PDA

View Full Version : GM Warning Signs?



The Grue
2014-01-13, 04:20 AM
So after about a year's hiatus from tabletop RPGs, my group has gotten back together and wrangled up a GM. It's a D&D 3.5 game, but the subject of this thread is not necessarily specific to that system.

Anyhow, this GM has a massive home-brewed setting he's created, ostensibly he's sat down and worked out its history over the span of several thousand years. He also made an off-handed comment about wanting to publish the setting, possibly in the form of a novel...which for me was an instant red flag for Player Agency.

He's said a handful of other little things related to the setting that made me double take, but I'm sure there's probably nothing to worry about and I'm just jumping at shadows. Still, tomorrow is the first session, and I thought I'd ask the Playground if there's any GM Warning Signs I should watch out for.

Hangwind
2014-01-13, 05:07 AM
One word: DMPC

Edit: Actually that's more of an acronym.:smalltongue:

The Random NPC
2014-01-13, 05:10 AM
Here's some good warning signs, but I hope no one ever displays them.
Thread 1 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=275152)
Thread 2 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=282462)
Thread 3 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=16112819#post16112819)

The Grue
2014-01-13, 05:45 AM
That thread and associated blog is the reason "writing a novel about it" is on my list of red flags.

Still, there can't be more than one GM who's as bad as Marty, so I'm looking for more subtle things to watch out for. :smalltongue:

Rabidmuskrat
2014-01-13, 06:07 AM
Depends on whether he first thought up a main character then built the world around them or thought up the world then inhabited it with characters. Hell, maybe he thought up the world and want you to play in it for inspiration (in essence, your characters will be the inspiration for the characters in his novel).

Regardless, unless all his players agree to essentially play sidekicks - and there are people who enjoy this role, so don't knock it - the DM must be willing to remove his or her main character from the game. Note that I don't say they SHOULD do it, just that they must be willing and able to do it if the players ask. If doing that cripples the campaign or 'ruins the story', I think that is a major red flag that the DM's world does not make a good campaign setting.

Evo_Kaer
2014-01-13, 06:57 AM
I wouldn't call it an instant red flag if he designed his own setting and wants to write a novel. I did the same thing (though my setting is probably not as fleshed out, I don't have several thousand years of history written yet)
Originally I intended to write down the campaign I was DMing. Didn't work out since the players didn't accept my setting (low magic, at least where they live and they talk about high lvl spells quite regularly)

So I would probably keep an eye open, but not be suspicious about everything

NichG
2014-01-13, 07:21 AM
Eh, the best DM I've ever had basically wrote and ran their own setting for each separate campaign (and it was a new setting every time). I don't think thats a warning flag on its own.

The novel thing is a minor tick, but its not enough on its own to really bother me. Basically what it indicates is that the DM has a certain amount of pride in his work (e.g. he thinks its good enough to be a commercial product), and if he's the only one who has ever seen his setting then there are likely to be all sorts of problems with it that he may get irritated about when they're pointed out. That said, there's no guarantee it will play out that way at all.

If it does start leaning that way, there are things you can do as a player to avoid it becoming an issue. For example, while you can interact in-character however you like, avoid teasing him about inconsistencies in the setting out-of-character; avoid player-vs-DM arguments about how the setting should look, and just focus on your character's actions (and this is generally good advice I think, similar to how I'd advise a DM not to argue with a player about their character's worldview).

The big warning sign to look for would in fact be something where the DM is trying to play your characters for you, for sake of how he imagines the setting. I don't mean railroading, but rather things like 'well, you're an Altarian, so you're honorable; you wouldn't lie'.

Sith_Happens
2014-01-13, 08:33 AM
You know it's funny, the obvious solution to the "wants to write a book" potential-problem is to decide and make clear that the campaign and book will be separate continuities, but I've never, ever seen anyone suggest that.:smallconfused:

Kalmageddon
2014-01-13, 08:40 AM
You know it's funny, the obvious solution to the "wants to write a book" potential-problem is to decide and make clear that the campaign and book will be separate continuities, but I've never, ever seen anyone suggest that.:smallconfused:

Yeah, this.

obryn
2014-01-13, 10:31 AM
Anyhow, this GM has a massive home-brewed setting he's created, ostensibly he's sat down and worked out its history over the span of several thousand years. He also made an off-handed comment about wanting to publish the setting, possibly in the form of a novel...which for me was an instant red flag for Player Agency.
I'm not even sure if it's a warning sign, yet. This frankly isn't far from how most D&D campaign worlds looked in the 70's and 80's; I've had more than one DM who had binders full of information about their world. But I'm willing to wager he has less detailed information at his disposal than, say, someone running Forgotten Realms would have, and Forgotten Realms isn't an immediate warning sign.

Now if it's clear you can't actually alter the course of events or change his world, or if he flings DMPCs into the party, or railroads you into his stories ... well, that's a problem in and of itself. But a detailed campaign world isn't a problem in and of itself.

So what other things made you spit-take?

Tengu_temp
2014-01-13, 10:59 AM
Houserules and arbitrary bans that show the DM has no understanding of the game's rules.

Committing the Stormwind Fallacy.

Horribly offensive parts of the setting used with the excuse of historical accuracy. Bonus points of the setting doesn't even resemble anything historical, or if the objectionable content is not historically accurate.

Authoritarian, non-compromising mentality. A DM who considers himself above the players and is not open to discussion is almost always a bad DM.

The Grue
2014-01-13, 11:05 AM
I'm not even sure if it's a warning sign, yet. This frankly isn't far from how most D&D campaign worlds looked in the 70's and 80's; I've had more than one DM who had binders full of information about their world. But I'm willing to wager he has less detailed information at his disposal than, say, someone running Forgotten Realms would have, and Forgotten Realms isn't an immediate warning sign.

Now if it's clear you can't actually alter the course of events or change his world, or if he flings DMPCs into the party, or railroads you into his stories ... well, that's a problem in and of itself. But a detailed campaign world isn't a problem in and of itself.

So what other things made you spit-take?

For clarity: it's the concern that the course of history might be locked in, rather than having a lot of pre-determined material to work with. GMs that work it all out ahead of time are great, so long as they're okay going off script. Somehow - and I'm not sure how to quantify from where I got this - I was left with the impression that going off-script was a thing he's not comfortable doing. But I might be wrong, and we'll find out pretty soon because the sorts of things I do tend to end up going off-script whether I'm intending to take it there or not.

Other things that made me spit-take...if you're reading and aren't too familiar with 3.5 you can skip the rest of this post, the examples I can think of are going to touch on it in some way. Short version: a couple of passing remarks that I noticed, but can be explained away as minor differences in playstyle or simple misunderstandings.

