Secret House Rules

[AMFV]

That's still the same thing, saying "I have secret house rules" does not at all convey that weird stuff happens with elemental magic, or every time you attempt to summon something it could go horribly wrong, or if the likelihood of that happening is very low and based on a roll or happens because you forgot that the GM doesn't like pineapple on their pizza.

But it does convey that the world may not operate in a predictable manner. Which can be fun for some games. Also the pineapple thing is pretty much a repeat of the strawman vindictive DM, who keeps being propped up. Nobody is saying "All secret rules are good" or "all DM's who use secret rules are good". We are saying that under certain style of gameplay and in certain circumstance they're fine.



I have "secret house rules" in my game, and I told all my players everything someone who's living in the world would know about them, why they are in place, and allowed them relevant knowledge checks to learn a bit more about them. They don't know the exact mechanics of it but with some effort their characters can find out more about it.

Well that's a good method, provided of course that the mechanics can be understood. Maybe summoning is different for every single caster who summons, it's never quite the same. The DM replicates this by using a table, even though even that is a poor representation for complete uniqueness. But it means that it's really impossible to study. Some things are difficult to impossible to understand, and magic makes that infinitely worse. Those are fine secret rules to include. Not all secrets can be discerned with knowledge checks, some knowledge can only be learned by experience.

[eggynack]

I think I'm pretty comfortable in my current stance on this, which is that there are some potential situations where secret house rules could be reasonable, but that the secret house rules that Jedipotter has cited are not that. The two I'm aware of are the summoning and damage difference one, and I've pointed out major issues with both in the last couple of posts, though there might be others I'm unaware of.

[Sartharina]

Wow, it's almost like they're playing their characters as people in a dangerous situation who want to survive and are trying to use every advantage they can find to do so!No, they're not - it's like they're playing a cosmic toy being guided and controlled by an Eldritch Entity from beyond the veil, using an impossibly precise-but-abstract understanding of knowledge that the character wouldn't have to manipulate and inspire the world and character to take actions that lead to its survival, using a perspective completely alien to the person who's life they are toying with - for whom the chaos of synchonous, linear time flow and sensory existence is perceived as independently-resolving six-second segments of time spread across each actor, in a theatre of the mind or top-down view of a grid map.

... that's it. Next Eberron campaign I run in meatspace, everyone's playing a Quori, with a timer moving rounds along automatically (Tied to the temporal difference between the Material Plane and Dal Quor)

[the_david]

I think I'm a bit late to the party, but isn't it easier to just roll some of the rolls for your party yourself. This way, they won't know if their rolls succeeded or not. The most obvious example would be searching for traps. (Or noticing the ninjas. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0003.html)) If you add a houserule that if they'd fail by 5 or more something bad happens you could have all kinds of fun. So for example, Paizo frequently adds a lists of results for gather information with false rumors. You can find out about these rumors only of you succeed on your gather information check. With the houserule, you can only find those false rumors if you fail by 5 or more, which should be more difficult than not failing by 5 or more. This would also work with knowledge skills. Failing an intimidate check by 5 or more might change someone's attitude to hostile.
You don't have to do this with all skill checks. The players should still roll skills like climb for themselves.

[jedipotter]

If you want a creature to appear and give the players a plot hook, just do that. You don't need to hijack their characters to do it.

So is this the real complaint? Any (secret) house rule is fine, as long as it does not ''hijack'' a character...as in do anything the player does not like.

Guess you give a good reason to keep house rule secret.....



the secret house rules that Jedipotter has cited are not that. The two I'm aware of are the summoning and damage difference one, and I've pointed out major issues with both in the last couple of posts, though there might be others I'm unaware of.

I'm not sure what 'major issues' you pointed out, other then ''you don't like them''.

After all, just consider:

If you were playing with a DM with no secret house rules and a summoning spell was mis-cast, you'd be just fine with it and assume it was some important plot or story point. And would assume it would only happen just once. Or otherwise make it 'ok' in your mind.

[eggynack]

So is this the real complaint? Any (secret) house rule is fine, as long as it does not ''hijack'' a character...as in do anything the player does not like.

Guess you give a good reason to keep house rule secret.....
What I said and these words here have basically no connection to each other. I don't even really see how they're similar.


I'm not sure what 'major issues' you pointed out, other then ''you don't like them''.
I put together a post stretching across four paragraphs pointing out problems with your difference damage rule, pointing out that it's unnecessary for it to be secret, and fundamentally illogical. I also made a two paragraph post arguing that your assertion, that summoning needs to be made "more interesting" doesn't really make sense, and noting its unnecessary nature, which you said... something of some kind about. I'd hesitate to call it a rebuttal. In any case, there're some pretty solid arguments there, much more complex that something as simple as taste.


If you were playing with a DM with no secret house rules and a summoning spell was mis-cast, you'd be just fine with it and assume it was some important plot or story point. And would assume it would only happen just once. Or otherwise make it 'ok' in your mind.

Depends on factors, really. For instance, if I were to "miscast" summoning a creature that attacks me instead of my opponents, I would assume that it's one of the spells that does that.

[NichG]

If you were playing with a DM with no secret house rules and a summoning spell was mis-cast, you'd be just fine with it and assume it was some important plot or story point. And would assume it would only happen just once. Or otherwise make it 'ok' in your mind.

As a player, I'd pursue it aggressively in-character and make it into a significant part of the plot whether or not the DM was actually intending that. I tend to assume that everything I'm shown is telling me very detailed information about how the world works, and whenever things violate my expectations that means that there's a cause which I am unaware of but which can be pursued.

So when the Summoning spell brings me a confused Musteval instead of a celestial giant owl, that sounds like its time for a trip to Elysium to figure out just what's going on there that caused things to get messed up.

The same is true with the 'difference damage'. If I detected that in game (and its possible that I wouldn't, of course), then the next step would be to go grab an apprentice who can use a wand, shell out to the local wizard tower to make a wand of Ray of Frost, and get to work with some test targets to see if I can map out the effect. Then the next thing to do is to open pinprick planar breaches between the Para-elemental plane of Ice and the Plane of Fire and see if I can create a crucible combining as much fire energy as possible with as little non-zero cold energy as possible, and see if maybe I can invent a process to create Spheres of Annihilation this way.

[Arbane]

The same is true with the 'difference damage'. If I detected that in game (and its possible that I wouldn't, of course), then the next step would be to go grab an apprentice who can use a wand, shell out to the local wizard tower to make a wand of Ray of Frost, and get to work with some test targets to see if I can map out the effect. Then the next thing to do is to open pinprick planar breaches between the Para-elemental plane of Ice and the Plane of Fire and see if I can create a crucible combining as much fire energy as possible with as little non-zero cold energy as possible, and see if maybe I can invent a process to create Spheres of Annihilation this way.

And that's when the GM drops Orcus on you.

[AMFV]

And that's when the GM drops Orcus on you.

Eh, I think that joke may be a little played out at this point, or at least isn't relevant to the discussion at hand except to be mean-spirited.

I don't imagine that Jedipotter would object to people exploring her world. As long as they stay within the sort of game she's actually looking for.

[DM Nate]

Eh, I think that joke may be a little played out at this point, or at least isn't relevant to the discussion at hand except to be mean-spirited.

I don't imagine that Jedipotter would object to people exploring her world. As long as they stay within the sort of game she's actually looking for.

And they don't mind each NPC being a polymorphed ORCUS. :smallcool:

[AMFV]

And they don't mind each NPC being a polymorphed ORCUS. :smallcool:

Really, you can't let this drop? This was an exaggeration brought by someone in a previous thread, and wasn't productive then, it then just turned into a mean-spirited attack on somebody, and I'm fairly sure that it constitutes baggage from outside this thread, since it wasn't mentioned here.

[eggynack]

Really, you can't let this drop? This was an exaggeration brought by someone in a previous thread, and wasn't productive then, it then just turned into a mean-spirited attack on somebody, and I'm fairly sure that it constitutes baggage from outside this thread, since it wasn't mentioned here.
It probably is a bit of an exaggeration, but given that the actual example in this thread is a summon monster I pulling forth an arcanaloth, which is a CR 17 creature, it doesn't seem like that much of an exaggeration.

[AMFV]

It probably is a bit of an exaggeration, but given that the actual example in this thread is a summon monster I pulling forth an arcanaloth, which is a CR 17 creature, it doesn't seem like that much of an exaggeration.

Exaggeration or not, it is however baggage from another thread, and is likely to distract, and most likely intended to be mean-spirited and unpleasant rather than fostering productive discussion. I'm really getting tired of a large number of gaming threads having good discussion then Jedipotter posts something (sometimes something useful, sometimes not), then it's nine pages of Rudisplorking and Orcus, and the whole conversation is derailed to pick on Jedipotter, which really doesn't help anything, since she is not convinced, and it's really unpleasant for an outside observer, since it seems to be large numbers of people picking on somebody else, which is for me at least really frustrating and not very productive.

[DM Nate]

But I love Orcus! And by extension, Jedipotter!

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

It is also a little bit annoying reading your backseat modding. I believe you've made your objections clear multiple times, and in multiple threads.

--



If you were playing with a DM with no secret house rules and a summoning spell was mis-cast, you'd be just fine with it and assume it was some important plot or story point. And would assume it would only happen just once. Or otherwise make it 'ok' in your mind.

jp asked eggy this, and even though it wasn't directed at me I'd like to take a whack at responding because I think it's something I touched on earlier in the thread. If my DM was playing a standard, nonmodified game of 3.5 - or whatever system, if I'm playing Star Wars Saga and my Force Push starts behaving erratically - I'd assume it was the beginning of a global effect. Magic is behaving erratically (the Force is failing), for reasons X and Y, and it's up to the adventurers to find out what's wrong and fix/exploit/manage it. That's an introduction of a mechanic to introduce a plot; after all, it's tough to sell the Time of Troubles without parties getting fried by their own fireballs, psionics working backwards and clerics losing their spells. If it wasn't global, I'd look for a story justification; has my character been cursed? is an enemy interfering with my spellcasting? am I in an environment that twists spellcasting somehow? And if, after I've exhausted my in-character investigative options, I can't find any link, I'd ask the DM privately what the deal is.

[AMFV]

jp asked eggy this, and even though it wasn't directed at me I'd like to take a whack at responding because I think it's something I touched on earlier in the thread. If my DM was playing a standard, nonmodified game of 3.5 - or whatever system, if I'm playing Star Wars Saga and my Force Push starts behaving erratically - I'd assume it was the beginning of a global effect. Magic is behaving erratically (the Force is failing), for reasons X and Y, and it's up to the adventurers to find out what's wrong and fix/exploit/manage it. That's an introduction of a mechanic to introduce a plot; after all, it's tough to sell the Time of Troubles without parties getting fried by their own fireballs, psionics working backwards and clerics losing their spells. If it wasn't global, I'd look for a story justification; has my character been cursed? is an enemy interfering with my spellcasting? am I in an environment that twists spellcasting somehow? And if, after I've exhausted my in-character investigative options, I can't find any link, I'd ask the DM privately what the deal is.

The question then is, what happens if the DM answers evasively or refuses to answer definitely at that time?

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

The question then is, what happens if the DM answers evasively or refuses to answer definitely at that time?

Then it depends on my relationship with the DM and how much I trust them. If the DM says there's going to be a payoff down the line, then that's probably good enough in most games. I'm not looking for an exact answer; I'd be looking for an assurance that the change isn't for metagame reasons.

[AMFV]

Then it depends on my relationship with the DM and how much I trust them. If the DM says there's going to be a payoff down the line, then that's probably good enough in most games. I'm not looking for an exact answer; I'd be looking for an assurance that the change isn't for metagame reasons.

What if he's evasive. I wouldn't tell a player point-blank that something was going to have a pay-off down the road for several reasons, the first being that a lot of times players veer off the beaten path and don't always investigate all things, meaning that they might miss that, and then they lose out on what they were expecting. And what if the change was for Metagame reasons? Am I obligated to reveal that? Possibly this would be a case of metagame fueling the development of the actual game.

[...]

Who's Jedipotter and what does he have to do with Orcus?:smallconfused:

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

What if he's evasive. I wouldn't tell a player point-blank that something was going to have a pay-off down the road for several reasons, the first being that a lot of times players veer off the beaten path and don't always investigate all things, meaning that they might miss that, and then they lose out on what they were expecting.

Then it depends on how much trust the DM has earned.


And what if the change was for Metagame reasons? Am I obligated to reveal that? Possibly this would be a case of metagame fueling the development of the actual game.

If it's for metagame reasons, then it's not tied into a plot. If it does, then we rewind to two comments ago. But if it doesn't, then I'd like to know if the change is retroactive; that is, is this a thing my character has known all along, or have the fundamental laws of the game changed in that instant?. Is it a global effect, or does it only affect me/the rest of the PCs? This is the point where the DM has to convince me to stay in the game or I walk away.

[AMFV]

Then it depends on how much trust the DM has earned.


Fair enough, although I will note that demanding that somebody reveal their plans in a game, is in my opinion at least poor form.



If it's for metagame reasons, then it's not tied into a plot. If it does, then we rewind to two comments ago. But if it doesn't, then I'd like to know if the change is retroactive; that is, is this a thing my character has known all along, or have the fundamental laws of the game changed in that instant?. Is it a global effect, or does it only affect me/the rest of the PCs? This is the point where the DM has to convince me to stay in the game or I walk away.

Well we'd assume that your character may or may not have known it, depending on what the ruling was. Generally for me, I usually allow a player to negotiate on things like that. But I don't assume everybody will, nor do I expect they have to. Although to be fair that seems like the kind of game that you wouldn't enjoy.

[Arbane]

Eh, I think that joke may be a little played out at this point, or at least isn't relevant to the discussion at hand except to be mean-spirited.

I don't imagine that Jedipotter would object to people exploring her world. As long as they stay within the sort of game she's actually looking for.

I strongly suspect that 'exploring her world' and working out the logical ramification of hidden houserules is in fact the sort of thing Jedipotter would immediately call the mark of a Problem Player, but I may be too critical of what strikes me as Chief-Circle-esque nerfhammering, with extra random death.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Fair enough, although I will note that demanding that somebody reveal their plans in a game, is in my opinion at least poor form.

That's pretty loaded language, and not reflective of the situation.




Well we'd assume that your character may or may not have known it, depending on what the ruling was. Generally for me, I usually allow a player to negotiate on things like that. But I don't assume everybody will, nor do I expect they have to. Although to be fair that seems like the kind of game that you wouldn't enjoy.

The idea is, that if my character knew that fireball has a thirty percent failure rate, he wouldn't have studied to become a pyromancer. If he knew that 5% of the time he attacked with a blade, he stabbed himself, he wouldn't have trained as a duelist. And if he knew that force push had a non-trivial chance to push him backwards, instead of the target, he wouldn't have stood on the edge of a cliff. If the universal laws changed in that moment, why?

Any DM who can't answer that question with something beyond "I said so" isn't fit for the job, in my view.

[AMFV]

That's pretty loaded language, and not reflective of the situation.


But it is reflective of the situation. There are tables where asking the DM for an explanation like that would be very poor form. As I've stated AD&D doesn't even allow players to read the Dungeon Master's Guide. So that sort of thing might be considered extremely poor form, at best it would be considered a form of rules lawyering, and at worst an attempt to discern what is going to happen in the game later for metagaming purposes.



The idea is, that if my character knew that fireball has a thirty percent failure rate, he wouldn't have studied to become a pyromancer. If he knew that 5% of the time he attacked with a blade, he stabbed himself, he wouldn't have trained as a duelist. And if he knew that force push had a non-trivial chance to push him backwards, instead of the target, he wouldn't have stood on the edge of a cliff. If the universal laws changed in that moment, why?

Well the question is, if the DM tells you "well you're this now, so what do you want to do?" How do you deal with it, do you refluff your character so that now they're more of a risk-taker or do you demand that you get to effectively roll a new character?



Any DM who can't answer that question with something beyond "I said so" isn't fit for the job, in my view.

Won't. The DM in my example has answers to those questions and refused to answer them, for any number of reasons.


I strongly suspect that 'exploring her world' and working out the logical ramification of hidden houserules is in fact the sort of thing Jedipotter would immediately call the mark of a Problem Player, but I may be too critical of what strikes me as Chief-Circle-esque nerfhammering, with extra random death.

Possibly, I doubt it though. And to be fair the Circle-Chief guy was dealing with players who were attempting to use real world physics knowledge in a game, and were upset that the game didn't work exactly like the real world, enough to try to destabilize the game. Real world economics knowledge to. I wonder if we'd been less sympathetic if they were martial artists complaining about the combat system.

Not that Circle Chief wasn't horrible, I'm just not really sure that the players were as much better as they believed themselves to be.

[eggynack]

Well the question is, if the DM tells you "well you're this now, so what do you want to do?" How do you deal with it, do you refluff your character so that now they're more of a risk-taker or do you demand that you get to effectively roll a new character?

Personally, probably somewhere in between. If this is something that is generally known, and thus something my character should have known before picking spells, then I'd likely tend towards asking to retroactively alter my list to one without the crappy spells, if I wouldn't have chosen them in their nerfed mode. If the character shouldn't have known this information, like if it's narrowly available, or otherwise completely new to the world, then we likely shift over to one of the other possible reactions. There are a lot of variables here, and subtle shifts in their nature makes different reactions warranted.

[Arbane]

Possibly, I doubt it though. And to be fair the Circle-Chief guy was dealing with players who were attempting to use real world physics knowledge in a game, and were upset that the game didn't work exactly like the real world, enough to try to destabilize the game. Real world economics knowledge to. I wonder if we'd been less sympathetic if they were martial artists complaining about the combat system.


They were also upset that EVERYTHING in the universe was in Schroedinger's Catbox, and the final collapse state was always the one that guaranteed maximum frustration for them. I'd argue that's more important than the physics foolery.

[Prince Raven]

But it does convey that the world may not operate in a predictable manner. Which can be fun for some games. Also the pineapple thing is pretty much a repeat of the strawman vindictive DM, who keeps being propped up.

I'm not saying that someone with secret house rules is going to be a vindictive GM, I'm saying that without any knowledge of even the possibility of their spell failing the player may very well suspect they are being vindictive. It makes the player distrust the GM and fosters an antagonistic relationship between the player and the GM.


Nobody is saying "All secret rules are good" or "all DM's who use secret rules are good". We are saying that under certain style of gameplay and in certain circumstance they're fine.

I agree that it is possible, depending on the circumstances, that secret house rules are fine. I suspect we disagree on which circumstances these are.


Well that's a good method, provided of course that the mechanics can be understood. Maybe summoning is different for every single caster who summons, it's never quite the same. The DM replicates this by using a table, even though even that is a poor representation for complete uniqueness. But it means that it's really impossible to study. Some things are difficult to impossible to understand, and magic makes that infinitely worse. Those are fine secret rules to include. Not all secrets can be discerned with knowledge checks, some knowledge can only be learned by experience.

So you say before character creation "Summoning spells have a small chance of summoning the wrong creature, which I will determine by rolling on the table." Maybe knowledge (Arcana) checks could be made to see if the power of the spell has any effect on the likelihood of of a mis-summon or the power of the creature summoned, Knowledge (Planes) checks could be made to see if there is a correlation between which creature you attempted to summon and which one appears on a mis-summon.

[Arbane]

So you say before character creation "Summoning spells have a small chance of summoning the wrong creature, which I will determine by rolling on the table." Maybe knowledge (Arcana) checks could be made to see if the power of the spell has any effect on the likelihood of of a mis-summon or the power of the creature summoned, Knowledge (Planes) checks could be made to see if there is a correlation between which creature you attempted to summon and which one appears on a mis-summon.

Trying to use Knowledge skills is another sign of a problem player. JP's said as much. :smallfrown:

[jedipotter]

Who's Jedipotter and what does he have to do with Orcus?:smallconfused:

Oh the humanity....



It probably is a bit of an exaggeration, but given that the actual example in this thread is a summon monster I pulling forth an arcanaloth, which is a CR 17 creature, it doesn't seem like that much of an exaggeration.

I'm a Status Que type DM. The vast majority of the things in the game are at a set level, no matter the level of the PC's. So sure you can get an arcanaloth with summon monster one, but it's not a TPK monster. After all the DM could just say ''rocks fall and every character dies'' if they wanted to really do that. My arcanaloth example just tossed a tanglefoot bag, even at CR17.


I strongly suspect that 'exploring her world' and working out the logical ramification of hidden houserules is in fact the sort of thing Jedipotter would immediately call the mark of a Problem Player, but I may be too critical of what strikes me as Chief-Circle-esque nerfhammering, with extra random death.

Exploring the world is the mark of a good player.


The idea is, that if my character knew that fireball has a thirty percent failure rate, he wouldn't have studied to become a pyromancer. If he knew that 5% of the time he attacked with a blade, he stabbed himself, he wouldn't have trained as a duelist. And if he knew that force push had a non-trivial chance to push him backwards, instead of the target, he wouldn't have stood on the edge of a cliff. If the universal laws changed in that moment, why?

Any DM who can't answer that question with something beyond "I said so" isn't fit for the job, in my view.

And this goes back to the OP: it's the whole reason to have secret house rules. Some players like the mystery of what might happen, and some what exactly-what-it-says-on-page-42-to-happen-all-the-time.

The setting stuff is tricky and gets bad with problem players. The group will enter the ''valley of cold'' and discover that fire spells are diminished. The problem player will complain ''you did not say that house rule at the start of the game''. And the DM will have to defend it by saying ''no it's just an effect of the valley...not universal''.


Personally, probably somewhere in between. There are a lot of variables here, and subtle shifts in their nature makes different reactions warranted.

I really hate the idea that ''everyone knows everything'', as I have posted dozens of time. I see the universe having thousands and thousands of ''rules'', so that no one, short of a god, can know them all. And a lot of them are the ''if X and Y and Z and B are all in C then H happens, unless D is present and F is in effect'' type rules. Plus lots of ''if you do X, then Y might happen...but could be 'anything'.''

The conjuration mis-cast is well known....to conjurers anyway. And the vast majority of my spell nerfs are known to all spellcasters. I don't really get a DM that would just ''make a house rule'' like ''all 1d6/level spells now do one damage''. But I guess they are out there, and they are the reason for the reaction.

[SiuiS]

So is this the real complaint? Any (secret) house rule is fine, as long as it does not ''hijack'' a character...

Yes.


as in do anything the player does not like.[/auote]

No.

