-miss” not critical failures

This, combined with the above, just confuses me.


If you crit-fail on a ranged weapon, the weapon breaks in some manner, bowstring snaps, firing mechanism breaks, etc.

Okay, this one worries me even more. Weapons breaking on a crit fail is something I am very strongly opposed to.


Rule 1: no rape jokes at the table, I *will* bodily eject you from the game if necessary.

The threat of physical force, even in this extreme case, would probably set off a few warnings in my head. I can't blame you for not wanting rape jokes, but this really would worry me.


I treat classes as in-game constructs (and if you’re playing under me, so will you)

This is just behind restricting my character's gender on the list of thing against you. I don't like treating classes as in-game constructs except in specific cases. Just the way I am.

If you want to read some interesting (I think, I stopped paying attention a short while after the thread exploded) reading regarding this, check out this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=206955) I started on the subject.


I have set in stone policies on various character types and actions (such as PVP, or “singularity” characters)


I have no idea what you mean here.


if not, would you play with me? Why or why not?

No, for the reasons listed above.

[thompur]

Sure. As long as I know the rules going in, I'm good.
Just curious, if I gave you a copy of Complete Arcane for your Birthday, could I play a Warlock?:smalltongue:

[Anarchy_Kanya]

{Scrubbed}

[Hyudra]

Major issues I take:
The gender bending rule. I'm a girl, I sometimes play guys, depending on the people at the table & the concept I have in mind. Someone telling me I can't play what I want grates. Someone telling me I can't play something the way I want, when it's purely aesthetic? That's a slap in the face.
The out of character rule 1. You could just ask people to stay away from sensitive subjects, but you single out rape specifically. Coupled with the above point, it gives me this creepy vibe as far as defensiveness about gender/sex stuff. Especially as a girl going to relative stranger's houses for D&D (which I've done a couple of times, usually with a friend present), I generally go with my gut, and this sets alarm bells ringing.
"I *will* bodily eject you from the game"
Out of character rule 3. "So help me I will make you pay."
Post speech: "You jeopardize this priority at your own risk."
Gameplay-wise not a fan of critical failures. Melee's hard enough to pull off as is.
Also, extension of point above, spellcasters via. bonus spells per level? Ehhh. It gives me the impression that even if the OOC stuff were ok, I wouldn't like your particular approach to the game, game restrictions or balance.
I'd go so far as to say that some of the changes feel controlling - the alignment, adjusting tons of small details for negligible adjustments to the actual gameplay. Change for change's sake, just to make a mark. To be 100% frank, there's virtually nothing here that makes me think "Wow, this would be a good set of rules to play under." I don't see myself breaking the OOC rules, as a general rule, but the repeated threats? Not feel-good.

So yeah. Hrm, if I was invited to your house for a game, and you handed me a list, or detailed it all to my face? I'd be inclined to walk away, or take the first excuse to leave. Whether I stayed or not would depend on if I knew anyone else at the table, but prognosis would not be good.

[Mooncrow]

Major issues I take:
The gender bending rule. I'm a girl, I sometimes play guys, depending on the people at the table & the concept I have in mind. Someone telling me I can't play what I want grates. Someone telling me I can't play something purely aesthetic the way I want? That's a slap in the face.
The out of character rule 1. You could just ask people to stay away from sensitive subjects, but you single out rape specifically. Coupled with the above point, it gives me this creepy vibe as far as defensiveness about gender/sex stuff. Especially as a girl going to relative stranger's houses for D&D (which I've done a couple of times, usually with a friend present), I generally go with my gut, and this sets alarm bells ringing.
"I *will* bodily eject you from the game"
Out of character rule 3. "So help me I will make you pay."
Post speech: "You jeopardize this priority at your own risk."
Gameplay-wise not a fan of critical failures. Melee's hard enough to pull off as is.
Also, extension of point above, spellcasters via. bonus spells per level? Ehhh. It gives me the impression that even if the OOC stuff were ok, I wouldn't like your particular approach to the game, game restrictions or balance.
I'd go so far as to say that some of the changes feel controlling - the alignment, adjusting tons of small details for negligible adjustments to the actual gameplay. Change for change's sake, just to make a mark. To be 100% frank, there's virtually nothing here that makes me think "Wow, this would be a good set of rules to play under."

So yeah. Hrm, if I was invited to your house for a game, and you handed me a list, or detailed it all to my face? I'd be inclined to walk away, or take the first excuse to leave. Whether I stayed or not would depend on if I knew anyone else at the table, but prognosis would not be good.


While I agree with what you're saying in general, I really don't get so much of a "creepy" vibe as much as "plays with a lot of teenagers".

[DarkestKnight]

Your rules for the player are understandable, though i am somewhat curious as to what experience you had as a DM for those rules to be verbally insisted upon. But it is your table, and i'll respect your call as it stands.

The main thing is that I'm one of those people that read philosophy books for fun. So saying i can't discuss political or religious views at the table is kinda a bummer for me. I would understand if it were intended to cut out unnecessary chatter, as those topics can go on and on, but without knowing that is rough.

In terms of game mechanics i agree with the other posts, that they seem to detrimental to the game to be truly fair.

As to the real question at hand, whether i would play a character in a game of yours?

I would. I like playing DnD and i like see what people put together for campaigns. I might not like some of the rulings you've laid down, and at some point or another you would likely expect me to attempt a serious discussion and possible renegotiation of some of the more odd rules, but I'd play. I'll play in anyones campaign as long as the people are cool, Kobolds are silly, and my free time doesn't go kaput.

[some guy]

I would give it a try. For a single session I could ignore most of my complaints. For a campaign it could cause troubles.

Minor annoyances:
Alignment Houserules:
Druids must be True Neutral
Paladins must be Lawful Good, variants are banned.
*any alignment restriction built into the class must be adhered.
I usually don't like alignment in general. But I can live with it.

Deity
All clerics must worship a diety, “cleric of a cause” is banned
Would find this limiting, but it would rarely come up.


Things I would ask you to reconsider if I was a player (or make a complaint against):
Gender house-ruleNo gender bender characters (I.E. if you are male, so is your character)
I don't see the point in this rule and would find it restricting for some players. (Pre-edit edit; it's more understandable with your explanation. But then again, I wouldn't want to play with such players.)

Spellcasting houserule
A spellcaster gains his casting stat modifier in bonus spells per level
Gives casters to much power, in my opinion. Might be a big no for me.

Traits/flaws
Any given character is allowed up to 2 traits, and 2 flaws – flaws subject to my approval
I find traits/flaws limiting role-playing.

Critical failure rules
Never did care much for those.


Major annoyances:
I treat classes as in-game constructs (and if you’re playing under me, so will you)
I could live with the first part, the second part could be a breaking point for me.


World building XP is gained whenever something I create something for your charcter (a unique weapon, a location, some backstory element, etc.) and I like it enough that I plan on keeping it in my setting, 250 xp per creation
I don't understand this. To me, this reads as if you reward a player (with xp) because you just rewarded them (with a game-element). Bwuh?

[Hyudra]

While I agree with what you're saying in general, I really don't get so much of a "creepy" vibe as much as "plays with a lot of teenagers".

Fair point. The tone changes a lot depending on whether it's a table of 15 year olds or 25-30 year olds.

But even if it's teenagers... if they're people that need to be kept in line with rules like that, then it borders on uncomfortable again. Not the DM's fault, there.

If they aren't the sort that need to be kept in line, then, well, it's the DM that's giving me a controlling & uncomfortable vibe, again.

[Lateral]

I'd play with you. Sure, I don't love some of your house-rules (the critical fail most of all), and I'm more comfortable at mid-op levels, but most of the objections other people have had with the heavy-handedness of your restrictions doesn't really affect the characters I'd be playing and your sources are broad enough that I could build most non-ToB PCs I'd want to play. Although, I'd strongly argue against using the 3.0 Psionics Handbook instead of just the XPH; the latter is far more usable and easier to understand.

Also, I don't really understand your ban on online supplements; they're fully official WotC 1st party content, just 'cause your fingers aren't on them doesn't mean they aren't as good as something in a book.

Bottom line? I've got nobody to game with where I live, and PbP tends to die all over the place, so I'd jump at a chance to play with anyone provided their parameters don't make it not worth playing.

Oh, yeah, and I'm fine with your ban on rape jokes. I'm a high school freshman, I hear enough of that crap in the hallways.

[NineThePuma]

Nope.

I only play female characters unless I have a pressing story reason not to.

I'm also a guy.

[Lateral]

Nope.

I only play female characters unless I have a pressing story reason not to.

I'm also a guy.

Huh. Why?

[Kenneth]

I would play with you for the simple fact that there is more than ! person who thinks Rape jokes are Ok.. and a fregging girl at that!! something I honestly think I do not beling in this world...


can anybody at least explain to me what is meant by and in game construct?

[The Dark Fiddler]

Huh. Why?

Personal preference, most likely. The same as any trend Nine might have in class, race, alignment, or party role.



I would play with you for the simple fact that there is more than ! person who thinks Rape jokes are Ok.. and a fregging girl at that!! something I honestly think I do not beling in this world...


can anybody at least explain to me what is meant by and in game construct?

You're being awfully judgmental about others' senses of humor.

Anyway, treating classes as in-game constructs means that if your character sheet says Fighter on it, people IN GAME will say "Hey, that's Fighter McFighterson. He's a Fighter."

[NineThePuma]

I'm... in touch with my feminine side, you could say, and due to issues involving my background I never really got to act out with it IRL. Instead it emerged in my writing and role play. I role play to unwind from being me, and let another me take the fore front, personality wise. Playing a female character is relaxing for me.


It doesn't help that I'm a flirt either way.

[Pigkappa]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
You probably shouldn't play in any World of Darkness setting then (or at least in the ones with the most violence).

Really, violence is part of D&D (though it tries to hide it as much as possible). Someone may not like to describe the awful way they chose to torture the prisoners, and will just solve that problem with an Intimidate check, but there's nothing so bad in making up violent scenes. Some people like it.

I didn't like that rule too, but again, that's not enough to say I wouldn't play. I'm actually in 3 games now and only 1 of them describes violence as much as I like it.

[MagnusExultatio]

honestly, if you're the type of person to make rape jokes often enough for that to be a big deal for you.


{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Defensive, much? You two could have just asked why instead of jumping down my throat like I offered you chips and a dip made of puree'd baby.

I object to the intense promise of physical violence for something a simple, basic warning system would suffice for. Would you do the same for racism or sexism? How about murder, violence, or dead baby jokes? Or any of the numerous other controversial topics that can easily be made into a session of black comedy? In any of these cases, again, a simple warning system, three strikes rule, or things of that nature are, in 99% of cases, perfectly fine. This shows a tendency to resort to completely unnecessary physical violence at the drop of a hat over words for things you deem "hot button topics".

[Kenneth]

uhh i am not sure if you understand this or not but there is a not so marginal differenc ebetween saying what evil people do, and then making a joke out of rape


how am i being awfully judgemental.. about people that honestly think rape is a funny thing.. whats next saying child molestation is funny.. oh wait.. thats a form of rape so I guess those people think thats funny as well.. again i stated that i am not for this world as I tend to belive that making jokes out of rape is not cool and very very disrepsctful. if not actually earning of physical harm.. i am being seriosu here, and though i understand that I might be offending people here.. there are just some things that to me are inherently wrong and making light of rape/child molestation is one of those things.


and thansk for expalining that an in game construct is.. that is disagree with.. what if i wanted to play a fighter and cale dmyself a myrmidon? that is banned?

[NineThePuma]

Kenneth, yes, rape is a horrible thing.

But you wanna know something horrible about human beings? We like to laugh at other people's suffering.

Therefore, laughing at Rape (one of the most horrible things that can happen to someone) is completely par for the course among humanity.

[Pigkappa]

Roleplaying games are about (among other things) building a story. A story isn't necessarily funny; there may be terrifying happenings of any kind, violence, joy, and whatever.

Many people aren't comfortable with the representation of some events and that's okay, they can be avoided if necessary.

I still don't think there should be a rule saying "you say this, you're out". When player A is describing something and player B is uncomfortable, player B should just say so and player A should stop it. Unless the players are 10 years old, they should know how to play with other people.

Also, straightforward application of the rules isn't enough to prevent these problems. I've been in some scene which involved no rape, no racism, no kids and would likely make most players uncomfortable. Only common sense can help here.

[navar100]

I would tell you I'm disappointed Tome of Battle is not available and most likely ask you reconsider (I promise to bring the book.), but I'd play anyway. Chances are I'll play the cleric, but I will give Psion a look.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I can sit down in a game with weird, annoying, kludgy rules that make no sense and have a great time. *Harkens back to that Dogs in the Vineyard game* The key to having fun playing roleplaying games is (1) avoiding FATAL and (2) having good roleplaying gamers at the table.

So it's not that your houserules are so repulsive to me that the game is ruined by them alone; your rules simply signal to me that the people at the table are... probably not to my liking. I like gamers that can handle some gender bending and don't need threats of bodily violence to avoid jokes that anger the other people at the table. I also don't like threats of bodily violence against me. Maybe I'm taking these things out of proportion, but the tone of your rules have conveyed this to me.

As a smaller thing, I think I'd feel out of place in a hyper low op game. I would feel quite restricted playing to the rest of the group's level, like I was intentionally dumbing my character down to avoid player/DM wrath. Don't get me wrong - I've played nice with low op groups before, but said groups' druids still performed well in all areas. It was at least that level.

[Midnight_v]

Hmm... I would not play with you.
There are a lot of people that make good points, both mechanically and socially. Mechanically, there are things you've don't to make the game a little worse, and socially... honestly, that in my opinion is the real issue with your post.
You say some things (and this way mentioned above) that seem petty, selfish, and controlling, all throughout that post. I don't mean to offend but some of its just the verbage, and some of it... give an undertone of... I don't know like... like someone said above: enlisting.
The thing is the demenor in your post alludes to the idea that you're not very interested in a cooperative role playing game, so much as story you the Dm is tell and the rest of us are enduring. No Offense.
I'd have to pass.

[Nohwl]

no, i wouldn't. i don't like your houserules.

[Con_Brio1993]

Probably not since Complete Warrior is barred, denying me Bear Warrior. I am a bear trapped in a human body. If I can't turn into a bear using my rage I can't roleplay. :smallfrown:

[Weezer]

Probably not since Complete Warrior is barred, denying me Bear Warrior. I am a bear trapped in a human body. If I can't turn into a bear using my rage I can't roleplay. :smallfrown:

You could always play as someone who really, really wanted to be a bear. But couldn't be. Think of the frustration of having an unattainable goal you'd be able to channel into roleplaying :smallbiggrin:

[sirpercival]

Probably not since Complete Warrior is barred, denying me Bear Warrior. I am a bear trapped in a human body. If I can't turn into a bear using my rage I can't roleplay. :smallfrown:

Why do you have to be raging? Be a Sentinel of Bharrai and be a bear all day. :)

[Con_Brio1993]

You could always play as someone who really, really wanted to be a bear. But couldn't be. Think of the frustration of having an unattainable goal you'd be able to channel into roleplaying :smallbiggrin:

That isn't nearly as cool. Everything is better with real bears (druids don't count).



Why do you have to be raging? Be a Sentinel of Bharrai and be a bear all day. :)

A what of a what now? What book is this?

[Mooncrow]

That isn't nearly as cool. Everything is better with real bears (druids don't count).




A what of a what now? What book is this?

Book of Exalted Deeds.

[The Glyphstone]

Probably not since Complete Warrior is barred, denying me Bear Warrior. I am a bear trapped in a human body. If I can't turn into a bear using my rage I can't roleplay. :smallfrown:

You'd just have to grin and bear it.

[Weezer]

You'd just have to grin and bear it.

No. That's just not allowed, I won't let another unbearable pun thread start up again. I couldn't help myself...

[Con_Brio1993]

You'd just have to grin and bear it.

Bear puns? They barely amuse me anymore. In fact, they are downright unbearable.



Book of Exalted Deeds.

Thank you.

[Lateral]

You'd just have to grin and bear it.

DAMN IT GLYPHSTONE WE ARE NOT LETTING THIS DEVOLVE INTO A BEAR PUN THREAD.

[sirpercival]

A what of a what now? What book is this?

It's a prestige class from BoED that gives bad BAB but full casting, and unlimited changes into a bear. Note that you don't actually need to be a spellcaster to take the class.

[Con_Brio1993]

It's a prestige class from BoED that gives bad BAB but full casting, and unlimited changes into a bear. Note that you don't actually need to be a spellcaster to take the class.

Would it be a useful class if I weren't a caster?

[Seerow]

DAMN IT GLYPHSTONE WE ARE NOT LETTING THIS DEVOLVE INTO A BEAR PUN THREAD.

These bear puns really do Polarize a discussion.

[sirpercival]

Would it be a useful class if I weren't a caster?

Depends on what you want to do. If BAB matters, then no. But it lets you be a bear all the time (technically with free self-healing), have an army of bears, and call lightning. You could do it as a ranger and get boosts to ranger casting, if you wanted them.

Yay for derailing!

EDIT: Can we at least keep the puns to a bear minimum?

[Con_Brio1993]

Depends on what you want to do. If BAB matters, then no. But it lets you be a bear all the time (technically with free self-healing), have an army of bears, and call lightning. You could do it as a ranger and get boosts to ranger casting, if you wanted them.

Yay for derailing!

Sold. Oh jeez I can be a broken wizard/sorcerer, AND a bear, AND have an army of bears.

And yeah this was quite the derail.

[Mooncrow]

Would it be a useful class if I weren't a caster?

It requires Sacred Vow and Vow of Obedience along with 8 ranks of Spellcraft, Knowledge(nature), and Knowledge(arcana), so the entry reqs are pretty steep. Then the lack of full BAB, and the d4 HD make it pretty painful.

If you can deal with that though, the bear form thing is quite good.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I would play. As a cleric. Maybe a monk if the fix you use is Jiriku's.

My problems
1) I hate alignment houserules. Especially druid being true neutral and races having to be a certain alignment.
2) I love paladin of freedom. Immunity to Dominate Person and Mindrape is dead useful. I also don't like that the paladin has to respect the stuck-up noble. I'd much rather punch him in the face and leave town.
3) The gender thing. I've played... 3 guys and 3 girls for any reasonable amount of time. While the girls are 18 and pretty, they're also the types more likely to punch you than flirt, and the guys are also young and handsome.

[Lateral]

I'm trying to think of some jokes with 'kodiak' in them, but I can't think of any that aren't...

Say it with me...

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/1010/unbearable-bad-joke-bear-demotivational-poster-1286449241.jpg

[Hiro Protagonest]

Bear puns? They barely amuse me anymore. In fact, they are downright unbearable.

You spelled bearly wrong.

[Mystic Muse]

Stuff I like.



Traits/flaws
Any given character is allowed up to 2 traits, and 2 flaws – flaws subject to my approval


Armor./Shields
Exotic armor is NEVER worth a feat, as such, ignore any and all feats regarding exotic armor. The extra cost is built into the gold piece price.

In summary
If you are proficient in a given type of armor (light, medium, heavy, shields) you are considered proficient in “exotic” armors of that type.



Items and possessions
Provided you have extra dimensional space (handy haversack, bag of holding, a normal backpack, etc.) in somewhat proportion to your carried gear, I completely ignore encumberance rules.

Example: if it’s not 6 feet tall and/or made of solid rock, I really don’t care.

Languages
Everyone gets speak language as a skill, classes with it on their list gain 1 free language of their choice.


NO MULTI CLASSING PENALTIES EVER
EVER
Ignore favored class rules, ignore multi-classing penalties, etc.



The more dead set you are on something, the less likely I am to restrict it (I’m looking at you lady who wanted to play a succubus!)



Rule 2: no real world political/religious discussion, period. I don’t care if the whole damn table has the EXACT same viewpoint, I do not want to hear it. This seems reasonable enough. Though, I'd take the second sentence out because it makes it sound like you have a bad temper.



I prefer low-op games. I'd be fine with that.


So yea, that’s basically it, given the above information, do you have any questions for me?
if not, would you play with me? Why or why not?

One single question.



Gender house-rule
No gender bender characters (I.E. if you are male, so is your character)

Well, I'm MtF (AKA, a girl in a male body.) Does that mean I play a female PC, or a male one?

As for playing with you, No I would not, for the following reasons.



Spellcasting houserule
A spellcaster gains his casting stat modifier in bonus spells per level

I'm not entirely sure what this means. So, is a sorcerer/wizard getting a lot more spells known, or are they getting a lot more spells per day? Either way, neither class needs the help.

This alone would not stop me from playing.




I treat classes as in-game constructs (and if you’re playing under me, so will you) Sounds overly controlling, and I've never liked this philosophy. Still wouldn't stop me, even with the previous thing, but I'd be iffy.



If you roll a natural 1, you must roll a confirmation roll, if you confirm the critical (by missing again) your turn ends, and you suffer at least one attack of opportunity from adjacent foes.

If you crit-fail on a ranged weapon, the weapon breaks in some manner, bowstring snaps, firing mechanism breaks, etc. I dislike this, and would never, ever play an Archer in your games. This might not drive me off, but I'd be getting close.