I pitched a quick character idea to him about a noble from the Empire who might have familial ties to the Hells really far back in the family tree. Response was, in a word, no, because for one thing all nobles are subjected to what amounts to magical blood tests. Odd, but reasonable given said Empire was formed in response to a massive extraplanar invasion and they're still pretty paranoid about Outsiders. He also said, and here I'm not paraphrasing, that all nobility must take levels in Cleric. That caused the most recent spit-take, firstly because of the idea that people take levels in-universe, and second because this implies that all nobility spend the first 17-26 years of their lives cloistered away in monasteries which seems a very odd way to run a society. But then again some historical nations had compulsory military service. I intend to - gently, keeping in mind NichG's advice earlier - inquire more about this and see if I just misunderstood.

There was another thing that sticks out, and it's less setting specific and might say more about how he GMs. He said he looked at Pathfinder for running the campaign, got as far as "crafting doesn't cost XP" and immediately rejected it in favour of staying 3.5. He explained that he wants magic items to have meaning, weight, history and such, and that not having them cost XP makes it seem too easy to whip them up. In short, that creating a magic item should not be a thing someone does lightly, but by the same token every magic item that exists should feel special. I can appreciate this as an aesthetic choice. But he also, in the same sentence, mentions Artificers and their presence in the world. He may have meant artificer as in "magic item crafter" rather than the Eberron base class, but it struck me as strange, if he meant the latter, that he'd embrace a class that gets what essentially amounts to Pathfinder's free-XP crafting.

He also said something I can't recall in relation to handing out XP for encounters. Notable mainly because I asked him, or at least I thought I asked him, how well he handles players doing things he doesn't expect - as mentioned, I tend to throw curveballs to my GM whether I mean to or not. When I framed the question in my mind, I was trying to tactfully ask if there were plot rails and whether we could go off them, and to be given an answer about awarding XP for bypassing rather than defeating an encounter took me a little by surprise.

Like I said, easily attributed to miscommunications and playstyle differences. Still, if it transpires that this ends up being the sort of game I do not enjoy I'd prefer to figure that out in the first session so I can politely decline to return next week.

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-01-13, 11:19 AM
If the GM isn't interested in the background of your character except insofar as it might invalidate the plot they have planned, that'd be a red flag.

If the GM is hesitant to tell you about the plot that's coming up (as in, at all, even up to what story matter it might involve, or what setting matter), that'd be a red flag.

valadil
2014-01-13, 11:30 AM
If the GM isn't interested in the background of your character except insofar as it might invalidate the plot they have planned, that'd be a red flag.


I can live with that. My red flag is when a GM requires a background but only pretends to read it.

JeenLeen
2014-01-13, 11:33 AM
Other things that made me spit-take...if you're reading and aren't too familiar with 3.5 you can skip the rest of this post, the examples I can think of are going to touch on it in some way. Short version: a couple of passing remarks that I noticed, but can be explained away as minor differences in playstyle or simple misunderstandings.



The limitation on your character's background sounds reasonable given a setting. Annoying, perhaps, but reasonable. You could (presumably) play another person with a similar familial history, for example. So that part sounds legitimate to me.

The thing about all having clerical training sounds odd, but as long as he's not forces you to play a noble, it doesn't sound like a big deal. It kind of reminds me of an inversed Drow class-gender thing: from my understanding, only females are clerics, so if you want to be a cleric, you have to be female; here, all nobles are clerics, so fi you want to be a noble, you have to be a cleric (to at least a degree.)

I can easily see not liking Pathfinder's crafting rules, since it does make it way too easy for PCs to craft items cheaply (in my opinion.) But my D&D group bans crafting to PCs anyway, so it doesn't matter.
The artificier comment is an odd one, but you said that could be a misunderstanding.

I think you should ask him what magic items are in common shops and how available things are in the setting. I've seen MagicMart, even potions are only gained through contacts, and things between, so you should get an idea of that before starting the game. Neither is wrong or right (although I certainty have my preferences), but that is something a good DM should be able to answer.

...so, some minor flags, but sounds like playstyle more than that he'll be railroading you as player.

Jay R
2014-01-13, 12:20 PM
This feels a little bit like starting a marriage by contemplating a divorce. Go into the game with a full commitment and no second thoughts. How else can you evaluate it fairly?

If you assume that there is something wrong, and look for it, you will find it. That's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

There's exactly one warning sign that matters:

Did you have fun?

Even if the game violates most of your general rules for campaigns, if it's fun, keep playing. If it's not fun, stop.

Besides being the crucial issue, you might find out that one or more of your assumptions aren't really true, and thus grow a little.

But mostly, if it's fun, why would you stop playing?

TheStranger
2014-01-13, 12:30 PM
I'd give the guy the benefit of the doubt until you actually start playing and he introduces a DMPC or forces you along his rails.

Personally, I'm not opposed to settings that reject the "fantasy kitchen sink" approach of 3.X, and I don't really mind a DM that's prepared to link classes and social roles, or veto character concepts because they don't fit in the setting.

So, right up until you hear the words, "your character wouldn't do that," I'd keep an open mind. I agree that there are things that could become problems, but they also might be fine.

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-01-13, 12:51 PM
This feels a little bit like starting a marriage by contemplating a divorce. Go into the game with a full commitment and no second thoughts. How else can you evaluate it fairly?

I guess I was more thinking of it as "I'm already uncertain if this is going to be something that's a bad experience, and I want to know if there's any Big Warnings that would let me know that I shouldn't get in on the campaign". I suppose this may or may not be what TheGrue actually meant.

Because that instance I'd analogize as "knowing what sorts of people you shouldn't get into relationships with".

Tengu_temp
2014-01-13, 12:58 PM
If the GM isn't interested in the background of your character except insofar as it might invalidate the plot they have planned, that'd be a red flag.


Similarily: if the GM isn't interested in the background of your character except parts that he could use to screw you over, that'd also be a red flag.

The Grue
2014-01-13, 01:23 PM
I guess I was more thinking of it as "I'm already uncertain if this is going to be something that's a bad experience, and I want to know if there's any Big Warnings that would let me know that I shouldn't get in on the campaign". I suppose this may or may not be what TheGrue actually meant.

Because that instance I'd analogize as "knowing what sorts of people you shouldn't get into relationships with".

The above is indeed closer to where I'm coming from, and I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank everybody who's weighed in thus far.

illyahr
2014-01-13, 01:57 PM
I have noticed two big warning signs. The rest is shuffled into the above stated "Are you having fun?" line of thought.

1. Are your actions significant to the story the DM/GM is telling? If not, your DM may be centering his story on alternate characters or DMPC's. You are basically there to watch the DM run the story and nothing else.

2. Is the DM/GM making decisions for your character? This may imply that the DM is only 'allowing' you to run one of his NPC's. You're not really playing, just following along.

Either way, you have to actually play in order to get an idea. Try to have fun. Most bad DM's make it obvious after the first couple sessions.

Knaight
2014-01-13, 04:51 PM
With the whole novel thing: I'd be more worried about railroading, but other than that it's not a particular concern. In any case, doing a session or two doesn't eat that much time, so it's worth giving it a shot.