This is, also, the fundamental reason for people to mistrust you. "I do not want you to NPC my character" is a reasonable position to hold. That you try to turn it into just being a special snowflake to discredit it says a lot about your motives. And not good things.

[QUOTE=AMFV;17992976]
I don't imagine that Jedipotter would object to people exploring her world. As long as they stay within the sort of game she's actually looking for.

But she doesn't tell people the game she is actually looking for. That's the problem.

JediPotter is now saying she lets people know these rules. Although that seems counter to 'secret house rules'.

If they are secret, that's a problem.

[eggynack]

I'm a Status Que type DM. The vast majority of the things in the game are at a set level, no matter the level of the PC's. So sure you can get an arcanaloth with summon monster one, but it's not a TPK monster. After all the DM could just say ''rocks fall and every character dies'' if they wanted to really do that. My arcanaloth example just tossed a tanglefoot bag, even at CR17.
It doesn't really make much sense to apply things in that way. What you should really do is give each spell a set level of pulling power, such that an SM I has an upper limit on how good or bad the replacement summons would be. Thus, even a 17th level caster using SM I would top out the bad outcomes at something minor, while they'd possibly face the arcanaloth if they use SM IX. That way, the status quo of individual spells would be maintained (rather than the status quo of summoning in general), and you wouldn't face weird and somewhat contrived situations where the pissed off CR 17 monster inexplicably throws a tanglefoot bag, instead of using its perfectly workable shapechange, or even just claw/claw/biting.

I really hate the idea that ''everyone knows everything'', as I have posted dozens of time. I see the universe having thousands and thousands of ''rules'', so that no one, short of a god, can know them all. And a lot of them are the ''if X and Y and Z and B are all in C then H happens, unless D is present and F is in effect'' type rules. Plus lots of ''if you do X, then Y might happen...but could be 'anything'.''
I explicitly noted in my post that the plan applied only to the situation in which the character knew this information before I did. However, as I have counter-posted dozens of times, your assertion that I'm saying that everyone knows everything is a strawman. I expect characters to know about things they're reasonably specialized in, which means magic for a wizard, and melee combat for a fighter. Thus, the fighter could plausibly not know about the way fireballs work, in a situation where the wizard does, because the wizard spent an entire day learning how fireballs work, and a bunch of years learning how magic works.

[Arkhaic]

Ooh, I like that one. Less Suddenly Orcus, more thematically appropriate. I bet a couple internets that AMFV will backseat mod this. Because that's even more annoying than the running gag.

Does depend on how Summon Monster spells work in the setting. I could see one where Summon Monster works by opening some sort of portal which compels weaker monsters if they choose to go through. In that case, Orcus might make sense—if he doesn't like you and he's in the area, Orcus might squeeze through the portal, shake off the paltry control effect and kill you. I could see something like that explaining that houserule...

[SiuiS]

It doesn't really make much sense to apply things in that way. What you should really do is give each spell a set level of pulling power, such that an SM I has an upper limit on how good or bad the replacement summons would be. Thus, even a 17th level caster using SM I would top out the bad outcomes at something minor, while they'd possibly face the arcanaloth if they use SM IX. That way, the status quo of individual spells would be maintained (rather than the status quo of summoning in general), and you wouldn't face weird and somewhat contrived situations where the pissed off CR 17 monster inexplicably throws a tanglefoot bag, instead of using its perfectly workable shapechange, or even just claw/claw/biting.

Too gamist.

Consider; the spell isn't accidentally pulling an arcana kith; an arcanoloth with the power, situation and predisposition is hijacking the summon. Suddenly, level of the spell is inconsequential; the power comes from the hijacker.

[eggynack]

Too gamist.

Consider; the spell isn't accidentally pulling an arcana kith; an arcanoloth with the power, situation and predisposition is hijacking the summon. Suddenly, level of the spell is inconsequential; the power comes from the hijacker.
...Why would an arcanoloth hack the summoning of a first level wizard in order to throw a tanglefoot bag at him? It's really a two part question, I suppose. Why would the arcanoloth want to travel all the way to this wizard to throw a tanglefoot bag at him, and why would the arcanoloth, if it really wants to throw a tanglefoot bag at a first level wizard, need to hack a summoning spell to do so? This whole situation makes even less sense if the summons isn't pulling in random crap by accident.

Edit:
Ooh, I like that one. Less Suddenly Orcus, more thematically appropriate.
Yeah, a good number of these rules become less horribly unreasonable if you fiddle with them some.

[Sartharina]

If you want a creature to appear and give the players a plot hook, just do that. You don't need to hijack their characters to do it.Why would the DM want to go out of his way to change the plot? Random mishap and tables like this, like random encounters and random dungeon generation allow a campaign to take a twist that surprises both DM and Players alike. Like the badly-abused interpretation of the Track feature on a Ranger, you are saying that DMs should Railroad everything aggressively to tell the story He Wants To Tell, instead of creating a set of rules allowing their game to go tell its own story. The Dice and players are the ones telling the story. The DM is just the arbitrator - it's not HIS story.

[eggynack]

Why would the DM want to go out of his way to change the plot? Random mishap and tables like this, like random encounters and random dungeon generation allow a campaign to take a twist that surprises both DM and Players alike. Like the badly-abused interpretation of the Track feature on a Ranger, you are saying that DMs should Railroad everything aggressively to tell the story He Wants To Tell, instead of creating a set of rules allowing their game to go tell its own story. The Dice and players are the ones telling the story. The DM is just the arbitrator - it's not HIS story.
That is not what is apparently occurring in this case. By my understanding, and it is one based on reading a lot of Jedipotter's words on this topic, there is no random mishap table. Instead, Jedipotter decides, in the moment of mishap, what creature she's going to drop in the laps of her players, and these completely chosen creatures sometimes have weird plot hooks involving hidden magic scrolls. In other words, it's Jedipotter, and not I, who is saying that the DM should railroad everything aggressively to tell the story she wants to tell. I'm just saying that, if you're going to do that, just frigging do it directly. You don't need to warp the summoning rules in convoluted ways that result in contrived situations to get there.

[Timeras]

Like the badly-abused interpretation of the Track feature on a Ranger, you are saying that DMs should Railroad everything aggressively to tell the story He Wants To Tell, instead of creating a set of rules allowing their game to go tell its own story. The Dice and players are the ones telling the story. The DM is just the arbitrator - it's not HIS story.

Even if the there was some randomness involved, it would still be the DM's story. The DM decided that the summoned creature would make the character go on a quest and what kind of quest that would be.

[SiuiS]

...Why would an arcanoloth hack the summoning of a first level wizard in order to throw a tanglefoot bag at him? It's really a two part question, I suppose. Why would the arcanoloth want to travel all the way to this wizard to throw a tanglefoot bag at him, and why would the arcanoloth, if it really wants to throw a tanglefoot bag at a first level wizard, need to hack a summoning spell to do so? This whole situation makes even less sense if the summons isn't pulling in random crap by accident.

There are actual answers here but I feel like they won't be take. Into account because they aren't brief answers.

Why? Why not? Low level wizard may have the right conjunction of area, timing, control, potency. May be more susceptible to bribery from a place of awe and fear. May be more valuable to have a lv1 wiz grow to lv10 thinking she has arcanoloth under her thumb than to approach a lv10 wiz initially. Higher levels may mean better knowledge of safety, such as charms, trinkets and mitigation of that energy.

Why tanglefoot bag? Invalid question. Same as "why did dragon use claw claw bite this round". We can't know. We do know the example in abstract was "offer the wizard a deal", which is reasonable to approach with "why the hell are you brokering a deal when I'm trying to fight this Minotaur I have priorities", but not "why are you an arcanoloth".

Abbreviated, of course.

[Brookshw]

Ooh, I like that one. Less Suddenly Orcus, more thematically appropriate. I bet a couple internets that AMFV will backseat mod this. Because that's even more annoying than the running gag.


Here, I'll do it for 'im. The perpetuation of this Orcus nonsense is a wasteful counter productive piece of hyperbolic rhetoric being spread which only results in posts that strike me as mean spirited and petty spiteful attempts to poke at someone for something they didn't even do.

Jedi: Do protection against X magic circles function properly in your games and hinder summoned creatures? Can't quite recall if this was addressed previously. Edit: also, arcanoloth, is this something you've done or do you use it as an example because 'loths were brought up? Is there a cr range you tie to spell level at all?

[AMFV]

But she doesn't tell people the game she is actually looking for. That's the problem.

JediPotter is now saying she lets people know these rules. Although that seems counter to 'secret house rules'.

If they are secret, that's a problem.

You can have something that is both secret and known, For example I could know that somebody has a secret, the content of which I'm not aware of. I think that is what we are dealing with. People know that Jedipotter will modify the rules to suit the story, they just don't always know how.

[eggynack]

There are actual answers here but I feel like they won't be take. Into account because they aren't brief answers.

Why? Why not? Low level wizard may have the right conjunction of area, timing, control, potency. May be more susceptible to bribery from a place of awe and fear. May be more valuable to have a lv1 wiz grow to lv10 thinking she has arcanoloth under her thumb than to approach a lv10 wiz initially. Higher levels may mean better knowledge of safety, such as charms, trinkets and mitigation of that energy.

Why tanglefoot bag? Invalid question. Same as "why did dragon use claw claw bite this round". We can't know. We do know the example in abstract was "offer the wizard a deal", which is reasonable to approach with "why the hell are you brokering a deal when I'm trying to fight this Minotaur I have priorities", but not "why are you an arcanoloth".

Abbreviated, of course.
I agree. These aren't anything like actual answers. On the first point, that doesn't really explain why hijacking a summoning spell is a necessary component of this plan, and if the arcanaloth is showing up to first level wizards just as much as 17th level ones, which is heavily implied, then it's incredibly frigging unlikely that there would always be some perfect confluence of events. Also, gotta point out that this isn't the weird scroll scenario. This is the tanglefoot bag scenario. By your apparent reckoning, the arcanaloth, seeing some ridiculous first level confluence of events sees the perfect opportunity to approach a naive and shapable wizard to get him under his thumb, and as his planned approach for that situation, he launches an ineffectual attack. Just doesn't add up.

On the second point, no, it's not an invalid question, especially because you haven't come close to answering it. If your answer is just, "Oh, the arcanaloth is so inscrutable," then that's incredibly contrived. Which was my initial point. Let's be clear here. An arcanaloth could likely take down an entire first level party in a single round, and do so every time. If the arcanaloth wants to kill the party, why doesn't he? If he doesn't want to kill the party, then what the hell is he trying to do? Really, if anything's disrupting the level based "status quo", it's having a monster attack a first level party way differently from a 17th level party. Overall, it seems far more likely that these summoning spells are pulling in creatures by accident, though it's possible that I'm mistaken, and that this rule is even more ridiculous than I thought.

[AMFV]

I agree. These aren't anything like actual answers. On the first point, that doesn't really explain why hijacking a summoning spell is a necessary component of this plan, and if the arcanaloth is showing up to first level wizards just as much as 17th level ones, which is heavily implied, then it's incredibly frigging unlikely that there would always be some perfect confluence of events. Also, gotta point out that this isn't the weird scroll scenario. This is the tanglefoot bag scenario. By your apparent reckoning, the arcanaloth, seeing some ridiculous first level confluence of events sees the perfect opportunity to approach a naive and shapable wizard to get him under his thumb, and as his planned approach for that situation, he launches an ineffectual attack. Just doesn't add up.

Or the Arcanoloth got summoned and figured it could take advantage of the opportunity. It had probably just finished it's plan summing it up with, "And now I just need to find some expendable stooges" and then reality provided them. Twists of fate are very common in fiction, and you may have to be willing to accept a higher level of coincidence particularly in a roleplaying game where everybody is controlled by outside puppet masters.



On the second point, no, it's not an invalid question, especially because you haven't come close to answering it. If your answer is just, "Oh, the arcanaloth is so inscrutable," then that's incredibly contrived. Which was my initial point. Let's be clear here. An arcanaloth could likely take down an entire first level party in a single round, and do so every time. If the arcanaloth wants to kill the party, why doesn't he? If he doesn't want to kill the party, then what the hell is he trying to do? Really, if anything's disrupting the level based "status quo", it's having a monster attack a first level party way differently from a 17th level party. Overall, it seems far more likely that these summoning spells are pulling in creatures by accident, though it's possible that I'm mistaken, and that this rule is even more ridiculous than I thought.

Well an Arcanoloth is intelligent, and tactically minded. It might not immediately attack a 17th level Party if it thought it could use them. Also the Arcanoloth is as much a victim to contrivances of fate as the players are, so it getting grabbed is probably just a lucky happenstance. A one-in-a-million event. Which is in a contrived plot, very likely to happen.

[eggynack]

Or the Arcanoloth got summoned and figured it could take advantage of the opportunity. It had probably just finished it's plan summing it up with, "And now I just need to find some expendable stooges" and then reality provided them. Twists of fate are very common in fiction, and you may have to be willing to accept a higher level of coincidence particularly in a roleplaying game where everybody is controlled by outside puppet masters.

Well an Arcanoloth is intelligent, and tactically minded. It might not immediately attack a 17th level Party if it thought it could use them. Also the Arcanoloth is as much a victim to contrivances of fate as the players are, so it getting grabbed is probably just a lucky happenstance. A one-in-a-million event. Which is in a contrived plot, very likely to happen.
This is indeed my stated circumstance. By my reckoning, and seemingly yours, the summoning spell just arbitrarily grabbed the arcanaloth, and then it just decided to go with the flow. The tanglefoot bag thing is still somewhat ridiculous in that scenario, but it's a bit more plausible if it didn't personally decide to take the trip.

Point is, SiuiS' position is that it was the arcanaloth's choice to be summoned, rather than the thing you're talking about here. He claimed that position as a counterpoint to my assertion that you could just give lower level summoning spells a lower grab strength, only allowing them to summon low level creatures even in a mishap, thus averting situations where arcanaloths throw tanglefoot bags, or tell first level parties about tiny piles of treasure. It solves a lot of the rule's weirdness, and keeps everything working consistent relative to individual spells.

[137beth]

House rule: Anyone who highlights this post to discover its contents is immediately attacked by Demogorgon.

[Sartharina]

it's incredibly frigging unlikely that there would always be some perfect confluence of events.

I'm not sure what you're saying here, but... Anthropic Principal. Yes, it's unlikely, Yes, it happened. Deal with it.

[AMFV]

This is indeed my stated circumstance. By my reckoning, and seemingly yours, the summoning spell just arbitrarily grabbed the arcanaloth, and then it just decided to go with the flow. The tanglefoot bag thing is still somewhat ridiculous in that scenario, but it's a bit more plausible if it didn't personally decide to take the trip.

Well he was summoned without warning, and happened to have a Tanglefoot bag and was startled. Maybe it's an eccentric Arcanoloth, who knows? It happened in game, and random unexplainable things sometimes happen in real life.



Point is, SiuiS' position is that it was the arcanaloth's choice to be summoned, rather than the thing you're talking about here. He claimed that position as a counterpoint to my assertion that you could just give lower level summoning spells a lower grab strength, only allowing them to summon low level creatures even in a mishap, thus averting situations where arcanaloths throw tanglefoot bags, or tell first level parties about tiny piles of treasure. It solves a lot of the rule's weirdness, and keeps everything working consistent relative to individual spells.

But the weirdness is the point here, it's what people want out of this rule. To increase the chaotic content ofthe game is part of the point. See you're seeing those scenarios as "bad" and "to be avoided" and we're seeing them as amusing and potentially interesting. Depending on how they play out in the future. Maybe the Arcanoloth occasionally comes back, he's got some kind of blood war plan that involves the players and they don't even know it, he's discussing himself as something incompetent and foolish to get them right where he wants them.

Or supposing that he was summoned in an accident, suppose that same plan occurs to him in an instant there. He was just reacting when he threw the tanglefoot bag, but now he has a few adventurers that just think he's silly, and being underestimated can be very useful.

[eggynack]

I'm not sure what you're saying here, but... Anthropic Principal. Yes, it's unlikely, Yes, it happened. Deal with it.
What I'm saying is that it seems like it would be less likely for an arcanaloth to go after a first level wizard than a 17th level wizard, which isn't reflected in the rule. Let's say that there's some one in 10,000 chance of the arcanaloth approaching our wizard. Sure, it can happen, and it happened this time. Anthropic principle indeed applies. However, let's say that there's also a one in 100 chance of the arcanaloth approaching the 17th level wizard. That difference in probability isn't apparently being addressed at all in the rules. Sure, there could be one crazy world where the first event happens, and this is that one, but the second should be happening far more, and that's not apparently the case.

[AMFV]

What I'm saying is that it seems like it would be less likely for an arcanaloth to go after a first level wizard than a 17th level wizard, which isn't reflected in the rule. Let's say that there's some one in 10,000 chance of the arcanaloth approaching our wizard. Sure, it can happen, and it happened this time. Anthropic principle indeed applies. However, let's say that there's also a one in 100 chance of the arcanaloth approaching the 17th level wizard. That difference in probability isn't apparently being addressed at all in the rules. Sure, there could be one crazy world where the first event happens, and this is that one, but the second should be happening far more, and that's not apparently the case.

Well it will be the case, since 17th level Wizards can summon Arcanoloths, so a lot of the time when they don't have mishaps they'll pull out said Arcanoloths, meaning that it would be happening far more.

[eggynack]

Well he was summoned without warning, and happened to have a Tanglefoot bag and was startled. Maybe it's an eccentric Arcanoloth, who knows? It happened in game, and random unexplainable things sometimes happen in real life.
This isn't just one thing of happenstance. Every arcanaloth, when summoned by a first level wizard, is necessarily going to have to do something like carry a tanglefoot bag, get startled and toss it at the wizard, while one summoned by a 17th level wizard is going to presumably not do that, from what we know of the situation. If there's a path to consistent results from particular actions, which is an asserted positive from Jedipotter, then this isn't it.



But the weirdness is the point here, it's what people want out of this rule. To increase the chaotic content ofthe game is part of the point. See you're seeing those scenarios as "bad" and "to be avoided" and we're seeing them as amusing and potentially interesting. Depending on how they play out in the future. Maybe the Arcanoloth occasionally comes back, he's got some kind of blood war plan that involves the players and they don't even know it, he's discussing himself as something incompetent and foolish to get them right where he wants them.
If we're still in SiuiS' scenario, then I think my long arguments against that scenario still stand. This situation, where an arcanaloth hacks a first level casters summon monster I in order to throw a tanglefoot bag at him, just seems ridiculous. If you want the arcanaloth there by his choice, then you can get your exact stated scenario, including some good quantity of the chaos, by having the arcanaloth show up without the summoning spell.


Or supposing that he was summoned in an accident, suppose that same plan occurs to him in an instant there. He was just reacting when he threw the tanglefoot bag, but now he has a few adventurers that just think he's silly, and being underestimated can be very useful.
It just seems to me that forcing every single high level creature that gets summoned into low level tactics is contrived, even if the occasional high level creature could make use of them. Better to just give those low level tactics to, y'know, low level creatures.

Well it will be the case, since 17th level Wizards can summon Arcanoloths, so a lot of the time when they don't have mishaps they'll pull out said Arcanoloths, meaning that it would be happening far more.
I'm saying that there would be a higher percentage when the 17th level wizard does have mishaps, assuming the hacking scenario.

[AMFV]

This isn't just one thing of happenstance. Every arcanaloth, when summoned by a first level wizard, is necessarily going to have to do something like carry a tanglefoot bag, get startled and toss it at the wizard, while one summoned by a 17th level wizard is going to presumably not do that, from what we know of the situation. If there's a path to consistent results from particular actions, which is an asserted positive from Jedipotter, then this isn't it.


Well you're assuming that the world has to work consistently which is not necessarily the case. Even our own world isn't as consistent as people would like to believe.



If we're still in SiuiS' scenario, then I think my long arguments against that scenario still stand. This situation, where an arcanaloth hacks a first level casters summon monster I in order to throw a tanglefoot bag at him, just seems ridiculous. If you want the arcanaloth there by his choice, then you can get your exact stated scenario, including some good quantity of the chaos, by having the arcanaloth show up without the summoning spell.

And if you'd read my refutation, I stated that it might not have hacked the spell, just gotten lucky, that happens from time to time.



It just seems to me that forcing every single high level creature that gets summoned into low level tactics is contrived, even if the occasional high level creature could make use of them. Better to just give those low level tactics to, y'know, low level creatures.

Why? A High Level creature that enjoys toying with lesser creatures like an Arcanolth. Also you're making hte assumption that the table is only for serious use and not for occasional humor. That was a humorous encounter not intended to be a serious one, and that can be fine in the tone of the game as well.



I'm saying that there would be a higher percentage when the 17th level wizard does have mishaps, assuming the hacking scenario.

Well it could be much more difficult to hack a higher level spell, enough that it isn't worth the relative effort to do so.

[jedipotter]

Does depend on how Summon Monster spells work in the setting. I could see one where Summon Monster works by opening some sort of portal which compels weaker monsters if they choose to go through. In that case, Orcus might make sense—if he doesn't like you and he's in the area, Orcus might squeeze through the portal, shake off the paltry control effect and kill you. I could see something like that explaining that houserule...

It is easy to explain: some times the spell misses the target. So most of the time you will get something near the target....but not always. 2E had a rule that a summon type spell manifested as a hook on the target plane and grabbed a target. And the hook sometimes missed...it was always dangerious to touch something like a hook on the planes...you could end up summoned...




Consider; the spell isn't accidentally pulling an arcana kith; an arcanoloth with the power, situation and predisposition is hijacking the summon. Suddenly, level of the spell is inconsequential; the power comes from the hijacker.

Any creature on another plane simply has to live with ''they can be summoned/called'' any time. Just a fact of life. Though some just take advantage of it, like my example.


...Why would an arcanoloth hack the summoning of a first level wizard in order to throw a tanglefoot bag at him? .

He would not. For the most part creatures can't ''get summoned or called''. They have to wait for some mortal to do it. (note my non secret house rule of outsiders can't enter the Prime without mortal help) Voknoi the arcanoloth just has to wait around for a mis cast spell(or whatever) to grab him. Then he can put his plot in motion, even just being on the Prime a couple rounds.... Note the ''friendly arcanoloth'' gave out his name....and gave the wizard the location of a cool, rare spell (least teleport object).....maybe the one who mis summoned him that one day might try it agian some day when they are much more powerful....and the plot continues....

