Bad things happen to PCs

[ThiagoMartell]

I've seen this happen very often here: dude posts about something that happened to his character (a curse, losing a magical item, dying, falling (if a paladin), etc) and he gets the following response: "Any DM that does that is a jerk. Hit him with a book and quit his game."
My reaction is usually this :smallconfused:
D&D has plenty of rules for bad things happening to player characters. Fantasy stories have plenty of examples of bad things happening to the main characters. Why is it bad to use the rules of D&D to follow a fantasy trope?

Psyren explains it better than I did:


To summarize - using the rules to do bad things is just fine. Rules are consistent and (mostly) fair, but more importantly are available to the players ahead of time so they know what they're getting into.

Jerkish behavior occurs when the rules are subverted or ignored in order to passive-aggressively force PCs into no-win situations. This is not to say that railroading is always bad, but it should be acknowledged for what it is.

[Earthwalker]

To be honest I am not sure it is bad. Of course it doesn't have to be good either. Its all about personal taste.

Some people like this style of play and others don't niether is right or wrong.

For me, my style can be best summed up with

"Show me a hero and I will write you a tragedy"

[DemonRoach]

I've seen this happen very often here: dude posts about something that happened to his character (a curse, losing a magical item, dying, falling (if a paladin), etc) and he gets the following response: "Any DM that does that is a jerk. Hit him with a book and quit his game."
My reaction is always this :smallconfused:
D&D has plenty of rules for bad things happening to player characters. Fantasy stories have plenty of examples of bad things happening to the main characters. Why is it bad to use the rules of D&D to follow a fantasy trope?

Bad things are bound to happen, indeed I'd expect they'd happen all the time. After all, most adventurers wander the world encountering all the stuff normal people want nothing to do with.

But the game is meant to be enjoyable, and it is easily possible for characters to be crushed such that the player doesn't have fun.

Each circumstance is situational on about three billion factors, and the extant to which that trope is to be indulged. Sometimes things are posted that do appear to be unnecessary, but if that is always your reaction you haven't read some of the worst stories around.

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

Why is it bad to use the rules of D&D to follow a fantasy trope?
*rocks fall, everyone dies*

but I followed a fantasy trope!

[Psyren]

Generally the "your DM is a jerk" stuff is invoked, not because something bad happened to the PC, but because of how it happened.

As a recent example, the guy in the dead magic zone that failed his strength checks to save his cohort and familiar from falling into the acid trap. His DM had him roll (19), told him to keep rolling, (15, 19 again) then told him he failed because he had rolled too much. (Jerk.) His DM then told him it wouldn't have mattered what he rolled anyway. (Jerk.) The actual loss of the cohort/familiar weren't the problem, it was the fact that the DM was railroading and attempting to hide behind the dice to do it.

[ThiagoMartell]

Bad things are bound to happen, indeed I'd expect they'd happen all the time. After all, most adventurers wander the world encountering all the stuff normal people want nothing to do with.

But the game is meant to be enjoyable, and it is easily possible for characters to be crushed such that the player doesn't have fun.

Each circumstance is situational on about three billion factors, and the extant to which that trope is to be indulged. Sometimes things are posted that do appear to be unnecessary, but if that is always your reaction you haven't read some of the worst stories around.

"Always" was an exaggeration. Most of the times, what I see is pretty mild. We have an active thread about lycanthropy and more than one person basically said "if he uses RAW lycanthropy he is a jerk". What?! That's the kind of stuff I mean.
What's more vexing, for me, is when the OP is completely fine with what happened and just wants some pointers on how he should cope with it... but even then gets told to quit his game.



Generally the "your DM is a jerk" stuff is invoked, not because something bad happened to the PC, but because of how it happened.

As a recent example, the guy in the dead magic zone that failed his strength checks to save his cohort and familiar from falling into the acid trap. His DM had him roll (19), told him to keep rolling, (15, 19 again) then told him he failed because he had rolled too much. (Jerk.) His DM then told him it wouldn't have mattered what he rolled anyway. (Jerk.) The actual loss of the cohort/familiar weren't the problem, it was the fact that the DM was railroading and attempting to hide behind the dice to do it.
IIRC, it happened because he didn't roll enough.
That whole story sounded very... suspicious anyway.


*rocks fall, everyone dies*

but I followed a fantasy trope!
Except 'all the main characters dying arbitralily' is not a fantasy trope at all... :smallconfused:
Are you just missing the point or were you trying to be funny? I really can't see it.

[DeusMortuusEst]

As with all things this depends on how it is done, and the people you are playing with.

If the DM doing the 'bad thing' just does it to spite the player, or because he's playing 'against' the PC:s and it leads to the player not enjoying the game then the 'bad thing' is exactly that.

If however, the event, whatever it is, is tied in with the world, feels real and acceptable and leads to a greater enjoyment of the character the player is portraying it's a good thing.

[Duke of URL]

I actively encourage my DM to screw with my characters, as long as they're not left totally gimped and that they remain in my control. Adversity is often a fun challenge, and unless the DM is messing with you just to be an ass, there's usually a good side-plot that develops from it.

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

Except 'all the main characters dying arbitralily' is not a fantasy trope at all... :smallconfused:everything is "arbitrary" within a plot. What if the DM genuinely thought that the inescapable death of the characters was a great addition to the story?

[Psyren]

IIRC, it happened because he didn't roll enough.

Enough or too much, the DM shouldn't fail you for something you have no way of anticipating. If complex skill/ability checks are in play, that's information the player needs ahead of time, and if they haven't rolled enough, the simple solution is to tell them to keep going until they have.

In short, if the dice are truly the arbiter, there should be a chance of success. If there is no chance of success, why let them roll to begin with?



That whole story sounded very... suspicious anyway.

It did indeed. But I/we have nothing to go on but the information given.

[ThiagoMartell]

everything is "arbitrary" within a plot. What if the DM genuinely thought that the inescapable death of the characters was a great addition to the story?
It's still not a fantasy trope anyway, so that has absolutely no bearing in the point I'm making.
EDIT: and rule zero is not even an actual rule, so there is that as well

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

It's still not a fantasy trope anyway, so that has absolutely no bearing in the point I'm making.Characters dying is not a fantasy trope?

[ThiagoMartell]

Characters dying is not a fantasy trope?

All the main characters dying, at once, for no reason? (which is the definition of "rocks fall, everyone dies")
Not a fantasy trope at all.

[Lapak]

Characters dying is not a fantasy trope?Character death comes up in fantasy of all kinds. (In fiction of all kinds.)

The sudden, unexplained death of all viewpoint characters, however, is not a fantasy trope, and looks a lot like a strawman argument in this case. One bad thing happening to one character (which is what the OP was asking about) is not the same thing as an arbitrary TPK.

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

There are gray areas.
Even falling rocks can be explained to a degree.