BMXSummoner
2014-01-13, 08:34 PM
Can't you just ask him? Be as polite as you want, but something along the lines of "So there are different schools of DMing, one which emphasizes a central plot that the DM creates and the players follow, and another that focuses more on open worlds the PCs are free to explore and experience freely. What would you say your personal style is?" If he says he wants you to explore his world because its so cool he could write a hundred books taking place in it, you're probably good to go. If he says that the central plot is so well done is so well crafted that he's sure you'll follow it no matter what, then you might want to bail.

Kaun
2014-01-13, 09:01 PM
don't go into it with this attitude.

You are likely to poison what could be a really enjoyable game.

Go in positive with a "lets have some fun" mentality.

If in 5 sessions the DM has curb stomped your fun, then come back and post about it.

erikun
2014-01-13, 09:27 PM
Other things that made me spit-take...if you're reading and aren't too familiar with 3.5 you can skip the rest of this post, the examples I can think of are going to touch on it in some way. Short version: a couple of passing remarks that I noticed, but can be explained away as minor differences in playstyle or simple misunderstandings.
The nobles-as-Clerics thing sounds fine. I'd assume that something similar to Clerics (Healers, Favored Souls) should work as well, along with a class that could pretend to be a Cleric where it counts (Bard). For your first game, though, I'd just leave it as Clerics and see how the DM handles the game.

The crafting mechanics are concerning, as crafting scrolls, wands, and universal items is really cheap for just about anyone who wants to do it. This is more of a concern for the DM expectations than for the game itself, especially with your impressing that the DM doesn't handle unexpected surprises that well. I'd recommend contacting the DM and mentioning how cheap scrolls and wands can be produced, and ask if that is his intention. Perhaps he does want scrolls/wands to be rather common but other items more expensive? Still, it would be best if the game lines up with the DM's expectations - and perhaps avoiding playing a crafter if it causes problems for now.

XP-per-encounter doesn't sound like a terrible idea, and the concept behind it is sound. You might ask the DM how they feel about the PCs simply hiding from a scouting party, or how they'd handle the PCs identifying a trap and just avoiding it entirely. Are these still XP rewards, even though there was no danger? The most this could imply is possible railroading, another that is a weak connection between the two. It's certainly not enough to judge the campaign before it's started.

The Fury
2014-01-13, 11:05 PM
Did you have fun?

Even if the game violates most of your general rules for campaigns, if it's fun, keep playing. If it's not fun, stop.

Besides being the crucial issue, you might find out that one or more of your assumptions aren't really true, and thus grow a little.

But mostly, if it's fun, why would you stop playing?

Yeah, this is a big one but I'd make exceptions to it. Sometimes GMs will put in a lot of effort to accommodate all the players. So there are times when you might have to put up with not having much fun for a couple of sessions because some other player's idea of fun is that much different than yours.

In my own group, as I've mentioned in the past, there are some players that absolutely love dungeon crawls. For me dungeon crawls... well, I can tolerate them but I don't find them especially fun. But hey, I can spend a week or two doing a dungeon crawl as long as it's with people I like.

As for red flags... If a GM told me to reroll a character because the stats I generated are too low, I'd quit right away. I only had one GM that did that and he ran the worst game I ever played in.

Vangor
2014-01-13, 11:38 PM
Ask if the novel is within the setting or about the campaign. This is an important question for the enjoyment and frustration of DM and player alike as the player does not want to feel tracked in a story or take secondary position to DMPC parties whereas the DM does not want to see the story of the novel ruined by the party nor plan around a preconception of the story simply to see this ignored. Is there a possibility were the campaign and novel to overlap at the start and yet still have a great campaign which does not reflect the novel in the end? Of course, but this is difficult.

For the benefit of both, ask the question, and then if the campaign and novel do overlap you might present a concern and wait for another campaign within the setting. Frankly, writing a novel about the happenings of players in a campaign is far more organic because there are these many personalities and the characters need valid reasons and evidence to progress rather than any Deus Ex Machina or "Just so happens..." style solution.

The Grue
2014-01-14, 03:58 AM
Update on scenario outlined in OP:

While obviously the inaugural session of a new campaign can expect a certain degree of GM nudging to get the wheels turning, on the whole it was an enjoyable experience. We spent the first portion of the session fluffing out the characters and finding motivations for them and for the party to be travelling together, and while the GM was quick to offer suggestions about where some characters might fit in the world he made them as exactly that: suggestions. Instead of "You're XYZ kind of race/class combination, so you'd come from ABC and have traits QRS" it was "Well for reasons JKL, it's pretty common for XYZ race/class combination to congregate in ABC. That might be where you're from, or another likely possibility is...".

There were some NPCs I strongly suspect will have plot significance, but the actions of the party got their attention rather than the reverse. There was a bit of a tussle in the skies above between a couple of high-ECL NPCs, but it felt like a sideshow to the main event on the ground, which is where the party was.

Ultimately, he's a little bit more hands-on than I'm used to, but not in a way that's unpleasant or off-putting. Conclusion: Still first session, but what concerns I had are all but eliminated. I'm chalking up earlier things to mutual miscommunication, especially in light of the GM's mention that he doesn't like communicating by email or text and immensely prefers face-to-face.

Thanks again to everybody who weighed in with their thoughts.

SiuiS
2014-01-14, 05:09 AM
But I'm willing to wager he has less detailed information at his disposal than, say, someone running Forgotten Realms would have, and Forgotten Realms isn't an immediate warning sign.

For you it's not.

BeerMug Paladin
2014-01-14, 05:20 AM
You know it's funny, the obvious solution to the "wants to write a book" potential-problem is to decide and make clear that the campaign and book will be separate continuities, but I've never, ever seen anyone suggest that.:smallconfused:
I've been working on a novel for some time now and have run a game in that setting before, but I never really considered the player characters' adventures to be canon because I didn't want to have a problem with them not behaving 'right' in order to have the setting turn out the right way. In fact, they were in one of the few parts of the setting that resembles a classical D&D world, so they probably had more leeway in that case than they would have had if they were in one of the other regions.

Seems like an obvious solution, from the DM side of things.

obryn
2014-01-14, 09:26 AM
For you it's not.
Ahahah, no for me it is. :smallbiggrin: But I'm assuming my tastes aren't universal here!

Threadnaught
2014-01-14, 02:33 PM
I've been working on a novel for some time now and have run a game in that setting before, but I never really considered the player characters' adventures to be canon because I didn't want to have a problem with them not behaving 'right' in order to have the setting turn out the right way. In fact, they were in one of the few parts of the setting that resembles a classical D&D world, so they probably had more leeway in that case than they would have had if they were in one of the other regions.

Seems like an obvious solution, from the DM side of things.

If you have an existing canon and your players don't act correctly, you could always employ a time paradox by ripping the setting away from them and dumping them somewhere far more dangerous.