Weapons
All “exotic” weapons are treated as martial weapons provided two rules are followed
1) The character/player’s reasoning behind using the exotic version over a martial equivilant satisfys me.
2) It is nto abused (I.E. the spiked chain)
If a weapon is listed as “racial something or other” (I.E. orc double axe, dwarvven waraxe) that race is considered proficient in the weapon, regardless of class. I wouldn't like the first rule at all. It seems kind of arbitrary. Not really much of a factor though.




XP:
In addition to normal combat XP and “overcoming challenges” XP I award “world-building”: and “stitches” XP

World building XP is gained whenever something I create something for your charcter (a unique weapon, a location, some backstory element, etc.) and I like it enough that I plan on keeping it in my setting, 250 xp per creation

Stitches XP – whenever I am incapable of continuing due to laughter, you gain stitches XP – 50 xp These turn me off. The first is kind of poorly defined and they both seem arbitrary. This would probably be the final nail in the coffin.




Rule 1: no rape jokes at the table This is a totally reasonable restriction.
I *will* bodily eject you from the game if necessary.


Rule 3: if you make my life easier, I will reward you, make my life difficult, so help me I will make you pay.


And finally, we’re here to have fun. You jeapordize this priority at your own risk. If I were sitting down at this table, and you were giving me this speech, I wouldn't be coming back.

These are not fine. You're threatening potential players. I'd be leaving the table right now even though I never had any intention of jeopardizing the fun, making a rape joke, or making your life harder. Even if you took away the rest of the rules I don't like, I still wouldn't play for the simple fact that you're threatening me.

[Con_Brio1993]

It requires Sacred Vow and Vow of Obedience along with 8 ranks of Spellcraft, Knowledge(nature), and Knowledge(arcana), so the entry reqs are pretty steep. Then the lack of full BAB, and the d4 HD make it pretty painful.

If you can deal with that though, the bear form thing is quite good.

Does the lack of BAB and hitdie even matter when you can be in bear shape 24/7?

[Diefje]

I'm trying to think of some jokes with 'kodiak' in them, but I can't think of any that aren't...

a kodiak walks into a bar and says "I'll take a beer, please"
The bartender responds: "Shut up, bears can't talk"


Alright alright that was bearly a pun.

[Flickerdart]

To elaborate: giving casters free spell slots equal to their modifier means this, broken down:
1st level spells: Basic Wizard has anywhere from 5 to 8 slots (Int +4-5, Focused Specialist, 1 base). He can afford to spam his spells more or less constantly.
2nd level spells: Same deal as 1st, but now he also has up to 10 1st level slots, for a total of ~18 slots.
3rd level spells: He can afford a +2 item and his stats went up, so we're looking at 10 slots for just the 3rd level spells, and a good ~30 slots overall.

This madness continues until you get to 17th level, whereupon you immediately gain 18 9th level spell slots. I'm certain I don't have to illustrate the problem with this.

[Mooncrow]

Does the lack of BAB and hitdie even matter when you can be in bear shape 24/7?

Well, even in bear form you still use your base HPs and BAB. That can matter if you want to melee. Of course, you can always take cleric as you base class and then have Divine Power to take care of that^^

[sirpercival]

Does the lack of BAB and hitdie even matter when you can be in bear shape 24/7?

For fairness I'll point out that you can be in bear shape 24/7 as a mid-high level straight druid, and have armies of bears that you summon with SNA more frequently than 1/week.

Basically the PrC allows a non-druid to be a bear-themed druid.

[Seerow]

To elaborate: giving casters free spell slots equal to their modifier means this, broken down:
1st level spells: Basic Wizard has anywhere from 5 to 8 slots (Int +4-5, Focused Specialist, 1 base). He can afford to spam his spells more or less constantly.
2nd level spells: Same deal as 1st, but now he also has up to 10 1st level slots, for a total of ~18 slots.
3rd level spells: He can afford a +2 item and his stats went up, so we're looking at 10 slots for just the 3rd level spells, and a good ~30 slots overall.

This madness continues until you get to 17th level, whereupon you immediately gain 18 9th level spell slots. I'm certain I don't have to illustrate the problem with this.

To be fair this isn't the WORST system I've ever seen for making casters more overpowered.

I had a GM a few years back who made it so any spell you prepare can be cast a number of times equal to the spell's level every day. So you prepare Time Stop, you can use Time Stop 9 times before losing it. Think 18 9th level spells is bad, imagine 27-36.

[sirpercival]

To be fair this isn't the WORST system I've ever seen for making casters more overpowered.

I had a GM a few years back who made it so any spell you prepare can be cast a number of times equal to the spell's level every day. So you prepare Time Stop, you can use Time Stop 9 times before losing it. Think 18 9th level spells is bad, imagine 27-36.

That... is horrifying. Even to someone who plays high-op full casters as often as possible.

[Mooncrow]

To be fair this isn't the WORST system I've ever seen for making casters more overpowered.

I had a GM a few years back who made it so any spell you prepare can be cast a number of times equal to the spell's level every day. So you prepare Time Stop, you can use Time Stop 9 times before losing it. Think 18 9th level spells is bad, imagine 27-36.

That's even worse than my DM that made all casting spontaneous and doubled the daily spell slots (yes including bonus slots)

[Seerow]

That's even worse than my DM that made all casting spontaneous and doubled the daily spell slots (yes including bonus slots)


Now how about if I add on top of that he had a skill you could invest skill ranks into that gave you extra trains of thought. One extra train of thought per rank. Each train of thought can cast an extra spell as long as it's silenced/stilled.

[Lateral]

To be fair this isn't the WORST system I've ever seen for making casters more overpowered.

I had a GM a few years back who made it so any spell you prepare can be cast a number of times equal to the spell's level every day. So you prepare Time Stop, you can use Time Stop 9 times before losing it. Think 18 9th level spells is bad, imagine 27-36.

Wait, giving you *more* uses of the *stronger* spells? That's, like, the opposite of logic! Why hasn't the internet exploded from this wad of antilogic annihilating with it?

...Although the internet ITSELF is kind of half-logic, half-antilogic. And I think the constant annihilations of logic and antilogic collapse to form new boards in 4chan and new LOLcats.

[Kerrin]

There needs to be a new splat book: Exalted Bears.

On topic, some of the house rules I'd be okay with (e.g. Source books), but some not (e.g. critical fumbles), and I'm not fond of some of the wording.

I'd be willing to give a game with you a try because the personalities of te DM and players are more important to me.

[Dimers]

Every OP should have a "no bear puns" clawse ...

big_teej, having read your posts and responses in other threads, I wouldn't want to play with you. You're welcome to your opinions, but you seem like the type of person to frequently and loudly/violently declare those opinions when others' conflict with them, effectively bullying introverts like me. You also seem to prefer a random, wild, off-the-wall game. That trait is only frustrating in a fellow player, but a DM with it will quickly derail any actual attempt at in-game progress.

The houserules you listed mostly strike me as detrimental to fluidity or personalization. I wouldn't reject your game just based on those, but as another respondent noted, the fact that many of those rules exist mean you probably play with people I wouldn't like.

[Adrayll]

No, I wouldn't.

The alignment restrictions and gender restriction would annoy me, as would the having to be the big damn heroes. One of my favorite reason to roleplay is to play archetypes that play with that boundary.

I've never enjoyed classes as in-game contructs, but that's a quibble, as it my "don't like critfails" perspective.

None of those would stop me from playing in your game (hey, D&D is D&D). The factor that would stop me is the implicit authoritarianism and threat of violence.

[dextercorvia]

To elaborate: giving casters free spell slots equal to their modifier means this, broken down:
1st level spells: Basic Wizard has anywhere from 5 to 8 slots (Int +4-5, Focused Specialist, 1 base). He can afford to spam his spells more or less constantly.
2nd level spells: Same deal as 1st, but now he also has up to 10 1st level slots, for a total of ~18 slots.
3rd level spells: He can afford a +2 item and his stats went up, so we're looking at 10 slots for just the 3rd level spells, and a good ~30 slots overall.

This madness continues until you get to 17th level, whereupon you immediately gain 18 9th level spell slots. I'm certain I don't have to illustrate the problem with this.

It's not enough for you either?

[SamBurke]

No ToB? That's a little funky, but I can work around it. Seriously, with this, I bring out the most low-opped wizard, and I start slaughtering.

But, yeah, I'd play. A GM's style and the atmosphere is what I'd think would matter more to most people: how awesome are they, does the optimization level match yours (herp-a-derp), etc, etc, etc. Also, why specifically mention rape jokes? Do you have a problem with this?

If so:

Flush.
Rinse.
Repeat.

[Little Brother]

greetings playgrounders,

long story short, I'm curious who amongst you would actually want to sit down and play at my table (if I was DMing). so below are all of my various houserules and basic philosophy on how I DM. you're free to ask any questions you like before giving your answer.

but basically what I want to know is "would you play with me?"


anyways.... here is the list of sources, houserules*, as well as anything else I found relevant.

*houserules that I have remembered to codify, there are a few missing ones. so sue me.



sources and source rules
my rules on sources are rather simple.
Anything not EXPLICITLY MENTIONED on the source list is out of bounds.
Online supplements, dragon magazine, eratta, etc. if I can’t lay my fingers on it in meat space, you can’t use it.
Furthermore, before you go through the BOED or the BOVD, I need to know why and approve it.
Anyways, source list

Arms and Equipment Guide
Book of Exalted Deeds
Book of Vile Darkness
Cityscape
Complete Adventurer
Deities and Demigods
Dungeon Master’s Guide
Dungeon Master’s Guide II
Dungeonscape
Expanded Psionics Handbook
Psionics Handbook
Magic of Incarnum
Monster Manual
Monster Manual II
Monster Manual III
Player’s Handbook
Player’s Handbook II
Races of Stone
Races of the Wild
Unearthed Arcana
Oriental Adventure’s
Sword and Fist
Song and Silence
Enemies and Allies
Tome and Blood
Defenders of the Faith
Masters of the Wild
Far too limited, IMO. I, personally, allow everything, but I review the character first(I am also the best optimizer in the group, so I often have a hand in character creation). No ToB? No complete series? I mean, I understand no Complete Divine, but no Scoundrel or Warrior? No Tome of Magic? What makes the Warmage too good to be allowed?

I personally find it easier to disallow things than allow things. Only thing I watch is Dragon Magazine stuff, but they support niches quite nicely, so I'd tend to allow them.

Also, are you using BOTH the 3.0 and 3.5 Psionics rules? :smallconfused:

Houserules
For the record, this is a combination of houserules, and basic explanation for my players.
And this is by no means exhaustive, as I tend to only develop houserules on things that come up.


Class Houserules
We do not use the Monk, the Soulborn, or the Soulknife as written, we use homebrewed ‘fixed’ versions that I have pre-approved.Monk is prefixed with Swordsage and/or Psychic Warrior, but otherwise, eh.

[SPOILER]Racial houserules
Skarn – must be Lawful
Rilkan – must be Chaotic

Alignment Houserules:
Druids must be True Neutral
Paladins must be Lawful Good, variants are banned.
*any alignment restriction built into the class must be adhered.Alignment restrictions=YUCK. Seriously, bad mojo, IMO.

Same with the one-type only paladin. And why bother allowing Druids in the first place, if you're house-ruling this much?(No offence meant, just an honest question)


Deity
All clerics must worship a diety, “cleric of a cause” is bannedDon't understand, it just seems to be like an ardent, but whatever.


Gender house-rule
No gender bender characters (I.E. if you are male, so is your character)Elaborate further, please. See Soft Serve.

Spellcasting houserule
A spellcaster gains his casting stat modifier in bonus spells per levelSo you're trying to make casters better? Except Warmages, Dread Necros, and Beguilers(The only one I saw on there) worse?

Power shot: exactly as power attack, but can be used on thrown weapons and normal bows (not crossbows, nor slings) Why not slings?

XP:
In addition to normal combat XP and “overcoming challenges” XP I award “world-building”: and “stitches” XP

World building XP is gained whenever something I create something for your charcter (a unique weapon, a location, some backstory element, etc.) and I like it enough that I plan on keeping it in my setting, 250 xp per creation

Stitches XP – whenever I am incapable of continuing due to laughter, you gain stitches XP – 50 xp Needs further clarification


If you roll a natural 1, you must roll a confirmation roll, if you confirm the critical (by missing again) your turn ends, and you suffer at least one attack of opportunity from adjacent foes.I like this, actually.


out of game rules
this is a little speech each and every one of my players get prior to being admitted to the group.

Rule 1: no rape jokes at the table, I *will* bodily eject you from the game if necessary.
Rule 2: no real world political/religious discussion, period. I don’t care if the whole damn table has the EXACT same viewpoint, I do not want to hear it.
Rule 3: if you make my life easier, I will reward you, make my life difficult, so help me I will make you pay.

And finally, we’re here to have fun. You jeapordize this priority at your own risk.
No issue here



playstyle stuff
I prefer low-op games.Clarification needed.

I treat classes as in-game constructs (and if you’re playing under me, so will you)As in OOTS? As in, there is no 4th wall? Or do you mean more that the fluff reflects it. Clarification needed.

So yea, that’s basically it, given the above information, do you have any questions for me?
if not, would you play with me? Why or why not?Honestly, probably not. The big things are alignment restrictions, the fact that casters are even stronger, and, more importantly, the lack of options. The BIGGEST one, for me, though, is that, if I'm understanding you right, everyone knows I'm a Ranger 2/Fighter 2/Barbarian 1/Horizon Walker X/???Y. Suspension of disbelief goes flying out the window, IMO. The other two are livable, and a lot sounds decent or good, but the last two I said are both almost dealbreakers on their own.

I also follow the violence aversions below, but I'm assuming a joke of sorts, so whatever.

[Weezer]

@Little Brother

I'm pretty sure that his source restrictions are based on what he actually owns. If he doesn't own a physical copy of the source book then it isn't allowed and vice-versa.

[Zarin]

Rule 1: no rape jokes at the table, I *will* bodily eject you from the game if necessary.



The more dead set you are on something, the less likely I am to restrict it (I’m looking at you lady who wanted to play a succubus!)

just a quick question, and I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but isn't a succubus just one big rape joke?

[Con_Brio1993]

For fairness I'll point out that you can be in bear shape 24/7 as a mid-high level straight druid, and have armies of bears that you summon with SNA more frequently than 1/week.

Basically the PrC allows a non-druid to be a bear-themed druid.

Does it end up being weaker than a straight druid though? It says you still get spell slots + learned spells, but you don't seem to gain spell levels. So I'd have less powerful magic.

Does the PrC have any advantages over straight druid?

[Victoria]

Sure, I would. Why not? What's the worst that could happen?

[Seerow]

Sure, I would. Why not? What's the worst that could happen?

You could laugh at something that offends him and get thrown bodily out of the game.

[Slipperychicken]

I would find myself talking to you about the "Ranged weapons break on Crit-fail" bit. Anything that breaks that often in the hands of a skilled operator isn't a weapon, its one of those plastic piece-of-**** toys you find at the dollar store. I would really like to know how many people picked up your "Power Shot" feat, only to see their +3 Composite Longbow of Awesome shatter in their hands like a childhood dream.

I would ask you if I could convert Web Enhancements/PDFs/etc into meatspace form (i.e. printing), and hand out copies.

I like the rape jokes one: After half a session of insensitive rape jokes in my group, I started to feel kind of offended too. I'm here for make-believe fantasy violence; not to marginalize victims of sexual assault.

I really think you're missing out by excluding ToB.


Aside from that, I approve of ~85-90% of these rules and would play, despite objecting to some. I also recommend, regardless of what the houserules are, making a comprehensive list like this one, handing copies out to each of your players, and updating it as necessary to avoid confusion.

[sirpercival]

Does it end up being weaker than a straight druid though? It says you still get spell slots + learned spells, but you don't seem to gain spell levels. So I'd have less powerful magic.

Does the PrC have any advantages over straight druid?

What do you mean by "spell levels"? In general, PrC's that give "+1 spellcasting class" progression give you everything related to spellcasting, unless they specifically exclude something. They don't give any other class feature advancement. For example, a Wizard 6 who took a level in Sentinel of Bharrai would cast as a 7th-level wizard including CL 7 and 4th-level spells.

[Con_Brio1993]

What do you mean by "spell levels"? In general, PrC's that give "+1 spellcasting class" progression give you everything related to spellcasting, unless they specifically exclude something. They don't give any other class feature advancement. For example, a Wizard 6 who took a level in Sentinel of Bharrai would cast as a 7th-level wizard including CL 7 and 4th-level spells.

By spell levels I mean just that. If I took the PrC as early as possible (level 6) I would only have level 5 as my Cleric level. This means I only get level 3 cleric spells.

The way I read it, the PrC makes it so I get additional spell slots, but not higher level spells like I would have gotten had I continued down the Cleric path.

[sirpercival]

Nope, that's not how it works. You get higher level spells as well, otherwise no one would EVER take a casting PrC.

[Mooncrow]

By spell levels I mean just that. If I took the PrC as early as possible (level 6) I would only have level 6 as my caster level. For Cleric, this means I only get level 3 spells.

The way I read it, the PrC makes it so I get additional spell slots, but not higher level spells like I would have gotten had I continued down the Cleric path.

Nope, you would get casting as if you had added a level of cleric, just not turn undead levels or anything else not specified.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

No, I would not. Online content contains incredible gems like the Swiftblade and most of Mind's Eye, and ignoring errata for materials is patently absurd. The Paladin ban is pointless, the bonus spells are redundant. Critical failures are always a terrible idea, further nerfing TWF by forcing them to focus on one enemy is just plain weird. A lot of these houserules do not accomplish anything in terms of game balance, and when they do it's detrimental.

His reasons are mostly my reasons. The wealth of options DND has is a boon, not a bane. It's fine to say no to certain options, yes, but I prefer to have my cake.

Also, you can always spread your attacks amongst different targets. A character with a BAB of 16 need not lay into one foe thrice over.:smallsigh:

[Calanon]

Only thing i have a problem with is the no "rape" jokes rule and the spellcasting rule, I mean to be fair I can understand it entirely but dear god does it slow down a caster... :smallannoyed: But i seriously have to ask why no "rape" jokes? :smallconfused:

[navar100]

Driving from Chicago after watching the football game, I was heading towards Ursa, a minor town in Illinois when I was pulled over by Smokey for speeding. I didn't realize how fast I was going since my friend was crying about her Boo Boo all of a sudden. She is a bit bi-polar. Anyway, as I was talking to the officer Yogi Berra of all people came over because he had a flat tire and needed help. I loaned him my cell phone.

The officer chuckled at the situation and decided to just let me off with a warning. We engaged in casual conversation. He mentioned he moved to Illinois from Kodiak, Alaska three years ago. He finds winter here a little more unbearable experience than in Alaska, probably due to being in the middle of the continent as opposed to an island.

Yogi finished the call and handed the phone back to me. He was able to reach Grizzly Brothers Towing, a local place. I drove on and got to Ursa barely before sunset. Since I didn't know the town I had to ask for directions to get my bearings. All was well, though.

-- as told by Bea Arthur

:smallwink::smallbiggrin:

[Anarchy_Kanya]

{Scrubbed}

[Frosty]

Most of these rules (and the apparent attitude) are horrible.

[Hirax]

I treat classes as in-game constructs (and if you’re playing under me, so will you)

I am happy to work around just about anything, but not that. I have no interest in a DM telling me 'no, a wizard/ranger/whatever wouldn't do that.' It would contribute to characters of the same class feeling the same from game to game, and also makes me feel like I can't truly make a character my own. I have no idea how stringent you are with it at the table, but that's the only thing that really gave me pause. Otherwise I'd just play characters that worked within your framework, and save characters that didn't for other DMs. I'd also probably play things that didn't require a lot of attack rolls, because critical miss rules stink. I do find some of your rules crazy (all have been pointed out), but again, they're things I'd just work around. That said, you'd probably be last on the list of people I'd want as a DM in real life.

[Hawkings]

I probably would give you a chance, though it's highly unlikely the game will be any fun for me, unless there's a lot of freedom in a great world setting with memorable NPCs.

The only way I'd accept the paladin must be lawful good is if you reasoned it was to simplify the game and help keep things flowing smoothly, like say the world is loaded with paladins and questioning each one would bog the game play down. I don't like that cleric's must be of a deity, unless the must is with the exception that a good back story would make having only a cause acceptable. And why must a druid be true neutral when some druid gods aren't even TN? On top of that saying a race must be an alignment is like saying all drow must be evil, well sorry Drizzt I guess you're evil now.

When you say game play style I expected to see dungeon crawling smash the door down, or RP social political, strategy siege puzzle solving, or whatever other variant styles there are to play, you didn't mention your actual play style so I have no idea if you enjoy playing the types of things I enjoy playing, which is usually social role playing with a bit of combat.

Your rules seem arbitrary and unreasonable, and you don't sound flexible with them, you might have just not mentioned them to keep your post short (something I rarely can do DX) or you decided it and that's the end of the story. In the latter case I'd say you're making a wide open invitation to frustrating DM railroading and arbitrarily unquestionable rulings whenever problems arise, though it's the DMs right to make tough calls, he's expected to be trust worthy and reasonable to that responsibility. If you're unwilling to listen and consider another point of view then you're being by definition unreasonable; I've had a DM like this once and despite his interesting story it was in no way enjoyable, oh and every player quit his group.

I've played about an equal amount for my male female character ratio, my favorite was a country bumpkin elf girl who had very meaningful RP, she was very moral and steered away from sexy time though she always tried to be pretty and desirable the way a normal girl would. From my experience telling me that I couldn't continue to play an aspect of RPing that I know I can handle is a case of idiots ruining it for everyone at best and insulting at worst.