[ThiagoMartell]

Enough or too much, the DM shouldn't fail you for something you have no way of anticipating.
I'm going to have to ask you to elaborate on that. What is "having no way of anticipating"?


If complex skill/ability checks are in play, that's information the player needs ahead of time, and if they haven't rolled enough, the simple solution is to tell them to keep going until they have.

In short, if the dice are truly the arbiter, there should be a chance of success. If there is no chance of success, why let them roll to begin with?
Yes, agree completely. In most stories (like the lycanthrope one), the result did seem to come out of dice, though.


It did indeed. But I/we have nothing to go on but the information given.
Indeed.



Character death comes up in fantasy of all kinds. (In fiction of all kinds.)

The sudden, unexplained death of all viewpoint characters, however, is not a fantasy trope, and looks a lot like a strawman argument in this case. One bad thing happening to one character (which is what the OP was asking about) is not the same thing as an arbitrary TPK.
Well said, my friend.

[Mithril Leaf]

TVTropes seems to think that rocks falling and everyone dying is a trope. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RocksFallEveryoneDies)

[Amidus Drexel]

Characters dying is not a fantasy trope?


*rocks fall, everyone dies* [/I]


What he means is that this (everyone randomly dying without having a chance to save themselves; it might be important for a bunch of people to just die in a horror story, but it won't necessarily be random) isn't really a fantasy trope.

Edit: ninja'd. by quite a few of you guys

[ThiagoMartell]

TVTropes seems to think that rocks falling and everyone dying is a trope. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RocksFallEveryoneDies)

You see in the end of the trope? Where it lists which indexes it falls under?
Is it under fantasy?
Oh, look, it is not!
So it is not a fantasy trope. Like I've been saying. Repeatedly.
Please, just drop that strawman.

[only1doug]

One of the characters in my campaign got bitten by a werewolf, he was a paladin, he sought help and an NPC cast remove curse on him.

If he had not sought help he would have 'wolfed out' at the next full moon and if he didn't take precautions he could easily lose alignment, he certainly wouldn't get to keep werewolf powers and still be a paladin for long.

[Psyren]

I'm going to have to ask you to elaborate on that. What is "having no way of anticipating"?

"My campaign uses complex skill checks." Or even, "That would probably be a complex check. Roll X times."

NOT: "Roll. Oh, you only rolled once? Fail!" Or even worse. "Roll. Now roll some more. All done? Too bad, I actually wanted you to roll 5 times, not 3. Sorry you couldn't read my mind."

The system is predicated on one roll per check as the default situation. Deviations from default need to be communicated to the players to be fair to them. And those deviations should be as specific as possible since the players are in uncharted territory.



Yes, agree completely. In most stories (like the lycanthrope one), the result did seem to come out of dice, though.

Not familiar with that thread, so I can't comment on whether the DM was being a jerk or not.

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

What he means is that this (everyone randomly dying without having a chance to save themselves; it might be important for a bunch of people to just die in a horror story, but it won't necessarily be random) isn't really a fantasy trope.

Edit: ninja'd. by quite a few of you guys
rock falls isn't random.
It's just inescapable.

Inescapable death is a common point in many stories. Yes, in fantasy too.

It's not that hard guys

[North_Ranger]

I don't mind my characters getting hurt or facing adversities. What I do mind is being treated as the GM's whipping boy.

I once had a GM who was pretty harsh when it came to roleplaying and knowing the rules of the world the game was set in - or rather, how he interpreted those rules and nuances. Some members of our gaming group could get away with murder - literally - while me, a then-newbie player from the countryside wanting to become a better roleplayer got the hammer every time I "played wrong". Or maybe not just "wrong", just not in the way the GM wanted.

Or maybe the GM was just pissed that the campaigns didn't go as he had wanted, and I as the new guy was the person he vented at. These included having my newly-sanctioned paladin fall over a technicality, getting eaten by a chaos monster, almost dying by a car bomb (WoD) and getting mauled by a vampire (WoD again). The funny thing was that the last three were results of someone else in the group screwing up - and them getting away with it while my characters had to pay the price.

[Kish]

I've seen this happen very often here: dude posts about something that happened to his character (a curse, losing a magical item, dying, falling (if a paladin), etc) and he gets the following response: "Any DM that does that is a jerk. Hit him with a book and quit his game."
My reaction is always this :smallconfused:
D&D has plenty of rules for bad things happening to player characters. Fantasy stories have plenty of examples of bad things happening to the main characters. Why is it bad to use the rules of D&D to follow a fantasy trope?
Your premise here is that everyone on this board who has ever said, "Any DM that does [something specific] is a jerk. Hit him with a book and quit his game" is saying that nothing bad should ever happen to a PC.

I doubt most of the people you're lumping in here would agree with that premise.

[Amidus Drexel]

rock falls isn't random.
It's just inescapable. Inescapable death is a common point in many stories. Yes, in fantasy too.

It's not that hard guys

I see that my answer was poorly worded. I stand behind the viewpoint of ThiagoMartell and Psyren.

[ThiagoMartell]

rock falls isn't random.
It's just inescapable.

Inescapable death is a common point in many stories. Yes, in fantasy too.

It's not that hard guys

Are you even familiar with the trope with you're quoting?


This is what happens in role playing games when the Game Master gets utterly fed up with the players: he kills them all spectacularly.

[The Frank One]

rock falls isn't random.
It's just inescapable.

Inescapable death is a common point in many stories. Yes, in fantasy too.

It's not that hard guys

No the rocks fall trope is both random and inescapable. At some point, in the middle of an activity (presumably, but not necessarily underground or even near rocks) without any relation to any other story-related activity the characters die for no apparent reason and with no recourse or hope.

That is not a fantasy trope.

From TV Tropes:
"This is what happens in role playing games when the Game Master gets utterly fed up with the players: he kills them all spectacularly."

GM gets mad at players, then characters die. In the real world it is not random at all, but in the game, it is.

[ThiagoMartell]

Your premise here is that everyone on this board who has ever said, "Any DM that does [something specific] is a jerk. Hit him with a book and quit his game" is saying that nothing bad should ever happen to a PC.

I doubt most of the people you're lumping in here would agree with that premise.

Changed my wording there to be less inclusive, trying to make it a bit more clear. Thanks for pointing it out, that's not what I meant to say.

[Psyren]

To summarize - using the rules to do bad things is just fine. Rules are consistent and (mostly) fair, but more importantly are available to the players ahead of time so they know what they're getting into.

Jerkish behavior occurs when the rules are subverted or ignored in order to passive-aggressively force PCs into no-win situations. This is not to say that railroading is always bad, but it should be acknowledged for what it is.

[Hyde]

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that because someone is the DM, they are no longer a person. They're still going to let their feelings influence their play, they're still going to make mistakes, and they're still going to be flawed as human beings.