Dawgmoah
2014-01-14, 03:06 PM
I have a very well detailed campaign older than most of my players (though I have no interest in writing a novel on any of it.) The main NPCs though feel like they're trapped in a episode of, "Game of Thrones" more than say "Lord of the Rings." I have planned out what will happen with varying degrees of probability. But the players' actions are what the game is about and the chaos factor is downright thrilling to observe at times. The old, "For want of a nail the Kingdom was lost" stuff.

So don't discount the guy and his game until you see reasons to discount it. I never could enjoy Forgotten Realms as I hated the idea of Elminster the DMPC lording it up all over the place if you will. Give the guy the benefit of a doubt that your actions, along with the rest of the gaming group, is indeed the focus of the game. There are a lot of good warning signs already posted on this thread.

The Grue
2014-01-14, 03:09 PM
For those who missed it, I posted an update near the end of page 1.


Update on scenario outlined in OP:

While obviously the inaugural session of a new campaign can expect a certain degree of GM nudging to get the wheels turning, on the whole it was an enjoyable experience. We spent the first portion of the session fluffing out the characters and finding motivations for them and for the party to be travelling together, and while the GM was quick to offer suggestions about where some characters might fit in the world he made them as exactly that: suggestions. Instead of "You're XYZ kind of race/class combination, so you'd come from ABC and have traits QRS" it was "Well for reasons JKL, it's pretty common for XYZ race/class combination to congregate in ABC. That might be where you're from, or another likely possibility is...".

There were some NPCs I strongly suspect will have plot significance, but the actions of the party got their attention rather than the reverse. There was a bit of a tussle in the skies above between a couple of high-ECL NPCs, but it felt like a sideshow to the main event on the ground, which is where the party was.

Ultimately, he's a little bit more hands-on than I'm used to, but not in a way that's unpleasant or off-putting. Conclusion: Still first session, but what concerns I had are all but eliminated. I'm chalking up earlier things to mutual miscommunication, especially in light of the GM's mention that he doesn't like communicating by email or text and immensely prefers face-to-face.

Thanks again to everybody who weighed in with their thoughts.

veti
2014-01-14, 04:06 PM
I've been working on a novel for some time now and have run a game in that setting before, but I never really considered the player characters' adventures to be canon because I didn't want to have a problem with them not behaving 'right' in order to have the setting turn out the right way. In fact, they were in one of the few parts of the setting that resembles a classical D&D world, so they probably had more leeway in that case than they would have had if they were in one of the other regions.

Seems like an obvious solution, from the DM side of things.

If I were in that situation (I haven't run a game in years...) - I would put the characters in an earlier time period than the book. They can run around and do whatever they like, but once they stop, I'll roll the calendar forward by as much time as it takes to make the world the way I want it to be. That might be just 20 years, or it might be 2000 - depends how creative the characters get. In the book, they'd be figures of history and/or myth, described with varying degrees of accuracy.

Of course, there's the possibility that they'll do something more profoundly world changing, and I'd have to either abandon the plan or resort to some cheesy "parallel reality" fluff, but that would be very much Plan B.

In my experience, players love hearing about themselves in history, provided the account is sufficiently flattering.

obryn
2014-01-14, 04:18 PM
If you have an existing canon and your players don't act correctly, you could always employ a time paradox by ripping the setting away from them and dumping them somewhere far more dangerous.
That seems really ... uh ... adversarial. "Tow the line of my canon or go die in the Jungles of Death!" isn't really a good way of managing a game, IMO.

Anyway, Grue, glad to hear that it's going well so far!!

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-01-14, 04:53 PM
For those who missed it, I posted an update near the end of page 1.

Good! I'm glad to hear it's panning out well.

Threadnaught
2014-01-14, 05:58 PM
That seems really ... uh ... adversarial. "Tow the line of my canon or go die in the Jungles of Death!" isn't really a good way of managing a game, IMO.

Well it really depends on a couple of things. First of all, do the players have an idea about how the story is "supposed" to generally play out?

Secondly, have you warned them about the fact that you may allow them to break continuity and have something interesting planned if they do?


As long as the players know where the main boundaries between canon and paradox are, there shouldn't be a huge problem with having it as a possibility. As long as there's a noticeable difference between the canon and non-canon settings.


My players are currently in canon, they know I have a contingency planned for a time paradox, that doesn't involve them rerolling characters should they cause one. Seeing as they're Tier 1 Characters, they should be able to handle themselves in the landscape they'd end up.
They're not playing some novel, they're in the past. Their previous characters die about 1000 years from now and learned several legends about NPCs in the current campaign. They actually met a few. They know the basic plot and who the "important" NPCs are, so they know a few ways of causing a time paradox. I think the main reason they haven't decided to cause one, is because they're invested in the plot they're writing.

I actually tried to give one of them a preview of what would happen if they did cause a time paradox. Upside down mountains, mazes of floating islands (each with it's own gravity), walls of oceans, lava fields with rivers of ice, steel deserts, forests of pure shadow. Dire Weather as standard.
Nobody really paid all that much attention though. Still it's nice to be able to present them the choice between causing a paradox or developing plot every now and then.
I really want them to cause a paradox, they just, don't want to. Either outcome, I feel like this DM (http://dndui.com/webcomic/03Hellgate_web.php). :smallfrown:

TuggyNE
2014-01-14, 10:22 PM
Ahahah, no for me it is. :smallbiggrin: But I'm assuming my tastes aren't universal here!

So that makes at least three of us. :smalltongue:

Forrestfire
2014-01-14, 10:33 PM
I, too, consider wanting to play in Faerun to be a minor red flag. I feel like the setting is really bloated, and while fun as a story, much less as a campaign.

Honest Tiefling
2014-01-15, 12:19 AM
Really? I feel FR is lacking in a lot of ways. Never been able to figure out crop plants in FR, and the trade map confuses me.

On topic, have you told the GM about your concerns, and if so, what was his reaction?

Ansem
2014-01-15, 08:30 PM
I always have a funny test if I am going to play with a DM I don't know at all.
I sent them a weird munchkinned build, if that cuts off the whole deal or starts being a jerk limiting all options, I already know enough. If he would allow it.... either thats a great DM or he doesnt know what he'll get himself into (although I'll make a new character ofcourse), the middle way is that he'll simply disallowed and can atleast understand either the joke of it or simply tells you to start over. This tells me I got atleast a reasonable DM I can talk with and a great way to find out up front if you're going to play with a jerk or not...
Yes, I rather not waste my time on even building a character concept for such people.

TriForce
2014-01-15, 09:00 PM
things to watch out for:

increasingly implausable reasons for why your character CANT do something

a feeling that your characters are just spectators in a larger story where other (stronger) NPC's play in

increasingly implausable reasons of why your character SHOULD do something.

stuttering comments from the DM when you suggest turning around and going somewhere else :P

basically, a good sign is if the DM asks you every now and then : "now that you have this new information, what will your characters do next?"
a bad sign is if he more or less already decided what your characters will do

FreakyCheeseMan
2014-01-15, 11:51 PM
Actually... I'm wondering it the game I have planned (in a world I've been working on for a long time) wouldn't frustrate my players.