As far as characters playing Nymph sex-hounds I actually had a player make his male swash buckler hit on every girl he saw in every town, bar, every female NPC and in every encounter; keep in mind the fact that being male didn't detour this immature behavior. D&D is ultimately a sandbox for storytelling and though you can try to do anything, that doesn't mean there aren't still consequences, as such I rolled percentiles and tossed STD after STD at him, which unfortunately got cured by another players character repeatedly. I eventually gave him an offer he couldn't refuse as the three hot ninja girls (the leader was the sister of another PC's) propose an unforgettable night with him, to his surprise they tied him up and tested their torture techniques and poisons on him eventually leaving him strung up naked, half dead and hanging upside down from the ceiling to be found hours later by the inn keeper, it was truly a night he would never forget... but at least he got a nice +1 resist to poison reward for the experience, I'm not a totally mean DM. :3
Needless to say the bad behavior stopped, I later tested it by having an attractive girl hit on him, he bought her a drink but refuse the offer. Later i had a disguised succubus try to jump on him for "rescuing" her from demons, he pushed her off and play the total gentleman hero, correction is possible.
Oh and as a side note, I always wanted to play a succubus with the fiend of corruption prc (fiend folio p202). Would you allow that exact same character build, game play and behavior if I had real life boobs, but deny it if I didn't? Sexism works both ways, and at this point suggesting this for girls while also saying no gender bending to prevent the exact same immature character archetype behavior is ridiculous. Worst yet most girls I know play men anyways, so you've just screwed yourself out of any girl players you might have had.

Also if you're just trying to avoid players making stupid characters work out ideas with your players before making them so you both can be on the same page when playing. I've worked out each of my characters and their goals with DMs as well as the characters my players made when I DMed, in most cases even going so far as to print out randomized back stories from the herobuilder guide to help spark their imagination from blank page syndrome. The only player I've had that insisted on making the character and back story entirely on his own had the worst character and was also my worst player, so I'd say this is a fair way to handle character creation.

when it comes to rape, while I personally think jokes are fine about any subject within a proper context, I get the feeling you or a player has some unpleasant experience or issue with rape involving someone you know and would prefer to avoid the subject and memories especially while trying to have fun, if this is the case please just say so instead of making a harsh rule banning it, people can be understandingly compassionate when you say you'd prefer not to talk about it, but rebelliously furious when you tell them they cannot.
oddly enough this rule would completely ban me from your game because I tend to play antihero's and redeemable villains, and in one game the dwarf player was bored and making his character act stupid and breaking character, another play had his ninja threatened the dwarf to stop or he'd kill him for putting us at risk, my assassin character said if the ninja wanted he'd handle it, but he'd have to be sure because he didn't play games or make idle threats, and merely killing is childish. asked OOC what I planned to do I said I was going to use the paralyzing form of death attack to stun the dwarf, tie him up and use a cursed magic item i had that cursed whoever touched it into an opposite gender for 12 hours, I'd then bring him to a brothel and sell/rent the dwarf to all customers for a generously low fee, after 11 hours I'd clean him up, use modify memory to replace certain inactive moments to be replaced with memories of being used by great wyrm dragons, fire elementals that set him on fire in the process and other impossible couplings, which wouldn't actually hurt him since it didn't happen, he just remembered it. I'd then collect the brothel earnings and keep it myself, unbind the dwarf and return him to the group with blackmail and a warning, act up again and I'd reveal what happened to him to the others, and if he persisted next time I'd make him permanently believe he was a little girl who loved unicorns-- and sodomy. When asked WTF I just replied "Don't care, evil." ... long story short the dwarfs player started playing right.

The reason for that long story is this: if you tell me my character cannot make rape jokes or be an evil character to such a degree that he is in fact evil, does that which evil people do, and believes what evil people believe, then you're not having evil in your campaign, you're having wimpy little Disney villains who could only kill a fly if it was scripted as a tragic plot point, and then only once. Do you think evil plays nice? Think it isn't offensive? You might as well add "characters must be lawful good alignment" to the alignment restrictions because that kills any RPing of a truly dark character completely. Besides what happens if I want to cast Mindrape?

Your house rule saying that making your life easier will have rewards and making it difficult will earn harsh punishment is awful, the players shouldn't have to fear doing anything to offend you or their character suffers, or you in some way punish them. Sure being a total ass is one thing but I had a DM that would punish and threaten to send beholders against our level 5's if the players didn't sing his praises all day or were in the least bit irritating to him. The DM is not a god, he is a player just like the others, he simply has the hardest and most important role for the sake of the other players, just like party leader has the hardest task he does so for their sake, it doesn't make him better than them. When you think of being in charge remember that a leader should never ask their follower to do something they are not willing to do themselves. Would you want to play with a DM with some of the rules you suggested if you were the player?

Finally the DMG talks about house rules and warns that they're acceptable but only under heavy consideration, since the entirety of D&D is assuming you're playing without any, modifying one thing can unbalance the entire thing. The idea of a house rule is to facilitate some unexpected need or to interpret a vague description or rule, not to completely modify the game dynamics, feats, spells, classes, races. Sure you're free to homebrew but this takes serious consideration, the fact you've got a long list of house rules suggest you've heavily modified the game but the content you've listed suggests a lack of consideration to this fact, so please rethink your alterations.

I know in this post I've most likely been extremely condescending and offensive and I apologize, I really applaud you for having the courage to post an open ended question on this forum and put your DM table under the microscope, this makes me believe you'll honestly listen to what everyone says and consider it, so I don't think you're inherently in the wrong. What is making me frustrated is the direction your rules are leaning, reread the DMG involving good dming and bad dming, I'm betting that you're getting too close to the bad side since most your rules seem to suggest more lawful evil tyranny than anything else.

[Talya]

This thread reminds me how much I miss George Carlin's wit.

[Wings of Peace]

I used to have a money system like yours (10,10,100) but then switched to a 10,10,10,10,10 system for simplicity. I got Copper -> Silver -> Gold -> Platinum -> Electrum. Realistically it should probably go Electrum -> Platinum but it was easier for my players to remember the previous currencies with the new one at the end.

[elpollo]

Even if you took away the rest of the rules I don't like, I still wouldn't play for the simple fact that you're threatening me.

More or less this. I don't like being treated like a criminal when I haven't done anything wrong. If I game with someone it's an equal partnership, regardless of the role we take.

For specific rules, I really hate alignment restrictions, critical misses, and treating classes as in-game constructs ('cause since when has that made any sort of sense?). I'm also against not allowing players to play the opposite sex, since I play with people my own age+, and I'm supposedly an adult now. I expect those I game with to act appropriately.
I'd totally play with you before Hawkings, though.

[Wings of Peace]

Since I didn't say it before, I probably wouldn't play with you. Not because of anything personal, I just prefer high-op games and you explained that you don't.

[cthulhubear]

No. I'm fine with no rape jokes and the like, but there are some things I dislike about these rules.

First off, I hate the idea of in-game constructs. It makes a character seem so much more shallow than they really are. I'd prefer to say something like Bob was trained in the art of swordplay and counterattacks. His motto is for every hit your opponent lands on you, land two back and have them hit twice as hard.

Second off, I seems by rewarding xp for having a good backstory and making you laugh, you're making something in OOC affect IC gameplay, which I don't really like either as it ties in OOC and IC way too much. A character doesn't have control over his backstory or you laughing, and creating a good backstory is easy, whilst actually role playing your character is harder and thus actually deserves xp.

Third off, I dislike the gender, and alignment restrictions. Having PC races restricted to an alignment in any way should be strictly forbidden, as it feels like you're being forced to play something you don't wanna play. Also the gender rules feel too restrictive too.

Finally, this is a bit more of a nitpick but still it drives me insane. Why is it you have the Book of Exalted Deeds and yet no Tome of Battle? I can understand if you can't get it or etc. But I personally hate the BoED. Just about all the crunch in there is either so good who wouldn't take it, or so bad who would take it, and the fluff is horrible. Oh let's all be goody-two shoes LG butt holes who can't do anything a normal party does because "I would lose my purity" Let's say a suicide bomber has put a bomb in the town, and the only way to get the words out of him is torture. Of course the Exalted doofus attempts to stop because it's "evil" What's more evil, allowing an entire village and the people in it to be destroyed, or getting the info and saving the village?

[Cogidubnus]

Yes, I probably would. There'd be a couple of things that'd irritate me (I'm a big fan of requesting homebrew) but a lot of your house rules make sense, and it sounds like we'd probably have a fun game.

[Retech]

I think your rules nerf martials and buff casters. Crit failures fly in the face of martial characters, since a spellcaster's best spells don't even have an attack roll.

[Amphetryon]

I'd be very frustrated by the crit-fail rules, but might be willing to try a Psychic Warrior/Totemist build with natural attacks in your game, provided I wasn't randomly breaking my own fingers, toes, etc.

[Splynn]

Nope. When I go to play a D&D game with someone, I intend on playing it *with* them. From reading your rules, I feel like you'll be playing at me rather than with me.

The no gender-bending rule is sort of one of those examples. I'm a guy, and I play mostly male characters. But sometimes I want to play a girl. You telling me "no you cannot play what you want to play" just irks me. Why not? Your point about having to diplomatically explain to Player A that he cannot bend genders while Player B can... well. If someone does something dumb, they have to pay the consequences. But just blanket-banning for it is silly. My girlfriend plays mostly male characters. Under your game she couldn't, for no real good reason. On the same rule, you realize that there are more than 2 genders? According to your rules, would a gay male only be allowed to play gay males?

Giving casters *more* spells just screams poor understanding of how the game works to me. Might not be the case, but it's the vibe I get.

Honestly, I guess my real issue comes down to this. Your rules come across to me as meaning that you feel since you are DMing the game, you get to control the players as well as the characters. I simply do not agree. Sometimes I like to discuss religion. And I'm mature about it. And if I realize that someone else at the table is not mature about it? I'll stop. If I realize that another player gets really uncomfortable with a certain type of humor (such as rape jokes), I'll stop.

I'm capable of moderating my own actions and being mature around other people. I can do it myself; I don't need you to do it for me.

Also, just outright banning sources without even considering my character concept and background? If a feat in complete divine fits my character concept really well, you still won't allow it? I don't want to play in a game that doesn't let me play what I want to play (within reason; I don't plan on arguing about wanting to play the lich werebear).

And in general mixing 3.0 and 3.5 is strange... not something I'd be against. Just... strange. No complete warrior, but sword and fist is fine. Out of curiosity, is it specifically an issue of not having the complete warrior book?

[Tenno Seremel]

Druids must be True Neutral
Neutral Absurd druid wants to battle.

[Knaight]

Gender house-rule
No gender bender characters (I.E. if you are male, so is your character)

Strike one. This strikes me as needlessly limiting role playing, and I've seen this rule far too often attached to blatant immaturity.


Provided you have extra dimensional space (handy haversack, bag of holding, a normal backpack, etc.) in somewhat proportion to your carried gear, I completely ignore encumberance rules.
Strike two. Even without these, encumbrance is too much of a pain in the rear to bother with.


NO MULTI CLASSING PENALTIES EVER
EVER
Ignore favored class rules, ignore multi-classing penalties, etc.
Very good sign 1.


Rule 1: no rape jokes at the table, I *will* bodily eject you from the game if necessary.
Very good sign 2.

Rule 2: no real world political/religious discussion, period. I don’t care if the whole damn table has the EXACT same viewpoint, I do not want to hear it.
This strikes me as a bit tyrannical, as the GM really shouldn't have social authority outside the game.


I treat classes as in-game constructs (and if you’re playing under me, so will you)
Aand strike 3. No, I'm not willing to play your game. Though I certainly do agree with some of the rules.

[Tengu_temp]

Banning some of the best 3.5 books? Unreasonable restrictions and many houserules that cause more problems than they fix? A very "my way or the high way" approach? Bad grammar and spelling? Engineer, what do you say? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvdf5n-zI14)

[Arcane_Snowman]

I think I'll work backwards, giving you assessment of what's presented first.

Your supplement restrictions seems to be a matter of not being able to get your hands on them, so I'd probably just ask if I would be allowed to use the stuff if I either printed it out (for Errata and Web Enhancements) or bought (if I wanted to use it and didn't already have the hard copy) and lent you, what supplements you didn't already have.

Houserules
With the house rules, I wouldn't care too much about most of it, the attack rules work pretty unfavorably towards two weapon fighting, and the spell casting addition is pretty broken. I like my stuff at tier 3 and can tolerate tier 2, but you obviously don't cater towards that despite your claim of wanting low-op characters. It would make me worried about the potential balance of game, as you haven't presented me with concrete evidence (and I don't know you well enough to tell otherwise) that you actually know what you're talking about in regards to game balance, given that the pieces of information conflict as thoroughly as they do.

The gender restriction seems unreasonable, I wouldn't be bothered by it too much as I don't often play female characters, but I do get the inclination and don't think I've done anything unreasonable when I did, as such it just seems like a creativity stifler.

I'm against alignment as an integral part of the mechanics, and limiting races and classes to a single stereotype is just plain unrealistic.

The XP bonus rules seem nonsensical, one is basically "yup, I like what I did for you there, have xp", and the other one is an encouragement towards beer and pretzel gaming, which isn't bad, but really shouldn't require a reward system.

Out of Game:
You could have phrased the 1st rule less intimidating, as stands I'd be offended that
1) you're talking like that to me
2) that you didn't think I'd have the level of maturity to accept that you find that kind of thing unacceptable and therefore feel the need to threaten me to enforce the rule.

Rule 2 I really don't care too much about as it wouldn't really end up pertaining to me.

Rule 3 I however have a problem with, Everyone is fallible, this includes the DM (and myself of course, but that's a different matter)
As I like to stick within the rules, I don't always make my DMs life easy, in fact I can be quite a pain in the ass and I know it. But I don't think I'm being unreasonable, what I argue for, is within the bounds of the rules. If you present something that is blatantly wrong within the rules I'll pull you up on it, if I don't think it makes a lick of sense, I'll point it out. For me it's a matter of internal consistency, if you can't even manage that it ruins part of my immersion. However that entire rule seems to me as a petty threat, "if you point out I'm wrong, I'll punish you" is the vibe that message gives me, that ultimately helps you enforce "because I say so", which I loathe.

Play style
For low-op, see the house rule section.

Classes as in game constructs is my biggest, nastiest and most often vocalized gripe about D&D, I don't believe I need to take that any further.

The restriction rule seems a little odd, but not something I'm against, but I can see it backfiring.

The last rule seems reasonable though.

Overall, it seems like you've been playing with a lot of immature players, and as such have taken to "ward" yourself against that kind of behavior. Personally, I'd just find it insulting that you'd be treating me like I was immature and that your entire tone is lazed with threats.

If I was asked to join your table and that was what I was being presented with, I'd decline without hesitation. If you came to my table and offered to DM after having played some sessions, I might give you a chance, but chances are I'd be arguing quite heavily with you regarding some of the points I've mentioned. If there still was nothing to make me interested, I'd just make Killer McKillerson, as nothing you've presented has made me interested in actually playing your game, I'd just show up to see my friends and maybe work off a little bit of aggression by murdering tons of dudes. Worst case scenario, I'd be a no-show as long as you were DMing.

[Trekkin]

Quite simply, no, but I know of some friends who'd do so. I just react poorly when the first thing anyone tells me about their DMing style is what I can't do. That is, of course, vital to know, but I consider it vastly more important to know the kind of game someone likes to run, or what they consider themselves proficient at administrating, or just the kind of story they'd like out of a game. I've never been able to sound less than pretentious saying or asking that sort of thing, but it remains the first thing that's going to inform my decision of whether or not to join a game.-and usually, people who provide lists of rules for that run games more regimented than I like.

[Con_Brio1993]

Does "classes are ingame constructs" mean that anyone that has a class in Wizard automatically has to have gone to wizard school in his background? And that anyone who takes a class in Barbarian has to have lived in the savage lands?

[Cogidubnus]

Giving casters *more* spells just screams poor understanding of how the game works to me. Might not be the case, but it's the vibe I get.


This was the one thing that really, really worried me.



Also, just outright banning sources without even considering my character concept and background? If a feat in complete divine fits my character concept really well, you still won't allow it? I don't want to play in a game that doesn't let me play what I want to play (within reason; I don't plan on arguing about wanting to play the lich werebear).


I have built a lich werebear. It was AWESOME.



And in general mixing 3.0 and 3.5 is strange... not something I'd be against. Just... strange. No complete warrior, but sword and fist is fine. Out of curiosity, is it specifically an issue of not having the complete warrior book?

I mix 3.0 and 3.5 a lot, guess it just never occurred to me not to. Do most people not?

Ed: It occurs to me that, as you're having to ask this question, you've had a lot of people not want to play by your rules. This suggests they're too limiting for the people you play with, so maybe you should tone it down a little for the sake of everyone enjoying the game and not losing friends?
Although there is a very good PbP DM, Deathwatch, who is famous for a) running great games and b) having rules that those of us Playgrounders who grin when we see the words "epic gestalt" cry to read.

[Anxe]

I don't think I'd have a problem playing with you. That's more from seeing your various posts elsewhere on the forums than this thread. However, you would have a problem playing with my group.

[Provengreil]

Does "classes are ingame constructs" mean that anyone that has a class in Wizard automatically has to have gone to wizard school in his background? And that anyone who takes a class in Barbarian has to have lived in the savage lands?

i think it's more like an NPC farmer talking in character could still differentiate between a wizard and sorceror, and label them as such.

As for me, I'd be in on one of your games.

[Con_Brio1993]

i think it's more like an NPC farmer talking in character could still differentiate between a wizard and sorceror, and label them as such.

As for me, I'd be in on one of your games.

Ok so my Rogue/Barbarian/Wizard could be identified as all three by NPCs, and wouldn't be a man who was in tune with the wild that became a bit too wild and then decided to reintegrate back into society by expanding his mind rather than his muscles?

edit: Meant Ranger, not Rogue.

[Seerow]

Ok so my Rogue/Barbarian/Wizard could be identified as all three by NPCs, and wouldn't be a man who was in tune with the wild that became a bit too wild and then decided to reintegrate back into society by expanding his mind rather than his muscles?

Yep. They'd see you as a crazy multiclass abomination rather than a person.

[Con_Brio1993]

Yep. They'd see you as a crazy multiclass abomination rather than a person.

So I'd look like this to them?

http://thefinalcastle.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/5e8b2_tumblr_lqpyx9BIxO1qzp9weo1_500.jpg

[Elfinor]

First off, I hate the idea of in-game constructs. It makes a character seem so much more shallow than they really are. I'd prefer to say something like Bob was trained in the art of swordplay and counterattacks. His motto is for every hit your opponent lands on you, land two back and have them hit twice as hard.


For specific rules, I really hate alignment restrictions, critical misses, and treating classes as in-game constructs ('cause since when has that made any sort of sense?).


I am happy to work around just about anything, but not that. I have no interest in a DM telling me 'no, a wizard/ranger/whatever wouldn't do that.' It would contribute to characters of the same class feeling the same from game to game, and also makes me feel like I can't truly make a character my own. I have no idea how stringent you are with it at the table, but that's the only thing that really gave me pause.

I'm a little surprised that people think (these weren't the only ones either, it's just to highlight a surprising-to-me trend) that just because someone know what class(es) your character is (or pretends to be!) that it's really a huge issue. AFAIK 'in-game construct' =/= 'recognizes all classes on sight'.

People can be just a bit savvy about the capabilities of significant people in their world - it doesn't suddenly mean you're forced into a roleplaying straitjacket. I mean... just look at The Giant's comic for example. Even in a world where knowledge of classes and game mechanics is commonplace there are facets of life that are not solely defined by class (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html):smalltongue:

[Frosty]

[QUOTE=Cogidubnus;12170790]I have built a lich werebear. It was AWESOME.]/QUOTE]Could you post this build please? I might use it tonight in a gamr of mine.

[NineThePuma]

Lich Wearbear... Sounds a little crazy. O.o

[Hirax]

it doesn't suddenly mean you're forced into a roleplaying straitjacket. I mean.

It can, and I've played with people where it is. It's not fun being told what your character would or would not do.

[Bhaakon]

It can, and I've played with people where it is. It's not fun being told what your character would or would not do.

No, but it's also not particularly fun to have an arch-metagamer in a RP-heavy group, or someone who mistakes Chaotic Neutral for Random Insane. I'm not saying that you're one of those, but sometimes DMs do have to address problem players. They owe it to the good players.

Granted, on the few occasions that I've had to do it, I don't just come out and say "your character wouldn't do that," but first ask the player, "why would your character do that?" And only overrule them if they can't provide a coherent answer.

[Hirax]

Of course, it's basically a seesaw that needs to be balanced by keeping as little weight as possible on each end, lest it break. When a DM says they view classes as ingame constructs, guess which side I think the seesaw is leaning to at the start. ;)

[Arcane_Snowman]

People can be just a bit savvy about the capabilities of significant people in their world - it doesn't suddenly mean you're forced into a roleplaying straitjacket. Not necessarily, but it can help stifle creativity: my favorite character remains a Kalashtar who unlike the rest of his race, he could dream, leading to some schizophrenic episodes because he was in the dream realm as well as this one. Suffice it to say, it was slowly driving him mad, and to avoid this inevitable fate was his reason for adventuring in the first place. One good thing came out of it though, he could make real anything he imagined, from the clothes on his back, to the monsters in the deepest pits of his subconscious, hell, he could even bend space and time to his whim, after all he could do almost everything at the speed of thought. Then, at some point as the group is looking around the great library, one of the other players say "hey, Psion, could you take a look at these scrolls."

