"He did what?" (a place to vent)

[kulosle]

A quite from this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=233758)


I want to punch every one of your DMs. To death. I hope that they get a paper cut every time that they open the DMG.

So I was wondering, "What other horrid stories exist out there." They need not be only about ruined characters, or bad GMs. I played with a guy who made the worst mistakes every time. We always confined him to martial classes so he can do the least amount of harm. One time we were in a dungeon and we fell down a shaft and landed in a library that we had a fight with a beholder and this guys first thought is, who went first by the way, "I'll use fireball." In the library! Idiot!

[Calanon]

I've never had an EVIL DM per se... I've just always had incredibly rule abiding ones, in all fairness he has been known to let us use certain rules :smallredface:

for example we can be the BBEG or we can have templates with BS LA for free but we are always playing with survival rules :smallconfused:

...Did you know you can drown in a silo of grain?

[TuggyNE]

...Did you know you can drown in a silo of grain?

Has anyone ever had a character killed by exploding grain? (Which is also possible IRL.)

[Shade Kerrin]

Not mine, but yeah. Guy was playing a pyromancer, and we found some cultists hiding in a granary. The obvious happened, with only the cause not being in a position to escape.

[kulosle]

Yeah I'm pretty sure everyone has experienced, "that one guy" who just shouldn't have nice things.

[Marnath]

...Did you know you can drown in a silo of grain?

Entering a grain silo is one of the most dangerous things you can do on a farm. You're technically not supposed to even do it without a harness and a buddy.

[Darth_Versity]

We once had a guy who always caused problems with bad roleplay and bad choices. Once when playing Star Wars as a group Padawans, he declared his intent to kill all the Jedi Masters while with his fellow padawans.

Another time he was playing a druid and one of our members was taken down to -9 but luckily managed to stabalise. So then an enemy moves over him to continue fighting. He sat there for 2 hours while we finished up the fight (we'd accidentily started fighting the boss and his group and another group so it took forever) What does our problem player do? He casts flaming sphere on the square our downed player is into hit the enemy. Our DM explained that will kill our ally and he answer was "Well I don't even know if he's still alive"
So then the poor guy who sat around for 2 hours thinking he would survive, had to roll up another character.

I have several other stories with this guy, none of them good!

[Hirax]

In college I once played with a compulsive liar who loved the spotlight. He was generally awkward, but tolerable to play with, and he produced many comical moments such as this: when entering a mansion, nobody could get the gate open. Eventually our human binder walked up to the gate to try something (I forget), and it swung open on its own for her. We somehow learned that the gate had opened for her because she was born of a noble. The liar, a half-vampire whose class I can't remember, at some point very conspicuously started talking with the host, and asked if he recognized him. When the host replied no, this guy then said, with incredulous dramatic flair, "I remove my mask!" He then expected the host to recognize him as Lord Bloodbane, but the DM did not oblige him. I later talked to the DM, and confirmed my suspicion that there was nothing in his backstory about any sort of nobility. To this day I still say "I remove my mask!" when setting up IC jokes.

[Mystify]

My brother always ends up as a battlefield controller, and throws out persistent effects that are beneficial on the first round, but inevitably hinder the party and help the opponents in the long run. Like, he would put out a carpet of fire blocking the hallway... which the enemy runs through, making their saves and avoiding it, and the party is trapped on the other side. Or the enemy ends up mostly immune to the effect, creating obstacles that only effect the party.

[kulosle]

I also posted this in the thread I linked in the OP, but I always feel like this can never be said enough.


So I use the kensai fighter variant that specializes in a weapon and the kensai prestige class on top of it. This man was the best with a great sword, feats and what not put into it. I also had the wendigo template which under the entry of attacks it says "the wendigo's only attack is it's bite" My DM looked at this after the game had already started and said that i wasn't allowed to use my sword at all. He said that the wendigo is to impulsive to do this, even after letting me play a lawful good wendigo. So instead of being nice and switching all my stuff over to my bite he decided that i became a wendigo after i had trained with my greatsword and my character instantly became useless.

To make matters worse whenever I make a character for this particular group, we turn them into the DM for approval, the DM rotates so that every one gets a turn, I turn mine in and after handing them it they always reply with "We need to check this to make sure its not another wendigo." huh huh. Even though this was 4 years ago. Now a days I just don't play D&D with them anymore.

[Cicciograna]

I'm surprised nobody else quoted yet the story of that lanky bugger (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23784).

[Rejusu]

I had a game with a DM who liked to do some crazy stuff and that was always good fun. In the first game I played with him I was playing a Soulbow who due his ability scores I roleplayed as a sage idiot (high wisdom/low int and cha) who was prone to taking actions with good intent but awful results.

In the first session I ended up taking a hostage in a bar to try and prevent a fight breaking out. I think I also did some stupid stuff that involved drinking magical water. At one point I think my character went blind and then ended up with magical eyeballs that occasionally cast fireball. Even when it wasn't really appropriate.

Oh and we did a fairly standard set of encounters that involved fighting various elementals who had a home field advantage. When fighting the water elemental underwater the party was running rather low on breath when the Cerebremancer hit it with his quarterstaff. Said staff was a refluffed rod of wonder that the DM had dropped for us earlier complete with extra house rules. It ended up polymorphing the water elemental into a very surprised dwarf, who promptly drowned.

[Killer Angel]

One time we were in a dungeon and we fell down a shaft and landed in a library that we had a fight with a beholder and this guys first thought is, who went first by the way, "I'll use fireball." In the library! Idiot!

This reminds me of one of my player... the story is not horrid, but definitely funny.
The group discovered the entrance to a dungeon, in the basament of a ruined tower.
In the basament, there was a large nest of snakes in deep lethargy. It was winter, I explained crearly the lethargy thing and the ranger confirmed.

The wizard: "I cast Sleep on them!"

[Kalmageddon]

I think the worst session I've ever been to has to be this:

A 20 players 2 DMs session set in ancient Rome. It lasted for about six hours and NOTHING HAPPENED! I'm not kidding, it was six hours of nothingness. I can't explain how they did it, but for six hours no one did anything while the DMs were doing what I supposed to be "getting the session started".
Oh and I had to cash in for a pizza that never was never actually delivered.

Also another session that deserves a special mention is one where for five hours we had to watch the DM force feeding an half-orc character boar testicles and entrails, because that was apparently so hilarious to him that it deserved to be the focus of the gaming session.

But I think that the worst sessions have been experienced by a friend of mine, I didn't knew him yet but he apparently played in an Eberron campaign where his character, a high level assassin, was raped multiple times for no other reason then the DM's amusement. One time it was from an entire city of dwarves (2000+ horny dwarves) and another from an ogre half dragon that also turned him into a gnome. I'll let you do the math.

[Rejusu]

I'm surprised nobody else quoted yet the story of that lanky bugger (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23784).

Yeah it's hard to compete with a story like that. Though further down there's a story of a guy who pulled a gun over a board game. I mean I can understand that gaming can sometimes cause frustration, but seriously these people just don't seem capable of properly interacting with others. I'm amazed that they manage to get people to game with them in the first place.

[panaikhan]

These are all instances from the same player. Seriously.

Hatching a plan to backstab a dragon in flight, by having the party mage fly him high enough. He missed on his first attempt, plummeted 200+ft to the floor, then asked to be picked up again.

Sneaking invisibly onto a small hill some 50ft away from a platoon of Orc bowmen (who were renowned for using poisons), then firing a crossbow at them.

Trying to pick a Lich's pockets.

Oh, and his one attempt at playing a mage: casting Fireball into a 20' square room, back in the days when fireball exerted a pressure, and deformed to fill it's total volume. To cut a long story short, he ended up surfing a smoldering door down a corridor on a wave of flames.

[Kesnit]

I'm surprised nobody else quoted yet the story of that lanky bugger (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23784).

Because that is in a category of its own. :)


These are all instances from the same player. Seriously.

(snip)

At least he tried.

[ahenobarbi]

Well I once played with a guy who was fixed on making "unkillable" characters. So during fight he went invisible and did nothing. Only used offensive abilities for fighting party members (like casting blindness on me or killing our fighter (scythe + true strike + aim for his head...)).

[Rejusu]

These are all instances from the same player. Seriously.

Hatching a plan to backstab a dragon in flight, by having the party mage fly him high enough. He missed on his first attempt, plummeted 200+ft to the floor, then asked to be picked up again.

Sneaking invisibly onto a small hill some 50ft away from a platoon of Orc bowmen (who were renowned for using poisons), then firing a crossbow at them.

Trying to pick a Lich's pockets.

Oh, and his one attempt at playing a mage: casting Fireball into a 20' square room, back in the days when fireball exerted a pressure, and deformed to fill it's total volume. To cut a long story short, he ended up surfing a smoldering door down a corridor on a wave of flames.

To be fair some of those just sound like someone having fun. And that last one sounds practically badass.


Because that is in a category of its own. :)

It really is. I just spent my lunch reading through the entire story, it actually goes ON from that thread into two more stories that all tie back into the original tale. I think for better or for worse Lanky holds the crown for gaming related disaster stories.

[chaotician375]

i was in a Mutants and Masterminds game (comic book d20 system pretty fun but extremely rule heavy) A friend and I made twin characters that where soooo friggan min maxed (every power made sence, they where extra planar beings of chaos and law), could do things the GM was just baffled over. Fought a munch of spider walker droid things that where stealing children, and nasty armor no one could get through, so we teleported into them and exploded them from the inside (after telesaving the children). After making enemies that could threaten us (and outright destroy the rest of the party) we got railroaded into an encounter we had most definitely could have avoided, archvillian team trapped us in an extra planar box,no save to avoid being trapped, and no initiative to act first. Then the GM asked us to dumb down the characters after he got done proving the point that he could rules hack a way to stop us outright whenever we got out of hand.:smallfurious:

[Kalmageddon]

i was in a Mutants and Masterminds game (comic book d20 system pretty fun but extremely rule heavy) A friend and I made twin characters that where soooo friggan min maxed (every power made sence, they where extra planar beings of chaos and law), could do things the GM was just baffled over. Fought a munch of spider walker droid things that where stealing children, and nasty armor no one could get through, so we teleported into them and exploded them from the inside (after telesaving the children). After making enemies that could threaten us (and outright destroy the rest of the party) we got railroaded into an encounter we had most definitely could have avoided, archvillian team trapped us in an extra planar box,no save to avoid being trapped, and no initiative to act first. Then the GM asked us to dumb down the characters after he got done proving the point that he could rules hack a way to stop us outright whenever we got out of hand.:smallfurious:

Maybe he didn't do it the right way but if the campaign wasn't thought for your power level you had it coming. I imagine the rest of the party wasn't having much fun with you two doing everything.

[chaotician375]

Maybe he didn't do it the right way but if the campaign wasn't thought for your power level you had it coming. I imagine the rest of the party wasn't having much fun with you two doing everything.

u ,kidding me, the rest of the players loved it (Im dead serious), the rp between the two characters was probably the best that group ever had. We all had the same power level, but we where versatile beyond belief. It'd be like anti-magic fields every time the party's wizard was making an encounter too easy. The point is thou, he handled it poorly and the game fell apart because of it, we never picked it back up after words because the characters couldn't be role played properly without their old powers. It sucked pretty hard.

[Kalmageddon]

Then I probably misunderstood the situation, I figured you were powergaming in a non optimized campaign.

[Arbane]

Oh, and his one attempt at playing a mage: casting Fireball into a 20' square room, back in the days when fireball exerted a pressure, and deformed to fill it's total volume. To cut a long story short, he ended up surfing a smoldering door down a corridor on a wave of flames.

Dumb, yet awesome. I approve! :smallbiggrin:

[kulosle]

Hmm it seems like for the most part people on these forums have nearly no painfully bad experiences. That's good to know. I was sure by now we would run into someone who had huge rant about on particular event that takes up way too much space. But everyone here seems to be level headed.

[Amphetryon]

Oh, and his one attempt at playing a mage: casting Fireball into a 20' square room, back in the days when fireball exerted a pressure, and deformed to fill it's total volume. To cut a long story short, he ended up surfing a smoldering door down a corridor on a wave of flames.
I'm pretty sure that if I had a DM who let stuff like this happen, I'd purposely orchestrate it so that my character could do it, at least once.

[Myou]

I'm pretty sure that if I had a DM who let stuff like this happen, I'd purposely orchestrate it so that my character could do it, at least once.

You have a DM who wouldn't? :smalleek:

[Illithilich]

Hmm it seems like for the most part people on these forums have nearly no painfully bad experiences. That's good to know. I was sure by now we would run into someone who had huge rant about on particular event that takes up way too much space. But everyone here seems to be level headed.

Your completly right. Well that needs to be fixed :smallbiggrin:. Luckily I know what spoliers are, so it won't be a wall of text. I have a couple of stories about this one player. He was in my group over the summer (im the DM). He was playing a Dwarf Fighter. He would use a dwarven waraxe in one hand, and throwing axes in the other.

First Session:
So, in his first session the players were in the office of the City Guard Captain and were going to be asked to help investigate recent kidnappings and disapperences. Before I can get a single word out of the Captain's mouth, "I throw my axe (the magic waraxe, not the mundane throwing) into the table". "........... what? Why?" "To show that im serious." "........roll for it" *he rolls a nat 1* "Your axe misses entirley, crashing through the window. It falls into a sewer grate outside, lost forever in the city's labrythine sewers." His reaction: "No, I get it back". Not, can I get it back, or, please can I get it back, just flat out contradicting and ignoring me. And so the tone was set for the rest of summer :smallannoyed:

The Cloakers:
Now, reaching into a closet to grab a cloak is something any experienced D&D player should know not to do. He did just that and put it on. Guess what it was. Now, I still can't explain how, because im not sure how he did it myself, but he managed to waste the entire session on that one stupid cloaker. When he finally got it off everyone kinda lost intrest, so we ended. This happened to not one, but TWO sessions.

Domination (No, not that kind):
This happened twice as well. Once from an abeloth and the other from an archmage. Both times he failed his will save and was dominated. Both times he said that he could resist by interpreting orders incorrectly or to his benifit. Despite me and every other player telling him that dominate person does not work that way he stil insisted on it. And to be honest, maybe I would have allowed it IF he had actually been clever with it. Instead, he would basiclly ignore the order or do it only if he wanted to. So, being told to jump out a window and stay outside on the ground. He literally said, "No, I come back inside." So, once again he ignored me and the rules because it wasn't convient for him.

The Lost Character Sheet:
One session he came in and asked me for his character sheet. I told him that I didn't have it, and that I told everyone to keep their sheets the last session. He insisted that I had it and that I lost it. So I decided to let it drop, and just gave him a backup sheet. Over the session I made him a new character sheet in my free time. I even made him one better than his original (for example, instead of the weapon focus line he had used, I gave him things that actually helped with his build, such as power throw). Next session, he comes and has his old character sheet, which he had found at home. He never used my new, better sheet again.

His GF:
This one would be the longest section, but I could go on all day about this, so I will try and keep it short. For a few sessions he would be texting his girlfriend almost constantly. I asked him to pay more attention to the session and not text her so much. He said that if she texted him he had to text back, so I let it slide. I later talked with her about it and asked her to stop texting him during the sessions for the above reasons. "Oh, I never try to text him during them, he always texts me first." And while im on te topic of said girlfriend, said player knew that I liked her. So about once a session he would try to take a chance to basiclly rub it in my face. Yeah.