I want to set them in one of the more important historical wars - short version is that a whole lot of individual human homeworlds were isolated from one another, until one of them discovered (magical, it's a pure fantasy setting) interstellar flight - that one world proceeded to conqeur all of the others and subjugate them for ~50 years until the other planets managed to start smuggling ship-building plans and supplies back and forth, and eventually amass a fleet that could free themselves from the empire.

I feel like, with what I want to do with the campaign, the players would be fairly free - thing is, they wouldn't really be crucial to the broad course of history - i.e., they might smuggle supplies or assassinate a general or defend an outpost or rescue some refugees or whatever they want, but the real course of the war isn't gonna be decided by them, it's gonna be decided by entire armies and political pressures and the like.

Think that would frustrate you, if a DM did it? I like the notion of keeping a tighter/more realistic scope on the story, with the broader war as a backdrop, but I can imagine that players might feel kind of irrelevant.

Knaight
2014-01-16, 12:04 AM
Think that would frustrate you, if a DM did it? I like the notion of keeping a tighter/more realistic scope on the story, with the broader war as a backdrop, but I can imagine that players might feel kind of irrelevant.

This sounds like a pretty solid campaign premise. Speaking just for myself, I'm sick to death of the whole "fate of the world" concept, and deciding the course of entire wars grows old as well. A tighter scope is a major selling point, and I'd be all for it.

That said, check with the actual players in question. Some people prefer the grandiose world saving style, and don't have much interest in games outside it.

Axinian
2014-01-16, 12:22 AM
Think that would frustrate you, if a DM did it? I like the notion of keeping a tighter/more realistic scope on the story, with the broader war as a backdrop, but I can imagine that players might feel kind of irrelevant.

Only if the war keeps getting played up as being super important all the time. If it's used as a backdrop for other plots it'll be good. Just so the long as the DM isn't constantly waving "hey look at this super important historical event!" at us. Then I'd get the idea that the DM actually WANTS me to do something about it.

Rosstin
2014-01-16, 01:03 AM
Actually... I'm wondering it the game I have planned (in a world I've been working on for a long time) wouldn't frustrate my players.

I want to set them in one of the more important historical wars - short version is that a whole lot of individual human homeworlds were isolated from one another, until one of them discovered (magical, it's a pure fantasy setting) interstellar flight - that one world proceeded to conqeur all of the others and subjugate them for ~50 years until the other planets managed to start smuggling ship-building plans and supplies back and forth, and eventually amass a fleet that could free themselves from the empire.

I feel like, with what I want to do with the campaign, the players would be fairly free - thing is, they wouldn't really be crucial to the broad course of history - i.e., they might smuggle supplies or assassinate a general or defend an outpost or rescue some refugees or whatever they want, but the real course of the war isn't gonna be decided by them, it's gonna be decided by entire armies and political pressures and the like.

Think that would frustrate you, if a DM did it? I like the notion of keeping a tighter/more realistic scope on the story, with the broader war as a backdrop, but I can imagine that players might feel kind of irrelevant.

It might frustrate your players if they decide they WANT to influence the war and can't.

Personally, I would set the war as a backdrop, and hide a way they could influence the war somewhere deep in the world like a puzzle. Then see if the players decide that they want to solve it, or if they would rather be opportunists and take advantage of the war, or other things.

Basically, I would be open to the players getting involved and wanting to change things.

I actually had a pretty crazy world setting that I designed in this way. It was really fun, one of my favorite world settings. I was foreshadowing about 3 big disasters at once, meanwhile the players were just living their own troubled, messy lives. Being chased down by assassins they'd pissed off, discovering underground long-dead civilizations, trying to become murderball stars, etcetera. Yes, there was a big red star in the sky, and the shadow golems were robbing graveyards more and more often, and it was only daylight about 2 hours a day, but that hadn't really begun to affect them yet, and they weren't paragons of heroicity to start with. It was a wonderful setting.

FreakyCheeseMan
2014-01-16, 01:05 AM
Only if the war keeps getting played up as being super important all the time. If it's used as a backdrop for other plots it'll be good. Just so the long as the DM isn't constantly waving "hey look at this super important historical event!" at us. Then I'd get the idea that the DM actually WANTS me to do something about it.

Well, the war is the focus of the plot, and the characters are certainly supposed to be involved with it - they just (probably) wouldn't be the deciding factor. So, no "Fight your way to the enemy citadel, burst into the throne room and slay the enemy commander with all his guards, throwing the dark armies into dissarray and winning the war in a single stroke," and more ... well, think "Saving Private Ryan" rather than "Lord of the Rings." Obviously, the war was important in Saving Private Ryan, and the characters were doing something about it - but there was never any impression that they'd be conquering Berlin themselves, or that the war would be lost without their efforts.

Rosstin
2014-01-16, 01:09 AM
Well, the war is the focus of the plot, and the characters are certainly supposed to be involved with it - they just (probably) wouldn't be the deciding factor. So, no "Fight your way to the enemy citadel, burst into the throne room and slay the enemy commander with all his guards, throwing the dark armies into dissarray and winning the war in a single stroke," and more ... well, think "Saving Private Ryan" rather than "Lord of the Rings." Obviously, the war was important in Saving Private Ryan, and the characters were doing something about it - but there was never any impression that they'd be conquering Berlin themselves, or that the war would be lost without their efforts.

Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

Lanaya
2014-01-16, 03:07 AM
As for red flags... If a GM told me to reroll a character because the stats I generated are too low, I'd quit right away. I only had one GM that did that and he ran the worst game I ever played in.

So do you dislike the idea just because that one guy did it, or because you actually have a problem with rerolling characters with low stats? If it's the former then that's a bit of a silly reason, I imagine that one GM also wore clothes to the sessions (I'd hope, at least), but it'd be silly to immediately quit any campaign in which the GM wasn't naked.

Ravens_cry
2014-01-16, 03:40 AM
If you are working on the world before the main characters, having players play it can be a good way to 'beta test' the world, at least in theory, because no one and nobody can poke holes in a world like a bunch of players.
You think no one will notice that inconsistency? Oh, they'll notice.
Also, their ideas and changes will help make it a move 'lived in', organic world, again, in theory.

The Fury
2014-01-16, 03:45 AM
So do you dislike the idea just because that one guy did it, or because you actually have a problem with rerolling characters with low stats? If it's the former then that's a bit of a silly reason, I imagine that one GM also wore clothes to the sessions (I'd hope, at least), but it'd be silly to immediately quit any campaign in which the GM wasn't naked.

Yeah, I'll admit that my reasons are silly. I don't recover from awful experiences as easily as some people. Only this one guy ever told me to do reroll a stat block after I'd made the character. he also made me reroll hit dice until I had numbers which satisfied him. No other GM I've ever played with has ever had me do this. The closest I've ever seen is being allowed to roll a second set if the first was sub-par.

He then ran the only game I can honestly say that I was embarrassed to have been a part of.