Suddenly, all that fluff meant nothing, my character wasn't the lord of his own dreams and slave to his nightmares, he was simply a Psion 3/Incarnate 2/Soulmanifester 10.

[Dusk Eclipse]

I had a long detailed post; but the forum ate it so...

In short I would say no, most of your houserules don't really make sense and the kind of game they imply really isn't the kind of game I would like.

Also you seem really controlling and those threats of physical threat really, really upset me. So no I wouldn't play with you.

[Emmerask]

would you sit down for a game with me?

Sure.

more text needed

[Metahuman1]

I'd do it for a trial run if I though I could give you a book/PDF of a book a few weeks in advance and get reasonable levels of approval. (I'm looking specifically at Tome of Battle right this second. )

[Lawless III]

I treat classes as in-game constructs (and if you’re playing under me, so will you)

Because of this, I would not play with you. I don't like the beginning bit or the one at the end, but it's the little piece in the middle. "[I]f you're playing under me..." That just summarizes everything that makes me not want to play at your table. It makes me feel that your table is not the meeting place of adults who respect one another, but that of a ruler and his subjects. Maybe a few years in a group where 2/3 of the players also GM occasionally has simply diminished my fear of angering the Almighty Dungeon Master.

I would however invite you to play with my group.:smallbiggrin:

[Elfinor]

Of course, it's basically a seesaw that needs to be balanced by keeping as little weight as possible on each end, lest it break. When a DM says they view classes as ingame constructs, guess which side I think the seesaw is leaning to at the start. ;) Ah fair enough then. It's been over a year since I've DMed/played a game (moved house+notes+hard copy book/mini loss:smallannoyed:) but I never remember explicitly mentioning it to players, they seemed fine with the in-game construct thing but it was never hugely emphasised. Except once in an intimidation attempt when the the PC's badass Psion succeeded in milking the reputation of one nation's Psion academy and the differences in capability between Psions and Wilders (the latter of which the NPC was more familiar with and already quite scared of) to its fullest extent. Epic speech. I tended to go about moderate RP-moderate combat emphasis, for the record. But I'll keep it in mind for any future players/games. ANY! *Rocks back and forth in chair, grinning maniacally* Need... D&D... fix...

Ahem... Also, to answer your question BigTeej, I take minor umbrage to some of your rules and, more importantly to me, overly authoritarian stance but I would certainly give playing with you a shot, at least.

[PotatoNinja]

I'll take a crack.

Odd's are i'de play with you, but a few things that come up as iffy spots.


Working from a pure mechanics point of view


Spiked chain is one of the few ways for a melee character to have battlefield control. You're making melee builds that can be useful into pretty crappy. (No offense meant sir, i am a Primary DM myself, i have simply learned to work around these "abuses")

No inclusion of Tomb of Battle, the most renown book for making melee classes that aren't ALWAYS sub-par. It won't brake the game, and they're not overpowered. They let melee classes actually be useful in an other wise "magic or gtfo system."

From a personality point of view

I agree with the no rape jokes, i've quit session before because i've had a DM who constantly made rape joks, literally couldn't go a single session without a female NPC being raped.

No politics or religion? Good god man, my major is political science and i'm a semester away from grad school, there go's half of anything i can talk about with competance! Back to being quiet and sounding dumb :smallwink: I do understand the reason why, those "talks" do turn into **** fests very quickly, but i think moderation or getting people back on track shouldn't be to hard, i manage as a DM.

Otherwise man, i don't see any major turn offs.

[thompur]

Question: What character generation method do you use. It matters little to me, but I know that that answer alone could be a dael breaker for some in the playground.

[gabrion]

Anything not EXPLICITLY MENTIONED on the source list is out of bounds.
Online supplements, dragon magazine, eratta, etc. if I can’t lay my fingers on it in meat space, you can’t use it.

I made it this far (first line) and know I wouldn't play with you. It's your table and your choices obviously, but anyone who won't even consider a source just because they don't have a physical copy of it is too close minded for me.

[Duskranger]

Yes I would play with you, on the condition that you play and I (or someone else) DM.

In short as a DM no, as a player/fellow-player.

I find the rules too strict and a bit too agressive on the enforcement.

[Knaight]

Because of this, I would not play with you. I don't like the beginning bit or the one at the end, but it's the little piece in the middle. "f you're playing under me..." That just summarizes everything that makes me not want to play at your table. It makes me feel that your table is not the meeting place of adults who respect one another, but that of a ruler and his subjects. Maybe a few years in a group where 2/3 of the players also GM occasionally has simply diminished my fear of angering the Almighty Dungeon Master.

There was a lot of that, really. It was one of the big red flags that I felt was background enough to not warrant mentioning. These excerpts, basically.


my rules
if I can’t lay my fingers on it in meat space, you can’t use it.
if you are male, so is your character
Rule 2: no real world political/religious discussion, period. I don’t care if the whole damn table has the EXACT same viewpoint, [I]I do not want to hear it.
Rule 3: if you make my life easier, I will reward you, make my life difficult, so help me I will make you pay.
if you’re playing under me, so will you

[LordBlades]

I wouldn't play with you because, as others have said, I find the tone of your houserules too demanding and inflexible.

[flumphy]

Meh. I actually don't mind the inflexibility of the houserules. If someone isn't going to enjoy the style your group prefers, might as well weed them out beforehand. I don't agree with some of them from a mechanical perspective (especially the fumble rules), but the fact that you've at least laid them out before the start of the campaign shows some initiative. Not necessarily an in-depth knowledge of the mechanics, but again, initiative. Based only on the mechanics, I would consider giving your game a shot, albeit with reservations.

However, the threats of physical violence would have me clearing out asap. :smalleek:

[Coidzor]

Rule 3: if you make my life easier, I will reward you, make my life difficult, so help me I will make you pay.

So, just finding out about all of your houserules and such by being a new player and needing to become informed means that I would be making your life difficulty (not to go into having to introduce a new character and the interpersonal nitty gritty of having a new person in a group or dealing with a group comprised entirely of new people) and so right out of the starting gate I would be forced to pay for this indiscretion.

Sounds like this alone kinda precludes the appeal of joining the game or being able to, regardless of personal inclinations regarding the rest of your rules set.


No, but it's also not particularly fun to have an arch-metagamer in a RP-heavy group, or someone who mistakes Chaotic Neutral for Random Insane. I'm not saying that you're one of those, but sometimes DMs do have to address problem players. They owe it to the good players.

...What do those have to do with one another? :smallconfused: The stance one has viz classes as ingame constructs or not has nothing to do with people who are IRL trolling by acting like CN is CE with the serial numbers filed off.

If someone's being a problem player, they're going to be one unless they're doing it out of ignorance. If they're doing it out of ignorance, then straitjacketing everyone else to "protect the good players" is missing the point and attacking the symptom while ignoring the cause. If they're doing it maliciously and intentionally, then giving them actual cause to act out is counter-productive.

[Killer Angel]

So yea, that’s basically it, given the above information, do you have any questions for me?
if not, would you play with me? Why or why not?

Short answer? probably not.
I'm fine with many of your points, but in everyone of your spoilered lists, I can find thing(s) I disagree with (and not minor ones), so it's simpler to pass...

[Dust]

Whilst I can respect the fact that you're sticking to your proverbial guns when it comes to 'round-the-table rules, I'd probably ask you WHY particular house-rules were established; the Deity rule in particular. While I'd ultimately be willing to give you a shot as a GM, the underlying emotion for the first game would be caution as opposed to unabashed optimism and excitement...and by extension, knowing that at least one other player in the group isn't mature enough to handle something like a different-gendered character would make me wary.
I'd have to be impressed pretty quick to let the feelings of dread go, I think.

[TroubleBrewing]

As is the case with many others, the idea that classes are in-game constructs is a real deal-breaker for me.

[pffh]

I would be willing to give it a shot, not because of your house rules but because from your other posts on the forums you seem like a pretty decent guy but doubt I would stay. The gender rule, classes as in game construct and the crit fail rules are all usually deal breakers for me.

[Tytalus]

Would you play with me? Why or why not?

I wouldn't want to play "under" you.

As others have mentioned, the tone of the rules implies an unhealthy attitude towards DMing ("if you make my life easier, I will reward you, make my life difficult, so help me I will make you pay"), regulating too many aspects of what I believe should be in the player's hands (alignment, gender, viewing classes as in-game constructs, etc.).

My first thought was - no offense intended - that a DM giving me such a set of "rules" is likely a control freak. It's usually not fun to play with those.

The house rules themselves aren't well made either, IMHO. Good house rules should not only describe what they change, but also what you aim to accomplish with them. Some of them have that, but not all.

The critical hit an fumble rules tend to be always problematic, and your are no exception.

Some rules are too vague ("I have set in stone policies on various character types and actions (such as PVP, or “singularity” characters)") and should be detailed. Otherwise - why mention that?

Personally, I'm missing ToB on the list of allowed material and would prefer to have the other "Completes" and "Races" books on there, too, as well as the Spell Compendium. I'd also be a little hesitant to list all those 3.0 sources (what will players get out of Deities and Demigods, except perhaps for the somewhat problematic Soldier of Light? Are you really intending to have 3.0 versions of updated PrCs/feats/etc. in play, such as Defenders of Faith's Celerity and Mysticism domains?)

---

Recommendations:

Overall, I'd recommend the popular "these sources are ok to use, for everything else ask me. All characters are subject to approval." approach. Add a - less strongly worded - explanation that you prefer sources you have physical access to, if you like. You achieve pretty much the same as with your heavy-handed approach and appear much more open to player ideas.

Drop the alignment restrictions, or loosen them, e.g., by requiring a good explanation if somebody want to play those races/classes differently.

Clean up the house rules to only do two things: say what they change and why. Remove your own (strongly-worded) opinions about the original rules, e.g. (that spiked chain is "abuse", that exotic armors are "never" worth it, etc.).

I'd remove the "stitches XP", since it goes into the (slightly exaggerated) "please me, the mighty DM, and be rewarded" direction that probably doesn't sit well with all players. Similarly, I'd remove all similar points related to what's apparently your view of your role as the DM, such as "You jeapordize this priority at your own risk", "if you make my life easier, I will reward you, make my life difficult, so help me I will make you pay.", etc. They make you sound ... well, they don't make you appear to be a good DM.

Good luck!

[Thiyr]

Honestly, I might give it a try (I've tried plenty of stuff I didn't like going into it). But odds are against me liking it. In general it's been said before, but I'll repeat it with more reasoning from my end of things. First, though, a question. Worldbuilding XP. When you make something for my character, and you like it enough to keep it around, you give me XP? That's kinda weird, unless it's a typo.

1) Alignment restrictions are not something I enjoy at all. Later points will cover why.

2) Big deal breaker #1: Gender. I was expecting to be at least slightly less common for disliking this one, but it's a deal breaker for me. I'm allowed to act as a member of a race which may have a radically different mindset from traditional humans, but I can't play a human of a different gender? Besides which, two of my favorite characters to RP are female (Though one hides it quite thoroughly). I play the game to be creative in one form or another, really, and if my cool idea involves being female, I don't like being stifled because someone else can't be mature about it.

3) bonus spells...why? Not a problem, but a bad indicator of things to come for me. I've rarely run into a situation where spell slots are that badly needed, to be honest, even without the 5 minute workday.

4) Weapon proficiencies: I like the idea, but there's an underlying issue which will be covered later.

5)Crit fail rules just...not cool. I've had bad experiences with them in more than one occasion (character's smashing through the docks they were standing on and starting to drown due to heavy armor because they missed an attack, a character in a different system specialized in perception noticing that the cocaine filled room did, in fact, have cocaine in it, etc.) and in general, I don't like the idea that someone who is heavily trained in combat has a 5% chance of just going "derp!" and making some huge blunder, be it "leaving yourself wide open to attack", or "pulling my bowstring so hard it broke, despite being brand new and magically hardened".

6) "if you make my life easier, I will reward you, make my life difficult, so help me I will make you pay."

back to point 4: same reasoning as to why I dislike these as rules. I can come up with the most compelling reasons in the world, create a character who's practically becoming 4 dimensional with the amount of depth I'm shoving in, but if one detail strikes you as off, if I agree to this, that means I'm giving you the right to hose me for no good reason other than "because I don't like it." And while I'm willing to put up with that to an extent, I do that because we're equals and you're willing to let me do that to you as well. In general, if you're making a point to emphasize that your opinion is the one that matters, not mine, I start expecting that my name will start changing magically to Lanky (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23784)

7) "I treat classes as in-game constructs (and if you’re playing under me, so will you)"

This goes back to the previous point (that you're emphasising that my opinion doesn't matter) as well as point 1 and 2. I don't like alignment restrictions about as much as I don't like classes being an in-universe thing, because I enjoy playing a creative game, and those things which are widespread blanket restrictions stifle me in a way which I don't enjoy. I -can't- see classes as in game constructs, because it doesn't make sense to me. I've played druids who studied at their local wizard's guild to become a "nature mage". They did not revere nature, they saw it as a source of power which could be tapped for various means. I see no reason to make a distinction in-character between a wizard and a sorcerer. They're both casters to my character. So is a warlock, or a beguiler, or a psion, or a truenamer. Different capabilities, perhaps, but they're still all mages, and i'd treat them as such. If someone says that their character is calling upon the god of justice to bind their enemies and smite them, or to convince them that theirs is the wrong path, I will certainly not call them a warlock. I have no issues saying that your wizard is really just an alchemist, mixing together arcane reagents prepared during the day in highly specific ways. So long as you can put forth a reason for it, I'm cool. But when my heavy, defensive fighter with a handfull of nifty tricks from a realm outside his sword can't work because I'm willing to allow for evil in the world and have a penchant for disregarding authority, but paladin fits best with what I wanted to do, I'm not happy. I don't mind being shut down because something is too powerful. I can tone stuff down, even if I prefer a bit higher op. But being shut down because my idea doesn't fit any of the books ideas of how the classes are supposed to work isn't really that fun for me.

For reference, in most 3.5 games I'm playing in, I tend to take the right to laugh and say no. I do this specifically in cases of game balance and mechanics. I may not have liked, say, the drunken frog-monk with the characterization of a cardboard box, but I'll put up with it. But I hear word of Pazuzu, or prepping explosive runes every day, or other such shenanigans? I bring down the hammer because -I know this stuff-. I'm not the DM, but I know more than them about the system for most every group I've played in. Tweaking things for balance's sake, fine. Limiting things to physical books owned, sure (though I am seriously against the inclusion of a large number of 3.0 books that had stuff reprinted later. the X and X books specifically). But when your rules start saying "You absolutely must always play X like Y", then I start getting really wary. I'm used to trusting my playgroup to be mature enough that we don't bother to write down our houserules, because we all know that when we do something absurd, it'll just kinda ruin it for everyone else. Perhaps I've just been spoiled by that, though.

[Tyndmyr]

sources and source rules
my rules on sources are rather simple.
Anything not EXPLICITLY MENTIONED on the source list is out of bounds.
Online supplements, dragon magazine, eratta, etc. if I can’t lay my fingers on it in meat space, you can’t use it.
Furthermore, before you go through the BOED or the BOVD, I need to know why and approve it.
Anyways, source list

Arms and Equipment Guide
Book of Exalted Deeds
Book of Vile Darkness
Cityscape
Complete Adventurer
Deities and Demigods
Dungeon Master’s Guide
Dungeon Master’s Guide II
Dungeonscape
Expanded Psionics Handbook
Psionics Handbook
Magic of Incarnum
Monster Manual
Monster Manual II
Monster Manual III
Player’s Handbook
Player’s Handbook II
Races of Stone
Races of the Wild
Unearthed Arcana
Oriental Adventure’s
Sword and Fist
Song and Silence
Enemies and Allies
Tome and Blood
Defenders of the Faith
Masters of the Wild


Your lack of completes would bother me. That said, I own all books in meatspace, and I bring books with the stuff I use to games anyway. Loans are frequent to people who wish to learn more about them. If this is sufficient to allow them to be used, we have no problem.



Class Houserules
We do not use the Monk, the Soulborn, or the Soulknife as written, we use homebrewed ‘fixed’ versions that I have pre-approved.

I use none of these classes, and feel they all kind of suck. So...no worries.


Racial houserules
Skarn – must be Lawful
Rilkan – must be Chaotic

Not caring.


Alignment Houserules:
Druids must be True Neutral
Paladins must be Lawful Good, variants are banned.
*any alignment restriction built into the class must be adhered.

Variant paladins are a good thing. That said, if I want to play a "paladin", I'm just going to take races in say, wizard, instead. What I call myself in game is up to me. So, not caring.


Deity
All clerics must worship a diety, “cleric of a cause” is banned

Depends on setting. In some settings, this makes sense. In some, like Eberron, not as much.


Gender house-rule
No gender bender characters (I.E. if you are male, so is your character)

I tend not to violate this anyways...but this might cause me to worry slightly about the maturity level of the players that required this rule.


Traits/flaws
Any given character is allowed up to 2 traits, and 2 flaws – flaws subject to my approval

Quite reasonable. Generous, even. I probably would not use the full allotment.


Spellcasting houserule
A spellcaster gains his casting stat modifier in bonus spells per level

Er...you might regret that choice. 'cause this would almost certainly make me a wizard with all the spell slots in the world.


Feats taken
Any feats granting a +x to AC (example: dodge) give a flat +x bonus, not a bonus against a specific target.

Power shot: exactly as power attack, but can be used on thrown weapons and normal bows (not crossbows, nor slings)

This is just and proper.


Skills
All characters are allowed to add 2 knowledge skills of their choice to their class list at creation
All classes that already possess knowledge skills gain a + 2 bonus to them.
We will use the “fixed” diplomacy rules created by Rich Berlew

Reasonable. Though tbh, even the fixed diplomacy rules are very, very breakable. I don't choose to play diplomancers, and I do appreciated added steps taken to crimp their style, even if they don't entirely rule them out, though.


Weapons
All “exotic” weapons are treated as martial weapons provided two rules are followed
1) The character/player’s reasoning behind using the exotic version over a martial equivilant satisfys me.
2) It is nto abused (I.E. the spiked chain)
If a weapon is listed as “racial something or other” (I.E. orc double axe, dwarvven waraxe) that race is considered proficient in the weapon, regardless of class.

Armor./Shields
Exotic armor is NEVER worth a feat, as such, ignore any and all feats regarding exotic armor. The extra cost is built into the gold piece price.



Items and possessions
Provided you have extra dimensional space (handy haversack, bag of holding, a normal backpack, etc.) in somewhat proportion to your carried gear, I completely ignore encumberance rules.

Example: if it’s not 6 feet tall and/or made of solid rock, I really don’t care.

This is just a codification of what seems to happen in practice anyhow.


Languages
Everyone gets speak language as a skill, classes with it on their list gain 1 free language of their choice.

Reasonable. I might actually invest in languages.


XP:
In addition to normal combat XP and “overcoming challenges” XP I award “world-building”: and “stitches” XP

World building XP is gained whenever something I create something for your charcter (a unique weapon, a location, some backstory element, etc.) and I like it enough that I plan on keeping it in my setting, 250 xp per creation

Stitches XP – whenever I am incapable of continuing due to laughter, you gain stitches XP – 50 xp

The bonuses are small enough to be mostly irrelevant, but be aware that rewarding people for convincing you to create things for them will tend to result in them wanting things from you a lot.


NO MULTI CLASSING PENALTIES EVER
EVER
Ignore favored class rules, ignore multi-classing penalties, etc.

God yes, do people still not do this?


Money:
10 copper to 1 silver
10 silver to 1 gold
100 gold to one platinum

*shrug* Still carrying my wealth in diamonds.


Combat
If you have iterative attacks (such as from a high BAB, but not from TWF) you may divide these attacks as you wish amongst enemies you can reach

If you roll a natural 20, you automatically score a critical hit and roll accordingly

Well, there's already a few ways to negate confirmation, but this makes melee a bit more dangerous. Not to ME, obviously. Just to the chumps who actually take hits.


If you roll a natural 1, you must roll a confirmation roll, if you confirm the critical (by missing again) your turn ends, and you suffer at least one attack of opportunity from adjacent foes.

If you crit-fail on a ranged weapon, the weapon breaks in some manner, bowstring snaps, firing mechanism breaks, etc.

If you roll a natural 1, followed by a natural 20 on the confirmation roll, the attack is resolved as if you rolled a 10

If you roll a natural 1 on iterative attacks, they are simply treated as “auto-miss” not critical failures


Those will not make me choose to not play. They will simply cause me to not use attack rolls. If they're particularly irksome, I might kill adversaries by causing ridiculous amounts of attacks in hilarious ways.


out of game rules
this is a little speech each and every one of my players get prior to being admitted to the group.

Rule 1: no rape jokes at the table, I *will* bodily eject you from the game if necessary.

This...this has to be a rule?


Rule 2: no real world political/religious discussion, period. I don’t care if the whole damn table has the EXACT same viewpoint, I do not want to hear it.