(There are more stories, but if I tell the all this post will never end)
And the worst bit was that he never gave money to the pizza fund :smallfurious:.

[VeGaS1986]

Im sorry but reading those five examples + the pizza thing at the end I have to ask what the hell this guy had going for him to keep him in the grp...I mean seriously just What The **** (when wtf just doesnt cut it)

[Snowbluff]

From my first campaign playing as wizard.

DM: "Surrounded and out numbered by enemies, in town square, which is about to be destroyed by cannon fir-"

Me: "Planeshift!"

DM: "What?"

Me: "I grab everybody and planeshift!"

DM: What? No! Where are going to planeshift to?! No planeshifting!"

Me: "My genesis plane!"

DM: "You don't have a genesis plane!"

Me: "Yes I do! I made it with a scroll! It's where I keep the CLone of myself, my lab,extra Solar Simulacra (in the off chance something actually kills one), my Though Bottle, and my extra spellbook!"

DM: "What?!"

Me: "I am always prepared! Imma Wizard, Harry"

Centaur Sacred Fist: "Godammit lol :>"

[Sjlver]

From my first campaign playing as wizard.

Me: "Yes I do! I made it with a scroll! It's where I keep the CLone of myself, my lab,extra Solar Simulacra (in the off chance something actually kills one), my Though Bottle, and my extra spellbook!"

DM: "What?!"

Me: "I am always prepared! Imma Wizard, Harry"

Centaur Sacred Fist: "Godammit lol :>"

What are you, a James Bond villain?

[Dusk Eclipse]

Your completly right. Well that needs to be fixed :smallbiggrin:. Luckily I know what spoliers are, so it won't be a wall of text. I have a couple of stories about this one player. He was in my group over the summer (im the DM). He was playing a Dwarf Fighter. He would use a dwarven waraxe in one hand, and throwing axes in the other.

First Session:
So, in his first session the players were in the office of the City Guard Captain and were going to be asked to help investigate recent kidnappings and disapperences. Before I can get a single word out of the Captain's mouth, "I throw my axe (the magic waraxe, not the mundane throwing) into the table". "........... what? Why?" "To show that im serious." "........roll for it" *he rolls a nat 1* "Your axe misses entirley, crashing through the window. It falls into a sewer grate outside, lost forever in the city's labrythine sewers." His reaction: "No, I get it back". Not, can I get it back, or, please can I get it back, just flat out contradicting and ignoring me. And so the tone was set for the rest of summer :smallannoyed:

The Cloakers:
Now, reaching into a closet to grab a cloak is something any experienced D&D player should know not to do. He did just that and put it on. Guess what it was. Now, I still can't explain how, because im not sure how he did it myself, but he managed to waste the entire session on that one stupid cloaker. When he finally got it off everyone kinda lost intrest, so we ended. This happened to not one, but TWO sessions.

Domination (No, not that kind):
This happened twice as well. Once from an abeloth and the other from an archmage. Both times he failed his will save and was dominated. Both times he said that he could resist by interpreting orders incorrectly or to his benifit. Despite me and every other player telling him that dominate person does not work that way he stil insisted on it. And to be honest, maybe I would have allowed it IF he had actually been clever with it. Instead, he would basiclly ignore the order or do it only if he wanted to. So, being told to jump out a window and stay outside on the ground. He literally said, "No, I come back inside." So, once again he ignored me and the rules because it wasn't convient for him.

The Lost Character Sheet:
One session he came in and asked me for his character sheet. I told him that I didn't have it, and that I told everyone to keep their sheets the last session. He insisted that I had it and that I lost it. So I decided to let it drop, and just gave him a backup sheet. Over the session I made him a new character sheet in my free time. I even made him one better than his original (for example, instead of the weapon focus line he had used, I gave him things that actually helped with his build, such as power throw). Next session, he comes and has his old character sheet, which he had found at home. He never used my new, better sheet again.

His GF:
This one would be the longest section, but I could go on all day about this, so I will try and keep it short. For a few sessions he would be texting his girlfriend almost constantly. I asked him to pay more attention to the session and not text her so much. He said that if she texted him he had to text back, so I let it slide. I later talked with her about it and asked her to stop texting him during the sessions for the above reasons. "Oh, I never try to text him during them, he always texts me first." And while im on te topic of said girlfriend, said player knew that I liked her. So about once a session he would try to take a chance to basiclly rub it in my face. Yeah.

(There are more stories, but if I tell the all this post will never end)
And the worst bit was that he never gave money to the pizza fund :smallfurious:.

Why does everyone loves the crit fumbles so much? I mean seriously they just screw up everything, I know I'd bee pissed to lost my magical axe just cause I rolled a 1, it is just asking for trouble in my opinion. True the player in question did act like a spoiled kid; but really? ""Your axe misses entirley, crashing through the window. It falls into a sewer grate outside, lost forever in the city's labrythine sewers." that is just messing with the player for no reason at all.

[Amphetryon]

Why does everyone loves the crit fumbles so much? I mean seriously they just screw up everything, I know I'd bee pissed to lost my magical axe just cause I rolled a 1, it is just asking for trouble in my opinion. True the player in question did act like a spoiled kid; but really? ""Your axe misses entirley, crashing through the window. It falls into a sewer grate outside, lost forever in the city's labrythine sewers." that is just messing with the player for no reason at all.

The "using cloakers in a closet" thing - twice - was also a red flag for me. Issues of trust on both sides of the DM screen, it would seem.

[Dusk Eclipse]

You know what? I am really grateful that I haven't had this kind of confrontations in the groups I've played in, true there is always something that might piss me off a little or I might do something that bothers other players.; but I don't think there is a group where there haven't been any kind of trouble, even if it is just because someone ate the last piece of the pizza.

[elvengunner69]

Why does everyone loves the crit fumbles so much? I mean seriously they just screw up everything, I know I'd bee pissed to lost my magical axe just cause I rolled a 1, it is just asking for trouble in my opinion. True the player in question did act like a spoiled kid; but really? ""Your axe misses entirley, crashing through the window. It falls into a sewer grate outside, lost forever in the city's labrythine sewers." that is just messing with the player for no reason at all.

Because even epic people make epic mistakes. :smallcool:

[2xMachina]

Gee, in that case, my D&D char would be a scavenger. With 1 in 20 attacks having a insanely expensive weapon flying off, I'd be rich in no time.

[gibbo88]

Well, in honesty I might have had it go flying out the window, but would have had it clatter onto the pavement so he looked a bit silly going out to get it.

[Canarr]

Why does everyone loves the crit fumbles so much? I mean seriously they just screw up everything, I know I'd bee pissed to lost my magical axe just cause I rolled a 1, it is just asking for trouble in my opinion. True the player in question did act like a spoiled kid; but really? ""Your axe misses entirley, crashing through the window. It falls into a sewer grate outside, lost forever in the city's labrythine sewers." that is just messing with the player for no reason at all.

+1 to that.

[Gavinfoxx]

{{scrubbed}}

[ahenobarbi]

[rant]


You are a bad DM.

Not necessarily. Some people play like that. I really enjoyed playing my first DM (or whatever this role is called in Warhammer) who on best-possible rolls gave us awesome descriptions of success


DM: Cook throws your deep fried rat to you.
Me: I try to catch it!
DM: Roll!
Me: [makes great roll - I was a dwarf necromancer with horrible dex, good times:smallredface:]
DM: You [I don't remember exactly... well a great acrobatics + eating my rat midair + awing everyone present]

and failures

Ah, a lot of stuff was broken, lost and friendly fire happened. And self-fire. I can't remember anything specific right now though(but was always fun:smalltongue:)

So I know it could be ok. I don't know if it was in this particular case.

[Dusk Eclipse]

If you like, more power to you, I on the other hand can't really stand it.

[Gavinfoxx]

{{scrubbed}} In part because he did not set up player expectations appropriately. If you do homebrew fumbles like that, everyone should know! You should have said, "Hey guys, if you roll a one on anything, I come up with some humorous thing to happen. This will often screw your character over. Same with a 20 and being awesome. Is everyone okay with this houserule?" and then gotten everyone's buy in. {{scrubbed}}

[hymer]

He OBVIOUSLY did not do that. Thus, he is a bad DM.

That's only obvious because you couched it in ridiculous terms. There's nothing in his post to suggest the players weren't fine with the house rule.
I agree with you so far that I would'nt have come back after the first session after that display, but as others have noted, some people (including players) actually find this sort of thing amusing.

[Gavinfoxx]

That's only obvious because you couched it in ridiculous terms. There's nothing in his post to suggest the players weren't fine with the house rule.
I agree with you so far that I would'nt have come back after the first session after that display, but as others have noted, some people (including players) actually find this sort of thing amusing.

Actually, it is obvious, because of this:

"His reaction: "No, I get it back"."

That means that the players were not sufficiently coached and did not actually have buy-in to what sorts of themes were going on.

[Voyager_I]

To be fair, the player was pretty terrible too. It was just a case of a bunch of people who didn't really know how to play the game.

[hymer]

@ Gavinfoxx: It wasn't (and isn't) obvious to me that the bit you mention means what you say it means. I agree with Voyager.

[TypoNinja]

Low level, only around 4th level or so. This happened quite some time ago, so bear with me.

We chase down our target baddie, hes a wizard holed up in an alchemist lab (Stand alone building). We rush in to engage, but he promptly turns invisible and nobody has anything to deal with invisibility. Roughs us up while we founder around. Then we hit on the idea to wait for his invisibility to wear out. So everybody retreats, we bar the door, seal up the windows, plug the chimney even, to make sure the bad guy can't get away. (Don't get ahead of me here, wait for it)

Everyone sets up camp.

Larger party, so not everybody fits in the rope trick, so the casters get rope trick for uninterrupted rest, melee types get a campfire.

6 hours later a bored half orc on watch decides to check out if the bad guy is visible again yet. Climbs up on the roof, unstoppers the chimney, and leans his head over.

Can't see anything, its dark.

Brings torch closer.

Closer to the vent. The vent leading to an active alchemist lab that's been sealed nearly air tight for many hours.

*BOOOOOOOOOOOOM*

One Half-Orc Barbo, one Half-Dragon fighter, one Human Paladin fatality, and one very large smoking crater later, we have technically achieved victory. Since the bad guy was still home.



Higher level game, same group, different characters. Around 15th. We've just killed the load bearing villain. On top of his floating island. Oh crap. How we gonna get down?

Fighter does the math in his head and determines that falling damage can't kill him. Sits his ass down and waits for the island to hit the ground. Rogue whips a force bead at his feet and voluntarily fails his save so he has a nice little force bubble to protect himself. I climb into my bag of holding and trust a party member to let me out before I'm out of air.

But the wizard takes the cake. Pulls a Gandalf on us. Summons him up a giant eagle, mounts up and GTFO's.

[Talakeal]

Thus, he is a bad DM.

I think that is a bit of an overstatement. I don't think I have ever played in a game where the DM didn't go above any beyond the rules occasionally with an unusual poor or high role. I wouldn't say that makes them bad DMs, even if that particular act is questionable.
Honestly I think if it is done sparingly and somewhat evenly it spices up the game. I would think most of the posters on this forum, who say things like "rule of cool is the most important rule" would agree.

[Mystify]

I think that is a bit of an overstatement. I don't think I have ever played in a game where the DM didn't go above any beyond the rules occasionally with an unusual poor or high role. I wouldn't say that makes them bad DMs, even if that particular act is questionable.
Honestly I think if it is done sparingly and somewhat evenly it spices up the game. I would think most of the posters on this forum, who say things like "rule of cool is the most important rule" would agree.

Still, "I toss my weapon onto the table" turning into "you toss it out the window and lose it forever" is kinda ridiculous.

[Gavinfoxx]

The DM, in a non-comedy game, with no warning, and people had not understood that was how fumbles were supposed to work, because the player rolled a SINGLE one, had the character arbitrarily lose a magic weapon that was a major aspect of a character, in such a way that, through no fault of the player or character, it was lost forever.

This is not a reasonable thing of an arbiter of a serious world to do... YES, that player isn't doing things well, and has several issues with understanding how the game and the social interaction works, but the DM was not being sufficiently diligent in setting expectations, following rules, and helping the player grow.

[Talakeal]

Still, "I toss my weapon onto the table" turning into "you toss it out the window and lose it forever" is kind of ridiculous.

That it is. Still, the image of a berate dwarf trying to act like a badass and violently drawing his weapon, only to have it slip from his grasp and go flying out the window behind him, is both humorous and a great role-playing opportunity.
It is something that happens, not often, but occasionally, you pick up something to fast but without a great grip and it goes flying into the air.
This is, imo a golden RP opportunity. What would you do to save face in such a situation? I mean, do you acknowledge it, or keep up the gruff act? Do you laugh at yourself and defuse the situation? Do you stoically keep at the table, or go rush outside to find your axe before some urchin makes off with it?
The problem, of course, is that a player won't be able to get over his ego and thinks the DM is "screwing them" and then it becomes a situation of saving face out of character.

The "lost forever in the sewers" thing is really lame though. Of course so is the "no it isn't" response. I have actually had players (when I was much younger) say things to that effect. I remember one time when I was thirteen and I saw a player flat out refuse to mark a negative level when a wraith hit him because energy drain was unfair.



A bit of a tangent, but in my homebrew system I have a unified mechanic for fumbles and critical on all rolls. Roll a 1, roll again and subtract the result from the check. Roll a 20, roll again and add the result. If you ever succeed by 20 or more you achieve a critical success, if you fail by 20 or more you botch and something bad happens, but the bad is usually about on par with the good you were trying to achieve, none of this arbitrary lost forever stuff.
I know most players hate fumbles, but I really don't know why. They add excitement to the game and a lot of story and RP opportunities that you simply wouldn't make up on your own.
From a mechanics perspective, it keeps the dice roll important and allows people to have a chance, no matter how slim, but at the same time discourages people from trying things they have no realistic chance of succeeding on for the hell of it. For example, if someone's appendix bursts in the middle of the jungle an untrained character might have to perform impromptu surgery with little hope of success, but if someone's appendix bursts in town his brother won't give it a shot himself to save a few bucks before taking him to the hospital.


The DM, in a non-comedy game, with no warning, and people had not understood that was how fumbles were supposed to work, because the player rolled a SINGLE one, had the character arbitrarily lose a magic weapon that was a major aspect of a character, in such a way that, through no fault of the player or character, it was lost forever.

This is not a reasonable thing of an arbiter of a serious world to do... YES, that player isn't doing things well, and has several issues with understanding how the game and the social interaction works, but the DM was not being sufficiently diligent in setting expectations, following rules, and helping the player grow.

I am just saying that one mistake does not make someone a bad DM. And although losing a magic item like that is certainly a mistake and an abuse of DM authority, I don't think every time a DM throws a curve into a task would qualify as a mistake, every DM I have played under has done it on occasion, usually with positive results.
I don't, but I am sort of a "stick in the mud" when it comes to the "rule of cool", but I don't begrudge other DMs when they do, because it almost always makes the game better.
Still there are the exceptions, like one DM who ruled that I gave myself an impromptu mastectomy after rolling a nat 1 on an attack, because "that is what happens when a woman tries to be wield a sword..."