So see, now all the players know the name of an arcanoloth. It could come in very useful, not just for future summonings, but also things like a bluff or trading information. And all with no lame ''know everything roll''.

And remember that Voknoi tossed a tanglefoot bag at the attacking hobgoblins, not his mis-summoner.



That is not what is apparently occurring in this case. By my understanding, and it is one based on reading a lot of Jedipotter's words on this topic, there is no random mishap table. Instead, Jedipotter decides, in the moment of mishap, what creature she's going to drop in the laps of her players, and these completely chosen creatures sometimes have weird plot hooks involving hidden magic scrolls. In other words, it's Jedipotter, and not I, who is saying that the DM should railroad everything aggressively to tell the story she wants to tell. I'm just saying that, if you're going to do that, just frigging do it directly. You don't need to warp the summoning rules in convoluted ways that result in contrived situations to get there.

Kind of an odd ramble, but...

I don't really like 'tables'. To like roll ''will this be good or bad'' and to only have like ten choices is just boring. Even if I used a table it would have to have hundreds of choices...and then would not matter anyway. But the whole point of the DM is they can pick stuff. Otherwise you could play D&D were there was no DM and each player just rolled on the table to see what would happen for the whole game. That would not be a very fun game.

But it's a huge jump from plot hook to railroading..... A hook is just a tiny bit of information, that the players are free to ignore or follow. There is no railroad there... I'm the type of DM that likes to drop hints and clues and hooks and such all over.




Jedi: Do protection against X magic circles function properly in your games and hinder summoned creatures? Can't quite recall if this was addressed previously. Edit: also, arcanoloth, is this something you've done or do you use it as an example because 'loths were brought up? Is there a cr range you tie to spell level at all?

Magic circles work as normal.

I like arcanoloths myself, they get good fluff. They work great as 'information fiends'. I don't care about the CR. It was not a combat encounter. I care about fluff. And even if it was a combat encounter, and I for some reason was using an arcanoloth to attack a 1st level character....it would be a 1st level arcanoloth(with one level of the arcanoloth race class).

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

But it is reflective of the situation. There are tables where asking the DM for an explanation like that would be very poor form. As I've stated AD&D doesn't even allow players to read the Dungeon Master's Guide. So that sort of thing might be considered extremely poor form, at best it would be considered a form of rules lawyering, and at worst an attempt to discern what is going to happen in the game later for metagaming purposes.

You made a huge leap from asking a question to "demand(ing) that someone reveal their plans". That leap is so huge that none of the rest of this even matters.


Well the question is, if the DM tells you "well you're this now, so what do you want to do?" How do you deal with it, do you refluff your character so that now they're more of a risk-taker or do you demand that you get to effectively roll a new character?

Yes, I'm going to ask to roll a new character, or at the very least make some fundamental alterations. Also, if a DM tells me "well, you're this now", I'm gonna tell him to take his game and shove it up his ass.


Won't. The DM in my example has answers to those questions and refused to answer them, for any number of reasons.

There is no practical difference between the two. If, as a DM, your justification for any action is "because I say so", you are not fit for purpose.

[Ionbound]

Jedi, if you dislike tables, then why are you playing a system that was built on the concept of mitigated risks? Even Gygax, the original killer GM, still loved the things. And D&D was built upon the idea that a character would be taking risks, but they would be calculated by the player. If you truly dislike having set outcomes, then play a different system in Greyhawk or Planescape. But please, stop making threads like these where you and everyone else just get stuck in a pigheaded argument that goes nowhere until the thread is inevitably locked.

[AMFV]

Jedi, if you dislike tables, then why are you playing a system that was built on the concept of mitigated risks? Even Gygax, the original killer GM, still loved the things. And D&D was built upon the idea that a character would be taking risks, but they would be calculated by the player. If you truly dislike having set outcomes, then play a different system in Greyhawk or Planescape. But please, stop making threads like these where you and everyone else just get stuck in a pigheaded argument that goes nowhere until the thread is inevitably locked.

You are mistaken players in OD&D and AD&D weren't allowed to have read any of the tables. Or at the very least there were some very strong prohibitions against it in the DMG. Making it impossible for the player to calculate the risks. Gygax was also very fond of screwing players over, wishes misinterpreted, forcing players to be excessively paranoid. That sort of thing. That was at that time the game. Also in AD&D and OD&D there are many effects that just instantly kill you with no-save, something 3.5 tried to avoid. The original version of D&D used tables, but not so that players could mitigate risks, so that the DM could provide a wider spread of risks.

[Ionbound]

Yes, but as I recall, there was nothing in 1e, PHB or DMG alike that had the potential to TPK a party for using their class abilities based on the mood of the GM, other than saying 'The GM can screw you at any time.' Which is it's own problem, yes, but there were not specific rules in place. And if there were, you can bet almost anything there would be some kind of notification in the PHB that it was a possibility. You can't be paranoid if you don't suspect anything.

And when I talk about mitigating risk, I mean knowledge that there is a risk, and that it has a set percentage. Which the players did know, even if the risk was 100%, which the player didn't know.

[AMFV]

Yes, but as I recall, there was nothing in 1e, PHB or DMG alike that had the potential to TPK a party for using their class abilities based on the mood of the GM, other than saying 'The GM can screw you at any time.' Which is it's own problem, yes, but there were not specific rules in place. And if there were, you can bet almost anything there would be some kind of notification in the PHB that it was a possibility. You can't be paranoid if you don't suspect anything.

The Wish Spell.

[Ionbound]

The Wish Spell.

Oh, that doesn't count. That was Wish. Wish was Wish, and I don't really think I need to elaborate more on it than that,

[AMFV]

Oh, that doesn't count. That was Wish. Wish was Wish, and I don't really think I need to elaborate more on it than that,

Encounter tables based on terrain type rather than level. Some of the recommended trap designs. Chaos Magic (if that kit was in play). The section of the rulebook where it tells the DM that he can vary the rules for any reason.

[Arkhaic]

a) Encounter tables based on terrain type rather than level. b) Some of the recommended trap designs. c) Chaos Magic (if that kit was in play). d) The section of the rulebook where it tells the DM that he can vary the rules for any reason.

a) Both not related to class abilities and likely not related to the DM's mood.

b) That is, again, external to the players. Try again.

c) Wild Mages don't know that they have a chance to be screwed over? Also, not based on DM mood.

d) Explicitly called out to not be a valid response. Try again.

[eggynack]

Well you're assuming that the world has to work consistently which is not necessarily the case. Even our own world isn't as consistent as people would like to believe.
Not even really sure what you mean. Are you saying there's some odd mind warping function of low summon monster spells that forces them to act like an idiot? Like, low level summon monster spells only allow a certain amount of competence through the rhetorical summoning hole? I guess that's vaguely plausible, but then you're just kinda doing what I said, except putting a big arcanaloth mask on the low level versions. Also, if I'm not mistaken, because the arcanaloth's behavior modulates to the caster, rather than the spell, it would presumably be caster level or caster power level that determines the hole. In other words, kinda really weird, and not at all fitting with Jedipotter's odd definition of status quo. I mean, it's probably workable, if you poke at it some, but it's not really the most efficient way to go.



And if you'd read my refutation, I stated that it might not have hacked the spell, just gotten lucky, that happens from time to time.
My response there, as is often the case, is to the idea that the hacking was a planned act. If we're just in arbitrary chance mode, then we can freely return to my arguments against that idea. That's the side that seems more relevant too, as Jedipotter has now stated that it's the spell grabbing wrong. I think we can just ignore the hacking stuff as a result. The system, as has been stated, could fully support the idea of summoning spells being incapable of grabbing things outside their general price range.



Why? A High Level creature that enjoys toying with lesser creatures like an Arcanolth. Also you're making hte assumption that the table is only for serious use and not for occasional humor. That was a humorous encounter not intended to be a serious one, and that can be fine in the tone of the game as well.

It just doesn't make much sense to me that a crazy insta-kill creature would take the same basic actions as a creature at your power level. If you're going to do low level monster things, then you might as well just use a low level monster. That's what they're for. Really, if we're just going this route, then why not just swap all goblins in the game with arcanaloths that try to miss, use a sling, and run away when you deal small amounts of damage? Moreover, and this is a pretty basic one, there are other ways of introducing humor to a game that don't rely on secret house rules where all the choices are made in haphazard fashion by the DM.


Well it could be much more difficult to hack a higher level spell, enough that it isn't worth the relative effort to do so.
Eh, maybe. I'm kinda apathetic about this particular topic, to be honest, since Jedipotter confirmed its irrelevance to this case.

He would not. For the most part creatures can't ''get summoned or called''. They have to wait for some mortal to do it. (note my non secret house rule of outsiders can't enter the Prime without mortal help).
In that case, why not just, y'know, make that not be the case. Seems kinda pointless, as rules go. Even if you're stuck on this particular rule, you could just use a different creature that doesn't have weird rules for their use. This whole process seems pretty unnecessary.


But it's a huge jump from plot hook to railroading..... A hook is just a tiny bit of information, that the players are free to ignore or follow. There is no railroad there... I'm the type of DM that likes to drop hints and clues and hooks and such all over.
The jump wasn't really mine in particular. The point was that the thing I was being accused of, saying that dropping these really massive creatures into the lap of low level characters is a good idea, is your doing. I don't know if I'd call it railroading, but if that's what it's called, I'm certainly not the one advocating it. Just coming up with alternate ways to do it without using summoning mishap rules.

[Svata]

No 10th level power gamer type spellcaster will cast firefinger (damage 1d6) on a hill giant.....they will use a higher level spell that does more damage...always.

Yeah, and no fighter who specializes in power attacking with a greatsword is gonna attack with a dagger for 1d4 damage. If you want to contribute in a fight, you aren't gonna do something that doesn't make a difference. Your point?

[Arbane]

Yeah, and no fighter who specializes in power attacking with a greatsword is gonna attack with a dagger for 1d4 damage. If you want to contribute in a fight, you aren't gonna do something that doesn't make a difference. Your point?

Problem players want to 'beat the game' by being effective.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Yeah, and no fighter who specializes in power attacking with a greatsword is gonna attack with a dagger for 1d4 damage. If you want to contribute in a fight, you aren't gonna do something that doesn't make a difference. Your point?

Y'know, it's possible. Maybe our hypothetical caster would use lower level damage spells. He's operating under a time limit and can't stop to regain spells at his leisure, a hill giant is a mostly trivial task for his party, and he's just burning a turn by tossing out a spell that's an insignificant loss of resources, saving his remaining high and middle level spells for tougher encounters down the road.

[AMFV]

You made a huge leap from asking a question to "demand(ing) that someone reveal their plans". That leap is so huge that none of the rest of this even matters.

It may not be a huge leap though, since revealing the answer to a particular question may reveal enough detail of a campaign element as to be essentially demanding a full reveal of their plans. If somebody wants to keep a rule a secret, then there is likely a reason for that. And if there is a reason to keep it a secret then asking for the secret itself is tantamount to asking about the reason why it's secret in a general case.



Yes, I'm going to ask to roll a new character, or at the very least make some fundamental alterations. Also, if a DM tells me "well, you're this now", I'm gonna tell him to take his game and shove it up his ass.


I'm not sure I follow. What exactly do you mean when you say: "well, you're this now"? That doesn't seem to follow, are you stating that the DM would assign a class or refuse to allow to change, because those are very different things.



There is no practical difference between the two. If, as a DM, your justification for any action is "because I say so", you are not fit for purpose.

Well that is fine for a stated justification some of the time. As a DM I'm under no obligation to spend hours explaining myself to a player. I generally will, but as a courtesy, not as an obligation.


a) Both not related to class abilities and likely not related to the DM's mood.

b) That is, again, external to the players. Try again.

c) Wild Mages don't know that they have a chance to be screwed over? Also, not based on DM mood.

d) Explicitly called out to not be a valid response. Try again.
D.) So I'm not allowed to use the in-text citation that allows the DM to vary the rules any way he wants? That seems a little bit arbitrary. Look, I refuse to get dragged into a debate where I look things up and then you guys decide arbitrarily that those things I looked up [I]don't work based on something that you decided after I presented the information.

Furthermore how would you a player know if the DM was changing the tables? I mean if you've read his manual you're technically in violation of the rules yourself.

As far as magic spells screwing players over, you just have to look at some of Gary Gygax's articles to see what he thought of that (hint: he was very much in favor for people being screwed over any time they didn't think things through very carefully) That's why we get things like the Sphere of Annihilation in the Statue's Mouth in his dungeons, because he wanted players to prod everything with 10' poles because of paranoia, arbitrary death, abilities not working as advertised, those were all things he liked to put into his games, and he's talked about it. I'm not saying that his is the best way to play, but it's definitely the way he operated.

[Ionbound]

It's one thing to be paranoid. It's another to attempt to use a class ability and, Wish not withstanding, get a TPK with absolutely no warning other than maybe remembering you might have said something earlier that pissed off the GM. And while this can happen, always, via Rule 0, it's nice for them not to have the excuse of 'Oh, it was a house rule I didn't tell you about'.

[AMFV]

It's one thing to be paranoid. It's another to attempt to use a class ability and, Wish not withstanding, get a TPK with absolutely no warning other than maybe remembering you might have said something earlier that pissed off the GM. And while this can happen, always, via Rule 0, it's nice for them not to have the excuse of 'Oh, it was a house rule I didn't tell you about'.

Read Gygax's columns, he did that sort of thing, fairly regularly... Although his were generally based on people trying to act without paying what he thought was an appropriate amount of thought.

[Ionbound]

I'm not saying it's a good way to be. In fact, the opposite. I was using Gygax as an example of a bad GM, who still did use tables. Even if he simply used them to keep ideas organized, and only rolled dice for the sound they made, the point is that there was still a fairly fixed set of possible outcomes. And that is a good thing to have. But I'll concede that perhaps that Gygax wasn't the best allegory.

[AMFV]

I'm not saying it's a good way to be. In fact, the opposite. I was using Gygax as an example of a bad GM, who still did use tables. Even if he simply used them to keep ideas organized, and only rolled dice for the sound they made, the point is that there was still a fairly fixed set of possible outcomes. And that is a good thing to have.

Eh, Gygax didn't necessarily use tables all that much, he presented them as an aid though. I actually don't mind that style of game either. I think Gygax was a good GM, just he had a style that is no longer the style that is en vogue.

[Ionbound]

Yeah, the Gygax-style of game is still fun every once in a while. What I have a problem with is playing running a Gygax-style game in 3.5, and then not telling the players. I hope you can understand why I would think that.

[Sartharina]

What I'm saying is that it seems like it would be less likely for an arcanaloth to go after a first level wizard than a 17th level wizard, which isn't reflected in the rule. Let's say that there's some one in 10,000 chance of the arcanaloth approaching our wizard. Sure, it can happen, and it happened this time. Anthropic principle indeed applies. However, let's say that there's also a one in 100 chance of the arcanaloth approaching the 17th level wizard. That difference in probability isn't apparently being addressed at all in the rules. Sure, there could be one crazy world where the first event happens, and this is that one, but the second should be happening far more, and that's not apparently the case.Actually, I think an Arcanoloth might prefer to surprise a low-level wizard than a high-level one. A high-level wizard can react with Prismatic Spray to being surprised by a mis-summon. A low-level wizard can only hope to not get itself curbstomped by the demon by making a deal.
Yeah, the Gygax-style of game is still fun every once in a while. What I have a problem with is playing running a Gygax-style game in 3.5, and then not telling the players. I hope you can understand why I would think that.... and people say Fourth Edition "Isn't D&D". :smallamused:

You told everyone that you're possibly playing a Gygax-style RPG the moment you said "We're playing Dungeons & Dragons" instead of some other game. The edition doesn't matter.

[Qwertystop]

Actually, I think an Arcanoloth might prefer to surprise a low-level wizard than a high-level one. A high-level wizard can react with Prismatic Spray to being surprised by a mis-summon. A low-level wizard can only hope to not get itself curbstomped by the demon by making a deal.

Personally, I think it'd be more in-between. A high-level wizard is a threat to the Arcanoloth; a low-level wizard can't actually achieve anything big enough for the demon to care about, unless it gives them lots of time to grow stronger. I think it's most likely they'd aim for someone in-between - strong enough to handle things that would take more than negligible effort, weak enough to be easily intimidated into the deal.

[eggynack]

Actually, I think an Arcanoloth might prefer to surprise a low-level wizard than a high-level one. A high-level wizard can react with Prismatic Spray to being surprised by a mis-summon. A low-level wizard can only hope to not get itself curbstomped by the demon by making a deal.... and people say Fourth Edition "Isn't D&D". :smallamused:

There's just less to gain from a trade though. Really, what you want is a mid-level wizard. Strong enough that they have stuff worth having, but weak enough that having shapechange is sufficient to ensure victory in most situations.

Edit: Wow. That's some really specific swordsaging. Weird.

[Ionbound]

.... and people say Fourth Edition "Isn't D&D". :smallamused:

You told everyone that you're possibly playing a Gygax-style RPG the moment you said "We're playing Dungeons & Dragons" instead of some other game. The edition doesn't matter.

Right, because it's perfectly okay for someone to go into what they expect to be 3.5e/4e/5e game, all of which have completely different mechanics from 1e and 2e, and have them play what is, for all intents and purposes, a 1e or 2e game. I am of the belief that, if nothing else, the style of the game should be upfront, and the related mechanics and, here's the sticking point, relevant house rules should be public, and discussed by the players, even in abstract. It all goes back to Rule 0, which is that the game should be fun for both the GM and the players, and if the game isn't fun for one of the parties, it is the group's responsibility to fix it and ensure everyone is having fun.

Some people don't enjoy the old-fashioned Gygax style of game. And, if they don't, having a bunch of secret house rules to make things more old-school, and not telling our hypothetical 4e fan, is simple not okay.

[SiuiS]

I am chagrined and rather sad that I start a post by telling you that I expect you'll miss the point and not actually engage in conversation, and you do just that, Eggynack.

Can you really not conceive of a cosmos with a reason for a fiend to hijack a summons? Can you really not conceive of any combat scenario at all where a high level fiend uses an alchemical item?

That's the point of "invalid" by the way. You're judging somehing without context as if it had context. Were there charisma rolls? Conversations? Combat rounds? We don't know. There are hundreds of action and choice permutations that could lead to "arcanoloth throws tanglefoot bag at apprentice wizard" and thousands that invalidate it. It's not a possible or even feasible choice to make a judgement based off knowing only that it happened.

[Sartharina]

Right, because it's perfectly okay for someone to go into what they expect to be 3.5e/4e/5e game, all of which have completely different mechanics from 1e and 2e, and have them play what is, for all intents and purposes, a 1e or 2e game. I am of the belief that, if nothing else, the style of the game should be upfront, and the related mechanics and, here's the sticking point, relevant house rules should be public, and discussed by the players, even in abstract. It all goes back to Rule 0, which is that the game should be fun for both the GM and the players, and if the game isn't fun for one of the parties, it is the group's responsibility to fix it and ensure everyone is having fun.

Some people don't enjoy the old-fashioned Gygax style of game. And, if they don't, having a bunch of secret house rules to make things more old-school, and not telling our hypothetical 4e fan, is simple not okay. White Box, AD&D 1e, AD&D 2e, 3e, 4e, and 5e are all Dungeons & Dragons. They are reiterations of the same original game.


Personally, I think it'd be more in-between. A high-level wizard is a threat to the Arcanoloth; a low-level wizard can't actually achieve anything big enough for the demon to care about, unless it gives them lots of time to grow stronger. I think it's most likely they'd aim for someone in-between - strong enough to handle things that would take more than negligible effort, weak enough to be easily intimidated into the deal.Arcanoloths live for an eternity. The lifespan of a low-level wizard is trivial to them. If anything... wizards are like Pokemon. If you catch them at a low-level and train them to high-level, they'll be significantly stronger and more loyal than a wizard you catch at a high level, or even mid-level you train to high level.

[eggynack]

I am chagrined and rather sad that I start a post by telling you that I expect you'll miss the point and not actually engage in conversation, and you do just that, Eggynack.
I think I hit most of the major arguments, and at this point, I don't particularly see why I would engage. Your original premise was that my argument against Jedipotter's rules were based on particular assumptions about how those rules work, and y'know, I was right. There is no hacking.


Can you really not conceive of a cosmos with a reason for a fiend to hijack a summons? Can you really not conceive of any combat scenario at all where a high level fiend uses an alchemical item?
It's really not my job to come up with your reasons for a fiend to hijack a summons, and neither is it my job to come up with your combat scenario where the creature with access to shapechange is using a tanglefoot bag. Your arguments are your arguments to make, not mine.


That's the point of "invalid" by the way. You're judging somehing without context as if it had context. Were there charisma rolls? Conversations? Combat rounds? We don't know. There are hundreds of action and choice permutations that could lead to "arcanoloth throws tanglefoot bag at apprentice wizard" and thousands that invalidate it. It's not a possible or even feasible choice to make a judgement based off knowing only that it happened.

We actually do have context, at this point. Turns out that the tanglefoot bag was being thrown at the wizard's enemies, which seriously goes to support the, "Jedipotter is seriously bad at communicating," theory, cause I don't think anyone was guessing that. It's still pretty odd that things would turn out that way, given the whole at-will shapechange thing, but perhaps marginally less odd than the idea that the arcanaloth is pissed off at the wizard somehow. Really though, at this point your arguments read a lot like, "Hey, I totally have some great arguments. They're just all hidden behind this curtain. Don't worry about what they actually are though, because I'm totally right." If you want to make an argument, make it. If you don't, don't. I'm not going to make claims against the vague shadow of an argument.

[Ionbound]

White Box, AD&D 1e, AD&D 2e, 3e, 4e, and 5e are all Dungeons & Dragons. They are reiterations of the same original game.

Yes, but nothing in the rules state that they are meant to be run in a hyper-lethal fashion. Or, for that matter, in a relaxed and forgiving one. You can run a 1e game that's as forgiving as default 4e, and, with some effort, run a 4e game that's as lethal as how Gygax ran them. The point that I'm making, and that you seem to be missing, is that the style of the game, in one way or another, should be known to the players before character creation even begins. And using secret house rules to change the style of the game from what can be vaguely considered the default style assumption for each edition (Lethality lowering as you move away from White Box, I'm sure there's a proper stats graph somewhere out there) without informing the players beforehand is inherently unfun, and thus in fairly direct contradiction to Rule 0.

[The Insanity]

White Box, AD&D 1e, AD&D 2e, 3e, 4e, and 5e are all Dungeons & Dragons. They are reiterations of the same original game.
Lol. So? Other than the name and some basic rules (like using d20), they're very different systems.