It is not unimaginable that a generally dickish person becomes a dickish DM, just like it is not unimaginable that a generally whiny player is going to embellish a character death story to make it seem "unfair" when it may or may not be merely "unfortunate".

You're free to decide whether you're more inclined to believe the "Bad Things" stories or not, but at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter, does it?

It's likely that for every story we hear, every possible interpretation of that story has actually happened. Yes, there are dickish DMs. There are whiny players, there are Dickish DMs with whiny players.

So the only truism we can get out of this is "sometimes there are bad DMs and bad Players".


So I wouldn't worry about it very much- all that really matters is your personal experience. If you have a good DM and never experience an arbitrary character death, then I'd call that pretty great.

Personally, characters only tend to die when doing something obviously stupid, or if they start ruining the fun of the other players at the table.

As far as the actions detailed in that particular story- I'm inclined to think that if you upset your players, you're probably wrong about whatever it is that drove you to make those decisions.

However.

DnD is not, as far as I am aware, strictly a game of "the heroes kill things and you win the treasure, yay". Bad things happen to good people, often for seemingly no reason at all. A fantasy world tends to give reasons for those bad things happening, but they still happen. If paladins never fell, there wouldn't be rules for exactly that. If items were never cursed, there wouldn't be statistics for them. If characters didn't die....

you get the picture.

So In short, I agree with the fundamentals of your argument. The idea that the appropriate response to bad things that are entirely possible and provided for happening to your character is a petulant tantrum is wrong.

But they're not entirely wrong. If a player has a problem with curses and falling and player death, they should probably not be playing after all.

I would advise hitting your DM though. I am bigger than you and hit a lot harder. :xykon:

[Kymriana]

This is something my group is dealing with right now, in a manner of speaking. Not an extreme, but the GM did something and there are two camps of feelings about it within the group. (Well, one dude vs the rest of us...)

This is the GM's persistent world he created and has run various groups through for years. Previous groups shape events and new groups he runs often have to deal with whatever happened before. He introduced a plot-hook character four years ago that no group ever messed with... until us. We freed a god of destruction.

Oops.

He didn't actually expect us to take that particular plot hook and the resulting events were going to be too high a level for our characters. He needed to give us 5 levels to deal with it but he wanted to do it in a way that would be true to the story(he's a story focused gm, not so big about the min-max combat thing...). He also wanted our actions to get a re-action from our dieties... since they were not really happy we let loose a world-destroying god that had been sealed before their particular pantheon came to power. So we got a mix blessing(to deal with it)/curse(for causing it) to buff our characters up. (My character was actually killed by the event and I got a reincarnation to deal with it.)

Now, this changed the characters in multiple ways. The GM spent a week+ going over and agonizing over how to do it so that everyone would be happy with it. And most of us are. Except one guy who resents the GM 'messing with his character'.... to the point that he might stop playing. Even after the GM said 'Just take 5 then... I don't want you to not enjoy the game.'

Yes, the GM altered our characters. But it was in direct response to our actions and made sense. But other people would say he crossed a line by altering characters. It's a mixed bag. All GMs behave differently. The only time that I dislike a GM is when he A: railroads and B: avidly tries to kill the players. (All GMs should put up challenges to the players that can let them kill themselves with bad decisions and so on... but that's not what I'm talking about in the 'out to kill them' sense.)

If a GM is willy-nilly trying to make players miserable... that's not a good GM. If a GM is letting players make bad decisions and letting them reap what they have sown... that's a good GM. /shrug

[Telonius]

I think the biggest conflicts happen when a DM "does something" that results in a character being changed permanently and significantly - without the approval of a player - in a way that seems arbitrary, unfair, or both.

Random fighter gets a sword sundered, but can buy another one with the wealth he's obtained? Annoying, but not "Terrible DM!" It's a problem, but it's one that can be overcome without changing who the character is.

Character whose whole backstory (and mechanical build) is wrapped up in an ancestral weapon, ambushed by a random-encounter Rust Monster? Not cool, man. You've basically thrown his character in the trash. His whole motivation and driving force is removed, with no way to get it back short of a Wish or Miracle, in a manner that serves no purpose to the plot.

Now, if that same character has his weapon Sundered, or stolen by the BBEG ... that's something else entirely. That's a plot hook, a major driving force, and it doesn't change who the character is. More to the point, it's "fixable," since the weapon didn't just disappear into the ether. It can be repaired, or taken back from the BBEG.

[ThiagoMartell]

To summarize - using the rules to do bad things is just fine. Rules are consistent and (mostly) fair, but more importantly are available to the players ahead of time so they know what they're getting into.

Jerkish behavior occurs when the rules are subverted or ignored in order to passive-aggressively force PCs into no-win situations. This is not to say that railroading is always bad, but it should be acknowledged for what it is.

That's very well put. Mind if I add this to the OP?

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

Are you even familiar with the trope with you're quoting?Ok.
So basically from your POV inescapable death is fine, as long as isn't random or motivated by personal issues.
(notice that not-random does not necessarily mean deserved)

right?

[Hyde]

Wait, when did we start talking about DMs making changes to characters?

I think I missed something.

[ThiagoMartell]

Ok.
So basically from your POV inescapable death is fine, as long as isn't random or motivated by personal issues.
(notice that not-random does not necessarily mean deserved)

right?
Did I ever say it was fine? Funny, because I don't remember doing so. I fact, I didn't.
All I'm saying is that sometimes bad things happen to players. All I'm saying is the game has rules for such. All I'm saying is that this happens frequently in fantasy. All I'm saying is that a DM is not a jerk for using the rules in the game fairly.
Could you please drop that strawman? Pretty please with a cherry on top? Then we can get back on topic?

[Kymriana]

Wait, when did we start talking about DMs making changes to characters?

I think I missed something.

Or maybe I missed something. Reading the OP, they were discussing players complaining about their GMs doing things to them and how people react on the forums to it.


"dude posts about something that happened to his character (a curse, losing a magical item, dying, falling (if a paladin), etc) and he gets the following response: "Any DM that does that is a jerk. Hit him with a book and quit his game."

I brought up my point because one guy had the 'might quit the game' reaction to his character getting altered... If I spun off in a different direction than the discussion, sorry. :\

[Hyde]

Or maybe I missed something. Reading the OP, they were discussing players complaining about their GMs doing things to them and how people react on the forums to it.



I brought up my point because one guy had the 'might quit the game' reaction to his character getting altered... If I spun off in a different direction than the discussion, sorry. :\

Oh, I gotcha.

Yeah, DMs messing with characters is going to happen. He should be thankful the seems to be not only an understanding person, but actually gave enough ****s that it bothered him to do it in the first place.

Though did he just give you the levels and let you level on your own, or decided stats and the like for you?

[only1doug]

Ok.
So basically from your POV inescapable death is fine, as long as isn't random or motivated by personal issues.
(notice that not-random does not necessarily mean deserved)

right?