I enjoy me a good debate, but they tend to be lengthy, and thus, do not occur at the game table anyway. Would bog down play.


Rule 3: if you make my life easier, I will reward you, make my life difficult, so help me I will make you pay.
[/SPOILER]

I actually recommend against this. It seems reasonable, and doesn't bother me in the slightest. However, it codifies and rewards metagaming, and is...rather amusingly abuseable.

[quote]playstyle stuff
[SPOILER]
I prefer low-op games.

Well, that might be a problem. Optimizing for lolamilliondamage! doesn't interest me much, but the idea of not having options is anathema to me. Any char I play will end up looking like a tier 1 in terms of available options at any given point in time.


I treat classes as in-game constructs (and if you’re playing under me, so will you)

I consider this...amusing. Be aware that this will result in me either taking lots of bluff/sense motive or Urban Savant for endless hilarity. You probably don't want to take this approach unless you want me killing people without bothering to talk to them because I know every last detail of their build and can deduce their goals.


The more dead set you are on something, the less likely I am to restrict it (I’m looking at you lady who wanted to play a succubus!)

So, again...you want me to beg you for things a lot. This sounds like a worrying rule.


I have set in stone policies on various character types and actions (such as PVP, or “singularity” characters)

I'm not sure what a singularity char is. PvP is not something I typically engage in with a desire to kill unless initiated by the other party. Therefore, your policies on it will not be a problem unless they forbid me from taking ANY action to try to stop a foolhardy teammate.


So yea, that’s basically it, given the above information, do you have any questions for me?
if not, would you play with me? Why or why not?

Probably not. Your rules indicate that you are likely to have immature players, a liking for power over players, and are uncomfortable with player empowerment.

They're far from the worst rules I've seen, and I could live with(and exploit!) them as written, but as usual, it's the why behind them that's more important than the rules themselves.

Edit: Having read through the rest of the thread, I have to say that while the threats of violence are inappropriate, and contributed to the negative impression(esp w regard to the power thing), they are not something I consciously noticed until it was pointed out, and would not at all be a deterrent to me, personally, playing. I would assume it was humor for emphasis until given reason to believe otherwise. That said, I'm an ex-mil mixed martial artist. Any sort of actual physical assault would be ended very swiftly.

[Greymane]

Hm. Knaight and Lawless III outlined the main reasons I would not play with you. I am not a child, nor a serf looking to throw my shoes at the Baron if the opportunity presents itself.

Treating classes as in-game constructs was a big one too. I have characters to create and give life to, and sometimes I have to make a bizarre combination to give them the abilities I feel they should have, while making the fluff bend to my will.

I wholeheartedly believe Seerow should play in your games, though. A Slaad would be good for you, and teach you the meaning of loosing your vice-like hold on being ruler of your D&D table. It could be an amazing romantic comedy where he teaches you the joys of freedom and what people can accomplish when they aren't bogged down by rules!

The romance part is when he puts Slaad eggs in you and you become a Slaad yourself. This ruins all the character development you had because that's how chaos rolls.

[BoutsofInsanity]

So, to explain some things that were not explained as well as they should have been. I game with Teej and he makes a great dm, Ive had 7 and he is number 2.

First off, his "bodily removal", He means, please dont say any rape jokes or laugh at them, otherwise please leave my game. If you dont leave at that point, then he throws you out. Its never been a problem cause the players are mature enough to handle it and be respectful. Second, since when is it ok to laugh at someone being physically and emotionally humiliated because someone couldnt control their base urges? Just saying, rape really isnt that funny.

The second key word I see is "make you pay". What he means is "Player" didnt email him a back story even though he had 2 months to do it and was reminded on it every week. Teej will just make the back story for the character, surprise, guess who has an assassin guild after him! Thats what Teej means if you make life difficult, then he wont go out of his way to make sure every little detail you want taken care of is handled. He will still do his job as a dm and treat everyone fairly, Its just, dont be a immature brat and he wont treat you like one. ITS NOT A THREAT OF VIOLENCE.

Third, regarding source material, If he has it in hard copy, then its usable, otherwise, probably bringing it in or specifically pointing out a page or option you want done, in a way that everyone has a common framework to work with will most likely be approved.

Tome of Battle, ok, so he hasnt read it yet, nor does he have it, until he has read it or has it, he cant approve it. Thats its main restriction as of now.

Regarding the crit fail rules, The way it works is like this...

20th level fighter rolls a 10, 15, 1, 20, 5, that 1 in there only means an auto miss, i don't remember if you have to confirm. You still get your attacks.

As to the bowstring example, it applies to all creatures as well, ive had boss characters in his games roll ones and turn the fight to our advantage.

The bonus spells, meh, honestly, at higher levels you dont run out of spells anyway, and at lower levels it just allows the casters a little more leeway in terms of low level spellcasting, Like levels 1 to 8 or so. It really doesnt matter because again, low opp games.

On the matter of low opp, let me explain... The sword and board fighter traditionally does better then the wizard/cleric/bard/druid in our games. Because we are more role play have fun with our classes and characters then, UBER SCARY MAILMAN/BATMAN/DRUID MONSTROSITY RAWR! Like, I had to change my fighter from the enlarged, spikechain, combat reflexes, stand still fighter to a two handed sword disarmer because I was overshadowing the party. Teej generally plays to the backstory you give him, so you are rewarded for having a compelling character and good backstory so he can give some hooks for your guy.

Finally, regarding genderbending, to me that seems a little weird, I can understand I guess from the female perspective, and kinda the guy thing, but for it to be a deal breaker kind of seems childish, its more of a preventive measure then anything. If the whole party has shown itself capable of roleplaying that way in a mature fashion, he most likely wont have a problem with it. Its there to be fair to all players and prevent any arguments and disagreements.

Regarding politics and such, Im a Christian, some of our players are not, by not allowing politics to be discussed in game time, or around the time of being able to sit down and play, prevents the game from being hogged down, and from people getting upset or angry. If during snack break, or smoke break, you want to discuss politics, thats allowed, but we dont want to cause a breakdown in the group because we are all different and have different opinions and ideas.


Umm, lets see, that seems to address some of the misunderstandings on the forums that I have seen, Im not saying change your decision, I just want to clarify what he means in some of his posts. BTW I am a good friend of Teej, he feels
:(
after reading. Lolz Umm that should be it, keep playing playgrounds!
Ive gamed with him, its tons of fun and he does a really good job.

[Snowbluff]

Absolutely NOT! No ToB, and apparently, no Completes? That's enough to make me not want to do it. Screams DM bigotry to me, and repels the character builder side in me. As well as the melee fighter. :smallfrown:
Why would you ban those, but not the awkward 3e material you have allowed?

And what the hell am I supposed to with the first three monster manuals? Play a Fleshraker cheese Druid?

Can I use the 4th and 5th MM? I think they exist, not sure...

No rape jokes too. We are all adults (I think, might be kids playing?), we can handle that. You can't tell me political opinions won't come up, too. What if my toon happens to share my opinions, and he ends up in a situation based on those opinions? :smallfurious:

Some of your house rulings make sense, but I find them not very useful/relevant. Why bother ban Paladin variants? Big waste of time, and crunches up evil party compositions.

Using Flaws/Traits is fine with me, subject to approval, must be roleplayed imo. /agree

I let people roll for gender if they want to, no one ever rolls well enough anyway.

Who would use the modified Monk when you can use the perfectly good Sword Sa- OH WAIT! :smallannoyed:

Looking at your caster level bonus spell buff, you just seem out to baby casters and nerf melee. :smallyuk:

[MlleRouge]

Gender house-rule
No gender bender characters (I.E. if you are male, so is your character)




I disagree with some of your other house rules and might find myself uncomfortable at first, but willing to give you a shot, as I'm usually pretty laid back...but this one would be the deal-breaker. I'm not willing to play characters of my own gender, for a variety of reasons....and honestly, I don't see a reason to ban them.

Some of the other rules I might question or not particularly care for (though some are quite solid IMO, and some of the ones I don't care for amount to taste), but this one would be enough to send me to another table.


EDIT: Also, I've read a bit more of the thread and came across your reasoning for this rule. I must say, I still don't agree, though I guess that does solve the problem. However, it's highly unfair to people who haven't done anything wrong. It's like punishing them for something they might do.

[sonofzeal]

- Buff spellcasters (with extra slots) and nerf non-casters? No thanks!

- Enforce alignment restrictions even more heavily than the official rules do? No thanks!

- Enforce classes-as-in-game-constructs? No thanks!



It seriously worries me that you've got five or six different lines in there that exist for no other reason than to restrict my roleplay. I can't play NE Druids, I can't play Paladins of Freedom, I can't play women, I can't deconstruct class expectations - in short, I can't play anything unless I do it the way YOU expect me to.

Seriously, is that how you want to be?

I came into this thread expecting some moderately restrictive houserules, and was all prepared to say "well it's not my preference but it's better than nothing". The limited books, the ban on politics, the critical fumble rules, those aren't my preference but I'd accept them. But no. I'll pass, purely on principal at this point. It's an outright theme in your rules that you don't trust players to RP in the way you want them to, and are prepared to use ultimatums to force them back into line.

I'm sorry. No. Not worth the stress. Not if you clearly don't respect me, my playstyle, and/or my ability to roleplay.

[Duskranger]

Lot's of text which in my ears sound like apologies from someone not the OP.


If he feels that way he should tell us and not let someone else tell him. Besides, why does he need to ask the question if he feels comfortable with DM-ing and his rules. The fact that he states the question means he thinks something is wrong apparantly.

Besides that I play a game for new players (which means low-op), if I would enforce the rules on them that are enforced by the OP I think they would quit playing. Instead of that now they ask me how fast I can have another session ready, because they want to play. I play a houserule light game though.

They may pick any class from PHB, I use items from the MIC (especially the loot list :smallbiggrin:) and it's fun because the players are not spoiled yet, though when they have more experience I will allow Magic of Incarnum, Tome of Battle, the completes etcetera, if they wish to take classes from there. I know most classes and almost everything can be found, from online supplements or even WoTC articles (Warblade + maneuvers for example) so why ban it. Having a hardcopy is not important, it's for a DM more important to have fun with the players, at all times.

[SiuiS]

The only rules I see that bother me at all are "no gender-bender characters" and the hard-and-fast classes exist as such in game bit. The first one because sometimes gender is an important part of the concept for the character; the second one is knee jerk and I occasionally want to play games where all cleric-classed folks are clerics. Heck, I'd be cool with the "only humans can be paladins" rule from yore, so long as you were aware is go elsewhere for different games.

I have to wonder at the meatspace requirement; if I have something that works for a concept, and it requires either handwaving OR a feat from dragon magazine, I would normally try to get the feat. I may even get cheeky and print out the relevant text soyou have a meatspace example :smallsmile: in general though, I'd say you may fare better with a caveat that you'll consider anything, and judge on an individual basis. Which I think you have. Or you're wining at the succumbs chick for an entirely different reason :smallwink:

[Rimeheart]

I am gona say depends, now.

Well, actually I think as some others pointed out. What would really help me decide is an understanding of the types of campaigns you run.

I find your restriction on player speech bother some. Then again I enjoy railing against censorship of all kinds. I understand wanting to make a friendly environment. However it would be up to the people present to learn and understand each other well enough to figure out what topics end up being taboo within the group. Honestly, it is not about me going out and making jokes about your specified taboo topic. However that alone has an intimidating effect on a person making them think more than just that is off limits in terms of comedic material.

I think you might actually do better to have your current players explain/ talk about these rules you have for incoming players. Since you current player talking about it made it seem a bit friendlier. I guess that kind of happens when you are making a list of things it tends to be a bit impersonal and so meaning is lost. This happens alot when a person knows the material well and tries to explain it to others. It helps often to assume your audiance is very ignorant. So you stop and consider how best to present the information in a way that helps them understanding why things are presented in such a way.

All this being said, I would be willing to try a few sessions and see what the dynamics are like and if I can fit in well while having fun.

[Ajadea]

The attitude in the houserules is a big turnoff for me, even if the rules do make sense. I look at them and see hints at either a controlling DM or a highly immature player base. As far as I am concerned, there is not a single excuse for making a character that is a donkey orifice with a penchant for aiming pointy objects at their compatriots' dorsal halves. Or, in plain English: A backstabbing [bleep]hole

1: No genderbending
Not even delving into the intersex and transgender players issue, what about a character concept that shows up in the opposite gender? Can I not play that character, even if I have a backstory and everything for it?

2: Randomly breaking ranged weaponry
Just...what? Really. If a magical master bow in the hands of the best archer in the world breaks 5% of the time, I have to wonder what sort of training the bowmakers get. This bugs me, and nerfs archers in a very bad way.

3: if you make my life easier, I will reward you, make my life difficult, so help me I will make you pay.
There are a ton of better ways to phrase this. The way this is said sounds like a threat that an Evil Overlord might make.

4: A billion extra spell slots for spellcasters
This does not make it easy to be low-op, I'm telling you.

5: No rape jokes
Your playerbase makes rape jokes? I'm not sure those are players I'd want to game with.

And I'm out.

[Krazzman]

I would.

First off I think it would be ok to bring the Sourcebook to you that you can read it.

Alignment restrictions? I don't care, except for the druid a tiny little bit. Paladins in 3.5 are not to my likes and Druids are just...meh.

Fumble? I got this too in my current group. I rolled 2 ones as a 8th level rogue with both my kukris. I dropped both of them. Another player of our dm shoots the first time with his bow and *zirp* breaks a 5cp part of the bow that is repaired with a move and a full round action.

You probably won't play with me cause my humour has a good chunk of black...if I think its funny then it's funny for me.

The change to spellcasters made me go huh? But was explained by your friend.

The only thing I don't understand is the low-op part, but I've got problems with that. I don't know how to distribute it. My dm got a bit biased opinion on optimization. While I say it is taking Power Attack instead of Weapon Specialization he directly thinks of cheese. For a high op caster to take boost casts often and uses them on the party so he doesn't over shadow them but is instead the life insurance more or less, would he be ok in your round?

[Knaight]

Finally, regarding genderbending, to me that seems a little weird, I can understand I guess from the female perspective, and kinda the guy thing, but for it to be a deal breaker kind of seems childish, its more of a preventive measure then anything. If the whole party has shown itself capable of roleplaying that way in a mature fashion, he most likely wont have a problem with it. Its there to be fair to all players and prevent any arguments and disagreements.

Preventing Joe from playing Jane because Jim always plays the hypersexualized lesbian is not fairness. It is dragging the game down to Jim's level. As for viewing it as weird, that's fine. Just understand that the restriction seems incredibly odd and draconian for legitimate reasons for many of us.

[Arcane_Snowman]

Umm, lets see, that seems to address some of the misunderstandings on the forums that I have seen, I'm not saying change your decision, I just want to clarify what he means in some of his posts. BTW I am a good friend of Teej, he feels
:(
after reading. Lolz Umm that should be it, keep playing playgrounds!
Ive gamed with him, its tons of fun and he does a really good job. I'm sorry to say, but what he means is impossible to tell, we have nothing to go on but the information presented and the tone of the text. And what was presented was an overly draconian, restrictive and some places downright threatening attitude towards people he does not know. For all I know, me Mr.-Random-Stranger-no-26.-with-no-prior-knowledge-of-Teej, this is exactly how he is in person, because that's the only way he's presented himself.

There's multiple different ways he could have phrased himself, many of which would not have been threatening or seem as if his base assumption was that we were rampaging adolescents at all, but he didn't chose any of those, he opted for threats instead of mature discourse.

Edit: That being said, I'd personally be willing to give a second chance.

[Mystral]

sources and source rules

*Snip*

No Complete Books except complete adventurer? Lots of 3.0 books? Neither MIC nor SC? Meh.


Class Houserules
We do not use the Monk, the Soulborn, or the Soulknife as written, we use homebrewed ‘fixed’ versions that I have pre-approved.

Racial houserules
Skarn – must be Lawful
Rilkan – must be Chaotic

Alignment Houserules:
Druids must be True Neutral
Paladins must be Lawful Good, variants are banned.
*any alignment restriction built into the class must be adhered.

Wouldn't want to play on that, anyway. Maybe paladin, but not of a different variant.


Deity
All clerics must worship a diety, “cleric of a cause” is banned

Wouldn't bother me.


Gender house-rule
No gender bender characters (I.E. if you are male, so is your character)

This one is the deal breaker for me. I am male and favor playing female chars. I do so quite well and enjoy it, and so do most of the people I play with, and if I can't play what I enjoy, why should I?


Traits/flaws
Any given character is allowed up to 2 traits, and 2 flaws – flaws subject to my approval

Well, if everyone gets them, it might be balanced. I think 1 flaw is enough.


Spellcasting houserule
A spellcaster gains his casting stat modifier in bonus spells per level

What the... Spellcasters don't need a power boost. This houserule is rubbish and makes wizards insane. You should scratch that, spellcasters already are the most powerfull characters in D&D, they don't need to be given 4 bonus spells per level.


Feats taken
Any feats granting a +x to AC (example: dodge) give a flat +x bonus, not a bonus against a specific target.

Minor Fix, Dodge still isn't worth it except as a prerequisite.


Power shot: exactly as power attack, but can be used on thrown weapons and normal bows (not crossbows, nor slings)

Looks fine to me.


Skills
All characters are allowed to add 2 knowledge skills of their choice to their class list at creation
All classes that already possess knowledge skills gain a + 2 bonus to them.
We will use the “fixed” diplomacy rules created by Rich Berlew.

This is a very nice houserule all in all, I approve more knowledge skills for everyone. I think that a +1 on the knowledge skills is enough, though.


Weapons
All “exotic” weapons are treated as martial weapons provided two rules are followed
1) The character/player’s reasoning behind using the exotic version over a martial equivilant satisfys me.
2) It is nto abused (I.E. the spiked chain)
If a weapon is listed as “racial something or other” (I.E. orc double axe, dwarvven waraxe) that race is considered proficient in the weapon, regardless of class.

Meh.


Armor./Shields
Exotic armor is NEVER worth a feat, as such, ignore any and all feats regarding exotic armor. The extra cost is built into the gold piece price.

In summary
If you are proficient in a given type of armor (light, medium, heavy, shields) you are considered proficient in “exotic” armors of that type.


Never used exotic armor.



Items and possessions
Provided you have extra dimensional space (handy haversack, bag of holding, a normal backpack, etc.) in somewhat proportion to your carried gear, I completely ignore encumberance rules.

Example: if it’s not 6 feet tall and/or made of solid rock, I really don’t care.

Nice, quick and dirty. Like this one.


Languages
Everyone gets speak language as a skill, classes with it on their list gain 1 free language of their choice.

Again, all for giving people more access to knowledge.


XP:
In addition to normal combat XP and “overcoming challenges” XP I award “world-building”: and “stitches” XP

World building XP is gained whenever something I create something for your charcter (a unique weapon, a location, some backstory element, etc.) and I like it enough that I plan on keeping it in my setting, 250 xp per creation

Stitches XP – whenever I am incapable of continuing due to laughter, you gain stitches XP – 50 xp

Seems fine, though I think this one should scale with level, so people don't create like crazy at levels 1-3 and slacken of at level 15.



NO MULTI CLASSING PENALTIES EVER
EVER
Ignore favored class rules, ignore multi-classing penalties, etc.

Nice one, always hated those.


Money:
10 copper to 1 silver
10 silver to 1 gold
100 gold to one platinum

Why not?


Combat
If you have iterative attacks (such as from a high BAB, but not from TWF) you may divide these attacks as you wish amongst enemies you can reach

As already stated, this is not a houserule, this is RAW.


If you roll a natural 20, you automatically score a critical hit and roll accordingly

Too strong and makes play to deadly at low levels. The thing is that this one favours high crit modifier weapons (axes, scythe, picks) but long sword and so on get nothing nice in return.


If you roll a natural 1, you must roll a confirmation roll, if you confirm the critical (by missing again) your turn ends, and you suffer at least one attack of opportunity from adjacent foes.

If you crit-fail on a ranged weapon, the weapon breaks in some manner, bowstring snaps, firing mechanism breaks, etc.

I don't like fumbles, although AoO aren't the worst one you can get. The snapping bowstrings is rubbish, though. Archers deal their damage by attacking often, so their bowstrings last about 5 combat rounds.


If you roll a natural 1, followed by a natural 20 on the confirmation roll, the attack is resolved as if you rolled a 10

If you roll a natural 1 on iterative attacks, they are simply treated as “auto-miss” not critical failures

Needlessly complicated.



Rule 1: no rape jokes at the table, I *will* bodily eject you from the game if necessary.
Rule 2: no real world political/religious discussion, period. I don’t care if the whole damn table has the EXACT same viewpoint, I do not want to hear it.
Rule 3: if you make my life easier, I will reward you, make my life difficult, so help me I will make you pay.

And finally, we’re here to have fun. You jeapordize this priority at your own risk.

Maybe you should rephrase this one, this little speech of yours sounds very threatening.


I prefer low-op games.
I treat classes as in-game constructs (and if you’re playing under me, so will you)

I'm sure you prefer low op, but by insanely buffing spellcasters and nerfing fighters with critical fumbles, you are not exactly helping your course. I personally don't mind the in game constructs, but I prefer mid-op games.


The more dead set you are on something, the less likely I am to restrict it (I’m looking at you lady who wanted to play a succubus!)

I don't get this one? If I just mope around enough, I get what I want?