[AMFV]

Yes, but nothing in the rules state that they are meant to be run in a hyper-lethal fashion. Or, for that matter, in a relaxed and forgiving one. You can run a 1e game that's as forgiving as default 4e, and, with some effort, run a 4e game that's as lethal as how Gygax ran them. The point that I'm making, and that you seem to be missing, is that the style of the game, in one way or another, should be known to the players before character creation even begins. And using secret house rules to change the style of the game from what can be vaguely considered the default style assumption for each edition (Lethality lowering as you move away from White Box, I'm sure there's a proper stats graph somewhere out there) without informing the players beforehand is inherently unfun, and thus in fairly direct contradiction to Rule 0.

I think nobody has really been arguing for the players not knowing what style of game they're playing, not even Jedipotter. Most of the argument has centered around "is it okay to have rules, that while the players may know of their existence, the specifics would not be known?"

The only example I can think of where this was not the case, is one where I posited that somebody might forget to mention houserules (if for example, houserules are something they expect in every game, they might not realize that players might take issue with them), and as such it is a player's responsibility as much as the DM's to figure out what sort of game they're playing.

I hold to this, what a "lethal as Gygax" game is, will vary depending on who's talking about it, so as a player you have a responsibility to ask specific questions to find out if the game that's being offered is what you believe it to be, since it's harder for the DM to necessarily have the same importance schema as you do.

The other scenario was one where the rule had not yet been encountered, or was a recent change. And whether that should be mentioned or not depends on the style of game, and the nature of the relationship.

[Sartharina]

Lol. So? Other than the name and some basic rules (like using d20), they're very different systems.At their very heart... no, they're not. They are a fluid continuation and reiteration from each other, except 5e's a 'snapback' after 3e went too far from the Dungeons & Dragons roots, and 4e highlighted those changes.

And a true Gygax game isn't actually highly lethal. Yes, there are opportunities for lethality, but there are also opportunities to survive seemingly-lethal things, and explore characters

[Ninjaxenomorph]

The setting I'm building for a campaign has what you could call 'secret rules'. Teleportation affects are... strange, and sometimes summoning spells may take an extra round or two to show up. If there is a PC with a summoning spell, they would know this upon starting. If not, it's a surprise when they do, unless they get the spell from another mage. Since the PCs would not have been taught in magic by someone high enough level to cast teleportation spells, all they know is that they sometimes don't work as intended. They can find out themselves about the delays, miss chance, and occasional revelation of the structure of reality.

[Arkhaic]

D.) So I'm not allowed to use the in-text citation that allows the DM to vary the rules any way he wants? That seems a little bit arbitrary. Look, I refuse to get dragged into a debate where I look things up and then you guys decide arbitrarily that those things I looked up [I]don't work based on something that you decided after I presented the information.

Well, there was the fact that you presented rule zero as fulfilling the conditions of something which "had the potential to TPK a party for using their class abilities based on the mood of the GM, other than saying 'The GM can screw you at any time.'" As rule zero is saying "The GM can screw you at any time," you really have no ground to stand on.

This is like someone asking "give me an mammal without 4 legs that isn't a dolphin" and you answering "An elephant, a cheetah, a giraffe and a dolphin."

[AMFV]

Well, there was the fact that you presented rule zero as fulfilling the conditions of something which "had the potential to TPK a party for using their class abilities based on the mood of the GM, other than saying 'The GM can screw you at any time.'" As rule zero is saying "The GM can screw you at any time," you really have no ground to stand on.

This is like someone asking "give me an mammal without 4 legs that isn't a dolphin" and you answering "An elephant, a cheetah, a giraffe and a dolphin."

Not really. Rule Zero is worded differently in different books. In 3.5 it's a small sidebar, in AD&D it's a very large paragraph in the middle of a page. At the beginning of the book as I recall. In any case that's not really the most significant thing since the Summoning Table did not cause a TPK, and was properly restrained by the DM.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

The setting I'm building for a campaign has what you could call 'secret rules'. Teleportation affects are... strange, and sometimes summoning spells may take an extra round or two to show up. If there is a PC with a summoning spell, they would know this upon starting. If not, it's a surprise when they do, unless they get the spell from another mage. Since the PCs would not have been taught in magic by someone high enough level to cast teleportation spells, all they know is that they sometimes don't work as intended. They can find out themselves about the delays, miss chance, and occasional revelation of the structure of reality.

Query: In your game world, are there no stories that might clue the player in that teleportation spells don't work exactly as written?

[The Insanity]

At their very heart... no, they're not.
Game systems don't have hearts, they're not living beings, silly. And I don't believe in the Heart of the Cards D&D. I believe in facts, and you don't have those, I'm afraid.

[Arkhaic]

Not really. Rule Zero is worded differently in different books. In 3.5 it's a small sidebar, in AD&D it's a very large paragraph in the middle of a page. At the beginning of the book as I recall. In any case that's not really the most significant thing since the Summoning Table did not cause a TPK, and was properly restrained by the DM. Summoning table? Aren't we still in Jedipotter's world where it summons everything from cats to Orcus based on his mood? Regardless, this is what you were asked:
Yes, but as I recall, there was nothing in 1e, PHB or DMG alike that had the potential to TPK a party for using their class abilities based on the mood of the GM, other than saying 'The GM can screw you at any time.' To which you first replied with Wish (which doesn't deserve a reply), proceeded to list several things that would not cause a TPK for using their class abilities based on the mood of the DM. The final condition, "the DM can screw you at any time" was what you concluded with and was firmly beyond the scope of what you were answer. I honestly don't understand how you can't see that.

[AMFV]

Summoning table? Aren't we still in Jedipotter's world where it summons everything from cats to Orcus based on his mood? Regardless, this is what you were asked: To which you first replied with Wish (which doesn't deserve a reply), proceeded to list several things that would not cause a TPK for using their class abilities based on the mood of the DM. The final condition, "the DM can screw you at any time" was what you concluded with and was firmly beyond the scope of what you were answer. I honestly don't understand how you can't see that.

Well wish was decided that it didn't merit a reply, despite being well within the conditions (it's part of a class feature as much as summon monster is), but at some point you guys had constructed rules for the challenge that weren't posted or described. As such it didn't really seem like I was in a good position to present you with factual information.

I honestly don't see how you can't see that "The DM can screw you at any time" makes this whole exercise moot. It doesn't matter what's written in the books, if making your own rules is encouraged and expected. And the rules in the books have very different tone in different system.

So in summation, I answered your challenge, within the bounds of the challenge, and was then told that my answer didn't work. Which seems to be exactly the sort of behavior that you folks are purporting is bad behavior.

Edit: Also of note there is in fact a random summoning table in AD&D, so that probably counts as well, eh?

[jedipotter]

It's one thing to be paranoid. It's another to attempt to use a class ability and, Wish not withstanding, get a TPK with absolutely no warning other than maybe remembering you might have said something earlier that pissed off the GM. And while this can happen, always, via Rule 0, it's nice for them not to have the excuse of 'Oh, it was a house rule I didn't tell you about'.

Of course you need to separate a 'class ability' like 'wearing heavy armor' from one like 'spellcasting'. Because causing a TPK with say the spell Gate is a bit different then causing a TPK with the using the Track ability.


Yeah, the Gygax-style of game is still fun every once in a while. What I have a problem with is playing running a Gygax-style game in 3.5, and then not telling the players. I hope you can understand why I would think that.

I've found most players like the Gygax-stlye, as long as they don't know it.



here's the sticking point, relevant house rules should be public, and discussed by the players, even in abstract.

I would never go for that. I re-wrote the spell Gate for example. You want to play in my game, then you will use my version. And I don't care what you think about it. There will be no discussion.



It all goes back to Rule 0, which is that the game should be fun for both the GM and the players, and if the game isn't fun for one of the parties, it is the group's responsibility to fix it and ensure everyone is having fun.

Yes the game should be fun for all. The problem comes that the players, unlike the DM, have a stake in the game. So they can't be impartial and be expected to be fair all the time. And even if each player was pure and good, they still might not all agree on what is pure and good. And if they are not pure and good, you will have a mess. It would be hard enough to get the players that ''just don't care'' about things. It's worse when they players don't know enough about the rules to make any kind of ruling.

[Arkhaic]

Blah blah blah, we're back to Jedipotter not being able to trust anyone because she got burned once when she didn't know the rules, and then claiming that everyone has to be saints to compromise or talk about things. We've been here before, it still isn't productive. I'll say that if you can't trust those you play with not to act like 5 year you shouldn't play with them. You'll talk about how you get roped into playing with them via friends, etc. You'll ignore various suggestions to compromise or talk things through because you're mentally incapable of trust and compromise, and now we're back at the start. I don't know where your trust issues come from or what burned you out on compromise, but stop hiding it under veils of "saint players" and only the DM being able to be "impartial," but do you honestly believe that? Please. That's putting yourself (and other DMs) on a pedestal higher than most people I know put [religious figure, celebrity, etc. of choice]. (Granted, houseruling Gate to be almost anything but Gate as-written is a good houserule...)

[jedipotter]

You'll ignore various suggestions to compromise or talk things through because you're mentally incapable of trust and compromise, and now we're back at the start.

Right, next comes food talk and then Orcus.

It's basic human nature: If a worker was asked ''do you think you should get a raise?'', how many workers do you think would say ''yes''? All of them? Maybe only 99%?

[Prince Raven]

The setting I'm building for a campaign has what you could call 'secret rules'. Teleportation affects are... strange, and sometimes summoning spells may take an extra round or two to show up. If there is a PC with a summoning spell, they would know this upon starting. If not, it's a surprise when they do, unless they get the spell from another mage. Since the PCs would not have been taught in magic by someone high enough level to cast teleportation spells, all they know is that they sometimes don't work as intended. They can find out themselves about the delays, miss chance, and occasional revelation of the structure of reality.


Here's the thing: let's say that magic users who use summoning spells regularly are relatively scarce in your world, maybe 20 on the continent the PCs are in. Each of them uses a summoning spell an average of 3 times a day. Now, even if the chance of something going awry with the summon only being 1%, that means in the last year there have 219 instances of a summon taking longer than expected. It would be so common that anyone with Knowledge (Arcana) ranks should know about it.

[eggynack]

It's basic human nature: If a worker was asked ''do you think you should get a raise?'', how many workers do you think would say ''yes''? All of them? Maybe only 99%?
The difference is that a player's incentives aren't perfectly aligned with those of their character. If they were, then there would be only pun-pun, because pun-pun wins everything, and once that gets banned, something one step down on the chain of ridiculousness. Players want to have fun just like DM's do, and often that means making decisions that make the game more difficult, either in-game, or when discussing how they want the game to run out of game. Even your stated experiences don't match up with what you're claiming here, because why would players come to you after being burnt out on infinite dragon murder if they want more power relative to their surroundings 99% of the time?

[Ninjaxenomorph]

Query: In your game world, are there no stories that might clue the player in that teleportation spells don't work exactly as written?

I tell them teleportation effects (even Abundant Step is affected) sometimes have unexpected results. If I told them more, such as sometimes people disappear when teleporting, they wouldn't want to do it, would they?*


Here's the thing: let's say that magic users who use summoning spells regularly are relatively scarce in your world, maybe 20 on the continent the PCs are in. Each of them uses a summoning spell an average of 3 times a day. Now, even if the chance of something going awry with the summon only being 1%, that means in the last year there have 219 instances of a summon taking longer than expected. It would be so common that anyone with Knowledge (Arcana) ranks should know about it.

Heh. Continents.** I never said the things going awry mean the spell screws up, I said it can take longer. It's mostly dependent on what creature is to be summoned; if you are summoning ye olde celestial badger, no problem. Summoning something intelligent, on the other hand... That's where things need to be worked out with the things that run the world. Also, mages that are in a position to share knowledge are in a premium; most spellcasters get 'drafted' early on.

*note, not saying that PCs get an auto-death, just saying that most people that teleport can't deal with what they discover if the teleport goes wrong.

** the oceans are mostly drained away, so technically the planet is one big landmass with one big sea.

[Ionbound]

Of course you need to separate a 'class ability' like 'wearing heavy armor' from one like 'spellcasting'. Because causing a TPK with say the spell Gate is a bit different then causing a TPK with the using the Track ability.

Oh, I don't know about that. I can absolutely envision a scenario in which we're discussing whether or not track has an X% chance to find something different than what you were looking for, which may or may not be an awake and angry Ancient Red Dragon, depending on the whim of the GM


I've found most players like the Gygax-stlye, as long as they don't know it.

Oh really? Maybe I'm just a special snowflake, but I tend to get attached to my characters. And the protocol I would use for creation in a Gygax-style game would be very different from a WotC-style game.


I would never go for that. I re-wrote the spell Gate for example. You want to play in my game, then you will use my version. And I don't care what you think about it. There will be no discussion.

If you refuse to discuss house-rules with your players, and take a 'Take it or leave it' approach without telling people what they're taking, you should not be GMing. It's that simple.


Yes the game should be fun for all. The problem comes that the players, unlike the DM, have a stake in the game. So they can't be impartial and be expected to be fair all the time. And even if each player was pure and good, they still might not all agree on what is pure and good. And if they are not pure and good, you will have a mess. It would be hard enough to get the players that ''just don't care'' about things. It's worse when they players don't know enough about the rules to make any kind of ruling.

Jedi, I want to explain something to you, that I don't think you've really gotten due to the bad feeling generated. And that is that the players, for the most part, want to get the maximum entertainment value out of the game. And that, more often than not, involves making sub-optimal choices. Sure, you can make Pun-Pun, or Batman, or whatever, but what would be the point? There's nowhere to go from there. The game isn't about the destination. It's about the journey. And you don't need to pile on by adding a whole bunch of secret rules, then, when the party accidentally gets themselves inevitably killed, saying, 'Oh, it was a house-rule. If you don't like it, than I don't want to play with you' and, if they question it, throwing a fit like you've done in these threads.

[AMFV]

Here's the thing: let's say that magic users who use summoning spells regularly are relatively scarce in your world, maybe 20 on the continent the PCs are in. Each of them uses a summoning spell an average of 3 times a day. Now, even if the chance of something going awry with the summon only being 1%, that means in the last year there have 219 instances of a summon taking longer than expected. It would be so common that anyone with Knowledge (Arcana) ranks should know about it.

219 instances a year is hardly likely to be common knowledge, particularly between a few (20 people) who have no strong incentive to talk to each other.

[Broken Twin]

Wow there's a lot of vitriol being thrown around in this thread...


I would never go for that. I re-wrote the spell Gate for example. You want to play in my game, then you will use my version. And I don't care what you think about it. There will be no discussion.

Do you give the players the text for the rewritten Gate spell, or do you wait for them to cast it in game before telling them it doesn't work the way they think it does? Because I can easily understand someone getting upset when you seemingly change the rules just to screw them over. Not saying that's necessarily what you're doing, but that's probably how it's going to look and feel to them. And if someone doesn't want to play in a game with your rewritten Gate spell, it's only fair to both of you that they find out beforehand so you don't waste each others time.




Yes the game should be fun for all. The problem comes that the players, unlike the DM, have a stake in the game. So they can't be impartial and be expected to be fair all the time. And even if each player was pure and good, they still might not all agree on what is pure and good. And if they are not pure and good, you will have a mess. It would be hard enough to get the players that ''just don't care'' about things. It's worse when they players don't know enough about the rules to make any kind of ruling.

My stake in the game, whether I'm GMing or PCing, is to enjoy the story. If my only purpose to playing was to beat the boss, I'd go play one of the many MMOs I have access to. I know how much it sucks to get players that don't seem to care about the game. But I've also had GMs whose sole purpose was to kill the players in as many vindictive ways as possible.

The point is, everyone has different reasons for playing. I'm happy you've discovered your preference in gaming, and that you've apparently found players who share your preferences. But I don't appreciate your implications that anyone that does not enjoy your style are problem players who "just want to win." It's insulting, to be quite frank.

[Prince Raven]

219 instances a year is hardly likely to be common knowledge, particularly between a few (20 people) who have no strong incentive to talk to each other.

That's 219 instances a year, every year, for as long as their have been that number of summoning spellcasters, which means they're 5 times more frequent than the world record for shark attacks (Australia, 2008).Depending on the effect of the spell being mis-cast it could range from a well-known phenomenon amongst the magical community (only a slight delay in the time before casting the spell and the creature appearing), to an ingrained part of civilised culture with lots of folklore surrounding it (summoning something else, like an angry demon).

[AMFV]

That's 219 instances a year, every year, for as long as their have been that number of summoning spellcasters, which means they're 5 times more frequent than the world record for shark attacks (Australia, 2008).Depending on the effect of the spell being mis-cast it could range from a well-known phenomenon amongst the magical community (only a slight delay in the time before casting the spell and the creature appearing), to an ingrained part of civilised culture with lots of folklore surrounding it (summoning something else, like an angry demon).

Well folklore is not very reliable in the first part. And Wizards have a strong incentive to cover up those sort of things, because they want to work, so you have an incentive to cover that up, among people who are already powerful and secretive. That's pretty unlikely that it would be common knowledge.

[Vhaidara]

Well folklore is not very reliable in the first part. And Wizards have a strong incentive to cover up those sort of things, because they want to work, so you have an incentive to cover that up, among people who are already powerful and secretive. That's pretty unlikely that it would be common knowledge.

Think of it this way: you are an elven conjurer. Summoning is your bag. You are starting at level 5. In the 100+ years that you've been casting spells, you have almost certainly encountered this. Barring that, wizards are trained, meaning that a senior wizard taught you magic. In their entire life, including what their mentor taught them (making this recursive), what are the chances that you don't know about this?

[AMFV]

Think of it this way: you are an elven conjurer. Summoning is your bag. You are starting at level 5. In the 100+ years that you've been casting spells, you have almost certainly encountered this. Barring that, wizards are trained, meaning that a senior wizard taught you magic. In their entire life, including what their mentor taught them (making this recursive), what are the chances that you don't know about this?

Pretty high, particularly if I was taught by a single mentor, and this was largely hushed up. I mean it's only recently that I've learned 1st Level Spells. And as I said my mentor has an incentive to keep it secretive. He might mention a little or offhandedly mention that spells sometimes don't function as they might, but it might not be something you can learn in an academic environment which is presumably where I was. Or possibly they have safeguards in an academic environment which aren't talked about because they don't want it getting out that this happens.

Again there is a strong incentive for powerful wizards to keep this hushed up, and they certainly have means to do so.

[Vhaidara]

Pretty high, particularly if I was taught by a single mentor, and this was largely hushed up. I mean it's only recently that I've learned 1st Level Spells. And as I said my mentor has an incentive to keep it secretive. He might mention a little or offhandedly mention that spells sometimes don't function as they might, but it might not be something you can learn in an academic environment which is presumably where I was. Or possibly they have safeguards in an academic environment which aren't talked about because they don't want it getting out that this happens.

Again there is a strong incentive for powerful wizards to keep this hushed up, and they certainly have means to do so.

Excuse me, but I said we are starting at level 5. We have been casting spells of all levels for years.

Your mentor has incentive to keep it secret? What incentive is that? The fact that he secretly wants you to get eaten by a missummon because you didn't know that could happen?

[AMFV]

Excuse me, but I said we are starting at level 5. We have been casting spells of all levels for years.

I missed, that, well depending on the chance you might have gotten lucky, or you might have principally been studying academically prior, you could have not been someplace where the phenomenon was present as well. Or you could be in on it already, you might assume that it's only affecting you though, since nobody's mentioned it before, and with the few times it's happened, you might assume that it's just because you're lower level.



Your mentor has incentive to keep it secret? What incentive is that? The fact that he secretly wants you to get eaten by a missummon because you didn't know that could happen?

The fact that he doesn't want you to blab, revealing that this is a problem Wizards are having. It's the same reason that businesses try to hush up accidents or problems, because that would wind up in less trust and less business for wizards.

[Qwertystop]

"Unreliable" just means it's not always perfectly accurate. More specifically, folklore tends to blow things out of proportion. See also: sharks attacking people (typically seen as much more of a threat than it actually is), which is less frequent than this.

The two extremes listed so far for the summoning mishap (minor delay and summoning a dangerous uncontrolled other thing) are both not the sorts of thing to easily cover up. If a demon or something is summoned, and there's anyone around other than the caster, you've got two possibilities: either everyone involved dies, in which case a coverup is difficult, though knowing exactly what went wrong is also difficult, so the information might be limited to "magic is unreliable/dangerous" without specifically calling out summoning. If someone escapes the, news is now out. The caster would tell other casters (if he has any empathy) so they wouldn't take the same risk; most other people would probably spread the story of the tragedy.
If the spell just has a delay, three options: if it's in combat, it probably makes a big difference. If nobody makes it out of the combat (party dies while summon is delayed, enemies die to summon when it shows up), then nobody knows what happened, like with the first thing. If someone makes it out alive, the news is out. If it's not in combat or the delay doesn't matter, then either nobody makes a big deal because it's not much time in the scheme of things, or they warn people because they think ahead and realize that it could be a problem in a different situation.


More generally, there's at least as much reason not to cover it up (don't want people accidentally getting killed trying to summon things) as there is to cover (want to keep getting hired to summon things, don't care about the risk of horrible death to yourself and your employers).

[AMFV]

More generally, there's at least as much reason not to cover it up (don't want people accidentally getting killed trying to summon things) as there is to cover (want to keep getting hired to summon things, don't care about the risk of horrible death to yourself and your employers).

This could be true, but historically when there have been procedures that were dangerous, many years were often required for those procedures to get exposed. I assume that this might be the same. Also Wizard apprentices probably know that magic is dangerous.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

Think of it this way: you are an elven conjurer. Summoning is your bag. You are starting at level 5. In the 100+ years that you've been casting spells, you have almost certainly encountered this. Barring that, wizards are trained, meaning that a senior wizard taught you magic. In their entire life, including what their mentor taught them (making this recursive), what are the chances that you don't know about this?

If you are playing a conjurer who is starting with some sort of summoning spell, that character would know the specifics, that summoning intelligent creatures has a slight delay that the creatures in question refuse to talk about.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I tell them teleportation effects (even Abundant Step is affected) sometimes have unexpected results. If I told them more, such as sometimes people disappear when teleporting, they wouldn't want to do it, would they?