Actually, I think ThiagoMartell's point is that the trope you are quoting is a RPG Trope and not a Fantasy Trope and as such is requesting that you drop that from your reasons to insist that fantasy tropes happening to PCs are a bad thing.

[Psyren]

That's very well put. Mind if I add this to the OP?

Not a problem, I'm glad we were able to come to an understanding.

[Kymriana]

He offered to let the guy bothered just take 5 levels as if he'd leveled up naturally, letting him pick his stats and so on.

Me? I got killed and was reincarnated. I had to roll on what color it was, but I ended up a very young dragon. (It fit the character.) I lost most of my levels of Cleric and so on, but I was thrilled with it. I consider it a challenge and am having fun... (Went from a 113 year old Dragonborn to a 6 year old dragon. The group is having to deal with 'I'm HUNGRY' now and it's full of lawls and win.)

The thief who let the god loose? He got turned into a female by his god and given 2 levels of druid and 3 levels of Cat Lord. The GM decided the classes but sat there and worked with him directly on how it would all fit and work so that he was happy. (His diety was the trickster one and all of the changes made sense from the diety he was getting it from. Plus the original idea was give him levels in sorcerer that was 100% against the character's backstory and when the GM found out he literally went 'crap, we can't do that then' and changed his entire idea to fit what the player wanted in regards to his basic backstory and character setting.)

What the GM was doing was giving the players access to things their characters really wanted, but with a twist. Like my Dragonborn(this is 3.5 so it was the 'blessing' not the race...) always wanted to be a true dragon at heart... and she got it. But not exactly how she expected/wanted. But most of all, it all makes sense in the STORY and that, to me, is a telling factor in a GOOD GM.

[Hyde]

He offered to let the guy bothered just take 5 levels as if he'd leveled up naturally, letting him pick his stats and so on.

Me? I got killed and was reincarnated. I had to roll on what color it was, but I ended up a very young dragon. (It fit the character.) I lost most of my levels of Cleric and so on, but I was thrilled with it. I consider it a challenge and am having fun... (Went from a 113 year old Dragonborn to a 6 year old dragon. The group is having to deal with 'I'm HUNGRY' now and it's full of lawls and win.)

The thief who let the god loose? He got turned into a female by his god and given 2 levels of druid and 3 levels of Cat Lord. The GM decided the classes but sat there and worked with him directly on how it would all fit and work so that he was happy. (His diety was the trickster one and all of the changes made sense from the diety he was getting it from. Plus the original idea was give him levels in sorcerer that was 100% against the character's backstory and when the GM found out he literally went 'crap, we can't do that then' and changed his entire idea to fit what the player wanted in regards to his basic backstory and character setting.)

What the GM was doing was giving the players access to things their characters really wanted, but with a twist. Like my Dragonborn(this is 3.5 so it was the 'blessing' not the race...) always wanted to be a true dragon at heart... and she got it. But not exactly how she expected/wanted. But most of all, it all makes sense in the STORY and that, to me, is a telling factor in a GOOD GM.
Good God.

You have one of the Six Great Sage DMs of Legend.

you are most fortunate.

(but seriously, it sounds like he is doing everything exactly right).

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

All I'm saying is that a DM is not a jerk for using the rules in the game fairlyOf course he isn't IF he uses the rules fairly, which is not what happens usually when a DM is addressed as a jerk, in fact.

[only1doug]

Of course he isn't IF he uses the rules fairly, which is not what happens usually how it is normally presented by the aggrieved player when a DM is addressed as a jerk, in fact.

Fixed that for you.

[Hyde]

Fixed that for you.

You are my new favorite.

[only1doug]

You are my new favorite.

awww, Thanks, :smallredface:

I'm not trying to say that every GM ever complained about has always been 100% right, and the player 100% wrong, but normaly when people blow off steam they only highlight the negatives and they often exaggerate those.

Every story has two sides, its entriely possible that sometime the players are not being entirely honest in what they say (or they are honestly saying what they feel, but misremembering the initial event or interpreting it differently from how the GM intended it to be portrayed).

[Psyren]

In which case, "quit" can still be good advice - if the player is too immature to present the situation fairly, then the DM himself (or herself) might be better off without a player that is willing to slander their reputation to a bunch of strangers on the internet.

Ultimately, the "quit" recommendations are less about "Your DM is horrible and you're a saint" and more about "your playstyles probably don't mesh well enough for a long-term association to be fruitful."

Not all of one's friends are universally fun to play a game with.

[Keneth]

I never coddle my players, they are all perfectly aware that anything they could conceive of doing to the bad guys, the same could also happen to them. I don't always follow RAW to the letter, sometimes subverting the rules is necessary for the sake of the story, but I'm never a prick about it. If I railroad them into an inescapable situation (or if they happen to stumble into one), the design always allows for several ways for all of them (and their allies/subjects/equipment/etc.) to get out of it in one piece. Usually they succeed, but sometimes characters die or get crippled, and in rare cases the set of circumstances makes it so that all the ways out are closed. For instance if the party abandons one of the characters to fend for himself against a BBEG, and he has no tricks up his sleeve, then the character dies. Railroading to save the characters from anything bad is just as bad a practice as railroading them into bad outcomes. Especially when it gets to the point where you have to employ a deus ex machina which is just an insult to the players. Doubly so if it's your Mary Sue DMPC. :smallbiggrin:

[Kymriana]

Ultimately, the "quit" recommendations are less about "Your DM is horrible and you're a saint" and more about "your playstyles probably don't mesh well enough for a long-term association to be fruitful."

Not all of one's friends are universally fun to play a game with.

I wish I could hit a 'like' or 'upvote' or something for this. It is, ultimately, the most important thing that people should understand. And it's put so very very well.

Had a GM that everyone else loved... I didn't mesh and was annoyed or prickly in the game. So I bowed out of that game and found a new group to play with. No hard feelings, we just didn't work well. And after I sat back and really LOOKED at what I was snarling about, it really was just my opinion and the others were very happy in the game.

[GenghisDon]

I've seen this happen very often here: dude posts about something that happened to his character (a curse, losing a magical item, dying, falling (if a paladin), etc) and he gets the following response: "Any DM that does that is a jerk. Hit him with a book and quit his game."
My reaction is usually this :smallconfused:
D&D has plenty of rules for bad things happening to player characters. Fantasy stories have plenty of examples of bad things happening to the main characters. Why is it bad to use the rules of D&D to follow a fantasy trope?

Psyren explains it better than I did:

BAD THINGS tm are supposed to happen, and all the more frequently as level increases (and it becomes easier & easier to mitigate them).

They also should happen all the more often to those player's characters that are incautious, over-confident, arrogant, foolish, greedy or (insert negative quality). It's the nature of things.