[SirFredgar]

From a mechanics perspective, it keeps the dice roll important and allows people to have a chance, no matter how slim, but at the same time discourages people from trying things they have no realistic chance of succeeding on for the hell of it. For example, if someone's appendix bursts in the middle of the jungle an untrained character might have to perform impromptu surgery with little hope of success, but if someone's appendix bursts in town his brother won't give it a shot himself to save a few bucks before taking him to the hospital.

I disagree with your veiw on critial successes/failures. Both for different reasons, actually.

Critical sucesses: Most dms perfer some sort of verisimilitude and what the players can do, the monsters/NPCs can as well. This means, because players generally have many more rolls against them than from them.... these rules actually favor the house. I once played a GM that used two natural 20s on an attack roll was an instant kill. I used this to my advantage when I walked up to a cocky balor and one shotted him. It worked to my disadvantage for having to not only reroll one of my characters when it happened against me.... but each of the party had died at least once, on average, against this mechanic.

Fumbles: I'm a hero, not a sidekick. If I take leadership, let the cohort fumble... but me and the party should be too cool for the fumble school. Mechanically, though, I guess this does favor the party for the same reasons that critial successes favor the house.

[huttj509]

Still there are the exceptions, like one DM who ruled that I gave myself an impromptu mastectomy after rolling a nat 1 on an attack, because "that is what happens when a woman tries to be wield a sword..."

Did the same DM have a male fighter suffer a major groinal injury on a fumble? Cause, hey, then he'd at least be consistent.

Besides, swords are not lightsabers. Cut on an uncontrolled fumble? Ok. Clean slice taking a major chunk out/off? Not likely.

Now what happens when a woman tries to wield a lightsaber? Flying limbs, same as when anyone else tries to wield one.

[Talakeal]

I disagree with your veiw on critial successes/failures. Both for different reasons, actually.

Critical sucesses: Most dms perfer some sort of verisimilitude and what the players can do, the monsters/NPCs can as well. This means, because players generally have many more rolls against them than from them.... these rules actually favor the house. I once played a GM that used two natural 20s on an attack roll was an instant kill. I used this to my advantage when I walked up to a cocky balor and one shotted him. It worked to my disadvantage for having to not only reroll one of my characters when it happened against me.... but on average each of the party had died at least once (some more) because of it.

Fumbles: I'm a hero, not a sidekick. If I take leadership, let the cohort fumble... but me and the party should be too cool for the fumble school. Mechanically, though, I guess this does favor the party for the same reasons that critial successes favor the house.

Well, generally I never have a fumble or critical do more than double what you set out to do. You fumble an attack and shoot an ally in the back, you don't do any more damage than you meant to do to the enemy. You crit you do double the normal damage of the enemy, not kill them outright.


Well, I run sword and sorcery, post apocalyptic, and western games, where risk and failure are very important. If you are playing a game about high heroics I suppose fumbles and critical might not be appropriate, but I am not sure, I can think of action movies, super hero stories, and even myths about gods where the protagonists screw up badly, and possibly even in a humorous way.

Personally I think it helps you get into character. Someone who makes mistakes is human, and if you never make mistakes you never know how you react to failure, and that is a big part of a person's psychology.
Now, the real problem occurs when players just can't get over their ego and accept that their character is a person rather than a stone cold badass. This is something I have been guilty of on occasion I will admit.
I have had a player min max himself as a gunslinger and then get mad and quit the game when a literal god survived a shot from him.
On the other hand one time I played an old school world of darkness game where I was a mortal in a party of various supernatural's. The only power I had was immunity to mind control (5 dots of the mind shield numina, iron will, unbendable, and 10 willpower) and then the very first session I got dominated by a "custom power" that ignored all normal resistance. I did much the same thing and walked, and to this day am not sure if the GM was just being a railroading jerk or if I was just unable to get over my own ego.

[SirFredgar]

Well, generally I never have a fumble or critical do more than double what you set out to do. You fumble an attack and shoot an ally in the back, you don't do any more damage than you meant to do to the enemy. You crit you do double the normal damage of the enemy, not kill them outright.


Well, I run sword and sorcery, post apocalyptic, and western games, where risk and failure are very important. If you are playing a game about high heroics I suppose fumbles and criticals might not be appropriate, but I am not sure, I can think of action movies, super hero stories, and even myths about gods where the protagonists screw up badly, and possibly even in a humorous way.

Personally I think it helps you get into character. Someone who makes mistakes is human, and if you never make mistakes you never know how you react to failure, and that is a big part of a person's psychology.


Yeah, our characters are supposed to have foibles, but I am of the school of thought that a 5% chance of failure rate pwer swing of a sword for a fighter who does nothing but swing his sword all day seems entirely too high. Maybe if you had to reroll 1 or something... but this is simply splitting hairs ont he maths.

[huttj509]

Fumbles: I'm a hero, not a sidekick. If I take leadership, let the cohort fumble... but me and the party should be too cool for the fumble school. Mechanically, though, I guess this does favor the party for the same reasons that critial successes favor the house.

Depends on the penalty for a fumble. If it results in injury to the roller, players are MAKING a lot more attack rolls than any individual enemy. It hurts the players more, because if an enemy lops off his leg, ok, there's another one soon, with both legs intact. If a player lops off his leg...

It's similar to how crit hits can hurt the players more. Player one shots an enemy? Awesome. But there's another coming. Enemy one shots a player? Less awesome (unless character churn is what you're going for).

Basically since PCs are assumed to be continuing through many battles, and enemies are not, anything that causes random lasting effects (such as death or injury from crits or fumbles) hurts the PCs more than it hurts an individual enemy.

Fumble as an auto-miss? Not bad. Negative effect, but not lasting, only affects that roll. Fumble as a weapon drop? A bit worse, as it also affects the next action picking the weapon up. Fumble as weapon loss (down a sewer), or severe self-injury? Not a good idea unless weapons and regeneration is cheap and easy.

[Mystify]

I know most players hate fumbles, but I really don't know why. They add excitement to the game and a lot of story and RP opportunities that you simply wouldn't make up on your own.
Because it makes it so chance can undermine your actual gameplay decisions. generally speaking, most probabilty in the game tends to average out nicely and minimize the random impact on the game. Crits and fumbles magnify the extremes, and throw the balance off so bad rolls(or good rolls on the enemies part) can have drastic effects. They become the dominating factor in what is going on, and can rob you of victory.
And esp. at high levels, its kinda ridiculous. Missing alone is not unreasonable, but to say that your level 20 fighter just rolled a 1 on his last iterative, and so has fumbled in some extreme manner, such as dropping his weapon, doesn't even make narrative sense.
I've seen a fair bit of discussion on the forums about how crits are too powerful at low levels. An enemy rolls a crit, and suddenly a character is dead. Its nothing your strategy or character build can defend against; its just random chance messing you up and making you fail.

[Talakeal]

Yeah, our characters are supposed to have foibles, but I am of the school of thought that a 5% chance of failure rate pwer swing of a sword for a fighter who does nothing but swing his sword all day seems entirely too high. Maybe if you had to reroll 1 or something... but this is simply splitting hairs ont he maths.

Yeah, 5% is a bit much I agree. I make people confirm the fumble.


Did the same DM have a male fighter suffer a major groinal injury on a fumble? Cause, hey, then he'd at least be consistent.

Besides, swords are not lightsabers. Cut on an uncontrolled fumble? Ok. Clean slice taking a major chunk out/off? Not likely.

Now what happens when a woman tries to wield a lightsaber? Flying limbs, same as when anyone else tries to wield one.


No, the DM just didn't like the idea of woman fighters. I have also been in a group (not just the DM but the whole group) ruled that my character was to buxom to use a bow because of that old myth about the amazons removing their right breast. Some DMs just don't like female warriors.


Because it makes it so chance can undermine your actual gameplay decisions. generally speaking, most probabilty in the game tends to average out nicely and minimize the random impact on the game. Crits and fumbles magnify the extremes, and throw the balance off so bad rolls(or good rolls on the enemies part) can have drastic effects. They become the dominating factor in what is going on, and can rob you of victory.
And esp. at high levels, its kinda ridiculous. Missing alone is not unreasonable, but to say that your level 20 fighter just rolled a 1 on his last iterative, and so has fumbled in some extreme manner, such as dropping his weapon, doesn't even make narrative sense.
I've seen a fair bit of discussion on the forums about how crits are too powerful at low levels. An enemy rolls a crit, and suddenly a character is dead. Its nothing your strategy or character build can defend against; its just random chance messing you up and making you fail.

I agree with almost all of what you said. A simple 5% chance on every roll is too much, as is forcing a fumble on iterative attacks (although I don't use iterative attacks at all, slows the game down to much and keeps combat too stationary for my tastes, but that's another subject).

Chance does undermine decisions, that is true. I find that one of the big appeals of RPGs as opposed to just storytelling, the dice almost act like another player.

[SirFredgar]

Depends on the penalty for a fumble. If it results in injury to the roller, players are MAKING a lot more attack rolls than any individual enemy. It hurts the players more, because if an enemy lops off his leg, ok, there's another one soon, with both legs intact. If a player lops off his leg...

It's similar to how crit hits can hurt the players more. Player one shots an enemy? Awesome. But there's another coming. Enemy one shots a player? Less awesome (unless character churn is what you're going for).

Basically since PCs are assumed to be continuing through many battles, and enemies are not, anything that causes random lasting effects (such as death or injury from crits or fumbles) hurts the PCs more than it hurts an individual enemy.

Fumble as an auto-miss? Not bad. Negative effect, but not lasting, only affects that roll. Fumble as a weapon drop? A bit worse, as it also affects the next action picking the weapon up. Fumble as weapon loss (down a sewer), or severe self-injury? Not a good idea unless weapons and regeneration is cheap and easy.


I actually agree with your point, I just wanted to point out the that bolded segment is RAW (on attack rolls at least). I don't like fumbles added to skill checks, because I figured that if your training (ranks) allow you to overcome a poor set of circumstances (the roll), you shouldn't add a 5% chance of failure for the lulz. It also gets wonky with certain extreme DCs (like -5 listen checks, was the one that I ran into): "I rolled a 1, with a 14 wisdom, can I hear the massive explosions and people screaming from the chaotic battle that broke out in town?" DM: "No, your character.... has swimmer's ear from his bath this morning." "It's like midevil europe in your wold... wtf is a bath?" "He had his fingers in his ears then.... both of them"

[DrDeth]

For those that like fumbles- how often do wizards fumble fireball?:smallfrown:

Fumbles not only nerf PCs far more than the bad guys, they add add'l levels of nerf to the warrior classes, something which is hardly needed.

Nor are fumbles all that realistic. SCA fighters almost never hit themselves or hit their companions. True, weapons do occ get dropped, maybe in a 100 fighter list where they fight all day it may happen a handful of times, like on the order of once per 1000 blows. So, it's not even realistic.

[Gavinfoxx]

And not just SCA -- this is ridiculously rare with the martial artist types who are more rigorous in the historical accuracy of their weapon based martial arts than SCA types.

Check this out:

www.thearma.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=24395

[elvengunner69]

Gee, in that case, my D&D char would be a scavenger. With 1 in 20 attacks having a insanely expensive weapon flying off, I'd be rich in no time.

Fumble deck by Pazio are a hoot.

[Dr_S]

I play with fumbles because that's how I was taught, I don't know what the actual rules are because it's a rule that goes by DM so even if I were to look it up, the DM would say "I don't care"
a single 1 means auto miss, attack ends (i.e. if it was a full attack, any remaining attacks fail as well)
then roll confirming attack like you would with Crit, roll high enough, nothing happens, roll low, drop your weapon (just drops ammo for bows/crossbows)
consecutive 1's on missile weapons (bow string snaps, it's presumed that the PC has replacements as standard traveling gear and it's a full round to restring.

Yes, it's rare that a trained fighter would drop his weapon, but how likely it is depends on how capable his opponent is on defense.

However critical fumbles or no... the original scenario fails at is that:
A) That should have been an intimidate check
B) An attack against a helpless object (desk) doesn't require a roll (if you're going to ignore point a)
C) There is no scenario in which this action could have resulted the axe flying out the window.
D) 5% chance to lose a magic weapon permanently?
E) Why can't they search the sewers with detect magic?
F) If (as it should have been) this were a intimidate check, and the group was playing "auto-fail" on 1's for skill checks, a failed intimidate would have been the guard captain laughing at him, and not anything to do with his weapon.

[Fiery Diamond]

No, the DM just didn't like the idea of woman fighters. I have also been in a group (not just the DM but the whole group) ruled that my character was to buxom to use a bow because of that old myth about the amazons removing their right breast. Some DMs just don't like female warriors.

Some DMs (meaning, the ones you're talking about) just are (string of expletives deleted). :smallfurious::smallfurious::smallfurious::smallfu rious::smallfurious:

Can you tell that those kind of sexist stances by people infuriate me?

[kulosle]

I feel like we are getting a little off topic, but I do have something I would like to add, my group uses fumble rules as well, but it's not as horrible of a system. If you role a natural 1 you roll again, if you roll high enough to hit your own ac then you hit your self and roll for damage normally. Skills, on a 20 you roll again and if your total rolls are enough to make the dc than you do. on a 1 you roll again and you roll negative that much. sometimes that doesn't do anything more than failing to begin with but some times it does.

[Mystify]

I feel like we are getting a little off topic, but I do have something I would like to add, my group uses fumble rules as well, but it's not as horrible of a system. If you role a natural 1 you roll again, if you roll high enough to hit your own ac then you hit your self and roll for damage normally.
Does that just punish you for being offensively focused? I've had several characters that would eviscerate themselves on a 1 with those rules. And with lots of attacks, you have a greater chance of rolling a 1. I would be the biggest threat to myself.

[Amphetryon]

Does that just punish you for being offensively focused? I've had several characters that would eviscerate themselves on a 1 with those rules. And with lots of attacks, you have a greater chance of rolling a 1. I would be the biggest threat to myself.
Without knowing the DM personally, I'd wager there's a perception that TWF is overpowered behind those rules. That, or TWF/Multiweapon Fighting and how they interact with the fumble rules were wholly omitted from consideration.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Tell me please where have you seen anyone trained in the use of arms hitting him or herself? Please tell me because I have never heard of an event like that and with those fumble rules that is 5% of happening every time someone swings any kind of weapon. And even when the extra of having to roll against your own AC, most PC invest a lot into being able to hit things as often as possible, so I am pretty sure that the pc's do hit themselves most of the time.

How was it, if you put a 100 fighters striking against a dummy (AC 5) for 1 minute and if by the end of that minute more than half of them is dead due auto mutilation, you need to check your critical fumble rules.

And please don't let me get started on critical fail checks on skills, as I hate them more than anything in the world.

[Talakeal]

This thread has gotten seriously derailed, my apologies.

However, I would like to ask, what is the point of the skill check in d20?

As written, a character can either succeed at a task, or they can't. With no auto fails on a 1 or auto succeeds on a 20, no fumble, no criticals, why do they even have rolls? Most of the time the die roll doesn't matter, and when it does, you can just try again or take a 20 9/10 times.

Why don't they just simplify the system and instead of DCs say "You must have X modifier in the skill to perform this task."


Friendly fire happens all the time in combat, and if you have players who are willingly shooting with allies in their line of fire or into close combat I would imagine this would happen all the time.
Hitting yourself is extremely rare, and with some weapons impossible, but people do injure themselves from physical exertion all the time. Pulling a muscle or what not is perfectly possible, and ever fake wrestlers seriously injure themselves performing maneuvers with some frequency.
D&D also has rules for offensively dual wielding sizeable weapons and all those ridiculous double weapons, and in the case of a lot of those weapons I would actually think it less realistic if you couldn't hit yourself.