That seems sufficient. Is there supporting 'flavor text' or is it just an out of character announcement that teleportation effects do not always function as written? Can a player explore this in-game by talking to people and hearing stuff like "dja hear about Wizard Wizziekins? Tried to teleport to Waterdoop and ended up in Calipsham! Had to spend the night, too; poor bastard. Barbarians can't even make a decent knuckle sandwich."?

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

If you are playing a conjurer who is starting with some sort of summoning spell, that character would know the specifics, that summoning intelligent creatures has a slight delay that the creatures in question refuse to talk about.

Again, this also seems sufficient. The exact dimensions of the change aren't communicated, but they don't need to be. Both the player and the character have enough knowledge that any surprises would be of degree rather than of kind.

[AMFV]

If you are playing a conjurer who is starting with some sort of summoning spell, that character would know the specifics, that summoning intelligent creatures has a slight delay that the creatures in question refuse to talk about.

Well that would probably depend on the nature of their prior experience again. It would be reasonable to take somebody whose only experience was academic and say that conditions in the field affect things, or that there were special precautions taken in the academic environment that weren't taken elsewhere.


That seems sufficient. Is there supporting 'flavor text' or is it just an out of character announcement that teleportation effects do not always function as written? Can a player explore this in-game by talking to people and hearing stuff like "dja hear about Wizard Wizziekins? Tried to teleport to Waterdoop and ended up in Calipsham! Had to spend the night, too; poor bastard. Barbarians can't even make a decent knuckle sandwich."?

Well again, there is a strong incentive for Wizards not to simply tell everybody about this, it's counter to good business to do so.


Again, this also seems sufficient. The exact dimensions of the change aren't communicated, but they don't need to be. Both the player and the character have enough knowledge that any surprises would be of degree rather than of kind.

But do you see how the other option could work as well, depending on the game in question?

[golentan]

This could be true, but historically when there have been procedures that were dangerous, many years were often required for those procedures to get exposed. I assume that this might be the same. Also Wizard apprentices probably know that magic is dangerous.

Here's the thing. Wizards don't have an incentive to keep this particularly secret, because it's mainly wizards that are affected and wizards are the target audience for the information. There are two common scenarios for learning magic: Apprenticeship and University, right? Universities thrive on free exchange of information within their own walls. Conjuration 101 would probably devote a whole chapter to the vagaries of summoning magic, and there would probably be multiple theorists competing to come up with a unified theory of summoning that would explain the inconsistencies with the spell. If the university is withholding information from its faculty and students, it's not a university, it's a group of people staring at each other mistrustfully over the table until everyone gets bored and leaves.

Meanwhile, in an apprenticeship, you have a close personal bond with your apprentice. You've probably known them since shortly after they could walk, and barring family you're the most important relationship in their life, and vice versa. They will take over as the town's sage and source of magic when you die, they are your legacy to the future, arguably more than your own children assuming the apprentice is not in fact your child. There is a vested interest in making them succeed, and part of that would be teaching them what magic is less reliable, as you learned from your own apprenticeship/university days.

Because, seriously, what's the danger of thinking magic is dangerous? It gets out, and common folk think that magic is dangerous? They already do. What other field in a medievalesque world could involve a research accident that sets you on fire? Hell, exaggerate the dangers, play up the mystery and the weirding ways of spellcasters, claim that every spell you cast puts you in personal danger if your concentration should slip, then charge what the market will bear for that potion because nobody else knows how to make it or can make an accurate assessment of how challenging it is for you. So now all the dirt farmers treat you with a little bit more fear, a little more respect because you have survived learning magic, and you have job security because nobody starts poking into learning cantrips except folks who are already in the fold, who you teach all the proper security measures to.

[Qwertystop]

Well again, there is a strong incentive for Wizards not to simply tell everybody about this, it's counter to good business to do so.

That doesn't work very well when people can see it happening, unless the wizards in question are high enough level to be able to afford to cast 9th-level spells on everyone involved to make them forget.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

But do you see how the other option could work as well, depending on the game in question?

My previously stated positions still stand. As long as it works for the DM and the players, and everyone's happy, whatever.

Edit: let me scale back what I wrote a bit, and ask you to clarify the other option, as you put it. Spell out exactly what that means for me.

[eggynack]

That doesn't work very well when people can see it happening, unless the wizards in question are high enough level to be able to afford to cast 9th-level spells on everyone involved to make them forget.
Yeah, really seems like it would lead to more weakening of the wizard image if a wizard had his summons go all wonky without knowing about that possibility beforehand. It's not like this is an especially rare occurrence, after all, and knowing that the spells are worse off than they appear would actually limit the use of those spells. Consider the following two possibilities:

"Alas, a mishap. Good thing I was prepared for such an eventuality in my time at wizard school. Look on, as I competently handle this issue with my mighty magic, as I was trained to do."

Or,

"Oh god, what? I thought I summoned a celestial lion, and now this. I have no idea how to handle this issue, as I was completely unprepared for the eventuality. My wizardly failure is really shining through today."

[AMFV]

That doesn't work very well when people can see it happening, unless the wizards in question are high enough level to be able to afford to cast 9th-level spells on everyone involved to make them forget.

You don't need a spell to make that work, you can lie. Or stretch the truth. "Well it took this long for the summoning because the stars are in the fourth heaven, what an unusual happenstance." You can try to not admit that it wasn't what you were intending. People can see it happening but people don't have ranks in Spellcraft (As a general rule)


My previously stated positions still stand. As long as it works for the DM and the players, and everyone's happy, whatever.

Edit: let me scale back what I wrote a bit, and ask you to clarify the other option, as you put it. Spell out exactly what that means for me.

Well this would involve you not necessarily knowing about the summoning fault for a variety of reasons, dependent on your backstory and such.

[eggynack]

You don't need a spell to make that work, you can lie. Or stretch the truth. "Well it took this long for the summoning because the stars are in the fourth heaven, what an unusual happenstance." You can try to not admit that it wasn't what you were intending. People can see it happening but people don't have ranks in Spellcraft (As a general rule)
Easier to come up with a lie when you know what you're going to have to lie about in advance. Wizards aren't exactly great at bluffing, and relying on their ability to come up with a lie that stands up to scrutiny in the moment seems like a bad idea.

[AMFV]

Easier to come up with a lie when you know what you're going to have to lie about in advance. Wizards aren't exactly great at bluffing, and relying on their ability to come up with a lie that stands up to scrutiny in the moment seems like a bad idea.

And the ability to discern good long-term decisions and have self-control about those revolves around a stat that Wizards dump.


Edit
This is also pretty much a moot point to be honest, we'd have to know how the Wizards are organized and such before we could make any judgments suffice it to say that it's possible that not everybody would be in the know, or there would be circumstances where you character wasn't (say they were booted out of their apprenticeship for example)

[golentan]

And seriously, not seeing the incentive to lie here, and seeing several not to. It looks to me like it may be begging the question.

[AMFV]

And seriously, not seeing the incentive to lie here, and seeing several not to. It looks to me like it may be begging the question.


Yes, it's not like money making entities have ever lied about their efficiency or the risk involved in their activities, that's never happened to the best of my knowledge....

[Vhaidara]

Yes, it's not like money making entities have ever lied about their efficiency or the risk involved in their activities, that's never happened to the best of my knowledge....

We're talking about lying to the people who are running the next generation, not lying to the general populace. A CEO who is planning on retiring and giving the company to his favorite employee (Actual favorite, not just dumping toxic assets) isn't going to lie about how to run the company.

Also, I feel you missed eggynack's point about this:


Consider the following two possibilities:

"Alas, a mishap. Good thing I was prepared for such an eventuality in my time at wizard school. Look on, as I competently handle this issue with my mighty magic, as I was trained to do."

Or,

"Oh god, what? I thought I summoned a celestial lion, and now this. I have no idea how to handle this issue, as I was completely unprepared for the eventuality. My wizardly failure is really shining through today."

[Qwertystop]

You don't need a spell to make that work, you can lie. Or stretch the truth. "Well it took this long for the summoning because the stars are in the fourth heaven, what an unusual happenstance." You can try to not admit that it wasn't what you were intending. People can see it happening but people don't have ranks in Spellcraft (As a general rule)

That only works with the delay and if the summoning brings in something that's still useful. If you say you're going to summon a celestial dog to play with a small child, and instead you get a fiendish bear... there's not much you can do about that.

Or even if you don't get something actively harmful - if you say what you're about to do,* you've got a pretty big problem as soon as that doesn't quite happen.

And then there's also that this requires all wizards, as well as sorcerers (who have even less reason to be part of a single group), clerics (who are in lots of different groups, many opposed to each other), and bards (there's much less built-in to say how they're organized either way, but almost certainly less so than wizards, since they're all nonlawful) to agree to keep this a secret for the good of being able to get hired for one very specific, risky, and uncommon type of job (summoning is short-duration enough to usually only be useful for combat, and you're not going to hire a mercenary wizard solely for their ability to summon and ignore all the other spells). You think that nobody capable of casting Summon Monster I thinks that it's more important to make people aware of the risks?

*as a warning to get out of the way because you're summoning something big, to calm someone who's suspicious of you in arm's reach, because you like to talk about what you're doing to rub in that you can do things they can't... plenty of reasons.

[eggynack]

This is also pretty much a moot point to be honest, we'd have to know how the Wizards are organized and such before we could make any judgments suffice it to say that it's possible that not everybody would be in the know, or there would be circumstances where you character wasn't (say they were booted out of their apprenticeship for example)
Probably. This isn't much of a verisimilitude issue, overall. The use of such a rule would likely rely on a game design purpose, rather than a world building purpose, because for any world that you build in which wizards keep this a secret, and it's vaguely plausible that they would despite the oddity of such a decision in most cases, you could have them not keep it a secret just as easily. Even a world with really secretive wizards could just let the PC in on the secret, after all.

[golentan]

Yes, it's not like money making entities have ever lied about their efficiency or the risk involved in their activities, that's never happened to the best of my knowledge....

This is more like physicists lying to grad students about the dangers of radiation. Sure, it's not as risky as popular lore might make it, but lesson 0 of every radiology course ever is "wear your lead apron."

In case you missed it, I had a lengthy post on the subject an hour ago.

[AMFV]

Probably. This isn't much of a verisimilitude issue, overall. The use of such a rule would likely rely on a game design purpose, rather than a world building purpose, because for any world that you build in which wizards keep this a secret, and it's vaguely plausible that they would despite the oddity of such a decision in most cases, you could have them not keep it a secret just as easily. Even a world with really secretive wizards could just let the PC in on the secret, after all.

Well a lot of that depends on how connected the player is to the magical industry, is he self-taught, was he a formal apprentice. Are there a lot of Wizards, if there are few enough Wizards they might be able to keep the flaw out of common knowledge at all. It's possible that there's a conspiracy to prevent that knowledge from coming out. But in any case it would certainly be possible to play it either way. Again there are too many variables for any one answer to be right here.


We're talking about lying to the people who are running the next generation, not lying to the general populace. A CEO who is planning on retiring and giving the company to his favorite employee (Actual favorite, not just dumping toxic assets) isn't going to lie about how to run the company.


But you aren't a favorite employee, you're junior scrub #9, Apprentice Wizard, you're not likely to be let in on things, because you aren't invested enough to stay. "Shut up and keep your head down" is a much more likely response/



Also, I feel you missed eggynack's point about this:

I didn't miss the point but presenting another possible scenario doesn't necessarily invalidate the first. At this point we're just splitting hairs over how we'd present that in a world, which could any number of different ways.

[Vhaidara]

But you aren't a favorite employee, you're junior scrub #9, Apprentice Wizard, you're not likely to be let in on things, because you aren't invested enough to stay. "Shut up and keep your head down" is a much more likely response

Except that you are the student that your mentor has spent the past 10 years teaching. As has been pointed out, this relationship is usually second only to family, and frequently passes family.

[AMFV]

Except that you are the student that your mentor has spent the past 10 years teaching. As has been pointed out, this relationship is usually second only to family, and frequently passes family.

I was addressing reasons why people might not know, maybe your master banned Conjuration. That's certainly possible, even if he really liked you, he might not be in the know in that case. Hell if there's a strong rivalry with Conjuring and non-Conjuring Wizards then that's another strong incentive not to communicate that fact to everybody.

In any case there are ways to spin each scenario so that you would or would not have that knowledge. Making it a moot point unless we know the exact fluff discussed.


This is more like physicists lying to grad students about the dangers of radiation. Sure, it's not as risky as popular lore might make it, but lesson 0 of every radiology course ever is "wear your lead apron."

In case you missed it, I had a lengthy post on the subject an hour ago.

I read it, it was interesting but it requires that things fluff a certain way, and they might not be that way in another world. Maybe the apprentice bond is cold and callous... maybe Wizards apprentice only for money and they aren't that involved in the welfare of their apprentice.

The reason why the dangers of many jobs are publicized now (they didn't use to be) deals with our state of litigation and lawsuits, not with any care for humanity, it's exactly as publicized as they are allowed to get away with.

Also an academic institution which is publicly funded is going to behave very very differently than a private institution, and my hypothetical was a private Wizard scheme.

[jedipotter]

Here's the thing: let's say that magic users who use summoning spells regularly are relatively scarce in your world, maybe 20 on the continent the PCs are in. Each of them uses a summoning spell an average of 3 times a day. Now, even if the chance of something going awry with the summon only being 1%, that means in the last year there have 219 instances of a summon taking longer than expected. It would be so common that anyone with Knowledge (Arcana) ranks should know about it.

Right, every spellcater in my world knows ''you might not always get what you summon/call''. It's a fact that ''conjuration is dangerous and you might get something that can slay a whole city.'' That is not an example of a ''secret house rule'', that is just a house rule. It just gets brought up all the time as lots of people don't like the ''anything can come'' effect.


The difference is that a player's incentives aren't perfectly aligned with those of their character.

So your saying most players would not vote for a house rule that was favorable to their character? Most players would ''take the high road'' and ''do what is right for all''?



Oh really? Maybe I'm just a special snowflake, but I tend to get attached to my characters. And the protocol I would use for creation in a Gygax-style game would be very different from a WotC-style game.

I think this might be the problem right here: your the type that makes a character to fit the game. Your ''stacking the deck'', and in my game(and only in my game, in the whole rest of the world your a king or queen or awesome person or such), you'd be cheating.



If you refuse to discuss house-rules with your players, and take a 'Take it or leave it' approach without telling people what they're taking, you should not be GMing. It's that simple.

Ok....but why?



The game isn't about the destination. It's about the journey. And you don't need to pile on by adding a whole bunch of secret rules, then, when the party accidentally gets themselves inevitably killed, saying, 'Oh, it was a house-rule. If you don't like it, than I don't want to play with you' and, if they question it, throwing a fit like you've done in these threads.

I don't think you are a follower of this philosophy. After all, if you were, you would not care about things like the rules. You would only care about ''get the maximum entertainment value out of the game'' and having fun. You don't need to nitpick and micromanage the rules of the game like a ''back table DM''.

And your kinda stuck on the ''secret house rules kill'' line. But that is like laws against weapons, where there are no laws against bathrooms(and a billion more people slip and fall and die in bathrooms then are killed by any weapons each year).

Most of the death in my game comes from poor choices. It's not like a player says ''I use my Track ability'' and then I'd say ''you explode for 100d100 damage from my secret house rule!''. It's more like 12 minotaurs guard a gate, and the group decides to try the ''we will walk up to them and (not) surprise attack them.'' Or the even worse ''lets split up and only have two if us attack the guards and the other three go do something pointless''. So yes, the 12 guards is a tough fight...it's made that way. They are eight foot tall muscle bound heavily armed and armored bull humanoid monsters. Every person over the age of five can say ''woah, they sound tough''. So if your going to attack them, you'd better have a good battle plan and plenty of corporation. So players that expect to just ''toss a couple d20's and win'', will likely have characters that die.

And plenty of death happens in my game for the simple reason of: some players don't understand the concept that they can run away. Ok, so you summon a horrible, powerful monster....you don't need to just stand there....Run! Jump! Teleport! Whatever! You just need to get out of it's line of sight. The monster is not going to ''hunt and attack PC's only''. Really clever players keep at least a couple of escape potions, just in case.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Well this would involve you not necessarily knowing about the summoning fault for a variety of reasons, dependent on your backstory and such.

Not good enough. Spell out exactly what you want me to respond to. If you're saying a Venerable Wizard who's spent his entire life learning to move something from here to there before play begins doesn't know about teleporting mishap chance, I say to you that's a completely unreasonable position to take.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

The point of the house rules I presented is to make the point that magic works oddly. It's a consequence of the planet they are on secretly being an ancient, gigantic prison; all teleportation effects have to be inspected (most of the time its instant and not noticeable, but sometimes things can go wrong, leading to a several-round lag, and the caster rolling a Will save vs Mythic Modify Memory). Likewise, summoned creatures have a 'contract' to sign, each time they are summoned, to be allowed onto the world. It also means if (read: when) the PCs move against those responsible, any summoned creatures are found in violation of these contracts and is instantly Dismissed (for a save, of course).

Just don't ask what happened to the casters who tried to Interplanetary Teleport or Plane Shift off the planet.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

The point of the house rules I presented is to make the point that magic works oddly. It's a consequence of the planet they are on secretly being an ancient, gigantic prison; all teleportation effects have to be inspected (most of the time its instant and not noticeable, but sometimes things can go wrong, leading to a several-round lag, and the caster rolling a Will save vs Mythic Modify Memory). Likewise, summoned creatures have a 'contract' to sign, each time they are summoned, to be allowed onto the world. It also means if (read: when) the PCs move against those responsible, any summoned creatures are found in violation of these contracts and is instantly Dismissed (for a save, of course).

Just don't ask what happened to the casters who tried to Interplanetary Teleport or Plane Shift off the planet.

Interesting and flavorful. But I don't think the debate is over the effects of the houserules, or at least it shouldn't be. It's about whether, or when, the DM can be justified in keeping them secret from the players. I think the way you've gone about it seems pretty reasonable.

[AMFV]

Not good enough. Spell out exactly what you want me to respond to. If you're saying a Venerable Wizard who's spent his entire life learning to move something from here to there before play begins doesn't know about teleporting mishap chance, I say to you that's a completely unreasonable position to take.

Well that would be unreasonable. That's why I was saying it was a moot point. If I was wanting that aspect of the world to be secretive then I would probably not allow you to create a veteran Wayfarer Guide wizard, although entry into that later could be very good (since they get to reduce teleport errors and such). I would potentially cut you off from the Wizarding community at-large, requiring that you were self-taught or had a master who could not or would not be completely open with you. In any case that aspect of things would likely be discussed beforehand.

My point was that there are conditions where having that be a surprise could be quite acceptable.

[The Insanity]

Lol. Not only are the houserules secret, now they're impeding on my options and concepts.

This getting better and better...

[golentan]

Generally, those business circumstances you keep bringing up where people covered up the danger of something as part of their own financial interests were cases where A) the person who would have to pay for safety measures, and B) the person who is making profit from the dangerous activity, are the same person who is different from C) the person actually taking the risk.

And your scenarios are just as dependent on fluff, but the fluff matches more poorly to equivalent professions in real life.

[AMFV]

Generally, those business circumstances you keep bringing up where people covered up the danger of something as part of their own financial interests were cases where A) the person who would have to pay for safety measures, and B) the person who is making profit from the dangerous activity, are the same person who is different from C) the person actually taking the risk.

And your scenarios are just as dependent on fluff, but the fluff matches more poorly to equivalent professions in real life.

I haven't presented any actual scenarios, only presented it as a possibility. It depends on exactly what the summoning issue is, if the summoning is just less efficient some of time, then there's a very good chance they'd hide that. Or they wouldn't necessarily want it to be common knowledge. Depending on why the summoning isn't working right they might have more reason to hide it.

What you're not seeing here is that what the Wizards would be losing is money, people wouldn't want to hire them if they aren't reliable, particularly if they aren't reliable and it's dangerous.

Edit: It's very similar to when you join the military and everybody tells you about the dangers, but they do so in a way that they seem far off. Or when you go to school to become an electrician, and people aren't always forthcoming about accidents or accident records.

[jedipotter]

219 instances a year is hardly likely to be common knowledge, particularly between a few (20 people) who have no strong incentive to talk to each other.

Well, if you go by the DMG, there won't be all that many spellcasters per area. Even a 'big' city won't have many spellcasters. Even with like 50,000 people in a major metropolis, you only get like 50 spellcasters(and like 30 of them are under 3rd level). The small town is worse, with like 1,500 people that only gets them 5.

It's not like every world is Dragonlance where all spellscasters are part of a single guild.



Do you give the players the text for the rewritten Gate spell, or do you wait for them to cast it in game before telling them it doesn't work the way they think it does?

Yes, my gate rewrite is not secret.



But I don't appreciate your implications that anyone that does not enjoy your style are problem players who "just want to win." It's insulting, to be quite frank.

My fans say that, not me. I can make the definition of problem player simple: they just don't play the game. A good player, no matter what they see or think they see, they just keep playing the game.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Well that would be unreasonable. That's why I was saying it was a moot point. If I was wanting that aspect of the world to be secretive then I would probably not allow you to create a veteran Wayfarer Guide wizard, although entry into that later could be very good (since they get to reduce teleport errors and such). I would potentially cut you off from the Wizarding community at-large, requiring that you were self-taught or had a master who could not or would not be completely open with you. In any case that aspect of things would likely be discussed beforehand.

My point was that there are conditions where having that be a surprise could be quite acceptable.

If that was your point then you've communicated it really poorly.

[AMFV]

If that was your point then you've communicated it really poorly.

I don't think so, I've been clear that it was not under all conditions and that it was pretty much a moot point, since it's fluff dependent. In fact all I was doing was presenting conditions where that assumption about common knowledge would be inherently wrong.

[golentan]

What you're not seeing here is that what the Wizards would be losing is money, people wouldn't want to hire them if they aren't reliable, particularly if they aren't reliable and it's dangerous.

I don't see why they would. There are things magic can do that mundane effort can't, and that's where the money is. There's not much point to hiring a wizard for an individual summoning lasting less than a minute, so the best options are to either put the wizard on retainer in return for access to their whole repertoire for the duration, or to pay for individual magical goods and services which make more sense. Individual services are more likely to be potions, enchantments, wards, and what have you: pick an item off the menu, pay the cost when you get the results. If it takes the wizard a couple tries to get it right, that's okay, it's their job to work out the kinks in the magic, that's what you pay an expert for.