The player that always snatches up every magic item to test them out is going to get statisticaly higher amounts of cursed items. Duh

The player whose character always desecrates altars, statues, ect, or plays with mechanical or magical thingamabobs is going to go BOOM! more often than those that don't. Duh,

Getting killed is (sadly perhaps) just part of gameplay at mid/high levels on up. Getting killed is also, very often, quite avoidable if the player chose a different course of action, or tactics. It also is less likely to happen to characters designed along certain strategies. Yes, that might mean your "optimisation" isn't always so optimal. Suck it up.

All of the above actually tend to have strong benefits at times...fortune favouring the bold, getting a bit better gear, having more time in the spotlight, getting bonuses instead of penalties, or kicking ass harder most of the time. People that play a game & expect to always "win" are CHILDREN.

If you can't, don't want to, or suck at playing a character with a certain code or "alignment", don't play such a character. Yes, it's true, not every character is for you. Even if it gives you some bonus you "must have".

d20 D&D really ought have made things MUCH nastier on players...almost all problems are pretty easily solved, and rapidly so. Bending over backwards to make the game "safe" for children (compared to earlier games) was a terrible idea. It doesn't placate the children (nothing ever will) and alienates the adults.

[Hyde]

I wish I could hit a 'like' or 'upvote' or something for this. It is, ultimately, the most important thing that people should understand. And it's put so very very well.

Had a GM that everyone else loved... I didn't mesh and was annoyed or prickly in the game. So I bowed out of that game and found a new group to play with. No hard feelings, we just didn't work well. And after I sat back and really LOOKED at what I was snarling about, it really was just my opinion and the others were very happy in the game.

That's why Psyren is here.

To make people understand.

[Slipperychicken]

I'm fine with bad things happening to PCs, as long as it's fun for everyone OOC, and feels fair. It has to be fair. You can't just say "yeah he stole your +Amillion Sword out of your hand, knocks you out, and ties you up, because I'm the DM and I do what I want. Ha ha ha", you have to make every necessary roll (spot checks, attack roll, AoO, disarm check, grapple check, etc). It can't permanently screw the PC either, unless you talked to the player about it beforehand and worked something out (ask "are you okay with half your actions being decided by a Demon?').

[HunterColt22]

The thread itself you are referring to isn't so much as "Hit the DM he sucks", more so it's that the mechanic behind the curse itself is very, very, very much a pain and that often that mechanic is the one that needs the beating. :l Bad things happen, that is true and to be expected but we always need to consider view points and bias that people bring to the table with them.

In the case of this thread that sparked the conversation, the guy that is being described, is said to be a new player to d&d, thus getting lycanthropy, is not something that he himself can easily mitigate or handle on his own since he has no experience with it to begin with. Which is where part of the DM annoyance from people germinated I am guessing, because as a DM, it is one thing to put this on to an experienced player, its another to give it to the new guy, and then have the rest of the party float around it in some instances, which can be good or bad, but is dependent on a number of factors we have no idea on. Again this seems to be a conversation about treading water that we all understand it's just that our information is getting misinterpreted by people.

[ThiagoMartell]

The thread itself you are referring to isn't so much as "Hit the DM he sucks", more so it's that the mechanic behind the curse itself is very, very, very much a pain and that often that mechanic is the one that needs the beating. :l

It's a curse. It's supposed to be a pain.

[LordBlades]

It's a curse. It's supposed to be a pain.

As i said in the other thread, IMO the issue with Lycanthropy is that it punishes people mechanically for making the correct RP choice.

[only1doug]

In the case of this thread that sparked the conversation, the guy that is being described, is said to be a new player to d&d, thus getting lycanthropy, is not something that he himself can easily mitigate or handle on his own since he has no experience with it to begin with. Which is where part of the DM annoyance from people germinated I am guessing, because as a DM, it is one thing to put this on to an experienced player, its another to give it to the new guy, and then have the rest of the party float around it in some instances, which can be good or bad, but is dependent on a number of factors we have no idea on. Again this seems to be a conversation about treading water that we all understand it's just that our information is getting misinterpreted by people.


So our party was out exploring the local wilds for a magical key.....ooooooh.

anyways we thought it was a run of the mill side adventure for some more loot.

and our fighter got bit by a wolf that ended up being a lycanthrope.

NOW. we are all good aligned pc's. here are my questions....

1) will his alignment change as we changes forms. (for the first time or any time after?)

2) is it possible for him to control this change, i mean, not change and go wild on the townsfolk

3) we agreed that the first time he changes we can tie him up. and i can cast Hold person on him. will this effect carry over into his transformed state?

Since he is a fighter, he wants to use this to his advantage. so we need to find a way or a ruling that would let him be able to control his wolf form.

thoughts?

So the guy asks for advice and receives it, mostly bad as people encourage the concept of the guy getting control over wolf form without having to have alignment change. This is effectively saying that the werewolf's bite should be a good thing instead of a bad thing for him, which negates the entire concept of werewolves IMO.

If the advice given to this request was usual in campaigns then everyone would be hunting the werewolves and lining up to be bitten.

IMO If you get bitten by a werewolf then you seek a cure or become a NPC killing machine. If you want to remain a PC then you are going to have to swallow the LA before you become completely in control and even then you are going to be Chaotic Evil (as thats part of being a werewolf).

Being bitten by a werewolf launches the sidequest: Find a cure...
Its not horrible for a new player, it puts them in the spotlight for a bit as the party focuses on finding them a cure (before it is too late).

[ThiagoMartell]

As i said in the other thread, IMO the issue with Lycanthropy is that it punishes people mechanically for making the correct RP choice.

The correct RP choice is to get someone to cast Remove Curse on you.

[LordBlades]

The correct RP choice is to get someone to cast Remove Curse on you.

Not always, but for most characters yes, and lycanthropy is something like: here's this bunch of goodies, but you can't have them unless you're willing to completely alter your character's personality for metagame reasons. Think most people would qualify it as frustrating.

[ThiagoMartell]

Not always, but for most characters yes, and lycanthropy is something like: here's this bunch of goodies, but you can't have them unless you're willing to completely alter your character's personality for metagame reasons. Think most people would qualify it as frustrating.

Because they are thinking of lycanthropy as a bunch of goodies which is not what lycanthropy is supposed to be. Even for those people, there are a bunch of alternativas, it just takes some effort.
Lycanthropy is not a free power up, it is a curse. If you want to get something out of it, you're gonna have to work for it. That seems pretty OK for me.
What wouldn't be OK is if people just got bitten by werewolves, got more powerful and that was it. Why would lycanthropy be even considered a curse if all it does is make people more powerful?

[LordBlades]

Because they are thinking of lycanthropy as a bunch of goodies which is not what lycanthropy is supposed to be. Even for those people, there are a bunch of alternativas, it just takes some effort.
Lycanthropy is not a free power up, it is a curse. If you want to get something out of it, you're gonna have to work for it. That seems pretty OK for me.
What wouldn't be OK is if people just got bitten by werewolves, got more powerful and that was it. Why would lycanthropy be even considered a curse if all it does is make people more powerful?