[Dr_S]

This thread has gotten seriously derailed, my apologies.

However, I would like to ask, what is the point of the skill check in d20?

As written, a character can either succeed at a task, or they can't. With no auto fails on a 1 or auto succeeds on a 20, no fumble, no criticals, why do they even have rolls? Most of the time the die roll doesn't matter, and when it does, you can just try again or take a 20 9/10 times.

Why don't they just simplify the system and instead of DCs say "You must have X modifier in the skill to perform this task."


Friendly fire happens all the time in combat, and if you have players who are willingly shooting with allies in their line of fire or into close combat I would imagine this would happen all the time.
Hitting yourself is extremely rare, and with some weapons impossible, but people do injure themselves from physical exertion all the time. Pulling a muscle or what not is perfectly possible, and ever fake wrestlers seriously injure themselves performing maneuvers with some frequency.
D&D also has rules for offensively dual wielding sizeable weapons and all those ridiculous double weapons, and in the case of a lot of those weapons I would actually think it less realistic if you couldn't hit yourself.

I kind of agree with you about skill checks, there are some tasks that training reduces odds of failure and not eliminate. You are neglecting the several skills which there are "degrees of success" and opposed rolls, such as knowledge, perform (which my group uses a lot), diplomacy, bluff, sleight of hand, etc.

For me, the other checks such as UMD, Acrobatics, etc, done while in combat or similarly distracting situation, should not be an automatic success.

I've seen Ice skaters fall over at the starting line, those Parkour guys hurt themselves on easy jumps occasionally too, learning to snowboard is more about learning to get back up as opposed to learning not to fall over.
Maybe 5% failure on skill checks is a bit high, it hasn't really ever come up in my group.

If someone's not allowed to take 10 or take 20 and it's something other than a knowledge check, or an opposed roll I think that there should be a chance for failure. Perhaps add 10 to the DC per consecutive 1 rolled such that say someone trying a 5DC parkour move who has 20 total modifier in acrobatics, can throw 2 1's and STILL succeed, but a chance at failure exists.

[Leon]

Has anyone ever had a character killed by exploding grain? (Which is also possible IRL.)

I tried to set up a scenario like that in a game - a fight vs some wererats in a grain warehouse, nobody used any kind of fire so it didn't go off (some wererats did suffocate in grain tho)




No, the DM just didn't like the idea of woman fighters. I have also been in a group (not just the DM but the whole group) ruled that my character was to buxom to use a bow because of that old myth about the amazons removing their right breast. Some DMs just don't like female warriors.


Did you pick up a crossbow and rock on?

[Chained Birds]

I'll try to bring things back to topic.

The Setup
When I finally got into my first gaming group (a 3.P type game using mainly 3.5 rules as Pathfinder was still underdevelopment); there was me (a halfling Rogue), my good friend (a human fighter), and the guy I was unfamiliar with (an elf wizard). The DM was a real nice guy and was always happy to give out magic gear regardless of wealth-by-level.
Now the DM is cool with us switching out feats every level in-case we mess up or find a better way to make our characters as we were still learning how to make our characters. The wizard player has a lot more experience in dnd having played since 3rd edition, and is somewhat expected to know how to play a wizard.
The Beginning
So our first adventure begins and progresses without too much trouble. There were some good moments here and there, and the first appearance of one of my character's using relatively useless items for great things. The only complaint I had was with the wizard player (OOC/ a little IC) sporting a constant stream of gay and sexual innuendo jokes, like how my character is homosexual even though my character never did anything to say he was or ever will be. I was speedily getting irked by both the player and his racist/sexist elf.
Time Goes on
The player and his elf wizard still don't shut up about the gay and sexual jokes. He just had to say something every second or else I think his heart would stopped or something.
Another time, his wizard convinced the Fighter to stuff my halfling into a dead Ropper's mouth to search for loot even though my character had no interest in doing so. The Wizard also wanted to steal a dragon egg from the dragon mother who was holding it in her mouth while she bullrushed the idiot wizard who didn't bother moving out her way... I had a smile on my face when that happened, though the smile was short-lived after a few more of his incessant jokes! The player then said how unfair it was and how his wizard never got nice things seeing as how me and my friend get +1 weapons, but his wizard hasn't been given a single Rod or artifact :smallannoyed:.
A New Game
We have a lot of fun in a new game (using pure Pathfinder and new characters) and the presence of a woman (the Wizard player's girlfriend) seems to lower the player's jokes somewhat, but not too much. He is still playing the same wizard from before with the same exact name and everything. The cleric (my good friend) expedites his move actions to jumping through windows for tactical advantage and I slaughter everything with my character's Barbarian rage while the Rogue (the girlfriend) flanks with some Homebrewed feats the wizard player found and just assumed to be new Pathfinder stuff.
The Worst of the Worst
Me and the cleric are in the front of the party and spot a carriage sitting in the road. The two other players don't want to deal with this event and choose to let the cleric and I go alone due to their lack of interest in the spider-drawn vehicle in a land infested by demons :smallconfused:.
We find out that the owner is a merchant that initially doesn't trust us and has a musket pointed at us throughout the whole wheel repair of his vehicle. We eventually fix it up somehow and have a nice conversation with him. By now, the two other players are bored and decide to ruin our day by having sex on top of the man's carriage after annoying his spiders. The merchant responds by shooting them off with a magical bullet. The wizard is upset by this and rants about why the man shot him.
The merchant offers to drive us all towards a local town we saved earlier and eventually would drive us to where we wanted to go, but the other two (the wizard leading as the rogue is new to Dnd and is just going with it) tell us they'll catch up and tell us they'll walk and meet us back at the town. The cleric and I hesitantly agree to not force the other two to join us and thus carry on our way.
The two then run ahead and set up an ambush for us where they were going to destroy the carriage and possibly murder the driver for his stuff. Did I mention these characters were Good aligned? The ambush doesn't work out, and the vehicle bolts towards the town without the cleric or my character knowing who tried to attack us.
We get to town, and our characters wait. And we wait and wait and wait...
Apparently the other 2 thought "Screw those guys, they left us out here to die, so let's go in the total opposite direction towards the monster laden woods over there." And thus our DM had to do a 'splitting the party' deal for the next session.
The player said my friend and I were real jerks for leaving us behind, even though he insisted on them walking and IC said they were going to meet up with our characters at the town. Our characters did wait there for hours upon hours for their arrival and eventually went with the merchant to the city to try and teleport the other 2 to the city if possible.
And I also didn't get why a level 4 Wizard and Rogue thought that their chances of survival were better without the Cleric or Barbarian!

I wrote a lot... Long-story-short, a player made me hate Elf Wizards forever. I will never make one and will rather go Half-Elf before ever using Elf in a character build.

[Crocodactyl]

Not 3.x/Pathfinder, but I regularly DM a game od 1e AD&D with a 3 person group (a half-elf thief/magic user, a psionic human cleric who is the half brother of the thief, and human fighter gone paladin, and at the time a noncombatant npc guide). While crusading in the underdark where they had heard that there were mind flayers, the cleric decides to split up from the group when they reach a fork. He finds a Mind Flayer's laboratory and gets himself psionically crippled and it eats his brain. The party returns o look for him when they need a healer badly, and find him dead. They kill the Mind Flayer and loot its lab, which had, because it's cool, a Clone scroll. I know in 3.5 Clone moves the soul of the original to the clone, and if the original still lives, the clone is comatose, but in AD&D clone makes a full on copy and instills a hatred between the two. So the thief/magic user Reincarnates the cleric with a scroll, making him a halfling, and then makes a clone from the old corpse. He raises it in the lab during a 6 week break (their quest is not one of any particular urgency) and then slits his brother's throat in the night. So the cleric's player just took the clone as his character, even though it is a different person. I wanted to argue, but it all seems to check out.

Also, on the topic of fumbles, we always use them. I do include small chance of self injury and even went so far as to have a player decapitate himself with a vorpal sword. Of course, my party is such that they expect and even want that kind of thing. They know AD&D had a reputation for being overly harsh and say it just wouldn't be right without all of the horrible permanent curses and save or die effects (or just straight up die effects). I would never do that in a normal game.

[Acanous]

Wait wait wait
wait
wait.

You had an *elf* making *gay jokes*?

Did anyone bother to inform him that he was a limp-wristed, wood-loving elf that looked more like a woman in his purple robes than the armored rogue he's shacking up with?

He knows she wears the pants, right? I mean, she literally wears pants and he's got a skirt on.

You know what the problem with Elf bordellos is? You can never tell if you're shacking up with a male or female elf 'til their clothes come off. Even then, you might not notice if it's dark enough. With men, you can tell right away. Elves, it's barely there to notice.

I hear that's why there's so many half-elves around. The elf lasses are randy for real men. For that matter, so are the elf lads.

Can't say I blame them, if they stuck with other elves they wouldn't find much satisfaction, seeing as it takes an elf 100 years to become proficient at something.

I could keep this up all year, really. Elves are the target of a lot of racial "Humor" from humans, dwarves, and orcs in one of the campaign settings I play in.
The best part is that you can do it in character, it's inoffensive IRL. He's still likely to get bent out of shape over it, though. Hopefully that'll either get your point across or start a duel.

[Chained Birds]

Wait wait wait
wait
wait.

You had an *elf* making *gay jokes*?

Yes, I did bring up the irony of an Elf calling other races like my Half-Orc gay for no legitimate reason, but that just fueled continue his "jokes" well after everyone, including the DM, were completely sick of them. The DM really tried to fight back against him, but it's like arguing with an internet Troll.
He was also a horrible Wizard that always threatened my Halfling Rogue that when he gets to level 10, he can kill anyone with a snap of his fingers. My rebuttal was "I'm a level Rogue 5/ Assassin 1, and you're a level 6 none-utility Wizard Elf. I don't think you can make the Fort save at the moment."
Oh, and he was supposed to be Chaotic Good in the very same campaign where he murdered, pillaged, and raped a goblin village for no other reason than because he could. My character (Lawful Evil) was too busy asking the gaining useful information on quest related stuff from the living goblins to notice or care about that characters actions anymore. He even convinced the Fighter to get in on the slaying of innocent Goblin women and children...
He was also always whining about never being allowed to be creative with his spells like instantly turning his blood to acid for no other reason than to spoil an enemies Bite attack or something, and how the DM was Stingy in not giving him any RodStaff. Even though the DM eventually had a Driad give him one for helping her out, where he explained that it was crap because it was all nature themed and didn't help out his Fireball or Chain Lightning spells...
I can go even further, but I'm done ranting for now...

[GreenSerpent]

spells like instantly turning his blood to acid for no other reason than to spoil an enemies Bite attack

There is a spell for that. But unless he was able to cast 5th level spells, then he's just being "selectively interpretive" of the rules.

[DwarfFighter]

I think the worst session I've ever been to has to be this:

A 20 players 2 DMs session set in ancient Rome. It lasted for about six hours and NOTHING HAPPENED! I'm not kidding, it was six hours of nothingness. I can't explain how they did it, but for six hours no one did anything while the DMs were doing what I supposed to be "getting the session started".
Oh and I had to cash in for a pizza that never was never actually delivered.


I am curious to learn what sort of GM techniques would be in use to make ANYTHING happen with 20 players. Personally I think things get a bit unwieldy around the 8-player mark.

-DF

[Mystify]

This thread has gotten seriously derailed, my apologies.

However, I would like to ask, what is the point of the skill check in d20?

As written, a character can either succeed at a task, or they can't. With no auto fails on a 1 or auto succeeds on a 20, no fumble, no criticals, why do they even have rolls? Most of the time the die roll doesn't matter, and when it does, you can just try again or take a 20 9/10 times.

Why don't they just simplify the system and instead of DCs say "You must have X modifier in the skill to perform this task."


Friendly fire happens all the time in combat, and if you have players who are willingly shooting with allies in their line of fire or into close combat I would imagine this would happen all the time.
Hitting yourself is extremely rare, and with some weapons impossible, but people do injure themselves from physical exertion all the time. Pulling a muscle or what not is perfectly possible, and ever fake wrestlers seriously injure themselves performing maneuvers with some frequency.
D&D also has rules for offensively dual wielding sizeable weapons and all those ridiculous double weapons, and in the case of a lot of those weapons I would actually think it less realistic if you couldn't hit yourself.
in circumstaces where you can take 10, then the skill is basically "If you have at least this much skill, you can just do it". If you are stressed, you need more skil(about 10 more) to do it without failure. If you are below that threshold, you have a chance of failure and need to roll. If you ae out of combat, and there is no penalty for failure, you can take 20. This means that you need at least x skill to succeed. However, if you can just barely do it, it takes a lot longer.
Even in cases where you need to roll a few times to make it, it is generally more cinematic. You are trying to knock down the door, but it takes a few slams before you burst it open. The barbarian is trying to burst his bonds, and he struggles against them for a bit before they burst. The rogue is trying to pick a lock, and it takes him a bit before he can get it.

As for injuring yourself, all of the rules presented form absurdities for it. Rolling to Hit your own AC, then doing full damage... but that just means the more skilled you are, the more likely you are to hurt yourself, which is the opposite of what makes sense. You have a level 1 guy in full plate and tower shield, and his AC is 23. He isn't that strong, and only has a +2 to hit. Even when he rolls a 1, he has a very slim chance to hurt himself since he will need a 20 to make contact with himself.

This same character, using the same gear, at level 20, not has a +22 to hit. Now, whenever he rolls a 1, he is guaranteed to hit himself. By becoming more skilled, he has gone form a 1/400 chance to hurt himself, to a 1/20 chance to hurt himself. That is the opposite of what you want to happen. The level 20 fighter is so far beyond normal human skill that it should never happen. Even if it did, saying that you would hit yourself just as hard as you hit somebody else is generally kinda absurd. I have a rapier, and I am stabbing the enemies in the chest. Somehow, I fumble, and now have stabbed myself in the chest just has hard? Not mishandled the weapon and scratched myself, but delivered as solid a blow as I would to an enemy.

Another method proposed was rolling again, and if that fails to hit the enemies AC, then you have the fumble. Except, now your skill is somehow linked to the enemies armor, so the more armor they have, the more likely you are to mess up. That makes no sense either. It also means that later attacks in the iterative are more likely to mess up and backfire, so swinging with your later attacks becomes more risk than reward.