Putting them on retainer, you'd be more likely to worry about reliability (after all, the longer it takes the more it costs you), but you're hiring them because you need a magical technician, probably because you've got a situation that can't be taken care of by an equivalent monetary value of mercenaries or carpenters, at which point if everyone is equally unreliable nobody is at a disadvantage vs. competing contractors. Honesty pays off long term, because if the wizard promises they can absolutely summon a celestial dog without hazard and gets a fiendish bear that starts mauling the bodyguards, and their competitor warns you that guy #1 will lie to you about their abilities and magic always has risks, the first guy is out of business within the year and the second guy now has a monopoly and can charge what he wants, with additional funds going to "hedge risk" against the dangers of magic.

If a mishap leaves no witnesses, you can't be paid whether or not the clients were aware of the possibility of mishap, and you personally might die. If a mishap is harmless, it doesn't matter. If a mishap is neither, it's not exactly a secret from your employer. And once the secret is out, the ones who lied about it aren't getting put on retainer again.

[137beth]

My fans say that, not me. I can make the definition of problem player simple: they just play the game. Not matter what they see or think they see, they just keep playing the game.

At long last we find out what a 'problem player' in these threads means!
Anyone who plays D&D is a problem player. That probably includes all of us, and all of Jedipotter's players (since they are all playing the game).

[AMFV]

I don't see why they would. There are things magic can do that mundane effort can't, and that's where the money is. There's not much point to hiring a wizard for an individual summoning lasting less than a minute, so the best options are to either put the wizard on retainer in return for access to their whole repertoire for the duration, or to pay for individual magical goods and services which make more sense. Individual services are more likely to be potions, enchantments, wards, and what have you: pick an item off the menu, pay the cost when you get the results. If it takes the wizard a couple tries to get it right, that's okay, it's their job to work out the kinks in the magic, that's what you pay an expert for.

It depends too much on specifics of the contracts involved to be really certain about what would happen, again it's a moot point, since we could both design settings without much effort where one thing or the other was the case.



Putting them on retainer, you'd be more likely to worry about reliability (after all, the longer it takes the more it costs you), but you're hiring them because you need a magical technician, probably because you've got a situation that can't be taken care of by an equivalent monetary value of mercenaries or carpenters, at which point if everyone is equally unreliable nobody is at a disadvantage vs. competing contractors. Honesty pays off long term, because if the wizard promises they can absolutely summon a celestial dog without hazard and gets a fiendish bear that starts mauling the bodyguards, and their competitor warns you that guy #1 will lie to you about their abilities and magic always has risks, the first guy is out of business within the year and the second guy now has a monopoly and can charge what he wants, with additional funds going to "hedge risk" against the dangers of magic.

Or everybody kind of works together to cover up the risk. There are real world industries that work this way. I won't cite them since that would violate real world rules, but they do exist. And if it happens in real life then it might be able to happen in a fantasy game. Also being able to prove they lied is pretty important as well.



If a mishap leaves no witnesses, you can't be paid whether or not the clients were aware of the possibility of mishap, and you personally might die. If a mishap is harmless, it doesn't matter. If a mishap is neither, it's not exactly a secret from your employer. And once the secret is out, the ones who lied about it aren't getting put on retainer again.

If the secret gets out, there can certainly be a long time that secrets are held. Cigarettes causing cancer, for example. That was an extremely competitive industry, where everybody all lied about their product, all of the members of that industry did. As such it's not unreasonable to assume that this would be the case in world as well with magic.

[Ionbound]

I think this might be the problem right here: your the type that makes a character to fit the game. Your ''stacking the deck'', and in my game(and only in my game, in the whole rest of the world your a king or queen or awesome person or such), you'd be cheating.

You heard it here first, ladies and gentlemen! Making a character to fit the game you're playing is cheating!


Ok....but why?

Because, if you refuse tell people the rules that they're playing by, or compromise when they find out about and dislike them, you are a Problem GM. Since you're so fond of calling us all problem players, I feel that the moniker fits.


I don't think you are a follower of this philosophy. After all, if you were, you would not care about things like the rules. You would only care about ''get the maximum entertainment value out of the game'' and having fun. You don't need to nitpick and micromanage the rules of the game like a ''back table DM''.

And your kinda stuck on the ''secret house rules kill'' line. But that is like laws against weapons, where there are no laws against bathrooms(and a billion more people slip and fall and die in bathrooms then are killed by any weapons each year).

Most of the death in my game comes from poor choices. It's not like a player says ''I use my Track ability'' and then I'd say ''you explode for 100d100 damage from my secret house rule!''. It's more like 12 minotaurs guard a gate, and the group decides to try the ''we will walk up to them and (not) surprise attack them.'' Or the even worse ''lets split up and only have two if us attack the guards and the other three go do something pointless''. So yes, the 12 guards is a tough fight...it's made that way. They are eight foot tall muscle bound heavily armed and armored bull humanoid monsters. Every person over the age of five can say ''woah, they sound tough''. So if your going to attack them, you'd better have a good battle plan and plenty of corporation. So players that expect to just ''toss a couple d20's and win'', will likely have characters that die.

And plenty of death happens in my game for the simple reason of: some players don't understand the concept that they can run away. Ok, so you summon a horrible, powerful monster....you don't need to just stand there....Run! Jump! Teleport! Whatever! You just need to get out of it's line of sight. The monster is not going to ''hunt and attack PC's only''. Really clever players keep at least a couple of escape potions, just in case.

I don't feel like I should dignify the weapons laws part of this with a response, or the ad hominem remarks, but I will say that if you're stupid enough to pick a fight with 12 minotaurs, you deserve what you get. And if you try to teleport away...Doesn't that require 'A clear mental image'? And can you have that when you're being chased by minotaurs?

[golentan]

If the secret gets out, there can certainly be a long time that secrets are held. Cigarettes causing cancer, for example. That was an extremely competitive industry, where everybody all lied about their product, all of the members of that industry did. As such it's not unreasonable to assume that this would be the case in world as well with magic.

Cigarettes cause cancer is a much easier secret to keep than Cigarettes will blow up your house 1/10,000 times you light up. The one occurs up to several decades later, the other can be identified by the rash of explosion related deaths among marlboro customers. If magic takes a couple goes/summoning is on a time delay, that's not a secret WORTH keeping, if magic has a nonzero chance of injuring or killing the wizard, that's not a secret you want to keep (demand hazard pay!), if magic has a nonzero chance of injuring or killing the client or bystanders, that's not a secret you can keep. And trying to do so is how you wind up with witch burnings.

[eggynack]

So your saying most players would not vote for a house rule that was favorable to their character? Most players would ''take the high road'' and ''do what is right for all''?

I know not of most. I only know myself, and I've definitely acted in a manner not in keeping with my character's incentives. Some examples of that include mentioning rules issues that could reduce character power/increase monster power, and not making use of resources, like greenbound summoning or venomfire, that would greatly increase my character's power. I don't think it's particularly come up, but I would also advocate, all other things being equal, for a game hewing as closely to RAW as possible, because that's how I tend to prefer things. Alternatively, I tend to show a preference for house rules that increase game balance, so if I were playing a barbarian, I would display different preferences from myself playing a wizard or druid.

All in all, I would suspect that, assuming that a player is cool with house rules, they would display a small to moderate preference for house rules that are favorable to their character. While player incentives don't align perfectly with character incentives, they do align at least a little in most cases. My point is, your assertion about the degree of that alignment seems wildly inaccurate. There are factors that enter into house rule preference that are not just how good it would make your character.

Edit:
I don't think you are a follower of this philosophy. After all, if you were, you would not care about things like the rules. You would only care about ''get the maximum entertainment value out of the game'' and having fun. You don't need to nitpick and micromanage the rules of the game like a ''back table DM''.
You might not have more fun in a game where you know the rules, but that's not true of everyone. Personally, I derive a lot of enjoyment from knowing the rules to the game I'm playing, and using them to various ends. It doesn't have to mean anything so nefarious as manipulating the reality of the game until it defies common sense, while always remaining in the RAW. It can be something as simple as the delight of moving your knight to the perfect position on a chessboard, and knowing with 100% accuracy that it is not going to spontaneously turn into an arcanaloth after you let go of the piece.

[AMFV]

Cigarettes cause cancer is a much easier secret to keep than Cigarettes will blow up your house 1/10,000 times you light up. The one occurs up to several decades later, the other can be identified by the rash of explosion related deaths among marlboro customers. If magic takes a couple goes/summoning is on a time delay, that's not a secret WORTH keeping, if magic has a nonzero chance of injuring or killing the wizard, that's not a secret you want to keep (demand hazard pay!), if magic has a nonzero chance of injuring or killing the client or bystanders, that's not a secret you can keep. And trying to do so is how you wind up with witch burnings.

But cigarettes are more common than magic in almost all settings. For it to be a really hard secret to keep magic would have to be fairly common, if magic is extremely rare it might be much easier.

[Qwertystop]

But cigarettes are more common than magic in almost all settings. For it to be a really hard secret to keep magic would have to be fairly common, if magic is extremely rare it might be much easier.

If the sorts of jobs where summoning mishaps are a risk happen enough that putting a lot of effort towards making them seem safer than they are makes sense, then summoning in proximity to people who aren't trying to sell summoning spells (because they're buying them) happens a lot, so the mishaps will happen a noticeable number of times if they happen frequently enough to be worth having a rule for, and cover-ups will be next to impossible.

If summoning-spell jobs are extremely rare and/or the mishaps are one-in-a-million infrequent, it's a bit of a stretch to say it's worth the effort to cover up the possibility, just going by the odds.

[AMFV]

If the sorts of jobs where summoning mishaps are a risk happen enough that putting a lot of effort towards making them seem safer than they are makes sense, then summoning in proximity to people who aren't trying to sell summoning spells (because they're buying them) happens a lot, so the mishaps will happen a noticeable number of times if they happen frequently enough to be worth having a rule for, and cover-ups will be next to impossible.

If summoning-spell jobs are extremely rare and/or the mishaps are one-in-a-million infrequent, it's a bit of a stretch to say it's worth the effort to cover up the possibility, just going by the odds.

It depends on the number of Wizards present in the setting and their general level of paranoia and the general knowledge of magic how easy or not it is to cover things up. Also Wizards dump Wisdom, they don't have that kind of common-sense approach in general. It's very likely that they'd react with a complicated scheme. And that's part of the fun. I'm saying that you can argue this indefinitely, but it's a moot point, it could be fluffed either way. Depending on the people involved.

[Arkhaic]

Even if the Wizards didn't, clerics would be much more likely to take the sane approach barring divine mandate for the DM's reasons.

[AMFV]

Even if the Wizards didn't, clerics would be much more likely to take the sane approach barring divine mandate for the DM's reasons.

Again that depends, are Clerics affected the same way? The problem here is that we are lacking almost all relevant information. We can't evaluate this, since we don't have enough information and we're making things up at this point. There are scenarios in which the cover-up is a valid approach and ones where it's insane, and we don't know which this is.

There are scenarios where Wizards are scare and self-taught and so it might not necessarily come out into the open in almost any case anyways.

[Arkhaic]

Caster types were not specified, you guys just picked arcanists to argue over without formally declaring it.

[AMFV]

Caster types were not specified, you guys just picked arcanists to argue over without formally declaring it.

Actually to be specific, I outlined a scenario in which I thought it would be acceptable to have less player knowledge. There are other scenarios where it might not be. But I was disagreeing with the assertion that all Wizard Apprentices should necessarily be aware of all the hazards of their profession, and I think that in certain circumstances even big things like that could be hidden from them.

[eggynack]

Even if the Wizards didn't, clerics would be much more likely to take the sane approach barring divine mandate for the DM's reasons.
I'd probably go with druid, cause they summon spontaneously and all. I suppose we can wait on Jedipotter for confirmation on summoning always being wonky, but I'm pretty sure it is. She must've said something about this stuff at some point.

[Arkhaic]

Hm, true. This is still the sort of thing that should be handled with knowledge checks if you haven't houseruled them out....

[137beth]

I'd probably go with druid, cause they summon spontaneously and all. I suppose we can wait on Jedipotter for confirmation on summoning always being wonky, but I'm pretty sure it is. She must've said something about this stuff at some point.

Everyone who summons anything is a problem player, since they are playing the game. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?367268-Secret-House-Rules&p=18001681&viewfull=1#post18001681)

[golentan]

Actually to be specific, I outlined a scenario in which I thought it would be acceptable to have less player knowledge. There are other scenarios where it might not be. But I was disagreeing with the assertion that all Wizard Apprentices should necessarily be aware of all the hazards of their profession, and I think that in certain circumstances even big things like that could be hidden from them.

Yeah, the thing is that it's that kind of paranoia that I see JP practicing towards players. You're assuming that everyone's an enemy and treating them accordingly while claiming that you're working with them. It's a self fulfilling prophecy and it makes everything worse. An apprentice who's improperly trained is a hazard to themselves, their teacher, the library, and everyone else.

[AMFV]

Yeah, the thing is that it's that kind of paranoia that I see JP practicing towards players. You're assuming that everyone's an enemy and treating them accordingly while claiming that you're working with them. It's a self fulfilling prophecy and it makes everything worse. An apprentice who's improperly trained is a hazard to themselves, their teacher, the library, and everyone else.

I'm not saying that it's good. I would rate that of conspiracy as almost universally bad. And I'd introduce that if I wanted the players to be dealing with the evil Wizard's guild. But as far as falling to nasty paranoia goes, the Wizards can be a very good choice

[eggynack]

Everyone who summons anything is a problem player, since they are playing the game. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?367268-Secret-House-Rules&p=18001681&viewfull=1#post18001681)
Yeah, I figure that there's gotta be some other explanation for what that means, but I'm coming up completely empty.

[Arkhaic]

My read is that she thinks people are...counterbuilding or something? It's more Jedipotter being terrible at communication. I honestly wonder if she's using google translate at times like this.

[Arbane]

Pretty high, particularly if I was taught by a single mentor, and this was largely hushed up. I mean it's only recently that I've learned 1st Level Spells. And as I said my mentor has an incentive to keep it secretive.

They want their apprentices to get eaten by gribblies from the 8th Dimension? (Or butchered by orcs, whatever.) These are some terrible teachers.

[eggynack]

My read is that she thinks people are...counterbuilding or something? It's more Jedipotter being terrible at communication. I honestly wonder if she's using google translate at times like this.
If I'm doing a full analysis of the thing, my assumption would be that there is something called playing the game, and some other thing that is not called playing the game, and Jedipotter's assertion is that people should do both, rather than that people should stop doing the first. In the context of Jedipotter's full set of opinions, I would guess that "Playing the game" is supposed to be analogous to "Rollplaying", while "Not playing the game" is analogous to "Roleplaying". It's not an entirely off the wall thought, as the game could here be defined as merely the rules construct, rather than all of the things that players do in a game. Seems to follow logically, but it's not necessarily perfectly accurate.

[Vhaidara]

Seems to follow logically, but it's not necessarily perfectly accurate.

Gonna stop you right there. Have you forgotten that Jedipotter has stated on many occasions that logic = wrong? Kind of like compromise, and discussion, and player agency...

[Arkhaic]

*screams in frustration and hits his hnhjbead against the keyboard*

I wonder if we could get Jedipotter to annotate Robin's Laws of Good DMing for us, along with marking equivalencies to her own definitions. It might be beneficial to begin using consistent terminology, though I admit that hilarity is much more likely.

[AMFV]

My read is that she thinks people are...counterbuilding or something? It's more Jedipotter being terrible at communication. I honestly wonder if she's using google translate at times like this.

My reading, and don't quote me, is that what she's getting at is people that are treating it like a game over something else. But I'm not sure. Essentially somebody who plays the game and treats it as though it is some sort of computer game. At least I think that's what she's getting at.


They want their apprentices to get eaten by gribblies from the 8th Dimension? (Or butchered by orcs, whatever.) These are some terrible teachers.

Yes, they are, but that doesn't mean that they can't exist. Or that the conspiracy like that can't exist. Hell I think that could be an amazing plot line. Just because it means that in large part Wizarding society is unpleasant doesn't mean that it couldn't be that way.

[Arkhaic]

Oh, I totally forgot to put in the quote. I was talking about the one where Jedipotter said something about people who write different amounts of backstory and build differently depending on the style of game were cheaters who stack the deck.

[Brookshw]

They want their apprentices to get eaten by gribblies from the 8th Dimension? (Or butchered by orcs, whatever.) These are some terrible teachers.

Depends on your game, depends on your setting. Red Wizards use their apprentices as cannon fodder and that's the price of admission forcing a survival of the fittest scenario. Dragonlance wizards are kinda twits making you face lethal tests, one of which us simply getting to them. Then there's a plucky wizards school that leaves its mediocre student whom is being targetted by the most powerful wizard of the generation almost completely exposed.

[SiuiS]

It's really not my job to come up with your reasons for a fiend to hijack a summons.

It is your job to understand a point well enough to refute it rather than deny it. It's also tacky to be so irate at a broken clock that you'll jump off the handle when a separate party confirms the current face is displaying correct time for once. I didn't ask you to accept shadow arguments. I asked you to be open enough that making actual arguments wouldn't be a waste of my time. You responded by confirming it would indeed be a waste. That's fine, but don't pretend that's on me.


Right, next comes food talk and then Orcus.

It's basic human nature: If a worker was asked ''do you think you should get a raise?'', how many workers do you think would say ''yes''? All of them? Maybe only 99%?

Studies show that a very large amount of employees undervalue themselves and do not feel they should get a raise until well after they fall behind quality of life. So that's wrong.


The difference is that a player's incentives aren't perfectly aligned with those of their character.

Hel, both apocalypseworld and world of darkness specifically incentivize players having fun by characters losing and or failing dramatically. There are better ways than a stick to get reactions. Like, you know, a carrot.

[eggynack]

It is your job to understand a point well enough to refute it rather than deny it. It's also tacky to be so irate at a broken clock that you'll jump off the handle when a separate party confirms the current face is displaying correct time for once. I didn't ask you to accept shadow arguments. I asked you to be open enough that making actual arguments wouldn't be a waste of my time. You responded by confirming it would indeed be a waste. That's fine, but don't pretend that's on me.
My point was that you just completely refused to give anything like a proposed situation where these things might have been feasible. You just indicated that there almost certainly is one, which is a rather pointless argument when my side is that there isn't. As for this being a waste, that's not really on either of us. Due to circumstances beyond the control of either of us, your position became a pointless one. My argument didn't rely on premises "Too gamist" for the situation at hand, because those premises turned out accurate. It's as simple as that, really. If you want to actually construct any scenarios where your stated outcome would make sense, I suppose that's your prerogative, and I'd possibly respond to them, but the whole discussion would be a bit off topic at this point.

[Broken Twin]

Depends on your game, depends on your setting. Red Wizards use their apprentices as cannon fodder and that's the price of admission forcing a survival of the fittest scenario. Dragonlance wizards are kinda twits making you face lethal tests, one of which us simply getting to them. Then there's a plucky wizards school that leaves its mediocre student whom is being targetted by the most powerful wizard of the generation almost completely exposed.

Yeah, wizards have always seemed to be scholarly types with startlingly little regard towards the well-being of others. I suppose that's what happens when you get used to manipulating the fabric of reality at your whim. You get absent minded about mundane concerns.

My two cents on the wizards telling others about summoning issues? That's entirely a setting thing, so you can't answer it in any meaningful way in a vacuum. It's trivially easy to create scenarios where either side is "right". If it's not supposed to be a story hook, I think the players should be informed, but that's become an entirely separate debate from where this went. Because when you get right down to it, if it's something you want the players to explore, then there's plenty reason to keep the details hidden. If your only reason is balance/personal preference/whatever, then they should be told, if only so they don't focus on it. Because players lock on to things that are unexpected.

[Arbane]

Hel, both apocalypseworld and world of darkness specifically incentivize players having fun by characters losing and or failing dramatically. There are better ways than a stick to get reactions. Like, you know, a carrot.

That's right! You can beat them with the carrot, too!

[jedipotter]

You heard it here first, ladies and gentlemen! Making a character to fit the game you're playing is cheating!

It's not new news. I disagree with the whole idea. DM makes and Undead Campaign and players make anti-undead characters. I disagree with the whole concept.




Because, if you refuse tell people the rules that they're playing by, or compromise when they find out about and dislike them, you are a Problem GM. Since you're so fond of calling us all problem players, I feel that the moniker fits.

Well, the difference is.....I don't care



I don't think it's particularly come up, but I would also advocate, all other things being equal, for a game hewing as closely to RAW as possible, because that's how I tend to prefer things. Alternatively, I tend to show a preference for house rules that increase game balance, so if I were playing a barbarian, I would display different preferences from myself playing a wizard or druid.

Though saying ''close to RAW'' is a big problem as it's is so unbalanced and broken. And everyone sees ''game balance'' in a different way.



Personally, I derive a lot of enjoyment from knowing the rules to the game I'm playing, and using them to various ends.

Well it's not like D&D does not have tons and tons of rules for you to know already. And you can know and use all of them rules.

And sure, take chess, it's a great game....if you like to 'relax' and just do the same couple of moves over and over and over again. There is not a lot of randomness in chess. For every move made, there are only so many moves that can be made. But an RPG is more complex.

[golentan]

This thread has made so much clear in its own way.


Medically, sociopathy is termed as antisocial personality disorder. It is defined as "a mental health condition in which a person has a long-term pattern of manipulating, exploiting, or violating the rights of others." [...]

According to ICD-10 criteria, presence of 3 or more of the following qualifies for the diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder (~sociopathy):

Callous unconcern for the feelings of others.
Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, and obligations.
Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them.
Very low tolerance to frustration, a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence.
Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment.
Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalization for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society.

[eggynack]

Though saying ''close to RAW'' is a big problem as it's is so unbalanced and broken. And everyone sees ''game balance'' in a different way.
I mostly just meant lacking in much in the way of house rules on the former point. There are definitely some things that I see needing fixing, but as long as we're not in drown-healing or monks lacking proficiency in unarmed strikes territory, things are probably fine. Really, there's a difference between the necessary structural changes you're talking about here and the changes intended to increase fun you talk about elsewhere. The latter is what I'm talking about when I say I prefer being close to RAW.

On the latter count, I think I can say with decent though imperfect accuracy what sorts of changes lead to more or less balance. It's pretty irrelevant though. The point is that I prefer rules that I perceive as increasing balance, whether they improve my character or not. Whether my perception and the truth perfectly match up is pretty irrelevant in that context, given that I'm providing situations where my incentives would fail to match with those of my character.