Maybe that's what it's supposed to be, but as it stands right now, from a mechanical POV Lycanthropy is a bunch of free goodies, and only from a RP point of view is a curse.

[Amoren]

Because they are thinking of lycanthropy as a bunch of goodies which is not what lycanthropy is supposed to be. Even for those people, there are a bunch of alternativas, it just takes some effort.
Lycanthropy is not a free power up, it is a curse. If you want to get something out of it, you're gonna have to work for it. That seems pretty OK for me.
What wouldn't be OK is if people just got bitten by werewolves, got more powerful and that was it. Why would lycanthropy be even considered a curse if all it does is make people more powerful?

Look at modern vampire genre. :D

Seriously though, I understand the lore reasons of the alignment change. Turning into a werewolf is pretty much turning into a blood lust driven killing machine. Think the wolfman movie, you're going to tear whatever's next to you to shreds, whether that's the enemy or your allies. To willingly enter such a state you WOULD be Chaotic Evil; as you're allowing yourself to turn into a savage beast to murder everyone close to you with no control.

That being said, I'd probably play it that that's the way Lycanthropy normally works. However, there might be rituals/blessings that WOULD allow someone to willingly control themselves in werewolf form, thus allowing them to enter it without taking the alignment hit. If I remember right, there was one or two prestige classes that allowed lycanthropes to not turn chaotic evil for accepting their new state, too.

[Ranting Fool]

Bad things happen because DM is feeling spiteful = Bad
Bad things happen because it follows the in game world logic = Good

I find the Lycanthropy example funny as I've always seen that as a really bad thing for a player to get and not something they would want in order to get the stat boost. I've always assumed that G/N players will want to cure themselves so they don't turn into a massive rage beast and eat everyone.

Was going to use a Hulk example but then a lot of the comics (and new movies) he gains some form of control over his actions. Though only after spending a few years killing any bystander who happens to piss him off.

This sort of thing actually happened in one of my older campaigns. The PC's have found and fought their way into a temple to the God of Slaughter (Name was changed from PHB as no one could say it :smallbiggrin:) after breaking into the main hall where a big murder/orgy type thing was going on and killing the high priest and all the crazed minions in one major battle the PC's noticed a big old wrath/spectre watching over the whole thing.

The big dark shadow wrath with a large scythe, glowing red eyes and an aura of evil that chills to the bone says something along the lines of "You have pleased me, kneel and I shall grant you a boon"

Most PC's "Errr no thanks mate"
Barbarian PC "Yes please make me better at killing things" which I was shocked since he was meant to be rather Good and all. So after being "blessed" with a few bonus feats and a better rage the PC got rather vexed that if he ever critted or over killed a creature by more than 15 (so -15 HP) he would go into a mega rage and attack the weakest things first (enemies first but if none were left he would attack his fellow PC's, much like the frenzied berserker)

The Barbarian complained quite a bit about that saying it was a blessing from a God so it shouldn't be bad at all! :smalltongue:

[Hyde]

Maybe that's what it's supposed to be, but as it stands right now, from a mechanical POV Lycanthropy is a bunch of free goodies, and only from a RP point of view is a curse.

If only there was some sort of game that was also about role-playing.

We could call it... a role-playing game!

Seriously, your argument is "if we only look at part of the picture, everything makes sense!"?

[Hyde]

The cool part about the lycanthropy thing is that you don't actually have to abide by RAW, or even RAI, or even R.

You can make lycanthropy behave however you want it to.

If you feel lycanthropy should be a bad thing, then the rules as they're presented are pretty alright.

If maybe you feel it's an acceptable game reward, then maybe they also have to go get the "were-ring of clarity" or something. Mostly so you can constantly ask "Are you still wearing your were-ring?" until they go nuts, rip the ring off of their finger, yelling "NOT ANYMORE!" and murder the party right up.

[LordBlades]

If only there was some sort of game that was also about role-playing.

We could call it... a role-playing game!

Seriously, your argument is "if we only look at part of the picture, everything makes sense!"?

You missed my point.

What I was trying to say is that lycanthropy is only a curse due to RP. It has Mechanically it's a great boon for some characters.

If they wanted to make it a proper curse, there should have been some mechanical downsides to it as well.

[Hyde]

You missed my point.

What I was trying to say is that lycanthropy is only a curse due to RP. It has Mechanically it's a great boon for some characters.

If they wanted to make it a proper curse, there should have been some mechanical downsides to it as well.

The mechanical downside of "your entire party is dead" is a big one, I should think.

Why? unless you're playing some "world martial arts" tournament-style setting, claiming that only the mechanical aspects of the character matter is ignorant at best.

Other mechanical downsides include insomnia (fatigue rules) and being dead by were-hunters.

Basically, if you've not run into lycanthropy being basically more of a pain than it's worth than either 1) your DM is doing it wrong or 2) your DM doesn't actually consider it a curse.

[LordBlades]

The mechanical downside of "your entire party is dead" is a big one, I should think. [/1uote]

Assuming the party is with you on remaining a lycantrrope, then they will immobilize you until you became aware of your condition. After that, you're only CE, no longer insane.

[QUOTE=Hyde;13625187] Why? unless you're playing some "world martial arts" tournament-style setting, claiming that only the mechanical aspects of the character matter is ignorant at best.

I just don't like heavy mechanical bonuses/penalties based on RP and viceversa. Personal opinion. Claiming your personal opinion is more valid than my personal opinion is ignorant at best


Other mechanical downsides include insomnia (fatigue rules) and being dead by were-hunters.

Fatigue will only occur occasionally and is easy to cure. As for were-hunters, more encounters=more loot and more XP:smallcool: Also, if you only shift in combat, odds are word won't get out very fast (only survivors get to tell tales).


Basically, if you've not run into lycanthropy being basically more of a pain than it's worth than either 1) your DM is doing it wrong or 2) your DM doesn't actually consider it a curse.

OR 3) you have a DM that likes working with the players as opposed to against them. Not make it easy, but if you're going to make it not worth it, why bother allowing it in the first place?

[ThiagoMartell]

Maybe that's what it's supposed to be, but as it stands right now, from a mechanical POV Lycanthropy is a bunch of free goodies, and only from a RP point of view is a curse.
I'm sorry, but this is fundamentally wrong.
The alignment shift is a crunch problem, changing out of control is a problem (specially since it requires a standard action - almost a daze effect), changing in full moon and killing everything around you is pretty much a problem.
It makes you physically more powerful, yes. It gives you a crapload of problem, yes. It works exactly as intended. You're the one seeing it as free goodies... and then complaining it doesn't work well as free goodies.