And yes, he wore clothes while doing it. He also breathed oxygen, had hair, spoke English, lived indoors yaddayaddayadda.

It's not so much that I have a problem with big numbers or optimal stats or whatever. I have a problem with being told that I need an optimal stat set to play. Yeah, maybe it's unfair to let one bad experience color my opinions on the matter, but I have a difficult time seeing the optimal set requirement as anything other than the GM bragging about how "super lethal and awesome" his game will be. I don't find "super lethal" fun, some players do and that's fine, they can just have fun without me. Besides, before the game actually starts is a much better time to quit the game-- at least then I wouldn't be ruining anything.

BeerMug Paladin
2014-01-16, 05:27 AM
So do you dislike the idea just because that one guy did it, or because you actually have a problem with rerolling characters with low stats? If it's the former then that's a bit of a silly reason, I imagine that one GM also wore clothes to the sessions (I'd hope, at least), but it'd be silly to immediately quit any campaign in which the GM wasn't naked.
I dunno. I'd be awfully put-off by a DM that dared to impugn my ability to handle a set of dice and sum the numbers.
"Your numbers are too low."
"Yes, that happens sometimes with random numbers."
"Reroll them."
"What? I already rolled up my stats."
"Yes, and it didn't go right so we are doing it again."

GungHo
2014-01-16, 10:03 AM
I'd give folks the option to re-roll if they rolled badly on stats, but if they don't want to, then who am I to tell them to re-roll? Then again, I'll usually just say "give your guys whatever stats you want". I don't care if they want to point buy, roll, or make Mr. Perfect with all 18s. I can account for it on my side of the table.

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-01-16, 10:23 AM
Well, the war is the focus of the plot, and the characters are certainly supposed to be involved with it - they just (probably) wouldn't be the deciding factor. So, no "Fight your way to the enemy citadel, burst into the throne room and slay the enemy commander with all his guards, throwing the dark armies into dissarray and winning the war in a single stroke," and more ... well, think "Saving Private Ryan" rather than "Lord of the Rings." Obviously, the war was important in Saving Private Ryan, and the characters were doing something about it - but there was never any impression that they'd be conquering Berlin themselves, or that the war would be lost without their efforts.
Yeah, that could be cool if pitched as such. You just need to make an effort to focus on the importance and centrality of the players' actions. You can definitely be doing important things that aren't influential in the world, but that means they're important things to the characters. So it's all about building up and discovering what the characters specifically care about, and working with that.

And when I say "working with that", I mean "brutally maiming and destroying it". :smallwink: :smalltongue: :smallbiggrin:

(Okay, okay, I kid. Somewhat.)

Rosstin
2014-01-16, 11:13 AM
I can see the point about rerolling.

Personally, I think rolling stats is an extinct system for DnD. Point buys and arrays just make way more sense. People spend way too much time on a character to have arbitrary numbers make decisions for them. It's one thing to get a bad roll in battle and be knocked out or killed, but to roll a 1 on your HP for level 4? Or to roll nothing higher than a 14 for stats? It's just way too much permanent unforgivable emphasis on random chance. And I LIKE permanent unforgivable emphasis on random chance.

Random stats are the sort of thing that belong in a Roguelike or some kind of one-shot; games that DON'T last for 1+ years.

When I'm asked to roll my stats, what I usually assume is a rookie or old-fashioned DM. Nothing wrong with it, nothing against it. I'm playing in a game right now where I rolled my stats. But I definitely don't consider it an optimal part of the game or a good choice.

erikun
2014-01-16, 11:32 AM
This was less of a problem with AD&D. Bonuses due to ability scores was much less a straight line, and more a curve - meaning that you didn't see much difference between a 13 STR and a 7 STR, which is where most rolls fell into. Also, there were several things that completely overwrote your ability score rather than adding to it. You didn't have situations like "18 STR + 6 (Belt of Giant Strength) + 5 (level bonus)" because the Belt of Giant Strength gave a character a 18/00 STR, not a +6 to their existing STR stat.

It's not really bad, just something that current systems don't use - much like tables. Most systems today prefer a mathematical formula to determine variables, to make it easier to extrapolate larger numbers than intended.

Jay R
2014-01-16, 12:29 PM
Personally, I think rolling stats is an extinct system for DnD.

Something lots of people use and love is not "extinct", even if you don't like it.


Point buys and arrays just make way more sense. People spend way too much time on a character to have arbitrary numbers make decisions for them.

But I've had way too much fun playing characters I wouldn't have chosen on my own to want it never to happen again.


It's one thing to get a bad roll in battle and be knocked out or killed, but to roll a 1 on your HP for level 4? Or to roll nothing higher than a 14 for stats?

I've played both, and enjoyed both.

Of course, back when I started playing, nobody felt entitled to high stats.


It's just way too much permanent unforgivable emphasis on random chance. And I LIKE permanent unforgivable emphasis on random chance.

Random stats are the sort of thing that belong in a Roguelike or some kind of one-shot; games that DON'T last for 1+ years.

When I'm asked to roll my stats, what I usually assume is a rookie or old-fashioned DM. Nothing wrong with it, nothing against it. I'm playing in a game right now where I rolled my stats. But I definitely don't consider it an optimal part of the game or a good choice.

That's fine. But there's a world of difference between "not an optimal part of the game or a good choice" to "extinct".

I agree that it is old-fashioned, but I expect that means something very different for me. In modern gaming, the stats and rolls have taken on much higher importance. This makes the difference between low stats and high stats matter more.

In original D&D, with no skills and each person trying to invent new things to do, the biggest difference was the player's role-playing skills. A great roleplayer with poor stats would routinely out-do a poor roleplayer with high stats.

Rosstin
2014-01-16, 12:33 PM
Yeah.

I'm not denying that people have fun with it. When people have fun, that's what counts. And I certainly wouldn't decline to play in a game because of it. I just wouldn't insist on stat-rolling at my table. (In my book, there is ONE number one thing that counts in a game, and that's who you're playing with.)

BeerMug Paladin
2014-01-16, 01:06 PM
I can see the point about rerolling.

Personally, I think rolling stats is an extinct system for DnD. Point buys and arrays just make way more sense. People spend way too much time on a character to have arbitrary numbers make decisions for them. It's one thing to get a bad roll in battle and be knocked out or killed, but to roll a 1 on your HP for level 4? Or to roll nothing higher than a 14 for stats? It's just way too much permanent unforgivable emphasis on random chance. And I LIKE permanent unforgivable emphasis on random chance.

Random stats are the sort of thing that belong in a Roguelike or some kind of one-shot; games that DON'T last for 1+ years.

When I'm asked to roll my stats, what I usually assume is a rookie or old-fashioned DM. Nothing wrong with it, nothing against it. I'm playing in a game right now where I rolled my stats. But I definitely don't consider it an optimal part of the game or a good choice.
One guy I gamed with rolled five 15s in a row at the gaming table. Not only did I personally witness it, but everyone else did as well. The DM immediately gave him the option to choose another 15 instead of taking the last roll, just because it was a funny rarity.