I have set in stone policies on various character types and actions (such as PVP, or “singularity” characters)

I don't like stuff that is set in stone, but can't comment on that because I don't know that those policies are.

All in all, I would only play at your table if you were the only dm in about 1,5 hour of travel AND my chat-rpg games would die down AND I couldn't find a replacement for them.

[kamikasei]

Nope. Some of the houserules irk me, though more just don't make much difference one way or another. A few look good, reflecting a flexibile attitude to mechanics which I appreciate. I really, really don't like any sort of critical fumble rules, though. Those are a big red flag for me.

Several non-mechanical rules are bigger issues. Alignment restrictions. Gender restrictions. Classes as in-game constructs. The last is a major playstyle mismatch for me. The first two are not things for which there should be hard-and-fast rules. Especially when it comes to gender and your stated reasons for the rule, it comes off as "the group had problems with this issue before, so rather than dealing with the specific problem and the people involved, I made a blanket rule that restricts you because someone else behaved badly and I couldn't address it with them". This does not inspire confidence in either the maturity of the group or your ability to handle OOC problems.

Overall, the impression I get is of a somewhat immature group where historical and possibly one-off problems have been papered over with rules fixes. This means my options are limited by what may have been one player's obnoxiousness one time in the past, and that I doubt there's a healthy mechanism in place to deal with possible future obnoxiousness. This puts me off right away.

Separately, I'm disturbed by the number of responses to the "no rape jokes" rule which aren't "it's worrying that you feel the need to make that and only that a rule for your group" but rather "you'll pry my rape jokes from my cold dead hands!".

I let people roll for gender if they want to, no one ever rolls well enough anyway.
I'm curious what this means and/or how it works.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

So, to explain some things that were not explained as well as they should have been. I game with Teej and he makes a great dm, Ive had 7 and he is number 2.

First off, his "bodily removal", He means, please dont say any rape jokes or laugh at them, otherwise please leave my game. If you dont leave at that point, then he throws you out. Its never been a problem cause the players are mature enough to handle it and be respectful. Second, since when is it ok to laugh at someone being physically and emotionally humiliated because someone couldnt control their base urges? Just saying, rape really isnt that funny.For me at least, it isn't about wanting to make rape jokes. Ew. It's about the threats of physical violence - even if it's because someone's a boop and won't leave after pressing a hot button, violence isn't okay.

The second key word I see is "make you pay". What he means is "Player" didnt email him a back story even though he had 2 months to do it and was reminded on it every week. Teej will just make the back story for the character, surprise, guess who has an assassin guild after him! Thats what Teej means if you make life difficult, then he wont go out of his way to make sure every little detail you want taken care of is handled. He will still do his job as a dm and treat everyone fairly, Its just, dont be a immature brat and he wont treat you like one. ITS NOT A THREAT OF VIOLENCE.Well, that one isn't, but it's still a threat. It just keeps up the tone that goes through the whole list.

Tome of Battle, ok, so he hasnt read it yet, nor does he have it, until he has read it or has it, he cant approve it. Thats its main restriction as of now.Honestly, ToB wasn't meant for hyper low op.

Regarding the crit fail rules, The way it works is like this...

20th level fighter rolls a 10, 15, 1, 20, 5, that 1 in there only means an auto miss, i don't remember if you have to confirm. You still get your attacks.

As to the bowstring example, it applies to all creatures as well, ive had boss characters in his games roll ones and turn the fight to our advantage.Thing is, it just turns me off from non-ToB nonmagical martial characters even more than I already am. And then I have to play a really, really dumbed down caster or ruin everyone else's fun? More on this later.

The bonus spells, meh, honestly, at higher levels you dont run out of spells anyway, and at lower levels it just allows the casters a little more leeway in terms of low level spellcasting, Like levels 1 to 8 or so. It really doesnt matter because again, low opp games.It doesn't matter for you guys, but it matters for someone used to anything-above-hyper-low-op considering playing a caster who has to avoid being relatively overpowered.

On the matter of low opp, let me explain... The sword and board fighter traditionally does better then the wizard/cleric/bard/druid in our games. Because we are more role play have fun with our classes and characters then, UBER SCARY MAILMAN/BATMAN/DRUID MONSTROSITY RAWR! Like, I had to change my fighter from the enlarged, spikechain, combat reflexes, stand still fighter to a two handed sword disarmer because I was overshadowing the party. Teej generally plays to the backstory you give him, so you are rewarded for having a compelling character and good backstory so he can give some hooks for your guy.See, there's a vast, enormous gulf between the mailman and your standard battlefield control fighter... and yet another vast gulf between him and your party. I actually would only optimize to mailman levels in very special games, and I'm guessing the same can be said for most other people here. That still means if I play a caster I basically have to ignore half of his spell list and just blast away, lest I overshadow the group. If I simply choose good core spells as a wizard and put my highest stat in INT, my dude imbalances your game. If I actually use the druid's class features for combat, my dude imbalances your game. And it's not just the crazy T1 characters. If I bring in a (T3) Bard and use his skills and limited list of spells as completely intended by WotC, my dude imbalances your game. Heck, you brought a T5 character - tripper fighter - to the table, and it imbalanced your game. If I didn't know you guys were hyper low op, I could imbalance your game with a commoner on accident,, but hey, he'd be invalid because it would draw on sourcebooks you don't have.

Maybe a buffer would work (by making everyone awesome), or maybe that would be discouraged some other way.


Finally, regarding genderbending, to me that seems a little weird, I can understand I guess from the female perspective, and kinda the guy thing, but for it to be a deal breaker kind of seems childish, its more of a preventive measure then anything. If the whole party has shown itself capable of roleplaying that way in a mature fashion, he most likely wont have a problem with it. Its there to be fair to all players and prevent any arguments and disagreements.I think the only way it's a "dealbreaker" is that the rule itself is childish, or at the very least signals to me that there's at least one childish person at the table. To others it's a slap in the face, another way for the DM to quash a concept that otherwise had no problems at all.

Regarding politics and such, Im a Christian, some of our players are not, by not allowing politics to be discussed in game time, or around the time of being able to sit down and play, prevents the game from being hogged down, and from people getting upset or angry. If during snack break, or smoke break, you want to discuss politics, thats allowed, but we dont want to cause a breakdown in the group because we are all different and have different opinions and ideas.And apparently we can't discuss these opinions and ideas like adults. I mean, it's one thing if the rule is "keep table chatter to a minimum." In some settings, that rule can be necessary and/or ambiance enhancing. But singling out politics once again signals that this group just can't handle that topic.

Umm, lets see, that seems to address some of the misunderstandings on the forums that I have seen, Im not saying change your decision, I just want to clarify what he means in some of his posts. BTW I am a good friend of Teej, he feels
:(
after reading. Lolz Umm that should be it, keep playing playgrounds!
Ive gamed with him, its tons of fun and he does a really good job.I'm sure you guys have great fun, but I have to ask, what was the point of this thread if not to get rejected a bunch because the forumites tend to have a different play style/people don't like playing "under" others?

[Emmerask]

I'm sure you guys have great fun, but I have to ask, what was the point of this thread if not to get rejected a bunch because the forumites tend to have a different play style/people don't like playing "under" others?

around 2/3 would give it a shot so I don´t quite see the point.
I know I would not get that much approval with my heavily restricting casters houserules ^^

[elpollo]

20th level fighter rolls a 10, 15, 1, 20, 5, that 1 in there only means an auto miss, i don't remember if you have to confirm. You still get your attacks.

20th level fighter rolls a 1 (2 to confirm), 20, 19, 18, 17, that 1 means that you achieve absolutely nothing with your turn and also get wailed on. Mundane suffers enough at high levels - potentially taking away the one thing they can do (i.e. attacking) is not cool.



As to the bowstring example, it applies to all creatures as well, ive had boss characters in his games roll ones and turn the fight to our advantage.

It doesn't matter. A monster will usually have at most 2-3 fights (and that tends to be rare without DM fiat), whereas a player character will have over 10 per level - that's a whole load more chances to be screwed over. The DM also has significantly less attachment to the enemy than the player does the PC, and usually has multiple other enemies in the fight with which he can still fight. If Mr Archer PC's bow breaks then he's left out of the loop until an appropriate break.



The bonus spells, meh, honestly, at higher levels you dont run out of spells anyway, and at lower levels it just allows the casters a little more leeway in terms of low level spellcasting, Like levels 1 to 8 or so. It really doesnt matter because again, low opp games.

No, you don't tend to run out of spells at high levels. You do tend to be limited in level 8 and 9 slots, though. Even low-op you can expect a relevant casting stat bonus of +6-+7, which means six or seven additional level 8 and 9 slots. How many fights take more than 2 level 9 spells to finish? Not many.



Finally, regarding genderbending, to me that seems a little weird, I can understand I guess from the female perspective, and kinda the guy thing, but for it to be a deal breaker kind of seems childish, its more of a preventive measure then anything. If the whole party has shown itself capable of roleplaying that way in a mature fashion, he most likely wont have a problem with it. Its there to be fair to all players and prevent any arguments and disagreements.

It's not fair to all players, though. It's only fair to the players who want to play characters of the same sex as themselves. Would you find it weird if some people didn't want to play in a game where they were only able to play humans?



Ive gamed with him, its tons of fun and he does a really good job.

Nobody's doubting that, but this is a post asking if these conditions would entice you into gaming. You can't be surprised when people say "No", particularly when you have some fairly serious limitations on what kind of game it's going to be.

[Amphetryon]

Random question occurs on the "no gender-bending" rule: Do you disallow Changelings out of hand, even if the relevant books are available to you in meatspace? Because, sure, Tommy plays Charlie the Changeling Bard as a male, but for espionage purposes, Charlie becomes Charlene, infiltrating the Queen's inner circle to root out the poisoner amongst them. Did Tommy just violate your house-rules, or didn't he?

See also: Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity.

[lorddrake]

It's for a DM more important to have fun with the players, at all times.

This is the important stuff. I cannot describe how much it is important.

If for only the rules (mostly the roleplay restrictive ones) I'd think twice, but I'd give it a try (specially for a good review from BoutsofInsanity - a third party opinion matters).

In the end I would try to have fun, If I do not, I bail out no heart feelings etc.

EDIT: I forgot to add one thing: anything on a game that is not okay for me I'd discuss first.


The more dead set you are on something, the less likely I am to restrict it (I’m looking at you lady who wanted to play a succubus!)

And I like this kind of DM (because I mostly think this way). It's about something fun! My players like to make some horrorful combinations for flavor (like the swashbuckler/bard son of a Dracolich - played by friend who happens to be a girl... so genderbent)

And a curiosity. How works both things together? You allow what players want (if they're dead set) but are not allowed genderbender even if they're dead set on it? And promise to behave?

[Jack of Spades]

Would I play with you?

Sure. I'm generally pretty accomodating to DM's running their games the way they want to.

Would I make it through a campaign?

Nope. I would probably be kicked out of it at some point.

It's about the rape joke rule. Not that it has anything to do with any sort of insensitivity on my part. On the contrary, people very close to me have been affected by that kind of crime, and I understand the giant ball of emotions it brings out.

I just can't deal with people who have "hot button" issues. I can't do it. I can't step carefully over every sentence I say to try to ensure that I don't offend you by making a slight reference to the act of unlawful carnal knowledge. "Rape Joke" is such a broad term, which I have no way of defining in such a way that I know I can offend someone with such a black and white view of the issue. Furthermore, the existence of that one social land-mine, to me at least, alludes to the existence of others. Others that I will inevitably walk straight onto no matter how I craft my words to avoid the first.

Basically, what I'm saying is that there's a fine line between black humor and insensitivity, and I can almost guarantee that you disagree with both myself and every person in my social group as to where that line sits (not to try to paint 'me and mine' as superior, I'm just noting a major difference in our social environments). Which would almost definitely get me kicked out of your game. Probably not for making rape jokes-- and definitely not for saying anything which has come from a place of hate, scorn, or other malicious intent. But for crossing some sort of line, I'm sure.

In a more broad sense, that one specific rule tells me that you and I wouldn't get along very well in the first place. And when I game, I prefer to do it in a comfortable environment with friends.

To make sure no-one attempts to call me a womanizer or something, I'm going to boldface it one more time: I have no desire to cast the irredeemable crime of unlawful carnal knowledge in such a light so as to offend or hurt others.

[profitofrage]

Would I play with you?

Sure. I'm generally pretty accomodating to DM's running their games the way they want to.

Would I make it through a campaign?

Nope. I would probably be kicked out of it at some point.

It's about the rape joke rule. Not that it has anything to do with any sort of insensitivity on my part. On the contrary, people very close to me have been affected by that kind of crime, and I understand the giant ball of emotions it brings out.

I just can't deal with people who have "hot button" issues. I can't do it. I can't step carefully over every sentence I say to try to ensure that I don't offend you by making a slight reference to the act of unlawful carnal knowledge. "Rape Joke" is such a broad term, which I have no way of defining in such a way that I know I can offend someone with such a black and white view of the issue. Furthermore, the existence of that one social land-mine, to me at least, alludes to the existence of others. Others that I will inevitably walk straight onto no matter how I craft my words to avoid the first.

Basically, what I'm saying is that there's a fine line between black humor and insensitivity, and I can almost guarantee that you disagree with both myself and every person in my social group as to where that line sits (not to try to paint 'me and mine' as superior, I'm just noting a major difference in our social environments). Which would almost definitely get me kicked out of your game. Probably not for making rape jokes-- and definitely not for saying anything which has come from a place of hate, scorn, or other malicious intent. But for crossing some sort of line, I'm sure.

In a more broad sense, that one specific rule tells me that you and I wouldn't get along very well in the first place. And when I game, I prefer to do it in a comfortable environment with friends.

To make sure no-one attempts to call me a womanizer or something, I'm going to boldface it one more time: I have no desire to cast the irredeemable crime of unlawful carnal knowledge in such a light so as to offend or hurt others.

This pretty much sums up my opinion entirely.

Ever laughed at a dog trying to get it on with a friends leg? rape joke.
This scene from a movie? Rape joke http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St0-Y43XILc&feature=related
EDIT: these are examples im giving to show theres a far cry in difference between "forcing yourself on a helpless person" and what some of the more common jokes i hear around the table are. Its not all black and white.

I too have come face to face with this issue, However the problem is that outright banning it shows that this isnt an issue of disagreeing humor. It shows that your not emotionally stable on certain subjects and with that comes the high chance that other such subjects exist. Why would anyone want to play in a game where one sentance or chuckle could result in banishment and a threat of voilence?

[Tyndmyr]

Preventing Joe from playing Jane because Jim always plays the hypersexualized lesbian is not fairness. It is dragging the game down to Jim's level. As for viewing it as weird, that's fine. Just understand that the restriction seems incredibly odd and draconian for legitimate reasons for many of us.

There are a LOT of concepts that require a certain degree of maturity to play. Assuming the worst from all players is not a good sign. Either you're punishing everyone without reason or you have a group of players that DO lack maturity. Either explanation is sufficient to make me question the wisdom of joining the group.

[Knaight]

There are a LOT of concepts that require a certain degree of maturity to play. Assuming the worst from all players is not a good sign. Either you're punishing everyone without reason or you have a group of players that DO lack maturity. Either explanation is sufficient to make me question the wisdom of joining the group.

Exactly. I'm just showing that it isn't "fairness" either.

[kjones]

Would I play with you?

Sure. I'm generally pretty accomodating to DM's running their games the way they want to.

Would I make it through a campaign?

Nope. I would probably be kicked out of it at some point.

-snip-

Just to clarify, let's say the rule was "Rape jokes at my table are not cool, and if you make one, I'll ask you not to make another one". Would you have a problem with that rule? Or is it the "zero tolerance" aspect of the original rule that you have a problem with?

[Brumski]

(got thru the first page before deciding to post)

Sure.

In reading these forums it's become obvious to me that I'm not terribly experienced in D&D, even after 5 years of off and on play. Also I've only ever played with people who were already friends, so there's that.

Anyway, most of your game restrictions are things that have never come up before for me, so they wouldn't really be noticed. I might even enjoy making my character concept come to life with the sources you have, several I've never read, or even heard of. I can deal with alignment-restrictions, and have never used flaws before. Would avoid ranged/melee combat builds (the bow breaking thing was the only eyebrow-raiser for me). I'd probably play a full-spellcaster for the first time to take advantage of the bonus spell thing. Enter Brumskious, extremely good-looking sorceror who throws around fireballs all day.

Depending on differences in rl physicality, the "I will eject you bodily" might cause me to lol in your face though.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

around 2/3 would give it a shot so I don´t quite see the point.
I know I would not get that much approval with my heavily restricting casters houserules ^^Do your houserules involve threats of violence? If not, they are better than these houserules. Also, by my count, it's 45 nays to 31 ayes, 33 if you count the two people who said they'd be bodily ejected from the game for making jokes in poor taste. And more than half of those ayes are people who said "Well, I don't like these houserules but I'll give anything a try." So yeah, I think there's some negative sentiment in this thread due to differing playstyles and ideas about the bounds of DM authority (and I'm not talking about the in-game rules).

[BoutsofInsanity]

Glad I could clear some things up, Teej is a blunt person, and wasnt really thinking when he put down on paper what was in his head, as such the tone and inflections of his voice convey a less threatening manner, also obviously dog humping jokes are not disallowed. I think his main problem comes from the misuse of the term "rape", such as "Oh I just raped that monster/individual/creature etc..."

Unfortunately, as one poster pointed out, you can only go upon what is written on the page, and you guys don't have the knowledge of Teej as a person like I do. As such, your arguments remain valid coming off of what you read. Seeing as he does come off controversial on paper it does turn off people. Please note, that I am not defending my dm to you, he is very blunt and contains a very dwarflike personality As the starter thread was written, all the responses have been valid. I have just attempted to explain a little bit more behind his reasoning.

Interestingly enough, some of these issues that have been pointed out will probably be fixed or changed at some point down the line because of this thread. I would say more, but I will probably start a thread on this for my benefit just so I can get a better feel regarding why players feel the way they do about "fumbles, genderbending, tome of battle, and alignment restrictions." A lot of the "immaturity preventive measures" occur because of previous experiences that he doesn't want a repeat.

I feel I should point out a few more things to give the idea of where some of these restrictions come from. In class constructs doesn't mean someone in his game automatically recognizes "Steve the Fighter", I play the most unconventional characters in his games, stretching the "Class is an in game concept" as far as can be. If you want a Barbarians rage and abilities, but don't want to be called a barbarian. You would rather be using intense focus to increase your combat abilities, he will work with that and change the fluff. For him its important to make that distinction before going into the game and making the character.

So anyways, Ill see you guys later at some point, I have math class in thirty. :( Rather be with you guys... Anyways, keep on gaming!

[The Dark Fiddler]

So, to explain some things that were not explained as well as they should have been.

I kinda want to point out that if you're saying "Here, people who don't know me, read this and judge whether or not you would game with me," you should say what you mean, because that kinda makes things a lot easier on everybody involved.


First off, his "bodily removal", He means, please dont say any rape jokes or laugh at them, otherwise please leave my game. If you dont leave at that point, then he throws you out. Its never been a problem cause the players are mature enough to handle it and be respectful.

I really think this is the biggest offender of saying what you mean if he really meant this. Because "please leave my game" is exponentially better than "bodily removal."


Second, since when is it ok to laugh at someone being physically and emotionally humiliated because someone couldnt control their base urges? Just saying, rape really isnt that funny.


Whether or not it's okay I'm not going to debate, but for me, personally, it's more an issue of the DM trying to tell me what is and isn't funny (though I really can't blame him for not wanting to deal with it, even if I feel that, like all other jokes, whether or not its funny is based a lot on context).


The second key word I see is "make you pay"... ITS NOT A THREAT OF VIOLENCE.

Okay, maybe I was wrong about the last thing being the biggest offender of not saying what he meant, because that comes off as really aggressive too.


As to the bowstring example, it applies to all creatures as well, ive had boss characters in his games roll ones and turn the fight to our advantage.

That explanation kind of assume our problem is with it hindering us rather than being a bad rule in principle. Having it happen to enemies too doesn't make it any better.


The bonus spells, meh, honestly, at higher levels you dont run out of spells anyway, and at lower levels it just allows the casters a little more leeway in terms of low level spellcasting, Like levels 1 to 8 or so. It really doesnt matter because again, low opp games.

I don't get why people keep saying you don't run out of spells, I've done it plenty of times.


On the matter of low opp, let me explain... The sword and board fighter traditionally does better then the wizard/cleric/bard/druid in our games. Because we are more role play have fun with our classes and characters then, UBER SCARY MAILMAN/BATMAN/DRUID MONSTROSITY RAWR! Like, I had to change my fighter from the enlarged, spikechain, combat reflexes, stand still fighter to a two handed sword disarmer because I was overshadowing the party. Teej generally plays to the backstory you give him, so you are rewarded for having a compelling character and good backstory so he can give some hooks for your guy.

But what does roleplaying have to do with optimization levels? I can respect wanting low-op, but don't try to drag crap about it being for roleplaying, because that road leads to Stormwind fallacy.


Finally, regarding genderbending, to me that seems a little weird, I can understand I guess from the female perspective, and kinda the guy thing, but for it to be a deal breaker kind of seems childish, its more of a preventive measure then anything. If the whole party has shown itself capable of roleplaying that way in a mature fashion, he most likely wont have a problem with it. Its there to be fair to all players and prevent any arguments and disagreements.