Well it's not like D&D does not have tons and tons of rules for you to know already. And you can know and use all of them rules.
The point isn't there being a lot of rules. The point is me knowing and using the rules that exist.

And sure, take chess, it's a great game....if you like to 'relax' and just do the same couple of moves over and over and over again. There is not a lot of randomness in chess. For every move made, there are only so many moves that can be made. But an RPG is more complex.
That's not really... chess isn't a simple game. I don't know how much you play the game, but I don't exactly find myself playing the exact same game every time. As for RPG's being more complex, probably, just because of the sheer quantity of moving pieces, but that just means that I sometimes think of the game as a sort of massive hyper-chess. Granted, it's massive hyper-chess that has other elements, but the game definitely has that hyper-chess component.

I think you have this weird image of non-random as meaning non-complex, when that's not the case at all. A lot of good strategic gameplay comes from knowing exactly what everything you use does, sometimes while maintaining hidden information between you and your opponent (that's the case even without randomness house rules, as you don't know what spells your opponent has, for example), but sometimes while that's not the case at all. As an example, chess is far more complicated, and leads to far more varied game states, than something like monopoly, despite the fact that the latter has randomness. The same is true of summoning, as I mentioned before, which is a ludicrously complicated and difficult to use optimally ability.

[jedipotter]

Oh...checks self...




Callous unconcern for the feelings of others.

Well, primary focus is to make sure everyone has fun and a good time. No check.



Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, and obligations.

Is D&D a ''social norm'' yet? Or is it still abnormal? And being a DM is a huge obligation. No check.



Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them.

I guess having players/friends for years counts. No check.



Very low tolerance to frustration, a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence.

Ok, Big Check.



Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment.

Learn from experience, I've done that. And I have made profit. No check.




Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalization for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society.

Don't blame anyone and don't have conflict with society. No check.

Darn, I just got one.....

[Svata]

It's not new news. I disagree with the whole idea. DM makes and Undead Campaign and players make anti-undead characters. I disagree with the whole concept.

So in an undead campaign they shuld all roll up rogues without penetrating strike, or a similar ability?

[Brookshw]

So in an undead campaign they shuld all roll up rogues without penetrating strike, or a similar ability?

At this point its pretty well documented that JP is opposed to optimization and trying to "game the system" if you will (though I use that very loosely). I'm guessing that indeed, penetrating strike and other abilities specifically geared towards anti-undead would be out.

It's hard to tell with some of the rhetoric used but this seems to go back to the idea of starting off as a "regular Joe" and becoming powerful. I can appreciate that on some level as a valid approach to the game though you really need to read between the lines to get there somewhat.

[Earthwalker]

I've found most players like the Gygax-stlye, as long as they don't know it.


I think this is what confuses me the most about this whole thread. I wonder if anyone else here is advocating when recuirting a player to your game that you should just lie to them about what the game is about.

If you have a potential player asking you

What kind of game do you run ?
What system ?
What house rules do you have ?

That you should just lie.

I certainly think you don't have to tell them everything but you should do your best to descrbe to them what kind of game you are hoping to run, and you should do that as honestly as possible. Now I imagine someone is going to say, well people have different ideas what games are and you can't perfectly describe your style. Or that mistakes can happen. Which is true, but that doesnt mean you shouldn't try to be honest and at least give the potential new player a chance.

Whats the point of recruiting someone to your hard core gygaxian game when all the dude wants is a simple beer and pretzles game. Its wasting both your and his time.

Now I can see a GM wanting to do something like the zombie apocolypes game where the players just control normal characters and the surprise is for both of them to find. You can do that with regualr players you know and who trust you, I don't think its the best idea to recruit new players with that.

[Brookshw]

The same is true of summoning, as I mentioned before, which is a ludicrously complicated and difficult to use optimally ability.

Bit of an exaggeration there.


http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i93/DiegoHavoc/highlevelsquirrelsdrdoom.jpg (http://s70.photobucket.com/user/DiegoHavoc/media/highlevelsquirrelsdrdoom.jpg.html)

[bjoern]

I don't think its fair to leave the players in the dark about what the campaign will be Like.
I was wanting to make a mounted flying archer but when the DM said that he built an "evil dungeon that is basically alive in and ofitself" i figured that I should skip the flying mount for an underground campaign and make sure I have some light in my starting gear.

If I was in a situation where the DM knew my guy would suck in his setting and he didn't tell me, I wouldn't have very much fun. I mean, half of my guys feats and starting gold would be wasted on a mount that i couldn't use.

1st session..... OK you had to set your Mount free and you can't see anything. Have fun for the next 2 years.
OK, I slit my wrists, can I make a new guy now?

[Vhaidara]

I don't think its fair to leave the players in the dark about what the campaign will be Like.
I was wanting to make a mounted flying archer but when the DM said that he built an "evil dungeon that is basically alive in and ofitself" i figured that I should skip the flying mount for an underground campaign and make sure I have some light in my starting gear.

If I was in a situation where the DM knew my guy would suck in his setting and he didn't tell me, I wouldn't have very much fun. I mean, half of my guys feats and starting gold would be wasted on a mount that i couldn't use.

1st session..... OK you had to set your Mount free and you can't see anything. Have fun for the next 2 years.
OK, I slit my wrists, can I make a new guy now?

No, you are a problem player because you aren't going to stick with him now that I have negated all of his ability to do anything.

[jedipotter]

So in an undead campaign they shuld all roll up rogues without penetrating strike, or a similar ability?

Well first off, I don't run campaign's the way some other people do. Mine is a little more like ''we will play D&D on Friday, bring a 1st level character''. I always use the same setting: The Forgotten Realms. And the players are free to look up the setting information on that. The players get a week to make a character in the setting, and I'll work with them if they would like or not. My setting is ''generic kitchen sink''...kinda like the real world. There is no ''one'' of anything, like ''one order of knights of justice''....there are dozens. And they only get a vague idea of the plot, so it's ''an evil artifact brings death and destruction, that you must stop'' and not ''this will be an undead bash game, make an anti-undead character and lets bash undead''.

I don't get the whole idea of the way others do things like an 'anti-undead campaign'. Sure I've done it tons of times...but I don't tell the players before hand. The idea of making anti-undead characters is just cheating(yes, sigh, in my own personal view). Your stacking the deck and using metagame knowledge to make your character far stronger then they should be otherwise. When a super uber build anti-undead character takes out a powerful undead, that they knew and were ready to fight, then it is not a victory. It's a joke. It's like saying you destroyed a paper crane with a flamethrower(wow...). I guess the fake victory still feels good right? As long as you don't think about it? Like using a cheat code to beat a video game...you can say you ''beat the game'', just don't mention you used the cheat code.





If you have a potential player asking you

What kind of game do you run ?
What system ?
What house rules do you have ?

That you should just lie.

Why would I lie? The answers are clear enough:
1.A fast paced hard core, deadly, dice fall where they may Old School flavor adventure game
2.D&D 3.5 (or Pathfinder when we do that)
3.Hands new player list of house rules. Player is told there are also secret house rules.



Whats the point of recruiting someone to your hard core gygaxian game when all the dude wants is a simple beer and pretzles game. Its wasting both your and his time.

I mostly ''interview'' players when I can. And if a player just wants to ''pew,pew kill monsterz!'' I won't accept them into the game and go tell them to find a 4E game....for example. As I said before, my known house rules keep most of the problem players away. They don't need to read much more then ''what? No Tome of Battle! Screw you guys I'm going home!''

[Jacob.Tyr]

I mostly ''interview'' players when I can. And if a player just wants to ''pew,pew kill monsterz!'' I won't accept them into the game and go tell them to find a 4E game....for example. As I said before, my known house rules keep most of the problem players away. They don't need to read much more then ''what? No Tome of Battle! Screw you guys I'm going home!''

See, this kind of thing is the problem. I love the ToB, because it allows me to make a useful and interesting mundane character without spending all of my feats to get a single trick. I'll go so far as to throw feats into fluff and theme, taking skill focus in something like crafting if it makes sense for my back story. But instead of holistically approaching "players" and pointing out problematic traits, you decide to blanket insult multiple large groups in a single sentence.

4E is a good tactical combat game, with A LOT of DM flexibility due to enemies not being assumed to be constricted by the same rules as PC's. You have an idea for an ability, power, or fighting style for an enemy? Cool, you can just make a monster/character have it. Character building is meanwhile streamlined to such a point where I find it much easier to think about the character's background while not worrying about the combat capabilities, feats, and class levels and how those would make any sense given the background.
Yes, players get to do what their abilities say, but, as the DM, enemies get to do whatever things you come up with. Your fluff isn't nearly as constrained by crunch, which makes creature/encounter/world building much more intuitive and less accounting.

So, please, if you don't like TOB that is fine. If you dislike 4E, fine. But please do not use throwaway caricatures of people who do like those things and insult what they do as problematic and badwrongfun.

Edit because I think I would actually like your game/style, in all honesty. Just, sheesh man quit being harsher than steel wool underwear.

[TheIronGolem]

The idea of making anti-undead characters is just cheating(yes, sigh, in my own personal view).
Your own personal view is wrong. This isn't a matter of opinion.

[kyoryu]

See, this kind of thing is the problem. I love the ToB, because it allows me to make a useful and interesting mundane character without spending all of my feats to get a single trick.

Which is cool.

But would you refuse to play in a game because you couldn't use ToB?

I don't play 3.x, but if I did, I'd probably think ToB was fine because, hey, I like fighters and they should get nice things. But if it was disallowed, I'd shrug and play something else.

I was part of a campaign once that only allowed humans as far as race goes. This was amazingly effective at keeping out problem players (with one exception).

[Segev]

It's not new news. I disagree with the whole idea. DM makes and Undead Campaign and players make anti-undead characters. I disagree with the whole concept.

So... in a Ravenloft campaign, I should build a rogue/enchanter specializing in charm spells and precision damage, lest I be a cheater for building, y'know, a vampire hunter?


I take it you feel that Buffy the Vampire Slayer was cheating because Buffy was a Vampire Slayer and she had Vampires as her primary antagonists?

[eggynack]

Your own personal view is wrong. This isn't a matter of opinion.
Indeed, though it's at least a step in the right direction, I suppose.

[jedipotter]

So, please, if you don't like TOB that is fine. If you dislike 4E, fine. But please do not use throwaway caricatures of people who do like those things and insult what they do as problematic and badwrongfun.


I'm not sure why people take such things personally. I think my little quips are funny, but humor is subjective...so..


So... in a Ravenloft campaign, I should build a rogue/enchanter specializing in charm spells and precision damage, lest I be a cheater for building, y'know, a vampire hunter?

Well, you know the Ravenloft setting is not 100% undead right? There are tons of things, like werewolves and illithids there that can be hurt by precision damage. And a rogue/enchanter is a great build for Ravenloft as the game has lots of ''18th century social interaction'', if you want to play it that way. And a vampire hunter is not a great choice in Ravenloft, it's not bad, but not great. There are tons and tons of other monsters in Ravenloft other then vampires.





Bit of an exaggeration there.

I love Squirrel Girl!

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/7/78617/3203019-squirrel_girl_full_artwork.png

Them squirrels attacking Doctor Doom are from her first ever appearance, in Marvel Super-Heroes vol. 2, #8, a.k.a. Marvel Super-Heroes Winter Special (cover-dated Jan. 1992). It was a great story....even if it was drawn by the horrible artist Steve Ditko. Lets all vote for a Squirrel Girl book!



I take it you feel that Buffy the Vampire Slayer was cheating because Buffy was a Vampire Slayer and she had Vampires as her primary antagonists?[/QUOTE]

[Segev]

Well, you know the Ravenloft setting is not 100% undead right?
I want to say you missed my point, but I fear that's my fault.

So, let me repeat the second question: Do you think Buffy was played by a cheater, if Buffy the Vampire Slayer was an RPG?

Would you consider a player a cheater if he took Profession:Sailing or built a sea elf for a seafaring campaign?

Is it cheating to build a Druid for a wilderness campaign? A barbarian? Anybody with Survival?

How many wasted character building resources must one have - ones that will be flat-out not useful in your campaign - must a player have to not be a cheater?



Then again...I was going to ask how people could be invested in a character who might be useless, but I recalled that the lethality level of your games is such that being invested in your character as more than a pile of stat points is foolish. ^^; (This is a fine way to run a game, if it's your cup of tea, but it will destroy any effort I make to see my character as anything other than a disposable implement to play with fun mechanical toys in the rules. Otherwise, I waste too many concepts that never get to be developed. Kind-of like building a beautiful sand castle that is crushed before you can even quite finish laying it out.)

[veti]

See, this kind of thing is the problem. I love the ToB, because it allows me to make a useful and interesting mundane character without spending all of my feats to get a single trick.

jedipotter specified "a first-level character". So "all of your feats", on a new character, translates to "not very many at all, really".

I think there's a disconnect here in that many people think of "building" a character to start playing at mid-level, or at least what old-school players would call mid-level (like, something between about 4 and 10). The "start at 1st level" character is a fundamentally different concept. You really are starting as "just a regular joe, albeit with slightly better than average stats". By the time you're next picking feats, you've already had a chance to see what kind of campaign it is.


I take it you feel that Buffy the Vampire Slayer was cheating because Buffy was a Vampire Slayer and she had Vampires as her primary antagonists?

Buffy didn't "generate" her own character. She had the role, and the abilities that came with it, thrust upon her. Much of the first three, maybe four seasons includes an undertone of her whinging about that "inescapable destiny". In game terms, she's playing a pregenerated character, and she doesn't much like it.

But she does provide a good illustration of one thing: people don't get to optimise their starting characters to the campaign. Do you think Willow, Cordelia or Xander would have started with the characters they did, if they knew they'd be fighting freakin' vampires? Not one of them has so much as a single judo class under their belts - at the start. Giles is the only one who's optimised, and he's been playing for years.

[Segev]

Buffy didn't "generate" her own character. She had the role, and the abilities that came with it, thrust upon her. Much of the first three, maybe four seasons includes an undertone of her whinging about that "inescapable destiny". In game terms, she's playing a pregenerated character, and she doesn't much like it.

Ah, but Joss Whedon designed her to be that. If it were an RPG, her player would have designed her to be that. Was her hypothetical player "cheating?" Did Joss Whedon cheat by not creating somebody wholly unsuited to the job and with no mechanical (i.e. established abilities) capacity to fill the role?

[AMFV]

Ah, but Joss Whedon designed her to be that. If it were an RPG, her player would have designed her to be that. Was her hypothetical player "cheating?" Did Joss Whedon cheat by not creating somebody wholly unsuited to the job and with no mechanical (i.e. established abilities) capacity to fill the role?

Well there's a large difference in roleplaying as somebody from a Standard Horror Film (TM) and roleplaying as somebody from a deliberate inversion of the former. It's a completely different game. I wouldn't use the word cheating but if you build Buffy after being told that you're a commoner from Ravenloft, you may have a different idea about the sort of game than the DM does. Or at least that's what I think she's getting at.

[veti]

Ah, but Joss Whedon designed her to be that. If it were an RPG, her player would have designed her to be that. Was her hypothetical player "cheating?" Did Joss Whedon cheat by not creating somebody wholly unsuited to the job and with no mechanical (i.e. established abilities) capacity to fill the role?

Joss Whedon is the DM, not the player.

[AMFV]

Joss Whedon is the DM, not the player.

That one's actually a really interesting case, since Buffy is higher level than the surrounding characters but gets shafted more Karma-wise. Which is really well represented in the Buffy RPG, but is not something that's easy to represent in D&D. It's actually something very difficult to replicate there, I can't even think of a way to off-hand.

[Segev]

Joss Whedon is the DM, not the player.

Technically, he's both, since he's the writer and writes all characters. That is where the fiction/RPG analogy breaks down.

And yes, if the DM says, "This game is a game where you're average joes," it would be uncalled-for to build super-competent fighters. But if all the DM says is, "this will be an undead-themed campaign," I don't think it's at all unreasonable to build a character designed to fit into said campaign. Any more than it's unreasonable for a writer to create his lead character as appropriate for his story.

[AMFV]

Technically, he's both, since he's the writer and writes all characters. That is where the fiction/RPG analogy breaks down.

And yes, if the DM says, "This game is a game where you're average joes," it would be uncalled-for to build super-competent fighters. But if all the DM says is, "this will be an undead-themed campaign," I don't think it's at all unreasonable to build a character designed to fit into said campaign. Any more than it's unreasonable for a writer to create his lead character as appropriate for his story.

True, although if you'll note Jedipotter, explicitly said that she doesn't say that. Or run specific enemy focused campaigns in general. I do agree though that it's perfectly reasonable to create a character that fits with the campaign. I think the biggest issue generally is if the DM can't adapt to a character that is more powerful without making the other characters feel worthless. Or if the player can't play down. Or if the group minds a large power disparity, which not all groups do. Those would be the potential problem areas I could see with coming to a new group with a hyper competent character. Although at least for me, I don't even build a character until I've been able to talk to folks in the group or the DM about it.

[eggynack]

I think the biggest issue generally is if the DM can't adapt to a character that is more powerful without making the other characters feel worthless. Or if the player can't play down. Or if the group minds a large power disparity, which not all groups do. Those would be the potential problem areas I could see with coming to a new group with a hyper competent character. Although at least for me, I don't even build a character until I've been able to talk to folks in the group or the DM about it.
It's worth note, however, that this is exactly the thing that Jedipotter is apparently against. Figuring out the groups already existent power level is a big part of building a character for a particular game, rather than just putting together a character arbitrarily. If all I have to go on is old school, 3.5, and here's some house rules, then I have no idea whether I'm supposed to toss out a crazy aberration themed druid, a reasonably powerful factotum, or a healer using sanctified spells. Building to a campaign isn't always about trying to game the system, and if the particular campaign is, "Ravenloft where everyone is commoners," rather than just Ravenloft, then that should ideally be accounted for in character construction.

[AMFV]

It's worth note, however, that this is exactly the thing that Jedipotter is apparently against. Figuring out the groups already existent power level is a big part of building a character for a particular game, rather than just putting together a character arbitrarily. If all I have to go on is old school, 3.5, and here's some house rules, then I have no idea whether I'm supposed to toss out a crazy aberration themed druid, a reasonably powerful factotum, or a healer using sanctified spells. Building to a campaign isn't always about trying to game the system, and if the particular campaign is, "Ravenloft where everyone is commoners," rather than just Ravenloft, then that should ideally be accounted for in character construction.

Actually if you read her previous post, she said that she does talk about her expectations and houserules prior to gaming. Just that not all of her houserules are revealed to players, but their existence is in fact known. Well it's difficult to determine what different power levels mean, because if someone says "high powered" or "low powered" it will mean entirely different things to different people. That's why normally I just talk about the game in general and get a feel for the other person, usually that's almost better than asking about specific power levels in my experience.

[gartius]

I don't get the whole idea of the way others do things like an 'anti-undead campaign'. Sure I've done it tons of times...but I don't tell the players before hand. The idea of making anti-undead characters is just cheating(yes, sigh, in my own personal view). Your stacking the deck and using metagame knowledge to make your character far stronger then they should be otherwise. When a super uber build anti-undead character takes out a powerful undead, that they knew and were ready to fight, then it is not a victory. It's a joke. It's like saying you destroyed a paper crane with a flamethrower(wow...). I guess the fake victory still feels good right? As long as you don't think about it? Like using a cheat code to beat a video game...you can say you ''beat the game'', just don't mention you used the cheat code.

So is it cheating for the ranger to have forewarning of the types of enemies the campain is likely to face, lest their class features do nothing?

answer: no as a dm it is your job to provide this sort of information to prevent this sort of thing happening. this is not the equivalent of a paper crane with a flamethrower, it is instead the difference of the player being useful compared to useless. So in this case not giving the rogue warning its an undead heavy campaign is instead the dm being a bad dm.

example a player wants to play a ranged type character, however the scenario you intend to play means that there are high winds causing all ranged attacks to fail, do you give the party warning of this during character creation?

[Vhaidara]

example a player wants to play a ranged type character, however the scenario you intend to play means that there are high winds causing all ranged attacks to fail, do you give the party warning of this during character creation?

Better example: You are running a campaign where your players are pirates, and have been for years. Do you let them know that? Or does the guy who shows up with the heavily armored knight (level 1, so no full plate, but let's say Chain Mail and a Tower Shield) just have to eat his -30 to Swim checks? Is it cheating to instead build a character who doesn't, you know, sink?

[AMFV]

So is it cheating for the ranger to have forewarning of the types of enemies the campain is likely to face, lest their class features do nothing?

That depends on the campaign. Rangers get spells and such, Favored Enemy is probably one of the least of their class features, and there are a few safe bets you can always pick (Humans are good, tasty too)



answer: no as a dm it is your job to provide this sort of information to prevent this sort of thing happening. this is not the equivalent of a paper crane with a flamethrower, it is instead the difference of the player being useful compared to useless. So in this case not giving the rogue warning its an undead heavy campaign is instead the dm being a bad dm.


The problem is that everybody will have a different perspective on what "being useful" actually means. For some players a rogue that has no combat function and only disarms the huge and dangerous traps in an undead heavy campaign is still very, very useful. For others that isn't acceptable. It's why it's a player responsibility to talk to the DM about what they think they want to achieve with a character. Because even if I say "I'm building a mid-OP Rogue" that may mean different things to myself than it does to the DM. If I say "I'm building a combat focused rogue, is that a good fit for this campaign?" That's a more useful question.

So again, there is no reason that this is exclusively a DM responsibility and not also a player responsibility. Particularly because a DM will tend to view things through their own lens and therefore may not be able to communicate what they will be providing as well as the player can communicate what they will be wanting.

[Brookshw]

It's worth note, however, that this is exactly the thing that Jedipotter is apparently against. Figuring out the groups already existent power level is a big part of building a character for a particular game, rather than just putting together a character arbitrarily. If all I have to go on is old school, 3.5, and here's some house rules, then I have no idea whether I'm supposed to toss out a crazy aberration themed druid, a reasonably powerful factotum, or a healer using sanctified spells. Building to a campaign isn't always about trying to game the system, and if the particular campaign is, "Ravenloft where everyone is commoners," rather than just Ravenloft, then that should ideally be accounted for in character construction.

Eggy buddy, I really don't get the impression you're approaching this in an unbiased manner. Jedi did say they'd be happy to help players build there characters and lays out certain parameters. No one said you're making a character in a vacuum nor has anything been said to discourage checking what the power level of the game is (though I think it's pretty obvious). Maybe we should like back to the abridged rules that were posted, especially since many posters seem unaware that Jedi is transparent regarding the summoning mischance.