That said, the suggested method I remember for rolling stats: 4d6 drop the lowest, could often not generate the minimum that the game itself said was sufficient and should allow for a complete reroll. I don't recall off hand what the suggested criteria was, but I think it was something along the lines of all the stats added together ought to average 13 or that the stat adjustment numbers ought to average out to at least +3. (This site indicates (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Character_Stat_Probabilities_%283.5e_Other%29) that 75% of all stat rolls won't satisfy the earlier criteria! While the latter one will fail only 20% of the time. Which still seems too high.)

Usually my gaming group just flat out uses 5d6: drop two lowest or 4d6: reroll ones and drop the lowest, since these seem to more reliably generate the stats that people like having for a game.

Somensjev
2014-01-16, 01:17 PM
One guy I gamed with rolled five 15s in a row at the gaming table. Not only did I personally witness it, but everyone else did as well. The DM immediately gave him the option to choose another 15 instead of taking the last roll, just because it was a funny rarity.

That said, the suggested method I remember for rolling stats: 4d6 drop the lowest, could often not generate the minimum that the game itself said was sufficient and should allow for a complete reroll. I don't recall off hand what the suggested criteria was, but I think it was something along the lines of all the stats added together ought to average 13 or that the stat adjustment numbers ought to average out to at least +3. (This site indicates (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Character_Stat_Probabilities_%283.5e_Other%29) that 75% of all stat rolls won't satisfy the earlier criteria! While the latter one will fail only 20% of the time. Which still seems too high.)

Usually my gaming group just flat out uses 5d6: drop two lowest or 4d6: reroll ones and drop the lowest, since these seem to more reliably generate the stats that people like having for a game.

i once rolled 4d6 drop the lowest, rerolls ones, my character sheet looked a little like this at first level

str 18
con 18
dex 18
int 18
wis 17
cha 18

my dm then let me keep that

Jacob.Tyr
2014-01-16, 01:47 PM
<Insert Shameless plug for the 27-25-23 method here>

Interesting results and balance! Good times!

Rosstin
2014-01-16, 01:59 PM
I think a more modern method for introducing randomness into the design of DnD (if this is what was desired) would involve different kinds of random building blocks than just a bunch of numbers.

When we do procedurally generated content for Roguelikes and other games, we don't just randomize everything. We create distinct, unique, interesting pieces that can link together in fun ways.

For instance, generate 3 randomly-chosen flaw/benefit pairs for each player, and let the player choose one.

EDIT:

<Insert Shameless plug for the 27-25-23 method here>

Interesting results and balance! Good times!

https://sites.google.com/site/dalambgaming/Home/dd-35-house-rules/ability-scores/27-25-23-dice-rolls

Yeah, if you are gonna roll, THAT is the way to do it. I'm going to recommend that next time we have a game where people want to roll.

Lord of Shadows
2014-01-16, 02:28 PM
I pitched a quick character idea to him about a noble from the Empire who might have familial ties to the Hells really far back in the family tree. Response was, in a word, no, because for one thing all nobles are subjected to what amounts to magical blood tests. Odd, but reasonable given said Empire was formed in response to a massive extraplanar invasion and they're still pretty paranoid about Outsiders.


The limitation on your character's background sounds reasonable given a setting. Annoying, perhaps, but reasonable. You could (presumably) play another person with a similar familial history, for example. So that part sounds legitimate to me.

Apologies if this has already been suggested. It just spawned from the above two posts.

Allowing for the fact that no current noble has "tainted" blood as the result of an Outsider invasion, one possible background would be one or more once noble families whose blood was tainted and who are now not accepted as a "legitimate" nobles in the realm. Presumably the reason there is a test is due to the fact that at one time there was tainted blood among the nobles, typical of any such "invasion." There would have been all kinds of relationships, alliances, allegiances, etc. back then. And there is no reason why there can't be the same now, just hidden or kept in secret. They would have a range of motivations, from revenge to apathy, and be a rich source of ideas.

Perhaps your PC came from one of these families. And beyond that, this is something that the DM should at least consider as a plot line in the story. If he hasn't considered it, then you might make points by bringing it up. If he balks and sputters about how there is absolutely no way this can happen, just point out how easy it is - in game and within the rules - for this to actually happen.

As a DM I would be very interested in such a character. Lots of possibilities for story ideas, plots, internal conflict (within the PC, that is), etc.
.

jaybird
2014-01-16, 04:53 PM
Any /d/M-ing. I'm serious.

veti
2014-01-16, 05:56 PM
Any /d/M-ing. I'm serious.

... You really don't like guitar players? :smallconfused:

... or Depeche Mode?

Knaight
2014-01-16, 06:01 PM
Of course, back when I started playing, nobody felt entitled to high stats.
Characters which are personally competent are fine. Preferring them for a particular game is also fine. Favoring less powerful characters does not somehow make one a better player, and spinning the other preference as entitlement is absurd.

I say this as someone who tends to prefer lower powered characters.



In original D&D, with no skills and each person trying to invent new things to do, the biggest difference was the player's role-playing skills. A great roleplayer with poor stats would routinely out-do a poor roleplayer with high stats.

That's still the case. It doesn't matter how high your stats are, if you don't have any creativity, or planning skills, or whatever else. A character with mediocre combat skills played by a player who plays them in such a way that they tend to avoid fights, have more allies than enemies, and fight intelligently on the rare occasions it comes up with probably survive. A nigh invincible monstrosity of a character played like a nitwit ends up making a bunch of enemies and dying by the sword.

As far as skills and people trying to invent new things to do, these are almost completely unrelated. The skills do provide direction into what characters try to do, in that arranging things so that what you're good at is what's relevant makes perfect sense, and trying things within an area of expertise is likely a good idea. Incidentally, attributes in original D&D had the same effect.

As a final note - The difference between a low level and high level character in original D&D is bigger than the difference between a low skill and high skill character in almost any system other than later editions of D&D, WoD, and some superhero systems.

The Fury
2014-01-16, 08:39 PM
... I must say... I'm surprised that my random hangup about a particular GM idiosyncrasy proved to be so controversial. I guess some decent discussion came out of it though, but I could have presented my case a little bit more courteously.

jaybird
2014-01-16, 08:48 PM
... You really don't like guitar players? :smallconfused:

... or Depeche Mode?

Referring to the /d/ board of 4chan. They're called /d/eviants with good reason.

Mutazoia
2014-01-17, 10:50 AM
Referring to the /d/ board of 4chan. They're called /d/eviants with good reason.

Sooooo....DM really stands for Deviant Masochist?

Arbane
2014-01-18, 07:24 AM
Sooooo....DM really stands for Deviant Masochist?

Was there ever any doubt?