The only method I can think of that is kinda sane would be to roll again at a -20 penalty. If you roll a 1, you get another -20 penalty that stacks with the previous, and rolls again. If your total result is <0, then you have a critical fumble. Now, your 1st level characters might fumble pretty often, but it would be practically unheard of for the level 20 characters. The penalty for fumbling should also be much less sever. You hit yourself for base weapon damage, for instance. All of your skill and expertise does not go into slaughtering yourself. Power attack is being kinda reckless, and by lowering your attack accuracy you increase the chance that you accidentally hurt yourself. If your roll with the -20 happens to hit, then you can hit anyways. This means the character wit ha +50 to hit won't miss the AC 10 character unless they roll several 1s in a row. Likewise, rolling a 20 gives you a +20 to your roll and you roll again, and this replaces auto-hits. crit threats are normal; you have to roll within the threat range on your first roll, and it has to hit, then you roll a separate roll to confirm. Otherwise, varying crit range weapons will act weird. This means that you don't stack as many penalties as possible when you can't hit and hope for the 20. This general system keeps the chance of success or failure ever-present, but it is much lower than the standard 5%. The main problem is that iteratives still have a greater chance of hurting you; the main solution I see is that an iterative gets the BaB penalty to the crit fumble threshold. So your first attack must roll beneath 0, the second must roll beneath -5, the third -10, etc.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Yes, I did bring up the irony of an Elf calling other races like my Half-Orc gay for no legitimate reason, but that just fueled continue his "jokes" well after everyone, including the DM, were completely sick of them. The DM really tried to fight back against him, but it's like arguing with an internet Troll.
He was also a horrible Wizard that always threatened my Halfling Rogue that when he gets to level 10, he can kill anyone with a snap of his fingers. My rebuttal was "I'm a level Rogue 5/ Assassin 1, and you're a level 6 none-utility Wizard Elf. I don't think you can make the Fort save at the moment."
Oh, and he was supposed to be Chaotic Good in the very same campaign where he murdered, pillaged, and raped a goblin village for no other reason than because he could. My character (Lawful Evil) was too busy asking the gaining useful information on quest related stuff from the living goblins to notice or care about that characters actions anymore. He even convinced the Fighter to get in on the slaying of innocent Goblin women and children...
He was also always whining about never being allowed to be creative with his spells like instantly turning his blood to acid for no other reason than to spoil an enemies Bite attack or something, and how the DM was Stingy in not giving him any RodStaff. Even though the DM eventually had a Driad give him one for helping her out, where he explained that it was crap because it was all nature themed and didn't help out his Fireball or Chain Lightning spells...
I can go even further, but I'm done ranting for now...

I would have let him turn his blood into acid... and then make him take damage as full immersion in acid, I mean elf bodies aren't acid proof right:smallamused:

[Kalmageddon]

I am curious to learn what sort of GM techniques would be in use to make ANYTHING happen with 20 players. Personally I think things get a bit unwieldy around the 8-player mark.

-DF

The basic idea if I remember correctly was giving each player a pre-made character that already had a role to play in the story. This alone makes for an uninvolving roleplaying experience, but then the DMs also expected you to fill in the time your character wasn't required with roleplay with other characters in "time out".
Obviously being the first time you ever gazed upon the character you were playing you didn't have any input on how to handle more casual situations where the DM didn't railroaded you in the right place at the right time and thus awkward silences or out of character chatting happened.

Now imagine all these problems taken to the extreme where the two DMs couldn't agree on what was happening betweeen the two groups who were NOT running in separate campaign and this translated into the session having no pacing at all, with hours of nothing and boredom interrupted by one event that one of the two DMs shouted aloud to get the attention of everyone.
Problem is, you didn't know if your character was there or not, so after the DM finished talking another hour was spent asking for clarifications and another one would have been spent to briefly tell what each character did. I said "would" because the session never got to that point since it (thankfully) didn't lasted long enough.

And the worst thing is, this whole... campaign... thing was actually an elaborate project to allow one of the to DMs to write a novel that had our characters as... well, characters. That's right, he couldn't be bothered to write dialogues and plan scenes so he took a bunch of people and told them to act the characters he had given to them, following some very strict guidelines.

[Rejusu]

However, I would like to ask, what is the point of the skill check in d20?

As written, a character can either succeed at a task, or they can't. With no auto fails on a 1 or auto succeeds on a 20, no fumble, no criticals, why do they even have rolls? Most of the time the die roll doesn't matter, and when it does, you can just try again or take a 20 9/10 times.

Why don't they just simplify the system and instead of DCs say "You must have X modifier in the skill to perform this task."

I agree that auto fail is a bit ridiculous on skill checks. If your modifier is good enough to meet the DC even on a 1 then you should always succeed. I do see the point in having a roll though. A master craftsmen may always be able to expertly weave a basket. But an apprentice will often have failures mixed in with their successes. I think this accurately represents skills in reality really. If you're learning something then you're not going to manage it every single time, and of course there's degrees of success as well.


I wrote a lot... Long-story-short, a player made me hate Elf Wizards forever. I will never make one and will rather go Half-Elf before ever using Elf in a character build.

Hate the player, not the race. Then again I can't say I've ever been fond of elves. But my parties are often of more exotic races than the standard fare. My upcoming party has a changeling factotum, a half-giant psychic warrior (myself), a "lesser" Azer samurai (don't ask), and the other two are unknown as yet. Though I suspect the Cerebremancer will probably be Elan and the Cleric/Radiant Servant of Pelor may end up as a Kobold or something.

[Amphetryon]

I am curious to learn what sort of GM techniques would be in use to make ANYTHING happen with 20 players. Personally I think things get a bit unwieldy around the 8-player mark.

-DF
Off-topic, but:

1) A 'talking stick' of some sort helps a lot in non-combat situations. The DM(s) only recognize the person with the talking stick as having the floor, and speaking to the situation.

2) Similarly, having one person who communicates the PC's actions in combat cuts out significant surface-to-noise ratio issues.

3) "If you say it, your character does it" is either really helpful, or a train wreck waiting to happen, depending on the level of peevishness of your players. When it works, great. When it doesn't, you're suddenly not in control of the game anymore.

4) Situations that can only be handled in one way, or by a particular character archetype, SUCK in a huge party. As an example, as bad as it is having 3 players sit around while Bilbo checks for traps, imagine having 18 sitting around waiting for the 2 trap-finders. Avoid at almost all costs.

5) CR doesn't handle the action economy of a large group well, at all. "CR-appropriate" monsters that factor in the group's increased effective level will roflstomp at least one party member on their turn, then die screaming before they get a second one due to a '48 actions or more to 5 actions or less' advantage for the party. Piles of mooks work better. This often makes combat a slog without AoE, but everyone's involved.

6) Either get everyone on-board with a certain amount of railroading, or acknowledge that 20 players with 20 different ideas of what needs to happen next means you've got to have an idea of what's happening basically everywhere in your world at any time. Be upfront with the players about what kind of game you're expecting to run. It might even reduce the player pool by a bit, through disinterest.

[Mystify]

Off-topic, but:
5) CR doesn't handle the action economy of a large group well, at all. "CR-appropriate" monsters that factor in the group's increased effective level will roflstomp at least one party member on their turn, then die screaming before they get a second one due to a '48 actions or more to 5 actions or less' advantage for the party. Piles of mooks work better. This often makes combat a slog without AoE, but everyone's involved.

On the other hand, that also makes AoE the prime strategy, and barrage of AoE will clean them up just as quickly as they clear out few tougher enemies. Balance falls apart at that scale.

[Amphetryon]

On the other hand, that also makes AoE the prime strategy, and barrage of AoE will clean them up just as quickly as they clear out few tougher enemies. Balance falls apart at that scale.

"Balance" is something that's been argued about in D&D since well before 3.0 came out. I doubt you'll find a consensus on where the "right balance point" is within the game. My comments stem from running a large group for a long time, and the closest to a decent "balance point" within that particular environment.

[Mystify]

"Balance" is something that's been argued about in D&D since well before 3.0 came out. I doubt you'll find a consensus on where the "right balance point" is within the game. My comments stem from running a large group for a long time, and the closest to a decent "balance point" within that particular environment.
I've played in a large group for a few years, and my comments come from that. Large enemies will splatter people instantly, then get kiilled in turn before they can go again. Swarms of small enemies just get AoEd to death just as quickly. Finding a combat dynamic that was functional proved to be nearly impossible. whenever managed it, at least.

[Amphetryon]

I've played in a large group for a few years, and my comments come from that. Large enemies will splatter people instantly, then get kiilled in turn before they can go again. Swarms of small enemies just get AoEd to death just as quickly. Finding a combat dynamic that was functional proved to be nearly impossible. whenever managed it, at least.

Have you seen a combat dynamic that doesn't work like that, within small groups? From what I've seen, smaller groups splat the enemies within 1 - 2 turns, as well. They just do it via other means. Horses for courses, and all that.

[Mystify]

Have you seen a combat dynamic that doesn't work like that, within small groups? From what I've seen, smaller groups splat the enemies within 1 - 2 turns, as well. They just do it via other means. Horses for courses, and all that.
The combat dynamic is 100x as functional with small groups. Everyone gets to do things, and you don't end up sitting around for 3 hours to make 1 attack. Enemies can have decent defenses that will keep them alive for a bit, and can pose a threat to the party without having to instant kill everything they touch. At high ops the dynamics fall apart, but large groups don't even need to be mid-op for the dynamics to become a complete mess. You don't have enough AoE power to obliterative any opposing force before they can do anything.

[Amphetryon]

The combat dynamic is 100x as functional with small groups. Everyone gets to do things, and you don't end up sitting around for 3 hours to make 1 attack. Enemies can have decent defenses that will keep them alive for a bit, and can pose a threat to the party without having to instant kill everything they touch. At high ops the dynamics fall apart, but large groups don't even need to be mid-op for the dynamics to become a complete mess. You don't have enough AoE power to obliterative any opposing force before they can do anything.As noted earlier when I commented on balance, your experiences are markedly different than mine.

[CTrees]

As noted earlier when I commented on balance, your experiences are markedly different than mine.

This happens when comparing nearly any two groups, though.

[DrDeth]

I feel like we are getting a little off topic, but I do have something I would like to add, my group uses fumble rules as well, but it's not as horrible of a system. If you role a natural 1 you roll again, if you roll high enough to hit your own ac then you hit your self and roll for damage normally. Skills, on a 20 you roll again and if your total rolls are enough to make the dc than you do. on a 1 you roll again and you roll negative that much. sometimes that doesn't do anything more than failing to begin with but some times it does.

Under those rules, how often does a wizard fumble fireball?.:smallamused:

[DrDeth]

I play with fumbles because that's how I was taught, I don't know what the actual rules are because it's a rule that goes by DM so even if I were to look it up, the DM would say "I don't care"
a single 1 means auto miss, attack ends (i.e. if it was a full attack, any remaining attacks fail as well)
then roll confirming attack like you would with Crit, roll high enough, nothing happens, roll low, drop your weapon (just drops ammo for bows/crossbows)
consecutive 1's on missile weapons (bow string snaps, it's presumed that the PC has replacements as standard traveling gear and it's a full round to restring.

.


Under those rules, how often does a wizard fumble fireball?.

[Slipperychicken]

The only power I had was immunity to mind control (5 dots of the mind shield numina, iron will, unbendable, and 10 willpower) and then the very first session I got dominated by a "custom power" that ignored all normal resistance.

Same thing happened to me. D&D 3.5, I have Mind Blank up, and this aberration-thing dominates like it's no one's business. I think it's terrible GMing to let a character have a power that says "I can't be mind controlled. By anything. Period", then just have things mind-control him anyway.


It's not the player having an ego, it's the GM violating the trust which rules are supposed to encourage. It's also the fact that he's not just screwing your character over, and smashing verisimilitude to do it, the Domination effectively removes you from the game. Seriously, if I wanted twiddle my thumbs while the GM plays my character for me, I would've stayed home.

[Krotchrot]

In a 3.5 game we had a guy that was playing a Dragonfire Adept. He was doing decently, until we came to a system of caves crawling with goblins. He was not a Frontline fighter or combatant, but that never stopped him from using his Breath Weapon on anyone in the way of an enemy. Sure he could have taken the Least Invocation Endure Elements to make us immune to his Breath Weapon, but that wasn't until at least level 6. He thought that the Invocation Magic Insight was far more important, as was Draconic Knowledge. Granted we never need an Identify spell ever again, but when he's killing our frontliner's On Purpose to get to the enemy.

[Antonok]

In a 3.5 game we had a guy that was playing a Dragonfire Adept. He was doing decently, until we came to a system of caves crawling with goblins. He was not a Frontline fighter or combatant, but that never stopped him from using his Breath Weapon on anyone in the way of an enemy. Sure he could have taken the Least Invocation Endure Elements to make us immune to his Breath Weapon, but that wasn't until at least level 6. He thought that the Invocation Magic Insight was far more important, as was Draconic Knowledge. Granted we never need an Identify spell ever again, but when he's killing our frontliner's On Purpose to get to the enemy.

Maybe he just preferred his meat shields well done...

[Dr_S]

Under those rules, how often does a wizard fumble fireball?.

5% or more of the time when casting from a wand,
5% or more of the time when casting defensively
5% or more of the time when casting after being struck.

[CTrees]

Maybe he just preferred his meat shields well done...

1001 uses for Prestidigitation, use 867: Improving the meat shield's flavor :smallwink:

[Urpriest]

5% or more of the time when casting from a wand,
5% or more of the time when casting defensively
5% or more of the time when casting after being struck.

Casting from a wand doesn't take a check if it's on your class's spell list.

[DrDeth]

Casting from a wand doesn't take a check if it's on your class's spell list.

Right, and still 0% when just casting. Fumbles nerf non-casters, thus fumbles are *BAD*.

[Dr_S]

Right, and still 0% when just casting. Fumbles nerf non-casters, thus fumbles are *BAD*.

I'm not sure i follow

[onemorelurker]

This just happened yesterday, so I'm still pretty sore about it.

The prequel:
I'm currently in a 3.5 campaign where the party consisted until recently of a half-elf Swashbuckler/Warblade, a halfling Druid, a hobgoblin generalist Wizard, a DMPC drow Rogue/Assassin, and a human Barbarian/Frenzied Berserker (me). I was the only real optimizer in the group, which is why I chose to play a not-terribly powerful class. We mostly played through updates of AD&D modules, and since apparently AD&D players didn't loot trade goods and furnishings (the only reason I can think of for every dungeon to be filled with level-inappropriately expensive tapestries and whatnot), we have quite a lot of gold for a 7th-level party.


After winter break, the DM asked if we were okay with adding a sixth member. I was hesitant, because we're already a little slow at combat and have all party roles covered decently, but everyone else was fine with it, and I wasn't going to be a jerk about it.


The new guy:
Our sixth player (let's call him Bob) has a bit of a reputation at my school for disrupting campaigns. He decided to play a Drow Enchanter, the brother of the DMPC. He's also an optimizer, though from what I can tell he's less buid-focused than equipment focused. Because we have a lot of gold, the DM thought it would be okay to tell this guy that he could have literally unlimited gold.

Yesterday's session:
We're starting Expedition to the Demonweb Pits, and the DM introduces Bob's character in an early drow attack encounter, but he hangs back invisibly and just observes the party. Once we find out he's there, he and the DM launch into a big talk about their characters' shared backstories, and then Bob tells everyone to start making Will saves. I had pumped up my Will to avoid being forced into frenzies, so I was fine, but a couple of the other party members got hit with Charms and Suggestions.

After briefly explaining what Bob's character and the DMPC wanted us to do (the plot of Demonweb Pits) and lots of talk between him and the DMPC that the rest of the party couldn't hear in-character, he gave everyone in the party Rings of the Darkhidden. Except they turn out to be be Rings of Enslavement, which he claimed offered no save, and which probably cost more than every piece of gear my character has combined. The DM thinks this is very funny (her DMPC was away at the time). So, most of the party Dominated, we head to Sigil, where the DM starts explaining all the planes involved in the module to Bob, who had gone to the big library in Sigil. After like half an hour of this, I faked a phone call and left.

[hymer]

@ Lurker: You have my sympathies. Now utter the magic phrase "It was fun while it lasted" and move on.