I hope you don't mind my added emphasis. The bolded part kinda implies that he started by assuming we, as a group, aren't mature enough to handle it, which gives rise to the main problem seem to be having: he's saying "you can't do x unless y" rather than "if you mess up y, I won't let you do x anymore." Preventative measures are good and all, but it implies lower expectations regarding our levels of maturity by starting us off on probation.

As for having it be a deal breaker, I don't think it's childish at all. After all, would you want to play with somebody who more or less said "I don't think you're mature enough to pretend to have a different set of bits than you actually have"? (Granted, you do play with him, but it's a rather poor first impression to make.)


BTW I am a good friend of Teej, he feels
:(
after reading. Lolz Umm that should be it, keep playing playgrounds!
Ive gamed with him, its tons of fun and he does a really good job.

Well, I'm personally sorry that we've upset him, but when he asks our opinion... well, we're going to give him our opinion. No offense meant to him.

After these clarifications, for the record, I still don't think I'd play under him because it still doesn't change the major problems I had with him (since my problem was mostly a difference in play styles).

Edit: Okay, wow... how did I miss half a page of responses that said most of what I said, but better?

[Jack of Spades]

Just to clarify, let's say the rule was "Rape jokes at my table are not cool, and if you make one, I'll ask you not to make another one". Would you have a problem with that rule? Or is it the "zero tolerance" aspect of the original rule that you have a problem with?

I'd probably be better with that one, yeah. But it would still irk me as a rule announced at the beginning of things. And the fact that it wasn't worded that way (indeed, that the rule needed to be said) suggests to me that it's likely I'd cross a line without meaning to, or even thinking I did at all. Optimally, this is the sort of rule that I would prefer to see brought up when the transgression occurs, not on day one. "Hey, could we tone it down with the sensitive subject matter?" after a questionable joke has been made is quite a lot better received than, "In this campaign there shall be no controversial jokes, or you shall be removed from the game" as you walk through the door.

Aside: I avoided the word rape to make a general statement. I understand that the OP has not expressed a general disdain for borderline subjects, merely the one.

[The Glyphstone]

around 2/3 would give it a shot so I don´t quite see the point.
I know I would not get that much approval with my heavily restricting casters houserules ^^

Of respondents so far:

30 definite "yes"
39 definite "no"
6 "maybe/trial/only if I had no other options"
1 "I'm your RL friend".


So a bit less than half would give it a shot, though the division on which rules they disagree with are varied - primarily the in-game constructs, genderbending, and rather draconian tone of the rules in general.

Myself, I'd also say no, for reasons better stated by other posters.

[dextercorvia]

Just based on this, I'd be a no. I think Tyndmyr (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12176580&postcount=145) summed up my views the best.

[WarKitty]

It sounds more like your PLAYERS are people I wouldn't want to game with. I would have a query as to what you'd do if you got an androgyne/genderqueer player. It sounds like you're having to try to control a bunch of immature players, and I just wouldn't enjoy gaming with that type.

Oh, I've used the "no rape jokes" rule myself. Usually I couch it as "I know different people have different ideas of what counts as funny. But I've found this to be a sensitive subject, and I would ask that everyone stay away from it." Mind, the jokes that prompted the rule were not funny in general, but still...

[Coidzor]

Why, hello there.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

"I know different people have different ideas of what counts as funny. But I've found this to be a sensitive subject, and I would ask that everyone stay away from it."Wow, what a sensible, responsible way to phrase that rule.

[graeylin]

nope, I would not, for a variety of reasons.

I don't like the plainly stated threat that I will bow down before you as the DM, or get my PC kicked. I don't like the veiled threat that it's your game, your rules, and dissidents will not be tolerated. I don't care for the draconian "since I already presume you can't behave like an adult" tone in some of your rules.

and, i don't like it that I am punished for using a crossbow, while the guy with a sword isn't. make your rules fair for all.

[molten_dragon]

greetings playgrounders,

long story short, I'm curious who amongst you would actually want to sit down and play at my table (if I was DMing). so below are all of my various houserules and basic philosophy on how I DM. you're free to ask any questions you like before giving your answer.

but basically what I want to know is "would you play with me?"


anyways.... here is the list of sources, houserules*, as well as anything else I found relevant.

*houserules that I have remembered to codify, there are a few missing ones. so sue me.



sources and source rules
my rules on sources are rather simple.
Anything not EXPLICITLY MENTIONED on the source list is out of bounds.
Online supplements, dragon magazine, eratta, etc. if I can’t lay my fingers on it in meat space, you can’t use it.
Furthermore, before you go through the BOED or the BOVD, I need to know why and approve it.
Anyways, source list

Arms and Equipment Guide
Book of Exalted Deeds
Book of Vile Darkness
Cityscape
Complete Adventurer
Deities and Demigods
Dungeon Master’s Guide
Dungeon Master’s Guide II
Dungeonscape
Expanded Psionics Handbook
Psionics Handbook
Magic of Incarnum
Monster Manual
Monster Manual II
Monster Manual III
Player’s Handbook
Player’s Handbook II
Races of Stone
Races of the Wild
Unearthed Arcana
Oriental Adventure’s
Sword and Fist
Song and Silence
Enemies and Allies
Tome and Blood
Defenders of the Faith
Masters of the Wild



Houserules
For the record, this is a combination of houserules, and basic explanation for my players.
And this is by no means exhaustive, as I tend to only develop houserules on things that come up.


Class Houserules
We do not use the Monk, the Soulborn, or the Soulknife as written, we use homebrewed ‘fixed’ versions that I have pre-approved.

Racial houserules
Skarn – must be Lawful
Rilkan – must be Chaotic

Alignment Houserules:
Druids must be True Neutral
Paladins must be Lawful Good, variants are banned.
*any alignment restriction built into the class must be adhered.

Deity
All clerics must worship a diety, “cleric of a cause” is banned

Gender house-rule
No gender bender characters (I.E. if you are male, so is your character)


Traits/flaws
Any given character is allowed up to 2 traits, and 2 flaws – flaws subject to my approval

Spellcasting houserule
A spellcaster gains his casting stat modifier in bonus spells per level

Feats taken
Any feats granting a +x to AC (example: dodge) give a flat +x bonus, not a bonus against a specific target.

Power shot: exactly as power attack, but can be used on thrown weapons and normal bows (not crossbows, nor slings)

Skills
All characters are allowed to add 2 knowledge skills of their choice to their class list at creation
All classes that already possess knowledge skills gain a + 2 bonus to them.
We will use the “fixed” diplomacy rules created by Rich Berlew

Weapons
All “exotic” weapons are treated as martial weapons provided two rules are followed
1) The character/player’s reasoning behind using the exotic version over a martial equivilant satisfys me.
2) It is nto abused (I.E. the spiked chain)
If a weapon is listed as “racial something or other” (I.E. orc double axe, dwarvven waraxe) that race is considered proficient in the weapon, regardless of class.

Armor./Shields
Exotic armor is NEVER worth a feat, as such, ignore any and all feats regarding exotic armor. The extra cost is built into the gold piece price.

In summary
If you are proficient in a given type of armor (light, medium, heavy, shields) you are considered proficient in “exotic” armors of that type.

Items and possessions
Provided you have extra dimensional space (handy haversack, bag of holding, a normal backpack, etc.) in somewhat proportion to your carried gear, I completely ignore encumberance rules.

Example: if it’s not 6 feet tall and/or made of solid rock, I really don’t care.

Languages
Everyone gets speak language as a skill, classes with it on their list gain 1 free language of their choice.

XP:
In addition to normal combat XP and “overcoming challenges” XP I award “world-building”: and “stitches” XP

World building XP is gained whenever something I create something for your charcter (a unique weapon, a location, some backstory element, etc.) and I like it enough that I plan on keeping it in my setting, 250 xp per creation

Stitches XP – whenever I am incapable of continuing due to laughter, you gain stitches XP – 50 xp


NO MULTI CLASSING PENALTIES EVER
EVER
Ignore favored class rules, ignore multi-classing penalties, etc.


Money:
10 copper to 1 silver
10 silver to 1 gold
100 gold to one platinum

Combat
If you have iterative attacks (such as from a high BAB, but not from TWF) you may divide these attacks as you wish amongst enemies you can reach

If you roll a natural 20, you automatically score a critical hit and roll accordingly

If you roll a natural 1, you must roll a confirmation roll, if you confirm the critical (by missing again) your turn ends, and you suffer at least one attack of opportunity from adjacent foes.

If you crit-fail on a ranged weapon, the weapon breaks in some manner, bowstring snaps, firing mechanism breaks, etc.

If you roll a natural 1, followed by a natural 20 on the confirmation roll, the attack is resolved as if you rolled a 10

If you roll a natural 1 on iterative attacks, they are simply treated as “auto-miss” not critical failures


out of game rules
this is a little speech each and every one of my players get prior to being admitted to the group.

Rule 1: no rape jokes at the table, I *will* bodily eject you from the game if necessary.
Rule 2: no real world political/religious discussion, period. I don’t care if the whole damn table has the EXACT same viewpoint, I do not want to hear it.
Rule 3: if you make my life easier, I will reward you, make my life difficult, so help me I will make you pay.

And finally, we’re here to have fun. You jeapordize this priority at your own risk.



playstyle stuff

I prefer low-op games.
I treat classes as in-game constructs (and if you’re playing under me, so will you)
The more dead set you are on something, the less likely I am to restrict it (I’m looking at you lady who wanted to play a succubus!)
I have set in stone policies on various character types and actions (such as PVP, or “singularity” characters)



I…. THINK that’s everything….
Whether it is or not, it’s everything I can think of right now, and I can always add stuff in later if need be.


So yea, that’s basically it, given the above information, do you have any questions for me?
if not, would you play with me? Why or why not?

I don't like your list of approved materials or the fact that I can't petition to have something I want added to that list. Your house rules and out of game rules are too restrictive and your "my way or the highway" style of DMing is too confrontational (see the comment about "you will too" on classes as in-game constructs and set-in-stone policies on some things). The thing that really sours me on the list above (and makes me think you need some anger management therapy) is that you mentioned you would assault one of your players for making a tasteless joke and will make someone pay for making your life too difficult.

So no, I would definitely not play with you. I tend to prefer a DM who is more relaxed and go with the flow. And really, the only rule there needs to be on outside the game interaction is "don't be a jerk".

[PowerGamer]

You need to be more open on sources. You have so many rules that some of us (me) dont want to have to memorize. Other than that your good to go. Just lighten the rules and be more accepting of contents

[Hiro Protagonest]

I don't like your list of approved materials or the fact that I can't petition to have something I want added to that list.


You need to be more open on sources. You have so many rules that some of us (me) dont want to have to memorize. Other than that your good to go. Just lighten the rules and be more accepting of contents

If you give it to him for Christmas, it's on the list. Just remember this group is extremely low op.

[molten_dragon]

If you give it to him for Christmas, it's on the list. Just remember this group is extremely low op.

I shouldn't have to buy the DM the book to be allowed to use it. Especially not books that I already own in meatspace and will bring to every session.

And the low op part bothers me a little too.

[Wings of Peace]

I'd be in the party that gets physically removed from the game for the occasional rape joke. If almost any of my characters saw three half-orcs alone in an alley with a dainty woman there'd be a little wisecracking going on if not investigating.

[sonofzeal]

Every time tentacles come up in our current group.... which is often, given that the spellcasters have realized that Evard's Black is awesome. One of our group members is extremely open about her hentai collection, and frequently shares relevant and irrelevant anecdotes about the latest atrocities.

We do have a rule against things that upset other players, but in this group it's rarely enforced. I had it come up in a previous campaign with some sexydancing 6-year-olds that prompted a mass exodus and, eventually, an entirely separate gaming group when the person responsible refused to apologize or correct the situation.

[Hiro Protagonest]

And the low op part bothers me a little too.

See, this is where you play a GOD wizard. But focus more on buff+battlefield control then battlefield control+debuff, so your "allies" (read: expendable minions roughly equivalent to a Summon Monster, or Planar Binding if they're lucky) don't have to wait ten minutes for the Solid Fog to wear off while you're the only one doing anything.

[TroubleBrewing]

See, this is where you play a GOD wizard. But focus more on buff+battlefield control then battlefield control+debuff, so your "allies" (read: expendable minions roughly equivalent to a Summon Monster, or Planar Binding if they're lucky) don't have to wait ten minutes for the Solid Fog to wear off while you're the only one doing anything.

Realistically speaking, party members are strictly superior to Summon Monster/Planar Binding. While they may not be as versatile or as powerful as your average Demon/Bear, they are free of charge.

Sort of a "Play one Wizard, get one party free" deal.

[Coidzor]

I had it come up in a previous campaign with some sexydancing 6-year-olds that prompted a mass exodus and, eventually, an entirely separate gaming group when the person responsible refused to apologize or correct the situation.

...Words fail me. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v723/Coidzor/Online/emot-psyduck.gif But part of me is very glad I have no ability to come up with such a mental image


I'd be in the party that gets physically removed from the game for the occasional rape joke. If almost any of my characters saw three half-orcs alone in an alley with a dainty woman there'd be a little wisecracking going on if not investigating.

In such a case as that, it's the DM that's breaking the rule first anyway. :smallamused:

[sonofzeal]

...Words fail me. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v723/Coidzor/Online/emot-psyduck.gif But part of me is very glad I have no ability to come up with such a mental image
The person in question justified it by comparing it with Little Miss Sunshine.

[molten_dragon]

See, this is where you play a GOD wizard. But focus more on buff+battlefield control then battlefield control+debuff, so your "allies" (read: expendable minions roughly equivalent to a Summon Monster, or Planar Binding if they're lucky) don't have to wait ten minutes for the Solid Fog to wear off while you're the only one doing anything.

Except that a god wizard is pretty far from "low op"

[Coidzor]

The person in question justified it by comparing it with Little Miss Sunshine.

Oy. :smalleek:


Except that a god wizard is pretty far from "low op"

Indeed, but, I think the point was that the GOD wizard is all about playing baby sitter to low-op characters that wouldn't otherwise be capable of surviving in a way that's almost palatable or possibly about playing in such a way as to maximize using one's fellow players to the greatest effect with the least amount of character option.

[Tyndmyr]

If you give it to him for Christmas, it's on the list. Just remember this group is extremely low op.

Yeah, I shouldn't have to bribe a DM to play something. As stated before, I will gladly loan books to people if they wish to learn a specific subsystem. I have all the books.

Therefore, I don't see lack of books as a notable obstacle to play. If NOBODY has the book, well yeah...hard to play that, but that's more of a player obstacle than something needing to be in DM rules.

I feel like I'd have a hard time not breaking the game in any game sufficiently low op that a tripper fighter breaks it. GOD wizard would still do it. Extra spell slots? Well, now it's even harder to justify them all being poor choices. Even if I chose my spells prepared at random(and I likely would purely for the entertainment value), sheer diversity means I'm bound to hit some good stuff. And I'm gonna be casting every round, so eventually I'll hit something as good as a tripper or better.

[PowerGamer]

If you give it to him for Christmas, it's on the list. Just remember this group is extremely low op.

{{Scrubbed}}}

[The Dark Fiddler]

I'm not buying a book for someone else!!

The issue of getting is a gift for somebody when you legitimately wanted to give them a gift (this is how my group got Tome of Battle from me), you could just buy it for yourself and bring it to every game... hopefully. Teej hasn't really responded to anything in the threat questioning him, that I've seen.

[Yahzi]

I'm not so sure why everybody is hating on the limited source material.

My world has a specific history and flavor. So that means banning lots of things. There aren't any Samuri, or Ninjas, or Monks. Also, no Greenstars or Warforged or Half-Dragons. In fact, it's easier for me to say what there is than to say what there isn't.

As a DM, it's hard to create a believable, complete, dramatic world when you have too many choices.

[Greymane]

I'm not so sure why everybody is hating on the limited source material.

My world has a specific history and flavor. So that means banning lots of things. There aren't any Samuri, or Ninjas, or Monks. Also, no Greenstars or Warforged or Half-Dragons. In fact, it's easier for me to say what there is than to say what there isn't.

As a DM, it's hard to create a believable, complete, dramatic world when you have too many choices.

Well, when you combine a limited list of source books with the attitude of classes being in-game constructs, then it seriously hampers just what sort of character concepts you can create in the game.

[Thiyr]

I'm not so sure why everybody is hating on the limited source material.

My world has a specific history and flavor. So that means banning lots of things. There aren't any Samuri, or Ninjas, or Monks. Also, no Greenstars or Warforged or Half-Dragons. In fact, it's easier for me to say what there is than to say what there isn't.

As a DM, it's hard to create a believable, complete, dramatic world when you have too many choices.

The trick there is to have the player's choices help to define the game world. While it's far easier if the DM is trying to define all of their world to say that "this and this and this exists, and nothing else does", if the world isn't intended to be completely defined, it's fairly easy for a player to say "While psionics aren't a local phenomenon, on the foreign continent of X, it is a way of life", and has suddenly provided not only a major contribution to the setting, but a potential hook for the DM to take advantage of.

In fact, were it not for one word in your last sentence, I'd disagree with you wholeheartedly. Completion is the tricky bit. But I dare you to find a DM who has actually made a *complete* world. Worlds which have a vast amount of detail, perhaps, but eventually something has to be improvised. For example, I'll give Ptolus. Wonderfully detailed published setting. Hardcover that's honestly larger than most school textbooks I've seen. It's also fairly incomplete, leaving a ton of holes to fill in. It's also a single city. Either things will start feeling very similar very quickly (which may even be believable, but far from dramatic), or things will be left incomplete until faced in order to give a bit of spice to the game.

The thing is, improvising can be a lot easier when you have more tools to work with. While you could make the exotic wonders of a foreign land with the PHB fighter, wizard, etc, it can be easier when suddenly expected norms are no longer the case. Casters can use the same spell repeatedly with no signs of slowing (Warlocks), or some individuals may gain great power, but pay the price of losing their own will (binder) or may gain power from shamanism as opposed to the veneration of nature (totemist). A conniving wizard may have died in their attempts to create the first prototype of a truly living construct, or a fighter enslaved by individuals attempting to "Better demihumanity" may have been granted aspects of the dragon before slaughtering his captors. Even if it doesn't exist in setting already, to ban it prevents so many story opportunities that can serve to enhance a setting wonderfully.

[sonofzeal]

I'm not so sure why everybody is hating on the limited source material.

My world has a specific history and flavor. So that means banning lots of things. There aren't any Samuri, or Ninjas, or Monks. Also, no Greenstars or Warforged or Half-Dragons. In fact, it's easier for me to say what there is than to say what there isn't.

As a DM, it's hard to create a believable, complete, dramatic world when you have too many choices.
Nobody who fights with longsword/shortsword pairs and is intimidating? Nobody dedicated to spiritual discipline and unarmed combat? And what about someone who plays a Fighter as a samurai or a Rogue as a ninja?

It's trivial to strip the incongruous elements out. Conversely, it's easy to find places in almost any setting where a Factotum3/Monk2/Warlock4/Warblade11 with Cardemine Monk might have come from (assuming lvl 20 builds are around at all).

Restricting races, that I can see. But books? People sufficiently fluent in 3.5 generally enjoy the freedom to combine different classes/feats/PrCs/variants to find something that perfectly fits their vision for the character. The wealth of options 3.5 provides is very freeing in this way, it's possible to make just about anything by pulling from the right combination of sources. And being free to make our characters the way we envision often helps us connect with the game more, and be more invested in it.

I'm never in favour of arbitrarily banning sources. Some things like more exotic races may not fit, but most things can be managed if the DM and players discuss it. Ideally this should happen in concept stage.



Sample conversation:

DM: "I'll be starting a new game next week, blah blah details details etc..."

Player 1: "I wanna play a tragic warrior from a lost land!"

DM: "I've got just the place for you, you could be an Enhasan - their land was destroyed by Dark Wizards twenty years ago but there's still a few around. They're known for skill with polearms, but you can choose anything that suits you."

Player 1: "Awesome! Hmm... I wonder if I could fit in Mage Slayer somehow... *flips through CW*"

Player 2: "I heard there's a robot race, war-something, I wanna play one of those!"

DM: "No robot people in this setting, sorry. What about plant-men from Uzerbak? Check the stats, see if they work that way too."

Player 2: "I guess plant men are still pretty nifty. Can I at least be all logical and emotionless and Spock-like?"

DM: "Sure, go for it!"

Player 3: "I wanna be a Ninja!"

DM: "Sorry, no Japan, no Ninjas. I don't want anything obviously 'asian'... hmm.... but there's an assassin's guild in the main city called The Black Dawn. Let me see Complete Adventurer... yeah, sure, just replace the weapon proficiencies with what Rogues get, that's what Black Dawn would have trained you with."

Player 3: "Naw, that kills the point. What about a warlock? Pewpewpew!"

DM: "Well, a lot of people caught in the Fulmination got strange powers. Basically a mid sized town exploded with no explanation, kinda like a magical nuke went off. Only one percent of the population survived. And now you have powers!"

Player 3: "Badass! I'm going to get a costume and mask and fight bad guys!"

DM: "...er... well at least one of those was part of the plan... suuuuure! Go for it!"

Players 1-2-3: "YOU'RE THE BEST DM EVARZ!"




((Or, y'know, something like that. Kinda got away from me there.))