Kalmageddon
2014-01-18, 10:21 AM
i once rolled 4d6 drop the lowest, rerolls ones, my character sheet looked a little like this at first level

str 18
con 18
dex 18
int 18
wis 17
cha 18

my dm then let me keep that

Oh this happened to me too! And it was even better as this was a Call of Cthulhu campaign, where characters aren't supposed to be heroic! :smallbiggrin:

BeerMug Paladin
2014-01-18, 12:53 PM
Oh this happened to me too! And it was even better as this was a Call of Cthulhu campaign, where characters aren't supposed to be heroic! :smallbiggrin:
Wow. That's a special kind of incompetence.

andresrhoodie
2014-01-19, 01:16 PM
I dunno. I'd be awfully put-off by a DM that dared to impugn my ability to handle a set of dice and sum the numbers.
"Your numbers are too low."
"Yes, that happens sometimes with random numbers."
"Reroll them."
"What? I already rolled up my stats."
"Yes, and it didn't go right so we are doing it again."

i have players re roll stats sometimes. your supposed to be heroes. If your stats actually make u better suited to be bagging groceries then yeah your gonna reroll them.

Any player who threw a tantrum over it would just be a detriment to the game.

LOL its kind of ironic this thread keeps popping up with player warning signs for a dm given the title

The Fury
2014-01-19, 04:39 PM
i have players re roll stats sometimes. your supposed to be heroes. If your stats actually make u better suited to be bagging groceries then yeah your gonna reroll them.

Any player who threw a tantrum over it would just be a detriment to the game.

LOL its kind of ironic this thread keeps popping up with player warning signs for a dm given the title

Yeah, I'll concede that a set like 11, 9, 8, 10, 14, 7 is lousy and probably should be rerolled. That isn't quite how it went in my case though. In any case, I wouldn't want to play in a game where an optimal stat set was required, and it probably would make me a detriment to the game. If I wanted to play in it, which I wouldn't.

veti
2014-01-19, 05:07 PM
Oh this happened to me too! And it was even better as this was a Call of Cthulhu campaign, where characters aren't supposed to be heroic! :smallbiggrin:

I think it's quite fun to roll a huge hero in a CoC campaign. You can give all the wussy cultists and deep ones and the like a very hard time indeed. For the first part of any given adventure you can play like pulp action, just taking a leetle more care about getting shot. But when some lunatic succeeds in contacting Cthulhu or Azathoth or Shub-Niggurath, you suddenly realise you'd be better off with a puny run-away-run-away-right-NOW wimp.

Ravian
2014-01-19, 06:35 PM
I think it's quite fun to roll a huge hero in a CoC campaign. You can give all the wussy cultists and deep ones and the like a very hard time indeed. For the first part of any given adventure you can play like pulp action, just taking a leetle more care about getting shot. But when some lunatic succeeds in contacting Cthulhu or Azathoth or Shub-Niggurath, you suddenly realise you'd be better off with a puny run-away-run-away-right-NOW wimp.

Yeah rolling good stats for a CoC character is really just a sneaky way for the game to kill you. You roll through some of the more mundane threats and you start thinking you're all that, but all it really takes is one of the more intermediate abominations in the game (like a Shoggoth or a Dark Young) and all of a sudden you realize, even an incredible human, is still a weak, pathetic, squishy little creature compared to the horrors from beyond, and your ego just made you forget that long enough for said horrors to get you within tentacle range.

It's kind of like how they give you the ability to regain a tiny bit of sanity after each adventure, it's just another deception to make you think Sanity isn't the inevitable downward spiral it is, which in turn just makes them more tempted to treat it as a resource for spells so you just end up losing it faster.

Meth In a Mine
2014-01-23, 07:02 PM
One HUGE warning sign: NPCs who routinely appear and make you do their dirty work. Our 1st level party was searching for a tomb that we wanted to raid, and this epic level bounty hunter just pops out of nowhere and makes us her personal slave warriors. And our every attempt to escape has been thwarted by her. I feel peeved since our characters have no choice as to what we get to do.

The Insanity
2014-01-24, 10:20 AM
The DM might have required a baseline stats of a certain number because he intended the game to be challenging and simply didn't think the one you rolled were good enough for you to survive.

Meth In a Mine
2014-01-24, 02:58 PM
The DM might have required a baseline stats of a certain number because he intended the game to be challenging and simply didn't think the one you rolled were good enough for you to survive.

I thought about that, except the bounty hunter never actually helps us. She must have levels in shadowdancer, because whenever we come into combat, she has a tendency to vanish, and reappear after we are finished punking scorpions the size of jeeps.

SavageWombat
2014-01-24, 06:24 PM
If the DM isn't throwing out obvious warning signs, go ahead and try to have fun with it.

It's possible that a DM with an overly-developed world will try to help you have fun within his structure, if you let him. Say things like "I want to play a elven cleric-archer - what sort of background would you suggest?" and get his involvement.

You can also try to figure out for yourself what he intends for the campaign "plot", and try to work with him to get there. It's not the most free-agency style of gaming, but lots of people enjoy it.

The Insanity
2014-01-26, 06:32 PM
I thought about that, except the bounty hunter never actually helps us. She must have levels in shadowdancer, because whenever we come into combat, she has a tendency to vanish, and reappear after we are finished punking scorpions the size of jeeps.
My post wasn't directed at you and I don't know how you could even assume that, considering that it didn't make much sense in context of your post. :smallconfused:

GrayGriffin
2014-01-27, 02:42 PM
I love how everyone is ignoring the fact that the OP's first session actually went very well. So I'd like to say, congratulations on finding such a great DM! It's also cool that he's trying to help you guys out a bit with the intricacies of his homebrew setting.

Sith_Happens
2014-01-27, 05:36 PM
I love how everyone is ignoring the fact that the OP's first session actually went very well. So I'd like to say, congratulations on finding such a great DM! It's also cool that he's trying to help you guys out a bit with the intricacies of his homebrew setting.

That's because acknowledging that fact isn't the thread topic.:smalltongue:

The Grue
2014-01-28, 03:57 PM
That's because acknowledging that fact isn't the thread topic.:smalltongue:

Indeed. It may be how the thread started, but the discussion itself remains, I think, useful enough to keep the thread going.

veti
2014-01-28, 04:12 PM
My post wasn't directed at you and I don't know how you could even assume that, considering that it didn't make much sense in context of your post. :smallconfused:

That's why, when you respond to a specific post, it's a good idea to quote what you're responding to.

GrayGriffin
2014-01-28, 05:24 PM
Indeed. It may be how the thread started, but the discussion itself remains, I think, useful enough to keep the thread going.

True, but a bunch of people are still addressing items raised in the first post that are not really relevant anymore.

Knaight
2014-01-28, 07:53 PM
True, but a bunch of people are still addressing items raised in the first post that are not really relevant anymore.

They aren't relevant to the OP, but it's not like they won't crop up at other tables.

The Insanity
2014-01-29, 11:39 AM
That's why, when you respond to a specific post, it's a good idea to quote what you're responding to.
I wasn't responding to a specific post.