[The Bandicoot]

Between me, my uncle, my dad, and a number of close friends who all play D&D I have my fair share of horror stories. One of which a player spent a half hour rolling climb checks so his wizard with no ranks in climb and a negative strength modifier could climb to the top of a tree. All this so he could have the high ground during an ambush. Did I mention the ambush came and went ten minutes into those checks?

[CTrees]

Because we have a lot of gold, the DM thought it would be okay to tell this guy that he could have literally unlimited gold.

Um...

Huh.

Wow.

Is it weird that my first thought was not of epic equipment, or even hiring gods, but rather "I TAKE ALL THE GRAFTS! ALL OF THEM! yes even the contradictory ones"

I mean it can't work, obviously (best I think you could do as a normal race would be several of one type), but still. Huh. Wonder what that says about me?

[FearlessGnome]

Lurker: Yeah. Just... yeah. Either talk with the other players without the DM or the new guy, and then confront the DM together, or just leave. The new player will never be liked by anyone. And frankly, if the DM is willing to allow something like that, and even condone it, the DM is probably not worth it either.

[ahenobarbi]

Yesterday's session:
... Bob tells everyone to start making Will saves. I had pumped up my Will to avoid being forced into frenzies, so I was fine, but a couple of the other party members got hit with Charms and Suggestions.

... he gave everyone in the party Rings of the Darkhidden. Except they turn out to be be Rings of Enslavement...

Actually it offers save on suggestion effect (http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Enslavement_Rings_(3.5e_Equipment)) (but no save against tormenting with non-lethal damage. Also important life lesson - never take magic items from aggressive strangers (unless you first killed them).


Lurker: Yeah. Just... yeah. Either talk with the other players without the DM or the new guy, and then confront the DM together, or just leave. The new player will never be liked by anyone. And frankly, if the DM is willing to allow something like that, and even condone it, the DM is probably not worth it either.

True.

[Dok42]

Forced TPK.

One of the PC's died, and we buried him in a safe place, but a doppelganger dug him up(we had no chance to see him) and took his form. Later. the DM said the PC "got miraculously resurrected," and the doppelganger killed all of us in our sleep.

[onemorelurker]

Actually it offers save on suggestion effect (http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Enslavement_Rings_(3.5e_Equipment)) (but no save against tormenting with non-lethal damage. Also important life lesson - never take magic items from aggressive strangers (unless you first killed them).

I'm pretty sure he's using the version from Underdark rather than that homebrewed one, because his definitely uses Dominate rather than Suggestion.

And I definitely assumed that the rings were trapped (though I didn't realize how trapped), but my character is an open, trusting person with a ****ty sense motive check, alas.

As for everybody who's saying I should get out, that's definitely in the cards, but I think I should give the DM a chance to correct the situation, mostly because I don't want to leave my fellow PCs in the lurch, both in terms of filling my character's combat role and being stuck in a deeply ****ty situation.

[DrDeth]

Forced TPK.

One of the PC's died, and we buried him in a safe place, but a doppelganger dug him up(we had no chance to see him) and took his form. Later. the DM said the PC "got miraculously resurrected," and the doppelganger killed all of us in our sleep.

One DM tried something like this. My answer was “No, he didn’t. I wasn’t there, it was a pillow made up to look like me.” Then I walked

[DrDeth]

As for everybody who's saying I should get out, that's definitely in the cards, but I think I should give the DM a chance to correct the situation, mostly because I don't want to leave my fellow PCs in the lurch, both in terms of filling my character's combat role and being stuck in a deeply ****ty situation.
Naw. Look, you have a jerk player and a jerk DMPC running railroading DM. Just talk with them and you *ALL* walk, Tell them you’ll be DMing same nite, invite them over.

[DrDeth]

I'm not sure i follow



In all the “you fumble on a natural one (or some variation)” systems, you have to roll a attack roll to fumble. Thus a wizard who casts Fireball or any similar spell in a normal sitrep never rolls a attack roll, thus can not fumble. D&D is highly biased towards spellcasters at the high end. Wizards are WAY more powerful than Warrior-types. Thus anything that nerfs fights and doesn’t nerf spellcasters is a BAD THING.
.

[ahenobarbi]

I'm pretty sure he's using the version from Underdark rather than that homebrewed one, because his definitely uses Dominate rather than Suggestion.

Right. Still Underdark version says "no save against detect thoughts effect" and doesn't mention save for dominate effect. To me it should allow save for dominate effect (but I know not with what save).

And if someone throws spells at you and your friends you don't take items (or fails saves for his "buffs"). No matter how trusting person you are. Like you wouldn't go around a corner with a guy who jumped at you with knife but then realized cops are close....

Edit: No one of you had Protection from X?

[Dr_S]

D&D is highly biased towards spellcasters at the high end.
You're assumption is that my group plays high level campaigns. We don't, we generally don't find them as interesting, the highest we've gotten is 11 (just levelled on saturday) and the group sorcerer can no longer make it so our group is a rogue/assassin, a cavalier, and a sythesist-summoner/rogue/arcane trickster who uses greater invisibility to do sneak attacks and other than that occasionally uses glitterdust (which so far has succeeded once) So we don't really have any of the "overpowered casters" in that game, and on top of that we're winding it down and moving on to a new level 1 campaign in the next couple weeks.

Also with full BAB the chance of fumble with our rules tends to decrease as levels get higher, it's really only the rogues who get screwed because an appropriate CR monster has to have a reasonable chance to get hit by rogues, and full BAB scale their to-hit faster so as their lvl gets higher their chance of dropping their weapon lowers.

So I don't follow how a group that tends to play campaigns where our average group level 4-5 should really care that at high levels wizards are "teh awesome"

[Voyager_I]

So I don't follow how a group that tends to play campaigns where our average group level 4-5 should really care that at high levels wizards are "teh awesome"

Glitterdust is a 3rd2nd Level spell.

[CTrees]

F
Glitterdust is a 3rd Level spell.

Second. :smalltongue:

[Dr_S]

Glitterdust is a 3rd Level spell.

no it's not,
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/g/glitterdust
It's a second level

Greater Invisibility is a third level (my arcane trickster levels bring my caster level high enough to use it) but I did admit that's our highest level campaign, typically we wrap up around level 7 or 8 because we consider level 5 the "sweet spot" as it were for maximizing fun.

Much higher than that and we end up with situations like our current campaign where instead of adventuring we go around messing with world politics, and now that we've lead a successful revolution and eliminated the oppressive old government we're starting to tire of that and we're going to start a new game. (though we've still got some wrapping up to do on the current one so we'll probably do a few more sessions of that)

The point of what I was saying is that as a group we rarely experience the "OMG CASTERS" feeling that everyone is always talking about, so having a fumble rule that results in a minor inconvenience doesn't seem that unreasonable for our group.

on a mostly unrelated note; Glitterdust is my favoritest spell

[Arbane]

I play a level 7 PF Witch whose primary design goal was "NEVER roll a d20". (Because I have terrible die-rolling luck, and the previous DM I had used fumble rules - I think I still have a bit of PTSD from that.) It's not really difficult. It's not just high levels where fumble rules penalize fighty types, but it is a problem that gets even worse as the number of Potential Humiliating Screwups Per Round increases.

[Agent 451]

So these aren't actually vents, but they seem to fit the theme somewhat:

A few years ago I played a campaign with some friends, including my girlfriend. She's one of those people who has absolutely no interest in playing, but is willing to try anything at least once before she passes total judgement. We were playing a party comprised of evil characters, and a neutral druid (my gf).

Desperate to get some quick cash, the idea of robbing the town orphanage came up, as everyone knows orphanages always have fat stacks of donations :smallredface:

We had staked the place out and decided to make our move in the middle of the night. There weren't any patrols, but we were as cautious as possible, since we knew we would probably be killed by the town if we were caught in the act. As we were crossing the yard of the orphanage my character (an evil cleric) saw an orphan holding a teddy bear watching us through a first story window.

Not thinking (or roleplaying to an awesome degree, you chose) I decided that removing this child was of the utmost importance, so I stated that I was targeting him with my crossbow. Acting both ic and ooc, my gf says that she would sick her wolf on me if I did anything to hurt that specific kid. I fired my crossbow. Our DM says something along the lines of "Congrats, you hit the kid square between the eyes, and he quietly sinks to the floor! ...but that does nothing to dampen the sound of a crossbow bolt shattering a glass window on the quietest night that anyone could recall."

True to her word, my gf and her wolf attack me, along with a summoned eagle , or possibly an owl. I was able to quickly dispatch the wolf, but due to bad rolls and the capriciousness of an evil party member, my character succumbed to a brutal death. Somehow during the exchange the orphanage had been set aflame as well, alerting most of the town

The rest of the players just sat laughing due to the absurdity of the entire situation, until the DM told us that the majority of the town guard was surrounding the orphanage. We decided that the session couldn't get any better, or absurd, and decided to call it quits.

The second incident involved myself as DM, and a friend who despises D&D. I asked her if she would ever play a game, and she said "Yes, if I can make the most ridiculous character possible, and you let me fight celebrities." So I did. I can honestly say that having her fight off multiple singers, actors,(all the while with her snarkily commenting about their musical/acting capabilities) and with the session culminating in an epic dance off to the death against Janet Jackson (portrayed by a giant unpainted metal ogre miniature) was one of the most hilarious sessions I'd ever been a part of.

[Canarr]

You have a party with a cleric and a druid (plus other party members), and your best idea to generate cash is to rob an orphanage? :smallconfused:

[TypoNinja]

The second incident involved myself as DM, and a friend who despises D&D. I asked her if she would ever play a game, and she said "Yes, if I can make the most ridiculous character possible, and you let me fight celebrities." So I did. I can honestly say that having her fight off multiple singers, actors,(all the while with her snarkily commenting about their musical/acting capabilities) and with the session culminating in an epic dance off to the death against Janet Jackson (portrayed by a giant unpainted metal ogre miniature) was one of the most hilarious sessions I'd ever been a part of.

Some of the deliberately ridiculous things can be really fun as one offs. My favorite is what has become known as The Brothers Of Torm.

4 of us starting a new game, all tossing character ideas back and forth at each other, finally we settle on rolling, for hilarity's sake, 4 Pallies.

So Four Paladins to Torm are born, all with biblical names (Michael, Matthew, ect). We're all brothers, we're all the living Sterotype. Six foot four, blue eyes, blond hair, chiseled chins, shining plate mail, Heroic dialogue, you get the idea.

Characters synergize, we all took a different craft skill (weaponsmith, armoursmith, bowyer, chipped in and opened our own weapon shop. The Armoury of Torm. We all took different weapons, sword and board, two hander, shield and mace, (and again the 4th choice escapes me)

But the image that still brings a smile to this day, was our signature move. All four of us would link arms, and like a line of chorus girls, lean back and kick out with one leg in unison. And that is how you kick in a door with style :D

[onemorelurker]

You have a party with a cleric and a druid (plus other party members), and your best idea to generate cash is to rob an orphanage? :smallconfused:

Well, Int is a dump stat for both those classes... :smalltongue:

[Agent 451]

I never said it was a *good* idea :smalltongue:

[hymer]

It makes perfect sense to me. Why be evil, if you're just going to earn your money like everyone else? And what says evil better than robbing an orphanage? Should've been easy anyway, candy from children and all that.
Sounds like you had a good time.

[Jodah]

Spoiled because it ended up longer than I thought it would.

Be level 8-10 Cerebremancer (don't actually remember that well, since the DM ruled that we had to be planned out several levels ahead in case we level mid-session).

My character was second in line for leadership, the leader had died so I had stepped up. He was hyper-logical, ultra loyal to the guild, and very utilitarian.

The party, while escorting an NPC to a safe house, is suddenly fighting a dragon, as the NPC erupts into a mass of scales and wings. Did I mention that the main guildhall had been ransacked by a dragon (or so all evidence suggested)? Dragons were now our enemies, so we slew the traitorous beast (who was the same color as the scales we found).

Suddenly a new challenger approaches. A previously unknown man claims to have been following us for quite some time invisibly. He regales us with a story of how the recently deceased former leader of the guild had worked for dragons and how we should too, promising us that it would be worth our time.

I, speaking for the party, ask exactly how it would be worth the time. Gold? Magic items? A library of rare tomes? A resurrection spell for the leader (whose body I had in my bag of holding)?

DM evades the question entirely saying we needed to be employed to know, and never does give a straightforward answer. I understand the employer being somewhat secretive, but no hints were even given. Trying to do what is in the best interest to what was left of my guild, I decline the man's generous offer and say that we have been having bad luck with dragons of late. I tried to wrangle a way for me to legitimately take the plot hook, but couldn't.

Fast-forward a few in game hours: party is making camp and setting up guard duty. The artificer sends his homunculi to perpetually patrol, the best eyes in the party takes first watch, and I cast some protective spells/powers. 3 hours into the night, we are apparently ambushed, quickly and quietly. There is only one victim, one attack, etc.

Long story short, I died.

A bit longer: the homunculi notice nothing, the velociraptor noticed nothing (had spot optimized), and my alarm spell noticed nothing...in fact the former two didn't even get checks. I didn't get to activate any of my reactive protective spells. Didn't get to reduce the damage dealt due to the elan's racial ability. Didn't get to make a save vs. the CDG. Anything.

I understand when a character gets in the way of a plot, but a DM needs to work with a player to fix that problem, not assassinate someone who had only done what was honestly in the best interest of the party at the time.

tl;dr: got killed for rejecting an NPCs ambiguous offer

[Myou]

Spoiled because it ended up longer than I thought it would.

Be level 8-10 Cerebremancer (don't actually remember that well, since the DM ruled that we had to be planned out several levels ahead in case we level mid-session).

My character was second in line for leadership, the leader had died so I had stepped up. He was hyper-logical, ultra loyal to the guild, and very utilitarian.

The party, while escorting an NPC to a safe house, is suddenly fighting a dragon, as the NPC erupts into a mass of scales and wings. Did I mention that the main guildhall had been ransacked by a dragon (or so all evidence suggested)? Dragons were now our enemies, so we slew the traitorous beast (who was the same color as the scales we found).

Suddenly a new challenger approaches. A previously unknown man claims to have been following us for quite some time invisibly. He regales us with a story of how the recently deceased former leader of the guild had worked for dragons and how we should too, promising us that it would be worth our time.

I, speaking for the party, ask exactly how it would be worth the time. Gold? Magic items? A library of rare tomes? A resurrection spell for the leader (whose body I had in my bag of holding)?

DM evades the question entirely saying we needed to be employed to know, and never does give a straightforward answer. I understand the employer being somewhat secretive, but no hints were even given. Trying to do what is in the best interest to what was left of my guild, I decline the man's generous offer and say that we have been having bad luck with dragons of late. I tried to wrangle a way for me to legitimately take the plot hook, but couldn't.

Fast-forward a few in game hours: party is making camp and setting up guard duty. The artificer sends his homunculi to perpetually patrol, the best eyes in the party takes first watch, and I cast some protective spells/powers. 3 hours into the night, we are apparently ambushed, quickly and quietly. There is only one victim, one attack, etc.

Long story short, I died.

A bit longer: the homunculi notice nothing, the velociraptor noticed nothing (had spot optimized), and my alarm spell noticed nothing...in fact the former two didn't even get checks. I didn't get to activate any of my reactive protective spells. Didn't get to reduce the damage dealt due to the elan's racial ability. Didn't get to make a save vs. the CDG. Anything.