OR 3) you have a DM that likes working with the players as opposed to against them. Not make it easy, but if you're going to make it not worth it, why bother allowing it in the first place?
Who's talking about allowing anything, man? You've been talking about natural lycanthropes this whole time? Because they don't suffer the alignment shifts you're complaining about. :smallconfused:

[Hyde]

because debating personal opinion is irrelevant. I'm not doing that. maybe you're doing that, in which case whatever.

Your first point assumes that the party is initially aware of your condition. Regardless of whether or not this is true in a specific instance of a game (they probably are, because DMs are either bad at making it subtle, or don't care, and players are bad at player vs character knowledge, but I digress).

I don't particularly care for arguments based on assumptions, regardless of the statistical likelihood of those assumptions.

Next, assuming anyone was discussing your personal opinion is a little arrogant, don't you think? Your argument, in answer to "Lycanthropy is bad, mmkay?", was "Lycanthropy is bad in irrelevant ways, because of X, making it a good thing."
my argument is "X is not a valid reasoning for your argument, as far as most people are probably concerned"

Basically, your original assertion in juxtaposition to the OP is as acceptable as my assertion in juxtaposition to yours.

Next: taking my examples as the totality of my argument is flawed, though, admittedly, I failed to assert that they were examples. Also, your argument assumes the characters survive the ambush of were-hunters, which, again, assumption.


Lastly: "allow?" Is this some kind of character sovereignty argument that only things you want to happen to your character can happen?

Is that fun for people?

[only1doug]

I recommend that anyone who hasn't seen one should watch a good werewolf movie, perhaps an american werewolf in london or Dog Soldiers.

In terms of physical capability becoming a werewolf is a great thing in almost any of these films but that doesn't mean that its a good thing for them either mentally or in story terms (well, its the bad things about being a werewolf are the heart of the story).

[Ranting Fool]

I recommend that anyone who hasn't seen one should watch a good werewolf movie, perhaps an american werewolf in london or Dog Soldiers.


Ha! Not watched Dog Soldiers in AGES :smallbiggrin:

[Water_Bear]

I've always looked at Afflicted Lycanthropy as a curse because I tend to play back-story heavy spell-casters; "A bonus to stats I don't use, which changes my alignment, gives me LA, and messes with my character concept? No thank you sir, I'll just go get a Scroll of Remove Curse." :smalltongue:

But I see where the confusion comes in. In popular culture, werewolves are usually good guys (Twilight, Underworld, Werewolf the Forsaken) or tragic heroes (that Wolfman movie a few years ago, Werewolf the Forsaken). So the fact that the curse is pretty much all downside seems to run counter to that conception of what a werewolf is.

Also, minor nitpick; Afflicted Lycanthropy says you have a chance to switch to the Alignment of the animal you turn into, which is TN not Chaotic Evil. The preferred alignment table is for making Inherited Lycanthropes and is just a suggestion (the same way you can have an LG Orc).

[ThiagoMartell]

Also, minor nitpick; Afflicted Lycanthropy says you have a chance to switch to the Alignment of the animal you turn into, which is TN not Chaotic Evil. The preferred alignment table is for making Inherited Lycanthropes and is just a suggestion (the same way you can have an LG Orc).

Nah, it changes you to the alignment of the listed lycanthrope. For a werewolf, that's CE.
For a weretiger, for example, it's TN.

[Water_Bear]

Nah, it changes you to the alignment of the listed lycanthrope. For a werewolf, that's CE.
For a weretiger, for example, it's TN.


However, each time he changes to his animal form, he must make a Will save (DC 15 + number of times he has been in animal form) or permanently assume the alignment of his animal form in all shapes.

As the bolded text shows, your alignment doesn't change to the "Preferred Alignment" for that kind of Lycanthrope (listed on a table in a separate section), but to the listed alignment of the animal you turn into.

The Preferred Alignment, by RAW, is only used for Inherited Lycanthropes. Obviously their intention was for it to be used for both, but RAW =/= Intent.

[Kymriana]

As the bolded text shows, your alignment doesn't change to the "Preferred Alignment" for that kind of Lycanthrope (listed on a table in a separate section), but to the listed alignment of the animal you turn into.

The Preferred Alignment, by RAW, is only used for Inherited Lycanthropes. Obviously their intention was for it to be used for both, but RAW =/= Intent.

One of my party got granted the were-tiger natural shifting(IE, I think that means 'inherited' in this sense) and I asked our GM about this. He's right in line with this, as the guy is a monk and has remained his alignment. Though he said that the guy in our party doesn't run the risk of losing himself in his animal form because this is a natural ability not one forced on him via a curse. (Is that a house rule thing for him or how a natural shifter works, btw? Curious, as I'm not about to argue with him on it. Not my character and not going to mess with my friend's character.)

[Slipperychicken]

The mechanical downside of "your entire party is dead" is a big one, I should think.


And the Level Adjustment? That puts you three levels down the hole.

[Batou1976]

The thief who let the god loose? He got turned into a female by his god and given 2 levels of druid and 3 levels of Cat Lord. The GM decided the classes but sat there and worked with him directly on how it would all fit and work so that he was happy. (His diety was the trickster one and all of the changes made sense from the diety he was getting it from. Plus the original idea was give him levels in sorcerer that was 100% against the character's backstory and when the GM found out he literally went 'crap, we can't do that then' and changed his entire idea to fit what the player wanted in regards to his basic backstory and character setting.)

What the GM was doing was giving the players access to things their characters really wanted, but with a twist. Like my Dragonborn(this is 3.5 so it was the 'blessing' not the race...) always wanted to be a true dragon at heart... and she got it. But not exactly how she expected/wanted. But most of all, it all makes sense in the STORY and that, to me, is a telling factor in a GOOD GM.

In my earlier days of RPing, our main campaign was Dragonlance. At the time in question, I was a Knight of the Rose, and was married to a cleric of Mishakal. One day, one of the players decided he had a nifty solo mini-campaign idea for my character, and was allowed to run it (yes, I was okay with it).

The short version is- my character got memory wiped (recoverable) and transplanted, being replaced by an LE doppelgänger version of himself, who then began a campaign of tyranny in my character's name. My character's wife became the leader of a resistance movement to stop her faux-husband's naughtiness. The intended plot for this was for my character to remember who he was, convince his wife he was being impersonated, take down the imposter, and clear his name. I was down for all this. :smallcool:

Apparently, he originally intended for the impostor to have murdered my PC's wife, but decided against it because he figured I would be upset by that. He was right. It also turned out it would have ruined elements of the main DM's story for that to have happened, so everybody won. :smallbiggrin:

I can handle bad things happening to my PC- running out of HP, getting sidelined for an entire encounter by a spell, earning the personal enmity of a BBEG, general protection faults (rimshot :smalltongue: )...
What tends to grind my gears is wholesale screwing over of my PC's situation -marital status, social standing, etc, all things earned in game by RP)- for the sake of story (or because of DM retardedness), without seeing how I would feel about gettin hosed.