[Elfinor]

-snip-

It's not just about flavor restrictions. In addition to Yahzi's list of 'what DM's do' (build a world, act for NPC's, act for monsters, build a plot) they are also heavily responsible for interpreting RAW. Sometimes it's just a lot easier for them to not have to adjudicate rules which are obscure to them on top of their other DM duties. Every other splatbook is a splatbook a DM needs to know, and know well. So, although I'm generally more accommodating in that area, I understand the splatbook restrictions.

[sonofzeal]

It's not just about flavor restrictions. In addition to Yahzi's list of 'what DM's do' (build a world, act for NPC's, act for monsters, build a plot) they are also heavily responsible for interpreting RAW. Sometimes it's just a lot easier for them to not have to adjudicate rules which are obscure to them on top of their other DM duties. Every other splatbook is a splatbook a DM needs to know, and know well. So, although I'm generally more accommodating in that area, I understand the splatbook restrictions.
Except you don't need to know the whole book. Heck, I've owned Complete Warrior for the better part of a decade and I couldn't tell you how half the PrCs worked. "Adjudicating" is just a matter of reading up on the particular options the players want to use, and I'd have to do that whether they're pulling from Complete Warrior or from Lords of Darkness (a splatbook I hadn't even heard about until yesterday).

The only issue is whether I can get the page in front of me to review. As long as the player can provide for that, I don't see the problem.

[Elfinor]

Except you don't need to know the whole book. Heck, I've owned Complete Warrior for the better part of a decade and I couldn't tell you how half the PrCs worked. "Adjudicating" is just a matter of reading up on the particular options the players want to use, and I'd have to do that whether they're pulling from Complete Warrior or from Lords of Darkness (a splatbook I hadn't even heard about until yesterday).

The only issue is whether I can get the page in front of me to review. As long as the player can provide for that, I don't see the problem. Yep but it's just less of headache to only have the ones you're familiar with allowed, especially if it involves a new system (Incarnum, ToM, ToB, xPH).

'The rest of the book/website/whatever' can also sometimes be an issue with give-an-inch, take-a-mile players. Thankfully I've only every had one. And the other players were on my side:smallbiggrin: I can see how having a player who constantly whines about how unfair it is that you've allowed (or buffed) X class but prohibited (or nerfed) Y would grate on a DM, for example. Better to just restrict them all rather than having to put up with that every time a character is rolled up.

The above examples aside, you're right. Short of the class making use of another 'system', complete book mastery isn't necessary; so it is a heavy-handed way of going about it. I only meant that I (think) I understand why he does so.

[starwoof]

I would play with you if:

You don't act creepy.
You don't smell bad.
You aren't a buttface.

All of your house rules are basically the same as mine, which is neat. I don't really care for alignment restrictions, but I usually don't have an interest in those classes anyway. I would actually probably love to have you as a DM. You seem cool, if a little strict.

EDIT: No Complete Arcane? Heresy.

[sonofzeal]

Yep but it's just less of headache to only have the ones you're familiar with allowed, especially if it involves a new system (Incarnum, ToM, ToB, xPH).

'The rest of the book/website/whatever' can also sometimes be an issue with give-an-inch, take-a-mile players. Thankfully I've only every had one. And the other players were on my side:smallbiggrin: I can see how having a player who constantly whines about how unfair it is that you've allowed (or buffed) X class but prohibited (or nerfed) Y would grate on a DM, for example. Better to just restrict them all rather than having to put up with that every time a character is rolled up.

The above examples aside, you're right. Short of the class making use of another 'system', complete book mastery isn't necessary; so it is a heavy-handed way of going about it. I only meant that I (think) I understand why he does so.
I'm just against heavy-handed DMing on principal. The DM controls the entire world - all I get is my one character. I firmly believe in player agency in the one realm of expression open to them. There's limits, specifically when it makes things less fun for other players, but I always err on the side of the players.

I also find it humerous that my sample DM dialogue (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12221036&postcount=199) actually covers this indirectly. My sockpuppet "ideal DM" didn't display total system mastery. In fact, he only showed vaguest awareness of what was in the various books. He got Player 2 to do the legwork on Warforged, needed to look up Ninja to make any specific statement, and was only vaguely aware that Warlock was some kind of semi-magical class. He didn't have, or need, any of those things memorized. He'll probably re-read Warforged and Warlocks before the campaign starts, but there's also a degree of trust involved. As immature as some of his players seem, he'll trust them to run their characters more or less correctly. He doesn't need to memorize Warlocks, because Player 3 will learn the relevant bits and run the character for him, leaving the DM to worry about the entire rest of the world's reactions to him.

Even if mistakes are made and Player 3 thinks Eldritch Blast gets iteratives and the DM doesn't catch it - well, as long as it doesn't harm anyone's fun, it's no big deal. They should correct it when they spot a problem, sure, but no harm no foul.

A good DM should trust their players. And a DM who trusts the players doesn't need to look over their shoulders constantly.

[Blacky the Blackball]

but basically what I want to know is "would you play with me?"


sources and source rules

Partly I find that a strange mix of 3.0 and 3.5. I disagree about it being restrictive in terms of quantity, since I'm used to playing core-only.

However, the fact that you're referring to things as "out of bounds" and saying that people "can't use" certain stuff unless you "approve" it implies that you run the sort of game where your players want to use that stuff but you're not letting them, which doesn't sound the sort of vibe I'd like.

There's a big difference between "lets play a game using just books X,Y and Z" and "in my game you're not allowed anything that isn't in books X, Y or Z". The first has implications of wanting to play a campaign that has a specific style or tone with sources being selected to match that tone, whereas the second has implication of being afraid that if you can't control what you're players have available to them you won't be able to handle their characters.

I wouldn't want to play in a group where the latter was the prevailing attitude.


Houserules

You say later that you run a "low-op" game, but your house rules show a preference for optimising much more than I see with my regular group.

For example you have "fixed" versions of some classes - presumably altered to make them more or less powerful rather than because you don't like the style of the class.

Similarly, your multiclassing rules seem to encourage multiclassing and the use of classes as "builds" rather than "archetypes".

I much prefer the latter - in my group no-one ever multiclasses or takes prestige classes; and people's choice between a fighter and a wizard is based on whether they'd rather play someone who hits things or someone who casts spells, with no thought to which class is "more effective".

In fact I don't think I've ever heard any of my players mention the word "build" or "tier" in relation to a character. They simply play what interests them without any thought to optimisation and if some are more powerful than others then so be it.

I'm also used to playing with a mixed group, so your "no gender-bending" house rule seems really weird and unnecessary to me. Again, that raises red flags that, socially, the sort of group you have isn't the sort that I'd want to be part of.

So given your house rules I probably pass on joining your game.


out of game rules

The fact that your group has need for rules like would make me run a mile.

Actually, the fact that the way you word them has a nasty undertone of violence behind it would make me run double-quick.


playstyle stuff

I prefer no-op to low-op.

But the bigger issue is again that the fact that you need rules for things like "pvp" in your group rather than your group simply being able to handle it like mature adults makes me glad that I'm not part of it.

[drakir_nosslin]

Nope.

Mostly because I don't DM with blanket bans myself, and I dislike them. If the player has a good concept, I tend to allow most things as long as I can take a look at it first (obviously broken stuff will be banned).

The fact that you need the 'no rape' and the gender bender rules don't send good vibes concerning the rest of the group.

Nerfing melee and buffing spellcasting is strange, and for someone who likes gishes and melee in general it's a turnoff.

Also, the general language of the rules are, well too strict. I prefer to play with a DM, not under one.

[Knaight]

Also, the general language of the rules are, well too strict. I prefer to play with a DM, not under one.

That is really the big point in most of the people who are unwilling to play.

[TroubleBrewing]

That and the group of players sounding... problematic.

Honestly, your players might account for as many "no" responses as the language found in your houserules.

[Tyndmyr]

I prefer no-op to low-op.

No-op is not really a thing unless you determine everything about your character by random. Have fun playing the wizard that randomly rolled 8 int.

[Blacky the Blackball]

No-op is not really a thing unless you determine everything about your character by random. Have fun playing the wizard that randomly rolled 8 int.

Optimising is designing for optimal effectiveness.

Not optimising can mean not designing at all (i.e. using completely random generation - like we do when playing ICONS) but it can also mean designing for something other than optimal effectiveness - for example choosing abilities for their flavour text (because it's what you imagine your character doing) or wanting to play to an archetype and choosing abilities which fit that archetype.

[Knaight]

Optimising is designing for optimal effectiveness.

Not optimising can mean ... wanting to play to an archetype and choosing abilities which fit that archetype.

Optimizing is merely the deliberate arrangement of mechanics for a purpose. Having an archetype or character, and picking abilities that fit said archetype or character is optimizing. For that matter, pretty much all practical optimization fits in that category, and even theoretical optimization is less about optimal effectiveness and more about exaggerated effectiveness within an area.

[Blacky the Blackball]

Optimizing is merely the deliberate arrangement of mechanics for a purpose.

Defining optimising so loosely as to make any decision making count as "optimisation" makes it lose all meaning, and makes using the word pointless.

[Tyndmyr]

Optimising is designing for optimal effectiveness.

Not optimising can mean not designing at all (i.e. using completely random generation - like we do when playing ICONS) but it can also mean designing for something other than optimal effectiveness - for example choosing abilities for their flavour text (because it's what you imagine your character doing) or wanting to play to an archetype and choosing abilities which fit that archetype.

Optimal? Hardly. If so, every optimization thread would simply have "pun-pun" as the answer.

No, optimization is making something suitable for a given goal. So, if your goal is "I want to play a dead thing that creeps in the shadows, and screams your name to make you die", and you end up as a truenamer in pursuit of that*, you're still optimizing. You're picking things that get you to your goal.

Low-op, is therefore, a game in which this process is not taken particularly far. Oh, you probably have stats that mostly match your classes useful stats, and your feats at least mostly help your concept somewhat, but much better is out there.

High-op is with much more attention paid to picking the best options available within the given parameters.

*Actual build I did for a player a while back.

[Knaight]

Defining optimising so loosely as to make any decision making count as "optimisation" makes it lose all meaning, and makes using the word pointless.

Deliberate arrangement is not universal. Haphazard growth with impulsive grabs involves decision making, but it is not optimization. Moreoever, if one does not have a purpose in their character design, one cannot optimize it. So on and so forth.

[Blacky the Blackball]

Haphazard growth with impulsive grabs involves decision making, but it is not optimization.

I agree with you that that's not optimisation - and since it's how my groups' characters develop, that's why I said that my group don't optimise.

It's Tyndmyr who disagreed and took me to task for saying my group don't optimise, with his implication that the only thing that counts as not optimising is completely random character generation.

[Coidzor]

I'm not so sure why everybody is hating on the limited source material.

It spits in the face of one's investment, for one.


My world has a specific history and flavor. So that means banning lots of things. There aren't any Samuri, or Ninjas, or Monks. Also, no Greenstars or Warforged or Half-Dragons. In fact, it's easier for me to say what there is than to say what there isn't.

To be fair, most of those things are horrible in terms of their mechanics and the classes themselves could be used without being the fluff constructs they're named after. Actually the only thing that isn't horrible are Warforged, and, well, those are magical golem-bots.


As a DM, it's hard to create a believable, complete, dramatic world when you have too many choices.

It's much more a matter of whether those choices clash at all or not than how many there are.


Yep but it's just less of headache to only have the ones you're familiar with allowed, especially if it involves a new system (Incarnum, ToM, ToB, xPH).

And also less rich and stagnates quicker than where you've got more room to expand your system knowledge and master....


No, optimization is making something suitable for a given goal. So, if your goal is "I want to play a dead thing that creeps in the shadows, and screams your name to make you die", and you end up as a truenamer in pursuit of that*

*Actual build I did for a player a while back.

:smalleek: Can he still taste ice cream?

[Tyndmyr]

I agree with you that that's not optimisation - and since it's how my groups' characters develop, that's why I said that my group don't optimise.

It's Tyndmyr who disagreed and took me to task for saying my group don't optimise, with his implication that the only thing that counts as not optimising is completely random character generation.

I am of the opinion that that is the only situation under which optimization does not naturally arise.

After all, do you have straight melee people taking metamagic feats? Of course not, that would not logically help your chars progression. I'll bet you still have people picking options that more or less help them do what they want to do. Everyone does that to some degree, even if it's only "hey, weapon focus. My char hits people with weapon x a lot, I should take weapon focus x".

Codizor...he was a necropolitan. So, the only ice cream he could have was strawberry, vanilla, and death.

[darksolitaire]

My view, in short, is this:

"Hey, feat named Iron Will? Cool, I want my character to be strong willed!"

Not optimization.

"Hey, feat named Iron Will? If I'll grab that, I'll pass more will saves!"

Optimization.

[Amphetryon]

My view, in short, is this:

"Hey, feat named Iron Will? Cool, I want my character to be strong willed!"

Not optimization.

"Hey, feat named Iron Will? If I'll grab that, I'll pass more will saves!"

Optimization.
That makes optimization almost completely dependent upon how you choose to express your reasoning. I'm not convinced that's a plus, personally.

[TroubleBrewing]

Codizor...he was a necropolitan. So, the only ice cream he could have was strawberry, vanilla, and death.

Oh my giddy aunt.

Permission to sig?

[Tyndmyr]

That makes optimization almost completely dependent upon how you choose to express your reasoning. I'm not convinced that's a plus, personally.

If two people build their chars via holding the relevant pages over a dartboard while blindfolded, one char will end up better than the other. I wouldn't describe this char building choice as optimizing. Possibly awesome, however.

Grey, go ahead!

[TroubleBrewing]

If two people build their chars via holding the relevant pages over a dartboard while blindfolded, one char will end up better than the other. I wouldn't describe this char building choice as optimizing. Possibly awesome, however.

Combine this with heavy drinking, and you've got the exact method my group used to determine our last Gamma World party. I'd post pictures, but after my phone was fully immersed in hard liquor, it shorted out.

[Amphetryon]

Combine this with heavy drinking, and you've got the exact method my group used to determine our last Gamma World party. I'd post pictures, but after my phone was fully immersed in hard liquor, it shorted blacked out.
FTFY. :smallamused:

[TroubleBrewing]

Oh, the puns! The awful, awful puns!

[big teej]

taking a quick glance at some of the responses I've gotten, it would seem that I need to elaborate and clarify some of my points a little bit.


alas, I'm swamped with schoolwork, so it's going to have to wait for a bit.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

No need, we know. :smallamused:

[Coidzor]

If two people build their chars via holding the relevant pages over a dartboard while blindfolded, one char will end up better than the other. I wouldn't describe this char building choice as optimizing. Possibly awesome, however.

Grey, go ahead!

Oh. I'm so doing that for a beer and pretzels game. Screw the rules, you're a paladin with a wizard's familiar and a rogue's equipment and skills.

[Menteith]

Oh. I'm so doing that for a beer and pretzels game. Screw the rules, you're a paladin with a wizard's familiar and a rogue's equipment and skills.

With Wisdom as a primary stat.

[sonofzeal]

I just helped a friend build a totally random Favoured Soul. We put every single FvS spell ever in an excel sheet and rolled randomly for them, then did the same for gods. Apparently there's a god of Scapegoats? Who knew!

[Yahzi]

The trick there is to have the player's choices help to define the game world.
I run a sand-box world. So the players don't have any impact on the creation, but their in-game choices do change the world.


But I dare you to find a DM who has actually made a *complete* world. Worlds which have a vast amount of detail, perhaps, but eventually something has to be improvised.
Heh. You might want to click on my sig. :smallbiggrin:

Although of course one leaves lots of blank spots on the map, for future expansion (new lands with new classes included).


The thing is, improvising can be a lot easier when you have more tools to work with.
The problem is that I can't improvise the social ramifications of so many options. For example: how do judges, police, merchants, spies, etc. deal with the fact that your moral character is public knowledge? Know Alignment is just one 1st level spell, but it takes a fair bit of work to create a society that doesn't get blind-sided by it.

All those dang splat books didn't do that work; they just throw out spells and powers (and whole organizations!) without considering how they affect society at large.

A further difficulty is that in my world, classes really are in-game constructs. People know what classes are, and they generally know what powers they have. It sounds strange, I know, but it really works out well. Further strangeness: XP is tangible. Also works out great! But it means I have to know what all the classes are in advance, so I can work out what NPCs think about them.

I started with AD&D, so if you wanted to play a knight, musketeer, or barbarian, you played a fighter with a lance, rapier, or axe. Mechanical abilities were kinda divorced from backgrounds and goals (mostly because there were so few mechanical choices).

Ironically, I think making classes in-game constructs resurrects that. The classes become tools you use to advance your goals, like swords or castles, instead of expressions of the character's personality. I think this leads characters to become known by their deeds, rather than their character class.



It spits in the face of one's investment, for one.
A cogent, though not compelling, argument. :smallbiggrin:

[Thiyr]

Heh. You might want to click on my sig.

Although of course one leaves lots of blank spots on the map, for future expansion (new lands with new classes included).

That's what I mean though. Those blank spots are places where the world isn't complete, hence my qualifier of complete worlds. One can make wonderfully intricate worlds, but eventually they have to leave *something* undefined.

That said, the social ramifications for spells is an interesting one. Alignment ends up being kinda the rough example, though, and is why I actually don't like alignment as a mechanical factor outside of outsiders. Because that way leads to madness and mindrape mageocracies. On the other hand, a lot of other spells do end up being thankfully a tad more straightforward. And if it's a whole new system (say, incarnum), then you don't even need to know offhand if it's just being introduced. the setting can go "What the?!" with you, as you both discover firsthand what can be done (or you can just have the setting do that, preferably. Surprise mechanics =/= good idea.) Still, while not something I'd do myself, considering the social ramifications of how a lot of spells change the world can be something important to consider.


Ironically, I think making classes in-game constructs resurrects that. The classes become tools you use to advance your goals, like swords or castles, instead of expressions of the character's personality. I think this leads characters to become known by their deeds, rather than their character class.

See, this is kinda the exact opposite of the way I'd expect it to work (and had it work in other systems.). When the class isn't an in-game construct, the only thing to define the character by is their actions. while when people can identify a Bard apart from a Rogue/Sorcerer/Marshal despite similar powers available, that means that expectations of what your class can do colors people's views due to stereotypes of those who are members of that class (This is why I didn't like playing oWoD. Your clan defined how everyone expected you to act, no ifs ands or buts. nWoD had similar problems, but it was mitigated by multiple axes one had as far as "classes" went. But I digress).

d&d examples: while it was never stated one way or another, the players in a game a friend of mine was in obviously treated classes as in-game constructs. He was playing a "bard" (in reality a scout/expert...something. He had no spellcasting though.) He never said his class, though, and everyone thought he was a bard up until they told him to use detect magic on some items. His response was something to the effect of "Why would I be able to do that?" Because you're a bard. "I'm a traveling storyteller, I don't know magic." He had been defined as something he was not because of the moniker he used for himself, and as such was treated like a battery for magic-finding rather than as the guy who told awesome stories and rode around on a dragon (Did I mention the dragon mount he had?)

On the other hand, I've had a character which became downright infamous for his actions, acting as a character notable in personality and action enough that at least three people (two that never played with said character) have mentioned wanting to insert him into works of writing. He was a mage of extreme power. He was, class-wise, a warlock, but he was never called as such, and the only things people expected from him was what they saw come from him. That was a game where classes could never be an in-game construct due to setting (Where characters could range from classic d&d to steampunk jedi to next-door-neighbor Frank while using just 3.5).

That said, if you found a way to make it work such that class-as-in-game-construct causes players to divorce class from the definition of how a character will be perceived, I applaud you.

[Morph Bark]

taking a quick glance at some of the responses I've gotten, it would seem that I need to elaborate and clarify some of my points a little bit.

From what I'm reading, much of it is basically the wording. If those things were said to my face, I'd probably hightail out of there. That is basically the problem with the out-game rules and the wording of "playing under me".

A problem with this thread is that the rules are of course going to be read as if they are absolute and unchanging (which, from the OP, it seems the only thing that could change is book access). I can see the gender rule being a loose one too.

However, the critical fail rule? The spellcaster boost? Those would have me play only casters in a game you DM, which would likely have me overshadow the other players who aren't playing casters.

By the way, the "divide your iterative attacks amongst enemies you can reach" rule? That is actually not a houserule. That is actually part of DnD.

Also, 3.0 psionics? REALLY? (And why is it mixed with 3.5 psionics, I don't even...) I find it extremely odd that 3.0 books are mixed with some of the last 3.5 books (which are some of the best though).


Overall, the rules point to high-op rather than low-op, with a young or immature playerbase, which may or may not include you (the "I’m looking at you lady who wanted to play a succubus!" line is rather... accusatory of you).


Oh, wait, you apparently have "set in stone policies on various character types and actions". This is ambiguous, but rather sounds like "I will not change my rules".


Not to say I wouldn't give you a chance, but I'm not sure how much of a chance you'd have at me being a returning player.

[Tyndmyr]

However, the critical fail rule? The spellcaster boost? Those would have me play only casters in a game you DM, which would likely have me overshadow the other players who aren't playing casters.

Ayup. Not playing a spellcaster with that ruleset is just...difficult to justify. Especially because I *like* complex chars and spellcasting to begin with. I'd probably have just about every spell in core ready to go at any given point in time. It wouldn't be hard. Go generalist or domain wizard, and have a high int mod.