I understand when a character gets in the way of a plot, but a DM needs to work with a player to fix that problem, not assassinate someone who had only done what was honestly in the best interest of the party at the time.

tl;dr: got killed for rejecting an NPCs ambiguous offer

It's at times like this that you need to CDG the GM. You're only putting him out of our misery. :smallsigh:

[Silus]

Let me start by saying that one of the more common DMs I had didn't know how snow worked with regards to tracking. Especially when you're tracking a small creature rolling a barrel through freshly fallen snow.

Same guy, as a player, tried to detonate the gas pipes in a house because he didn't know how they worked. Also, tried to command a hive-mind collection of Shadows that acted like the antagonist in the Dr. Who episode "Forest of the Dead". Also readily attacked other party members over perceived slights either in or out of character.

Back to DMing, he never fudged. Oh, the party's low-Wisdom lvl 6 dwarf Fighter attacks the lvl 20 Psion/Rogue NPC? WELL ROLL INITIATIVE EVERYONE. Never gave the players any sort of leeway like saying "Well, this will result in a TPK and they don't have any way out of it. Well, we can hold off on this until the players get in a position to defend themselves".

Same guy wanted to ransom an assassin back to his employer during a pirate game, then threw a fit when our rogue finished off said assassin. Like a "Screw you, I'm going home" fit. Also threw a fit, same session, about the state of the captured ship that we just got. Never you mind that it was our first attempt at jacking a ship.

World of Darkness game revolving around a murder investigation at a high school, we had 2 Mages, 3 Werewolves, and a vampire (me). We were, in a word, awesome. But what did he make? A Pooka. And not just a Pooka, but a catboy Pooka, wearing pink, with a Hello Kitty Glock. And mind you, this was not to be funny (Like a friend of mine running a character named "Grevious Bodilyharmsworth").

And outside of the game, he was a creeper (He called me, another guy, "cute" at one point, and not in that condescending "Aww, aren't you cute, but the adults are talking" kinda way), flirted very awkwardly with women (Like in a way that makes Napoleon Dynamite seem like Oscar material by comparison) and was quite simply an annoying jerk that the rest of the group only pretended to like.

[Amphetryon]

<snip>Back to DMing, he never fudged. Oh, the party's low-Wisdom lvl 6 dwarf Fighter attacks the lvl 20 Psion/Rogue NPC? WELL ROLL INITIATIVE EVERYONE. Never gave the players any sort of leeway like saying "Well, this will result in a TPK and they don't have any way out of it. Well, we can hold off on this until the players get in a position to defend themselves".<snip>Can't speak to others' experience, but I've been in groups that would complain strenuously about the DM declaring OOC which actions the PCs could and couldn't take, even when their given choice of actions is detrimental to them. In other words, they'd be here complaining about *He did what?* when the DM breaks immersion to tell the PCs their actions would result in a TPK.

[Canarr]

Can't speak to others' experience, but I've been in groups that would complain strenuously about the DM declaring OOC which actions the PCs could and couldn't take, even when their given choice of actions is detrimental to them. In other words, they'd be here complaining about *He did what?* when the DM breaks immersion to tell the PCs their actions would result in a TPK.

Seconded.

Low attributes constitute a disadvantage beyond a penalty on saves and skill checks; they show a character's natural inclination towards (or against) certain activities.
Case in point: low wisdom means you'll constantly do things that really aren't in your (or your friends') best interest. Like picking fights with people much stronger than you.

Now, if a player only commits such acts in order to annoy the other players, then yes, that is something the GM should address - out of game. But if a player is just playing his character with all of the disadvantages that his character build contains, then I don't think the GM should fudge the game in order to counter these disadvantages - or he might just remove them entirely.

[JadePhoenix]

i was in a Mutants and Masterminds game (comic book d20 system pretty fun but extremely rule heavy) A friend and I made twin characters that where soooo friggan min maxed (every power made sence, they where extra planar beings of chaos and law), could do things the GM was just baffled over. Fought a munch of spider walker droid things that where stealing children, and nasty armor no one could get through, so we teleported into them and exploded them from the inside (after telesaving the children). After making enemies that could threaten us (and outright destroy the rest of the party) we got railroaded into an encounter we had most definitely could have avoided, archvillian team trapped us in an extra planar box,no save to avoid being trapped, and no initiative to act first. Then the GM asked us to dumb down the characters after he got done proving the point that he could rules hack a way to stop us outright whenever we got out of hand.:smallfurious:
Well, that's pretty much what happens on comics anyway. Sentry, Silver Surfer, dr. Strange... those guys keep on getting nerfed.

[CTrees]

Can't speak to others' experience, but I've been in groups that would complain strenuously about the DM declaring OOC which actions the PCs could and couldn't take, even when their given choice of actions is detrimental to them. In other words, they'd be here complaining about *He did what?* when the DM breaks immersion to tell the PCs their actions would result in a TPK.

Agreed as well.

However... I tend to give some rather strong hints when things are very bad ideas. Like... impressive descriptions of apparent power, suggesting knowledge/sense motive checks to get some idea of the power of the opposition, giving the other players Sense Motive checks to notice that the impulsive fool is about to do something disastrous, etc. So really not that subtle, actually. Now, my players STILL tend to do a lot of outright suicidal things, but at that point, it's their problem.

Though... I tend not to plan things as, "hrm, level five party... I know, unfriendly level twenty NPC!" Now, "hrm, level five party... the unfriendly cheif with several pages of roleplay notes, which is an obvious roleplay encounter, should be level nine or ten, with his retinue of several level 5-7 guards, who the party has tussled with individually. They'd have to be really stupid to think attacking was a good idea" Sometimes I think they're all trying to get killed in the most hilarious way possible (well, I KNOW one of them is. the others... open question)

[Kalmageddon]

Can't speak to others' experience, but I've been in groups that would complain strenuously about the DM declaring OOC which actions the PCs could and couldn't take, even when their given choice of actions is detrimental to them. In other words, they'd be here complaining about *He did what?* when the DM breaks immersion to tell the PCs their actions would result in a TPK.

Speaking as a DM I've faced the opposite: getting accused of not giving enough hints about the power of certain npcs or the viability of a plan. So when my players are about to do something really stupid, regardless if it's justified in character, I'll just tell them "if you do this there's a good chance bad things will happen". Better some OOC then a TPK.

[Dulenheim]

The "guy turns something on fire" happened to me as well. My players were tasked to follow a few Lycan's into a forest, but their failed a few checks and the lycans came to fight them off.

Since they were in the middle of the forest (I though) my players would be smart enough to avoid using Fire Based attacks. 3 of the 6 players started off with AoE fire attacks, and a tree caught on fire. They ignored the tree for about 15 minutes, until the forest started to turn on fire around them.

Not only the forest burned, bu the town the pc's were suppose to save from the lycans burned too (It was IN the forest) leaving the party with no food and no reward, in the middle of a desolated wasteland. The party starved soon after.

[Mystify]

The only time I've had a party do something like that was when they decided to assault the wizards tower. From the highest room. I told them that was where the level 20 wizards lived, since they would know that in character, and so I didn't feel bad slaughtering them when they attacked it anyways. It was everyones decision too, so it was not one guy acting out.
However, in many situations where they are encountering a high level character, and piss him off outside of your expectations, its generally better to have the character essentially backhand them with nonlethal, and get really upset about it. Not kill them all, but capture them, withhold his assistance, whatever. Maybe kill the guy that attacked him if he was being an idiot, but I wouldn't TPK the party based on one guys bad choice like that.

[Amphetryon]

Speaking as a DM I've faced the opposite: getting accused of not giving enough hints about the power of certain npcs or the viability of a plan. So when my players are about to do something really stupid, regardless if it's justified in character, I'll just tell them "if you do this there's a good chance bad things will happen". Better some OOC then a TPK.
And here we find one of the great paradoxes that comes up in roleplaying:

If you tip your hand as DM, you're "railroading them."
If you let the players go where ever they want and face the consequences without advising against it, you're "ambushing them with a TPK."
If you adjust the difficulty of things on the fly to account for PCs doing unexpected things, you're "coddling the players and breaking immersion."

Players will complain, and have complained on these very boards, about all of the above varieties of DMing.

[Dulenheim]

And here we find one of the great paradoxes that comes up in roleplaying:

If you tip your hand as DM, you're "railroading them."
If you let the players go where ever they want and face the consequences without advising against it, you're "ambushing them with a TPK."
If you adjust the difficulty of things on the fly to account for PCs doing unexpected things, you're "coddling the players and breaking immersion."

Players will complain, and have complained on these very boards, about all of the above varieties of DMing.

True. I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but during my time as DM, i found that players always find a way to complain about your methods. Personally, I'm the "Giving" DM, or so my players call me. I give them many toys (weapons) and chances to be badass. If you screw up however, and that could lead to your death, and you die, that is nobody's fault but your own. Then again, that's just me.

[Silus]

Seconded.

Low attributes constitute a disadvantage beyond a penalty on saves and skill checks; they show a character's natural inclination towards (or against) certain activities.
Case in point: low wisdom means you'll constantly do things that really aren't in your (or your friends') best interest. Like picking fights with people much stronger than you.

Now, if a player only commits such acts in order to annoy the other players, then yes, that is something the GM should address - out of game. But if a player is just playing his character with all of the disadvantages that his character build contains, then I don't think the GM should fudge the game in order to counter these disadvantages - or he might just remove them entirely.

Well for a little scenario background:

Low magic, low wealth game (Worst type of game IMO). Our only magic users was a Ghost Adept (the only magic class the DM allowed). We had with us ~5 Troglodytes, about as many Ogres, a Gnoll with a magic fire axe, and a Purple Worm (Which may or may not have been Abyssal), and those were just the NPCs. The PCs were myself, a half-machine human ranger, the previously mentioned Dwarf Fighter, the Ghost Adept, whatever my friend was (I can't even remember if he was playing) and a homebrewed Prinny that was so broken it made Pun Pun cry (Cannot be killed was the big issue for me).

Now mind, we had next to no magic support, there was NO magic/psion transparency, and the DM specialized in both Psion and Rogue characters, which the NPC baddie was a combination of. And according to the DM, we weren't even supposed to fight the NPC.

During the course of the fight, said NPC:
Was attacked by the Purple Worm
Was SWALLOWED WHOLE by said Purple Worm
BLEW UP said Purple worm while being swallowed whole (I want the rules on the power he used to do that)
Summoned a pair of Astral Constructs on us
Turned the ghost into crystal

Annoying "Come on, throw us a bone" "lol nope" stuff the DM pulled:

Perma-locked the armory that we had passed because apparently the dwarf accidentally sold his soul to Pazuzu for some sort of boon. Now mind, the armory probably had weapons of sufficient caliber to make the NPC fight easier. Jerk could have mentioned it before I spent two full rounds running back to the armory.

And yeah, that boon? A Spelljammer ship that my character could pilot (Machine interface or something). Problem is, I didn't say I was looking for it (Hell, I didn't even KNOW about it until after the game was over), I simply said I run to the closest ship with cannons to destroy the objective (A time portal thing). I tried to take off, but SURPRISE! You needed to be an arcane caster to pilot it. Couldn't have just said "Oh, yeah, this is the ship you could pilot. I'm throwing you a bone because all but two of the party is KO'ed, your allies are either dead or turned on you, and it's up to an unarmed half-machine human ranger and an idiot dwarf fighter to save the day."

[Dalek-K]

A quite from this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=233758)



So I was wondering, "What other horrid stories exist out there." They need not be only about ruined characters, or bad GMs. I played with a guy who made the worst mistakes every time. We always confined him to martial classes so he can do the least amount of harm. One time we were in a dungeon and we fell down a shaft and landed in a library that we had a fight with a beholder and this guys first thought is, who went first by the way, "I'll use fireball." In the library! Idiot!

Rules for the game: No Evil
Player: After many many evil actions "Oh I've always meant for my character to go evil eventually" (paraphrasing).

Seriously...


I hate it when players do evil/detrimental stuff (not stupid stuff just things that hurt the party.. even to the point of casting spells on other players to get them to do what she wants) to the other party members and uses the excuse "I'm just doing what my character would do".

NO you are just trying to control everything so you can get your god complex rocks off.... Grr

Another problem is when party members steal stuff from other players even when they don't need it.

[TurtleKing]

Silus I think he said screw the rules I have Rule 0 to do what I want. Besides I was suspicious of he being a pedophile but he won't admit it. Seriously no 25 yr old guy should be into Hello Kitty that much. He is obsessed. Might as well stop talking about it and move on. Though cursing him into oblivion is also fine too.

[demigodus]

Well for a little scenario background:

Low magic, low wealth game (Worst type of game IMO). Our only magic users was a Ghost Adept (the only magic class the DM allowed). We had with us ~5 Troglodytes, about as many Ogres, a Gnoll with a magic fire axe, and a Purple Worm (Which may or may not have been Abyssal), and those were just the NPCs. The PCs were myself, a half-machine human ranger, the previously mentioned Dwarf Fighter, the Ghost Adept, whatever my friend was (I can't even remember if he was playing) and a homebrewed Prinny that was so broken it made Pun Pun cry (Cannot be killed was the big issue for me).

Now mind, we had next to no magic support, there was NO magic/psion transparency, and the DM specialized in both Psion and Rogue characters, which the NPC baddie was a combination of. And according to the DM, we weren't even supposed to fight the NPC.

During the course of the fight, said NPC:
Was attacked by the Purple Worm
Was SWALLOWED WHOLE by said Purple Worm
BLEW UP said Purple worm while being swallowed whole (I want the rules on the power he used to do that)
Summoned a pair of Astral Constructs on us
Turned the ghost into crystal

Annoying "Come on, throw us a bone" "lol nope" stuff the DM pulled:

Perma-locked the armory that we had passed because apparently the dwarf accidentally sold his soul to Pazuzu for some sort of boon. Now mind, the armory probably had weapons of sufficient caliber to make the NPC fight easier. Jerk could have mentioned it before I spent two full rounds running back to the armory.

And yeah, that boon? A Spelljammer ship that my character could pilot (Machine interface or something). Problem is, I didn't say I was looking for it (Hell, I didn't even KNOW about it until after the game was over), I simply said I run to the closest ship with cannons to destroy the objective (A time portal thing). I tried to take off, but SURPRISE! You needed to be an arcane caster to pilot it. Couldn't have just said "Oh, yeah, this is the ship you could pilot. I'm throwing you a bone because all but two of the party is KO'ed, your allies are either dead or turned on you, and it's up to an unarmed half-machine human ranger and an idiot dwarf fighter to save the day."

So, low magic but VERY high psionics? Were you guys aware of the very high psionics/allowed to make psionics? Also, what happened to the unkillable Prinny?

Honestly though, this sounds like the point at which it becomes very much appropriate to break the game. Too bad you weren't allowed access to game breaking classes.

[Silus]

So, low magic but VERY high psionics? Were you guys aware of the very high psionics/allowed to make psionics? Also, what happened to the unkillable Prinny?

Honestly though, this sounds like the point at which it becomes very much appropriate to break the game. Too bad you weren't allowed access to game breaking classes.

He gave us a 5% chance to have a Psionic character (Latent psionic ability or something. He ruined all Psionics for me to be honest), but he initially did not give us the option to run Psionic characters. Honestly, it was like running a low fantasy, low magic game, then SURPRISE! A LVL 20 SORCERER WEREDRAGON!