[Batou1976]

The Gitp forum servers hate me... :smallfrown:

[ThiagoMartell]

As the bolded text shows, your alignment doesn't change to the "Preferred Alignment" for that kind of Lycanthrope (listed on a table in a separate section), but to the listed alignment of the animal you turn into.

The Preferred Alignment, by RAW, is only used for Inherited Lycanthropes. Obviously their intention was for it to be used for both, but RAW =/= Intent.
I think you misunderstood RAW there.
Whenever the lycanthrope template rules make refference to the animal on which the lycanthrope is based, it uses the base animal term. It never says you gain the base animal's alignment.


Is that a house rule thing for him or how a natural shifter works, btw? Curious, as I'm not about to argue with him on it. Not my character and not going to mess with my friend's character.
Not a houserule if he's a natural lycanthrope. Most of them fall under the listed alignment, but like all creatures, there are rare exceptions.

[monkey3]

It depends on the players. A DM is (sadly) supposed to cater to them. I played (not DM) in a looong campaign that averaged > 1 death per session. I currently play with a different group where the players get mad if they lose 5gp to a pick-picket, and twice we have had campaigns end because a player died and quit.

I am mad because I was DM on one of those campaigns that died because of 'carebear' players.

[Slipperychicken]

It depends on the players. A DM is (sadly) supposed to cater to them. I played (not DM) in a looong campaign that averaged > 1 death per session. I currently play with a different group where the players get mad if they lose 5gp to a pick-picket, and twice we have had campaigns end because a player died and quit.


Depends. If it's only 5gp, and you get a reasonable Spot check to see the pickpocket, I'd be cool with it. Just make your pockets deeper, or sew them shut until you need their contents, or keep your stuff under your armor (in a bag covered with bells if you're not a sneaky type). It's common practice among the poor to stitch money into their clothes, or keep it in secret compartments in their boots.

Death, as I've said before, has to be done fairly and by the rules. If you establish that the setting has no planes other than the material, and Plane Shift literally doesn't exist, then no-save teleport a PC Wizard into the Far Realm and say "All your buffs are gone (no save, no CL check), and an unspeakable horror is attacking you. Take damage. As you try to cast spells, you find either they don't function, or the monster is immune. You die", the player is right to quit right then and there.

I'm willing to bet your PC-deaths were done by-the-book, and there was some reasonable in-character action the PCs could have taken to prevent it. Otherwise, it's just not fair.

[Kymriana]

It also depends on the type of game it is... that includes players and GM.

My group is very storyline-focused. Players can die... (I did... stupid kobold half-dragon rogue...) but it was an extreme situation and I only died because I failed the reflex roll to get out of the train. No one else failed their roll. No one else died. It wasn't a 'whim of the gm' or a fighting-focused game that expects death and serious bodily injury. If that happened without a really good reason... I'd be tempted to walk from the table.

I also don't like being called a 'carebear' player by people who just have a different style of play. (I know, you weren't referring to me... but it's a term that is used in a lot of different gaming fields and it isn't considered a 'nice' term in any of them. As someone who works in the gaming industry, it pains me every time I see people refer to each other that way... it is an unnecessary divide and dismissive to the idea of a broad range of ways to play games.) I played for seven and a half years when I was in college. Same group. Same GM. Same character. The entire time. Yes, we were thrown into situations we could, if we really screwed up, die in. But we knew the GM. She wanted a long running growing adventure in her homemade world that she had been running since her college days so we knew that she wasn't 'out to get us' and that she had carefully considered the challenges, puzzles, riddles and enemies we would go up against.

The point is to find a group you DO fit in. As was said before, some GMs and some players just do not mix. They have different expectations, different styles, different buttons to get pushed... Respecting everyone's styles and finding a group that fits and works for you is what matters.

PS: Also, if money is very hard to come by in a setting, I can kind of see how someone would be super ticked off to lose what might be considered a large amount. Esp if they weren't allowed to roll against the 'encounter' with the thief involved. But that's about it. XD

[GenghisDon]

On Lycanthropy, my players are pretty well "trained" from decades of pre d20 D&D...in a "good" party they tend to discard an infected character if low level (turn self in to a church, jail, ect) & they can't get it alieviated. We don't play with variant/,omster NPC's that much, but if when we do, such lycanthropes are sometimes played, or it IS embraced by an evil PC.

On alignment, I prefer to make nearly all lycanthropes evil, including bears, tigers, hyenas, panthers & jaguars. Occassionaly I have a nuetral or even good one, but they are mostly villains, and typically man-eaters at that. Way more mileage & the majority of historical/mythological shapechangers were considered evil (though by no means all, not even wolves). Boars are typicaly nuetral/beligerant.

I actually would mind a PC lycanthrope less than my players, but it would be a hard row to hoe for a while. I'd only have the evil alignment apply in beast form to start; and a character could learn to control (or embrace) the beast in time. As a RP trade off, it's a good reason for an alignment change, with a good character ending up nuetral, "meeting their beastial side half way" as it were.

I think the last time lycanthropy "stuck" was a few years ago in 3.0's speaker of dreams (sp?) adventure path. The survivors ALL contracted lycanthropy/wererat & just shelved the party. Cool module, crappy result/finish.

[HunterColt22]

I've always looked at Afflicted Lycanthropy as a curse because I tend to play back-story heavy spell-casters; "A bonus to stats I don't use, which changes my alignment, gives me LA, and messes with my character concept? No thank you sir, I'll just go get a Scroll of Remove Curse." :smalltongue:

But I see where the confusion comes in. In popular culture, werewolves are usually good guys (Twilight, Underworld, Werewolf the Forsaken) or tragic heroes (that Wolfman movie a few years ago, Werewolf the Forsaken). So the fact that the curse is pretty much all downside seems to run counter to that conception of what a werewolf is.

Also, minor nitpick; Afflicted Lycanthropy says you have a chance to switch to the Alignment of the animal you turn into, which is TN not Chaotic Evil. The preferred alignment table is for making Inherited Lycanthropes and is just a suggestion (the same way you can have an LG Orc).

EEESH, you mentioned Twilight.... Granted it is popular, I don't know why, but your point is good. I just get an odd feeling agreeing with that statement with that mention in there.... ICK.

Also to the OP, yes it is a curse, and yes it is supposed to suck, but as you can see, from the many many many interpretations of the rule, the mechanic itself and how to best handle it... The mechanic is rather meh at best it seems, just from the huge discussion this has generated and based on my own observations.

[ThiagoMartell]

Also to the OP, yes it is a curse, and yes it is supposed to suck, but as you can see, from the many many many interpretations of the rule, the mechanic itself and how to best handle it... The mechanic is rather meh at best it seems, just from the huge discussion this has generated and based on my own observations.
All I've seen were people misreading the rules or complaining that it isn't a free power up. Lycanthropy rules seem fine for me.