And I believe that the Prinny...died? Or was at least knocked out for a time then the NPC perma-imprisoned him.

[Rubik]

Silus I think he said screw the rules I have Rule 0 to do what I want. Besides I was suspicious of he being a pedophile or flaming queer but he won't admit it. Seriously no 25 yr old guy should be into Hello Kitty that much. He is obsessed. Might as well stop talking about it and move on. Though cursing him into oblivion is also fine too.I'd be careful using terms like 'flaming queer'. Some of us LGBT-folk do take offense to things like that.

Though I'm not one of them.

Unless you're obviously being really derogatory in other ways, anyway.

[Jzadek]

I was running a campaign with a half-elf ranger, elven rogue and human cleric who insisted on worshipping Cthulhu. That probably should have been the first warning sign.
Now, my other two players enjoyed the game more in it's semi-serious form, as did I. But when they were talking to a guard, the cleric decided that it was time to throw a rebuked ghoul at the man.
I thought I had a chance to give him the appropriate fail to his actions (the ghoul paralysed him), but that didn't discourage him either. As soon as the paralysis wore off, he attacked the guard.
The other two players, irritated at this, brightened when I decided to put him on trial. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad, I thought, this could be fun, while the other players set about creating a defence. Everyone was excited for a courtroom drama, even the cleric's player it seemed... until the cleric tried to jump out a window. Every chance he had.
I ended up executing him, which was a shame, because the other two had created an awesome defence, until one of them snapped and began to lobby against him. All in all, a quite awesome roleplaying chance was ruined for everyone involved because one guy couldn't play nice for five minutes.

[Sir_Ophiuchus]

I'd be careful using terms like 'flaming queer'. Some of us LGBT-folk do take offense to things like that.

Though I'm not one of them.

Unless you're obviously being really derogatory in other ways, anyway.

It's the use of "pedophile" and "flaming queer" in the same sentence, as, apparently, equally horrible things for him to be that would make this LGBTitp twitch.

Editing "flaming queer" into "creepy gay" is not helping your case.

Apologies for the derail, folks.

[FearlessGnome]

...so choose to be a hetero and 7 foot 2! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZmHC75FDqQ) But yes, I'm straight, and even I twitch when I see pedophiles and perfectly normal people who don't self identify as 'hetero' lumped together in the same sentence. We're all geeks to some degree here. Let's not go out of our way to offend each other.

[ahenobarbi]

...perfectly normal people who don't self identify as 'hetero'...

Now writing something like that you tempt those who disagree to derail thread :smalltongue:

[Jzadek]

If you disagree, keep it to yourself. I'm pretty sure these boards have rules against racism and sexism, and homophobia belongs right alongside them.

[ahenobarbi]

If you disagree, keep it to yourself. I'm pretty sure these boards have rules against racism and sexism, and homophobia belongs right alongside them.

I did not write I disagree. I was only writing "stating opinions that you know some people disagree with and you know that if they state them they might be banned... is not very nice".

[huttj509]

You know, I think I've known 3 normal people in my life.

They were boring.

[hymer]

I've known 3 normal people in my life.

Pics or it didn't happen.

My story of "He did what?": Well, obviously I have a few, but let me chain two together.

I'm the DM. The PCs are doing some patrolling, and run into what appears to be another patrol, and a "Who goes there!" situation ensues. Weapons are not drawn, no arrows on the bows, and a tentative negotiation commences. And then, the elf decides to cast shield (I believe it was).
This is okay, I'd prefer negotations to go through, but I've a plan if this ends in blood. The other side attack.
Afterwards, the easily victorious PCs talk about it, and conclude that the other side may or may not know what spell is being cast, and that even casting a defensive spell seems to indicate one expects violence. So, a lesson learned, and all is okay, though not entirely well. Orders on the other patrol seem to indicate they got in a fight with some decent guys.

Later, maybe six months later, a negotiation with the evil necromancer is about to happen. The PCs decide they will not provoke violence, and they plan it out and decide that they're not to be blamed for anything going wrong. They have a reputation to think of now.
Negotations begin. They draw towards a conclusion. The necromancer and the sorcerer decide to conclude negotations with a spell duel, which is to be conducted honourably. The elf starts to cast a spell just as the duel is about to start. The undead knight escort says "You better not do that." The elf doesn't care. Mayhem ensues. Three PCs die, unfortunately (you may say) not the elf.

[navar100]

Fumble deck by Pazio are a hoot.

That is a horrible mistake by Paizo. My DM fell off the wagon and is using critical fumbles again just because the deck was published after over a year of pleasant bliss playing without them. I've told him all the arguments against using them. He refuses to budge.

[SpaceBadger]

You know, I think I've known 3 normal people in my life.

They were boring.

I've told my kids many times, "Normal is just another word for average, and who wants to be average?"

[Lucid]

Relevant comic is relevant.
http://www.viruscomix.com/notfunnyagain.jpg

[Kalmageddon]

Relevant comic is relevant.
http://www.viruscomix.com/notfunnyagain.jpg

Third row, first one on the right.
That's me. :smalltongue: And I hate when people ask me if I'm angry just because my normal expression is sort of serious, it makes me feel like anyone who doesn't walk with a permanent idiotic smile on their face must be unhappy in the eyes of others.
Which sadly, I think it's kind of true... But enough off-topic!

[Rubik]

Third row, first one on the right.
That's me. :smalltongue: And I hate when people ask me if I'm angry just because my normal expression is sort of serious, it makes me feel like anyone who doesn't walk with a permanent idiotic smile on their face must be unhappy in the eyes of others.
Which sadly, I think it's kind of true... But enough off-topic!Hence your name, I'm sure.

[Kalmageddon]

Hence your name, I'm sure.

That's because I'm a fan of Lordi (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dXMhBD2_mk).
(to be honest that's not their best song, but it's probably the one with the best title! :smallbiggrin: )

[Phaederkiel]

Tell me please where have you seen anyone trained in the use of arms hitting him or herself? Please tell me because I have never heard of an event like that and with those fumble rules that is 5% of happening every time someone swings any kind of weapon. And even when the extra of having to roll against your own AC, most PC invest a lot into being able to hit things as often as possible, so I am pretty sure that the pc's do hit themselves most of the time.

How was it, if you put a 100 fighters striking against a dummy (AC 5) for 1 minute and if by the end of that minute more than half of them is dead due auto mutilation, you need to check your critical fumble rules.

And please don't let me get started on critical fail checks on skills, as I hate them more than anything in the world.




Nor are fumbles all that realistic. SCA fighters almost never hit themselves or hit their companions. True, weapons do occ get dropped, maybe in a 100 fighter list where they fight all day it may happen a handful of times, like on the order of once per 1000 blows. So, it's not even realistic.


Sorry to derail again, but again I beg to differ:

That people striking dummys dont mutilate themselves, that SCA fights do not show lots of friendly Fire etc, is due one simple fact.

Lack of mortal danger.

I am a very active martial artist. At the moment (for the last 4 years), my main focus is on swordfighting. In training, nearly noone drops ever a weapon.
And yet, in the one armed fight I had (last sylvester, being attacked by a band of boozed adolescents), I dropped my bloody telescope-cudgel about 5 seconds in. And the guy with the pepperspray sprayed himself.

So I tend to think that fumble rules are quite realistic.

Crits too, they represent the fact that humans can not take anywhere as much punishment as they can dish out.

[Agent 451]

Where do you live that you need to carry around a telescoping cudgel?

[Phaederkiel]

berlin, germany.
And I carry it about twice per year, once at sylvester.

[Mystify]

I am a very active martial artist. At the moment (for the last 4 years), my main focus is on swordfighting. In training, nearly noone drops ever a weapon.
And yet, in the one armed fight I had (last sylvester, being attacked by a band of boozed adolescents), I dropped my bloody telescope-cudgel about 5 seconds in. And the guy with the pepperspray sprayed himself.

So I tend to think that fumble rules are quite realistic.

Crits too, they represent the fact that humans can not take anywhere as much punishment as they can dish out.
But, no offense, you are not level 20. I'm not going to argue that the low levels shouldn't have fumbles, but I will argue that the chance of a fumble should drastically decrease with level.

[Silus]

I'd be careful using terms like 'flaming queer'. Some of us LGBT-folk do take offense to things like that.

Though I'm not one of them.

Unless you're obviously being really derogatory in other ways, anyway.

I cannot nor will not condone the terms, but the general assessment of the player is pretty accurate. The guy was what would be typically considered a creeper. And not the exploding kind.

[Rubik]

I cannot nor will not condone the terms, but the general assessment of the player is pretty accurate. The guy was what would be typically considered a creeper. And not the exploding kind.I for one am not lambasting him; just warning him that some people might take offense.

Though the guy definitely seems less-than-socially adept, from his description.

[absolmorph]

I cannot nor will not condone the terms, but the general assessment of the player is pretty accurate. The guy was what would be typically considered a creeper. And not the exploding kind.
Awwwwwwww... :smallfrown:

[Phaederkiel]

But, no offense, you are not level 20. I'm not going to argue that the low levels shouldn't have fumbles, but I will argue that the chance of a fumble should drastically decrease with level.

No, i am probable at most a lvl4: fighter2/Bard2. At least If I take someone like Brock Lesnar as a barbarian 10 :smallbiggrin:

And I can get behind your reasoning. Highlvl chars should fumble far less.
admittedly, they can easily buy some bracers of fortunate striking, which resolves the issue at least partially. I know for sure that my players use them a lot. And there are luck feats, which can protect you...

[Amphetryon]

No, i am probable at most a lvl4: fighter2/Bard2. At least If I take someone like Brock Lesnar as a barbarian 10 :smallbiggrin:

And I can get behind your reasoning. Highlvl chars should fumble far less.
admittedly, they can easily buy some bracers of fortunate striking, which resolves the issue at least partially. I know for sure that my players use them a lot. And there are luck feats, which can protect you...

I, for one, would be grouchy about needing to spend GP and feats, on things I wouldn't otherwise get, to protect my character from a house-rule.

[Arbane]

That is a horrible mistake by Paizo. My DM fell off the wagon and is using critical fumbles again just because the deck was published after over a year of pleasant bliss playing without them. I've told him all the arguments against using them. He refuses to budge.

Are NPCs also getting fumbles?

If so, play a PF Witch with the Misfortune & Cackle Hexes. Happy Miserable Failure Funtime Hour for ALL the NPCs! :smallbiggrin:

[Voyager_I]

No, i am probable at most a lvl4: fighter2/Bard2. At least If I take someone like Brock Lesnar as a barbarian 10 :smallbiggrin:

And I can get behind your reasoning. Highlvl chars should fumble far less.
admittedly, they can easily buy some bracers of fortunate striking, which resolves the issue at least partially. I know for sure that my players use them a lot. And there are luck feats, which can protect you...

Most people don't even have PC class levels, if that gives you something of an idea for reference. An NPC Warrior 3 would be an accomplished Soldier. I don't know your background or experience, but unless you're very serious about martial arts you might not even have any BAB; you're just proficient with the weapons you're using.

As a matter of fact, I would probably take the fact that you dropped your weapons in a live combat situation as a demonstration that you would be extremely low-level on a system that primarily rates people with much more experience in real fights, rather than using it as evidence the other way.


This is no offense intended to you, of course; PCs are just much more special than people tend to give them credit for. Most literary warriors aren't even pushing Level 10 (Aragorn, Conan, etc), let alone any people who actually exist.

[navar100]

Are NPCs also getting fumbles?

If so, play a PF Witch with the Misfortune & Cackle Hexes. Happy Miserable Failure Funtime Hour for ALL the NPCs! :smallbiggrin:

They do, but bad guys were meant to be killed by the party anyway. Whether because the DM rolled a 1 to its attack is irrelevant in the long run. Worse, while we have to roll to confirm a crit, there's no roll to confirm a fumble. Roll a 1, you are The Suck, automatically.

As the Sorcerer, it's unfair I rarely need worry about getting a fumble. It has happened when I rolled a 1 to hit with a Ray Of Enfeeblement. I debated with myself and chose to take Scorching Ray anyway when I just felt like getting some blasting spells, but if fumbling becomes too much of a bother I'll get rid of it some level later. Meanwhile, I cast Glitterdust, Silent Image, Hypnotic Pattern, Dispel Magic, Magic Missile, Benign Transposition, Rainbow Blast all day long and never slip on a banana peel. The paladin, cavalier, monk, and fighter continue to drop weapons, take strength penalties, take to hit penalties, you wonder what makes them competent enough to still be living.

[Arbane]

They do, but bad guys were meant to be killed by the party anyway. Whether because the DM rolled a 1 to its attack is irrelevant in the long run. Worse, while we have to roll to confirm a crit, there's no roll to confirm a fumble. Roll a 1, you are The Suck, automatically.

As the Sorcerer, it's unfair I rarely need worry about getting a fumble. It has happened when I rolled a 1 to hit with a Ray Of Enfeeblement. I debated with myself and chose to take Scorching Ray anyway when I just felt like getting some blasting spells, but if fumbling becomes too much of a bother I'll get rid of it some level later. Meanwhile, I cast Glitterdust, Silent Image, Hypnotic Pattern, Dispel Magic, Magic Missile, Benign Transposition, Rainbow Blast all day long and never slip on a banana peel. The paladin, cavalier, monk, and fighter continue to drop weapons, take strength penalties, take to hit penalties, you wonder what makes them competent enough to still be living.

Blargh. Stuff like this is one of the many reasons I HATE fumble rules. I recommend pointing the above out to the DM and the other players, at length. Then get the players to go on strike.

[Phaederkiel]

Most people don't even have PC class levels, if that gives you something of an idea for reference. An NPC Warrior 3 would be an accomplished Soldier. I don't know your background or experience, but unless you're very serious about martial arts you might not even have any BAB; you're just proficient with the weapons you're using.

As a matter of fact, I would probably take the fact that you dropped your weapons in a live combat situation as a demonstration that you would be extremely low-level on a system that primarily rates people with much more experience in real fights, rather than using it as evidence the other way.


This is no offense intended to you, of course; PCs are just much more special than people tend to give them credit for. Most literary warriors aren't even pushing Level 10 (Aragorn, Conan, etc), let alone any people who actually exist.


Npc lvl 3 already an accomplished soldier? I find this to be somewhat out of scale, since for example Red hand of doom uses lvl 7 fighter for the Captain of the watch. And lvl 3 and 4 for many of their rank-and-file opponents.
Not monsters, mind you, but veterans, bladebearers and even for some looting thugs.

I, on the other hand...(which is as little meant to brag as what you said was meant to give offense, only to clear a point)...do martial arts since I was 6, I teach women self defense and, at the moment, try to organize a longsword tournament, hoping it will allow me to become its champion. I am not as serious about martial arts as I'd like to (probably took skill focus (profession:director) and Skill focus (craft:graphic), borking my build heavily), but I am quite serious about it, still.

Take for example the fact that I did not got overwhelmed when attacked by 4 or 5 commoners, even after losing my weapon. Didn't defeat them really, but didn't got defeated either. Which, since I did not wear any armor, makes me afraid i could be some kind of monk...everything but that!

[Averis Vol]

my group uses a roll to confirm fumbles actually, a DC 10 reflex save or you drop your weapon, roll three ones though and you kill yourself. its happened to me and while it isn't fun it's quite possibly the funniest thing if you aren't the person getting impaled on his own warhammer.