[eggynack]

Actually if you read her previous post, she said that she does talk about her expectations and houserules prior to gaming. Just that not all of her houserules are revealed to players, but their existence is in fact known.
If we're talking about the same thing, that's the post from which I derived the old school, 3.5, house rules thing. However, looking back, I suppose that list wasn't necessarily exclusive. I guess I could ask.

Yo, Jedipotter. How much info do you actually give, if any, apart from those three pieces.

Well it's difficult to determine what different power levels mean, because if someone says "high powered" or "low powered" it will mean entirely different things to different people. That's why normally I just talk about the game in general and get a feel for the other person, usually that's almost better than asking about specific power levels in my experience.
Indeed, I would not take a person's word for it when they claim that a game is high powered (though I'd be more likely to take their word for it if they say low powered). In an already existing game, if given the opportunity, I would seek out the class makeup of the party, and if possible, a general idea of their builds and/or what they do in combat. In a new game, claimed to be high power, I might ask a quick question to gauge their system mastery, like perhaps what the most powerful class is and why. You can get a lot of information about how powerful a game actually is that way.

Edit: @Brooksw: As I noted in the first part of this post, it's possible that I was reading her words more exclusive than they were. In any case, with some variety of solid answer on this count, we can likely better assess how necessary my argument there was. At the same time though, I don't think this is so much me being biased as it is me being expected to just completely disregard a good amount of the things Jedipotter says with the understanding that she doesn't actually think those things, or that she actually thinks a less extreme thing.

After all, she did explicitly say that building a character to fit a game would be considered cheating in her game, and later, in clarification, indicated that absent any questioning, her standard operating procedure would be to just tell folks to bring a first level character of arbitrary form on Friday. Separating out the truth from the fiction here is damn tricky, and while I can occasionally make educated guesses as to the true meaning on the basis of participating in a lot of these arguments, I'm not always going to have everything she's ever said in mind every time she says something wonky. It's just not gonna happen, and I don't think I can be expected to have it happen.

[Brookshw]

Edit: @Brooksw: As I noted in the first part of this post Well I do hope you'll forgive me for not anticipating the words not yet typed at the time of that post, I'm telapathetic, not telepathic.


it's possible that I was reading her words more exclusive than they were. In any case, with some variety of solid answer on this count, we can likely better assess how necessary my argument there was. At the same time though, I don't think this is so much me being biased as it is me being expected to just completely disregard a good amount of the things Jedipotter says with the understanding that she doesn't actually think those things, or that she actually thinks a less extreme thing.

After all, she did explicitly say that building a character to fit a game would be considered cheating in her game, and later, in clarification, indicated that absent any questioning, her standard operating procedure would be to just tell folks to bring a first level character of arbitrary form on Friday. Separating out the truth from the fiction here is damn tricky, and while I can occasionally make educated guesses as to the true meaning on the basis of participating in a lot of these arguments, I'm not always going to have everything she's ever said in mind every time she says something wonky. It's just not gonna happen, and I don't think I can be expected to have it happen. I think there's a distinction that's been drawn between "the main conflict of the campaign/game" and "a game of D&D". I agree that it's a bit challenging to try and parse out the meaning of JPs words at times, but you have acknowledged you expect they aren't necessarily conductive of the point and rather are a matter "of poor communication" (a point I rather agree with). Still, to acknowledge someone is bad at communication and then target what they've said is a bit of a contradiction, at least in terms of demonstrable actions. I don't expect you to recall everything said, but when referencing a position put forth I do expect you to remember the entirety of that post at least.

Frankly it's not just a post, it's in large part that you've put forth a posteriori arguments based on theory/position rather than evidence, and a priori arguments based on evidence. It doesn't work, it's not logically cohesive. Granted we're dealing with someone here who is a challenge when it comes to succinct/verbose posts, but the filter that's been created eliminates quite a few clarifications and projects elements that are not, in fact, present. It's a very odd thing to say the least.

[Jacob.Tyr]

jedipotter specified "a first-level character". So "all of your feats", on a new character, translates to "not very many at all, really".

A first level character in a high lethality rocket tag game would be one I'd be more likely to spend his feat on something fluff based rather than worry about build. If all characters in the game always start at level one, though, I might have issues if I join late. Although rp'ing a blacksmith swept up in some grand quest can be fun, if exp rates let me catch up in a few sessions.

And to another response above: I would play a no ToB game, and have played in them a lot. If a DM opened by banning it and told me it was dumb/op/weeaboo fightin magic, I would walk.

[Vhaidara]

Oh, and the summoning rules are not made clear to all players. In the campaign that got me labeled a problem play, there was absolutely no mention of any kind of houserules.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Oh, and the summoning rules are not made clear to all players. In the campaign that got me labeled a problem play, there was absolutely no mention of any kind of houserules.

For my own curiosity could you PM me a link to the thread (I assume it was a pbp?)?

[eggynack]

Well I do hope you'll forgive me for not anticipating the words not yet typed at the time of that post, I'm telapathetic, not telepathic.
That was just me seeking to say a thing once rather than twice.


I think there's a distinction that's been drawn between "the main conflict of the campaign/game" and "a game of D&D". I agree that it's a bit challenging to try and parse out the meaning of JPs words at times, but you have acknowledged you expect they aren't necessarily conductive of the point and rather are a matter "of poor communication" (a point I rather agree with). Still, to acknowledge someone is bad at communication and then target what they've said is a bit of a contradiction, at least in terms of demonstrable actions. I don't expect you to recall everything said, but when referencing a position put forth I do expect you to remember the entirety of that post at least.
The issue is that the two are pretty difficult to separate out from each other. Quite a few times, I've taken a step back from one of these arguments, said, "Wait, no, she couldn't possibly mean that ridiculous thing. She must actually mean this other and less ridiculous thing," and then she clarifies her position, and it turns out that she really did mean the ridiculous thing.


Frankly it's not just a post, it's in large part that you've put forth a posteriori arguments based on theory/position rather than evidence, and a priori arguments based on evidence. It doesn't work, it's not logically cohesive. Granted we're dealing with someone here who is a challenge when it comes to succinct/verbose posts, but the filter that's been created eliminates quite a few clarifications and projects elements that are not, in fact, present. It's a very odd thing to say the least.
I think we've kinda moved past the "All secret house rules are bad" thing at this point, particularly because that was explicitly never really my position. At this point, my stance is just that these secret house rules are bad, or perhaps just capable of being improved upon, depending on the rule.

Oh, and the summoning rules are not made clear to all players. In the campaign that got me labeled a problem play, there was absolutely no mention of any kind of houserules.
So, yeah. Like right here. I was all ready to assume that there was more explanation than was being indicated in Jedipotter's posts, and I was letting myself get pushed towards a more balanced viewpoint, when apparently it was the more extreme view that was accurate. I'm pretty sure we left behind the possibility of the summoning rules being hidden a decent amount ago, and we shouldn't have. The problem is, there's more than just poor communication of ideas here. The ideas themselves are also often bad.

[Brookshw]

Oh, and the summoning rules are not made clear to all players. In the campaign that got me labeled a problem play, there was absolutely no mention of any kind of houserules.

You mean other than the linked houserules in the thread that spawned the campaign? :smalltongue:

Trains about to roll into the station so I'll be brief:

That was just me seeking to say a thing once rather than twice.


The issue is that the two are pretty difficult to separate out from each other. Quite a few times, I've taken a step back from one of these arguments, said, "Wait, no, she couldn't possibly mean that ridiculous thing. She must actually mean this other and less ridiculous thing," and then she clarifies her position, and it turns out that she really did mean the ridiculous thing. Yeah, that's why I take to asking questions. Even that clarification, usually it's contradicted several posts later with something much more managable.



I think we've kinda moved past the "All secret house rules are bad" thing at this point, particularly because that was explicitly never really my position. At this point, my stance is just that these secret house rules are bad, or perhaps just capable of being improved upon, depending on the rule.

So, yeah. Like right here. I was all ready to assume that there was more explanation than was being indicated in Jedipotter's posts, and I was letting myself get pushed towards a more balanced viewpoint, when apparently it was the more extreme view that was accurate. I'm pretty sure we left behind the possibility of the summoning rules being hidden a decent amount ago, and we shouldn't have. The problem is, there's more than just poor communication of ideas here. The ideas themselves are also often bad. That doesn't actually address concerning logic.

Train is in station now, gotta split.

[Vhaidara]

You mean other than the linked houserules in the thread that spawned the campaign? :smalltongue:

No, this was before JP became a household name.

Only lasts the first page before we get a different GM (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?357062-Divine-Forge(OOC))

[AMFV]

No, this was before JP became a household name.

Only lasts the first page before we get a different GM (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?357062-Divine-Forge(OOC))

Well we didn't see the summoning rules or really the start of the game there, there was kind of a general consensus that it wasn't the type of game she was trying to run, which seems like a good move for her. Since she runs a very particular sort of game. Maybe she could have been more tactful, but I don't think that's her strong suite. I would say it's probably better to back out if you aren't going to be able to run the sort of game people are wanting than stay in.

[eggynack]

Yeah, that's why I take to asking questions. Even that clarification, usually it's contradicted several posts later with something much more managable.
And I often do, when I perceive it as being necessary. However, these questions often get ignored for massive periods of time, and even now, a few really long running questions are still pretty much unsolved. Meanwhile, even if weird posts are sometimes contradicted several posts later with something more manageable, often, those more manageable posts are later contradicted with something far more weird. I think it's a mistake to assume that the more logical posts necessarily reflect Jedipotter's true viewpoint.


That doesn't actually address concerning logic.

I'm not really sure what the logic not being addressed is, at this point. If it's about the universal assertions about secret house rules, I kinda like that that one faded away some. I find looking at individual cases, and working out whether their use of secret house rules is good and/or necessary, far more interesting.

[kyoryu]

No, this was before JP became a household name.

Only lasts the first page before we get a different GM (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?357062-Divine-Forge(OOC))

Eh, I don't hold that against her.

I tried to run a PbP game here once, and after pages of very explicit player demands that everything be *exactly* *this* *way* I gave up, too.

Maybe for some people "running a game" means "your job is to do exactly what I want to tell the specific story I have in mind", but I don't. In that case, she saw there was an incompatibility, and bowed out. That's the mature thing to do.

[Vhaidara]

Well we didn't see the summoning rules

But that's my point. At no point were any of the houserules (or their existence) mentioned to either myself or the other player. And I got no impression that it was anything other than regular DnD 3.5


Eh, I don't hold that against her.

I tried to run a PbP game here once, and after pages of very explicit player demands that everything be *exactly* *this* *way* I gave up, too.

Maybe for some people "running a game" means "your job is to do exactly what I want to tell the specific story I have in mind", but I don't. In that case, she saw there was an incompatibility, and bowed out. That's the mature thing to do.

I never demanded anything. I asked how much she would disapprove if I took some of the more loose interpretations of the Artificer (grabbing from PrC spell lists, for example). If she had said no, I would have simply not done it. But it was something I needed to know before I could make my character. There was no fundamental incompatibility. I was trying to gauge what the appropriate level was to play to, and simply because of that JP bowed out.

[AMFV]

But that's my point. At no point were any of the houserules (or their existence) mentioned to either myself or the other player. And I got no impression that it was anything other than regular DnD 3.5

Well she did say that people usually bring characters to her table already completed. Maybe she announces the houserules post character creation, which could be a bad decision or not. In any case, we can't really hold that game as a mirror to her, since we don't have any actual gameplay, we only have her deciding that it wasn't a good fit. She's pretty skittish I expect, so that's not surprising.



I never demanded anything. I asked how much she would disapprove if I took some of the more loose interpretations of the Artificer (grabbing from PrC spell lists, for example). If she had said no, I would have simply not done it. But it was something I needed to know before I could make my character. There was no fundamental incompatibility. I was trying to gauge what the appropriate level was to play to, and simply because of that JP bowed out.

Well it's possible that she doesn't have that level of system mastery and was concerned about playing with somebody with higher system mastery, we can't really know. I will say that bowing out if you feel you aren't a match is probably a safe bet.

[Sartharina]

It's not new news. I disagree with the whole idea. DM makes and Undead Campaign and players make anti-undead characters. I disagree with the whole concept. Wouldn't it depend on the type of campaign? I was in a short-lived PBP game here where the Church assembled a team to specifically fight undead, and in such a situation, PCs should be allowed to optimize for anti-undead: They're PCs because they're specialized to fight undead, instead of being Special People. Like how the Ghostbusters were all Paranormal Researchers before they went Busting Ghosts.

[jedipotter]

So, let me repeat the second question: Do you think Buffy was played by a cheater, if Buffy the Vampire Slayer was an RPG?

Well, I'm talking about D&D, where the game is made to be generic. If you create a game of ''vampire hunters'', then yes you will only have ''vampire hunter'' characters.

Now I know nothing about the Buffyverse, and never watched the show: but in the big view, yes having a ''special chosen one that can auto kill vampires'' is crap, stupid and very, very, very much cheating. But then that is why I never watched the show. You can do the 'chosen one' right, like say Charmed for example. The Charmed Ones were powerful, but not super anti demon cheater builds.




But she does provide a good illustration of one thing: people don't get to optimise their starting characters to the campaign. Do you think Willow, Cordelia or Xander would have started with the characters they did, if they knew they'd be fighting freakin' vampires? Not one of them has so much as a single judo class under their belts - at the start. Giles is the only one who's optimised, and he's been playing for years.

Again: have never watched the show. I know that Willow is the 'Band Camp' girl from American Pie and Cordelia is the super sexy Charisma Carpenter, who was also on Charmed. I'll just assume that Willow, as a high school student(they were in high school, right?) did not take ''super awesome marksmanship'', ''improved initiative'' and have a high strength score as the ''weird, geeky girl'' before she became a vampire hunter sidekick.





Would you consider a player a cheater if he took Profession:Sailing or built a sea elf for a seafaring campaign?

No. But I disagree with the ''seafaring campaign'' idea in D&D.




Is it cheating to build a Druid for a wilderness campaign? A barbarian? Anybody with Survival?

No. no, no.




How many wasted character building resources must one have - ones that will be flat-out not useful in your campaign - must a player have to not be a cheater?

Ok, here is the problem. There are lots of copycat D&D games out there. Tons and tons of people like tripped and fell and one day thought they would copy D&D and put their own spin on it. And a lot of the games are what i'd call 'Focused' games. The designers/writers make the game easy by having a limited focus. When you play the RPG ''Pearls and Pirates'' you make a pirate character. Period. The game only has rules for making pirate characters.

So people play the other games. And then come back to play D&D, but with the other games idea of ''play a pirate game and only be a pirate character.'' And they come up with the idea that they will play a limited form of D&D where they limit the characters/options like the other game did. So this takes us full circle back to ''make an anti-undead character for an undead game.''

Now D&D has lots of effects, say anti-undead ones, that are powerful...against undead. But they are balanced out by the simple fact that the game has more foes and monsters then just undead. So if you make an anti-undead character, there are less then 20 undead(just stay with Core) and 200 monsters of other types. And all the anti-undead stuff is useless vs all the other monsters. And this provides balance: they have lots of power vs. one type of monster, but little or none vs. the others.

And when you upset that balance, in huge favor of the characters, that is cheating

[eggynack]

And when you upset that balance, in huge favor of the characters, that is cheating
That's still not what cheating means. It also doesn't particularly impact balance, actually. If everyone in the party either makes a character specialized against undead, or a character strong enough to compete with a character metagamed in that fashion, then you can just maintain the undead theme, but make them stronger to compensate. Finally, it's not like the characters being a bit metagamed against undead is particularly illogical. After all who would you rather choose for your undead killing quest than a bunch of folks who are good at killing undead? Also, in a world with an above average quantity of undead, would you not expect more people to learn how to kill undead effectively?

[jedipotter]

So is it cheating for the ranger to have forewarning of the types of enemies the campain is likely to face, lest their class features do nothing?

Yes. Big yes with a cheery on top. For the DM to tell Bob ''hey there will be undead soon'' and when Bob levels up his ranger he ''ah, randomly'' picks undead as a favored enemy. Then yes, both Bob and the DM are cheating. It's like having a random surprise inspection at 1 pm on Friday. Your not going to find anything when someone knows the date and time of a inspection. But show up completely unannounced and with no forewarning and you will be amazed at what you find.





answer: no as a dm it is your job to provide this sort of information to prevent this sort of thing happening. this is not the equivalent of a paper crane with a flamethrower, it is instead the difference of the player being useful compared to useless. So in this case not giving the rogue warning its an undead heavy campaign is instead the dm being a bad dm.

This kinda goes back to the special snowflake spotlight problem. If a player can only have fun when they are in the spotlight and being special....then they are a problem player. After all, your saying ''useful'' is ''having demi god-like powers'' and that is way beyond just useful.



example a player wants to play a ranged type character, however the scenario you intend to play means that there are high winds causing all ranged attacks to fail, do you give the party warning of this during character creation?

No. Let say I set the whole scenario in the Dreaded Hollowing Winds of Pandemonium, I'm not going to tell the players that.


Better example: You are running a campaign where your players are pirates, and have been for years. Do you let them know that? Or does the guy who shows up with the heavily armored knight (level 1, so no full plate, but let's say Chain Mail and a Tower Shield) just have to eat his -30 to Swim checks? Is it cheating to instead build a character who doesn't, you know, sink?

Well, remember I don't do the Pirate Campaign like your talking. I do the ''Campaign in the Forgotten Realms with the same houserules, set in the location of the Inner Sea.'' So the game has no ''special'' pirate rules or anything, just the normal rules of my game. The player is free to make a pirate, or any other character they want in the guidelines. No warblade, for example. If the players get together and want to ''lets all make pirates and be a pirate crew together'', they can do that....but there are no ''special pirate game rules''. And if the players ask for ''we want to play a game where we are pirates and raid ships for booty'', and if it's something I'd want to do, then I'll run that sort of game....but again set in the Forgotten Realms and not a special pirate mini game.

But the vast majority of my games are ''make whatever character you want to adventure in the world'', with no direct setting information other then ''set in FR''.




Yo, Jedipotter. How much info do you actually give, if any, apart from those three pieces.

Not too much more, but I'll answer any questions before the game.



No, this was before JP became a household name.



I love the infamy. (Infamy) I'm gonna live forever
I'm gonna learn how to fly (High)
I feel it coming together
People will see me and cry
(Infamy) I'm gonna make it to heaven
Light up the sky like a flame
(Infamy) I'm gonna live forever
Baby, remember my name

I am the one who knocks!

[Vhaidara]

Well, remember I don't do the Pirate Campaign like your talking. I do the ''Campaign in the Forgotten Realms with the same houserules, set in the location of the Inner Sea.'' So the game has no ''special'' pirate rules or anything, just the normal rules of my game. The player is free to make a pirate, or any other character they want in the guidelines. No warblade, for example. If the players get together and want to ''lets all make pirates and be a pirate crew together'', they can do that....but there are no ''special pirate game rules''. And if the players ask for ''we want to play a game where we are pirates and raid ships for booty'', and if it's something I'd want to do, then I'll run that sort of game....but again set in the Forgotten Realms and not a special pirate mini game.

But the vast majority of my games are ''make whatever character you want to adventure in the world'', with no direct setting information other then ''set in FR''.

No, at the time I posted that I didn't remember you saying that, because you hadn't said it yet.

That said, a Pirate game does not require "special Pirate rules". It involves everyone making pirates as characters. You seem to enjoy playing "Bland Murderhobos who die repeatedly" campaigns. Maybe you should publish for it.

[eggynack]

After all, your saying ''useful'' is ''having demi god-like powers'' and that is way beyond just useful.
It depends on context, really. In some games, what you would describe as demi god-like powers is the norm, and anything too much weaker than that isn't particularly useful. Tippy games are the big example of this, but less extreme games still feature characters of that approximate power level, simply by virtue of having a reasonably quantity of tier ones which played in a somewhat optimal fashion. Meanwhile though, there is a massive gaping chasm between rogue in an undead-free campaign and demi-god power, and a rogue in an undead campaign could wind up somewhat useless even in parties not populated by tier 1's, unless they optimize properly.

[jedipotter]

That's still not what cheating means. It also doesn't particularly impact balance, actually. If everyone in the party either makes a character specialized against undead, or a character strong enough to compete with a character metagamed in that fashion, then you can just maintain the undead theme, but make them stronger to compensate. Finally, it's not like the characters being a bit metagamed against undead is particularly illogical. After all who would you rather choose for your undead killing quest than a bunch of folks who are good at killing undead? Also, in a world with an above average quantity of undead, would you not expect more people to learn how to kill undead effectively?

Sure you can go nuclear. You can super optimize all the undead to reduce the effectiveity of the anti undead characters. But it's a fine line. As if a player makes a character with a lot invested in turning, they won't be happy if lots of undead have high turn resistance or turn immunity. After all they were told about the undead and made an anti-undead turning character so they could turn tons of undead. And when that happens, they won't be happy. same way that if a player makes a huge damage vs. undead character, they won't be happy if the DM gives all the undead tons of hit points and damage reduction.

And if the DM goes the extra step to give all the undead magic items, spells and abilities that do more effects ''but only on the living''......well watch out.

[eggynack]

Sure you can go nuclear. You can super optimize all the undead to reduce the effectiveity of the anti undead characters. But it's a fine line. As if a player makes a character with a lot invested in turning, they won't be happy if lots of undead have high turn resistance or turn immunity. After all they were told about the undead and made an anti-undead turning character so they could turn tons of undead. And when that happens, they won't be happy. same way that if a player makes a huge damage vs. undead character, they won't be happy if the DM gives all the undead tons of hit points and damage reduction.

And if the DM goes the extra step to give all the undead magic items, spells and abilities that do more effects ''but only on the living''......well watch out.

You don't necessarily have to metagame here, or even go nuclear. The characters here are more powerful than average for their level, relative to the challenges at hand, so you up the CR some, and some of the monsters will naturally have turn resistance, because that's how a lot of undead are naturally designed. In other words, screw things that have more effect on the living specifically. Just use undead that have spells at all, because spells are frigging powerful. If your players have a problem with things that are challenging, then that honestly seems like an unrelated issue by my reckoning. They would also probably be pissed off at the other game, where they're not metagamed against weaker foes.

[jedipotter]

You don't necessarily have to metagame here, or even go nuclear. The characters here are more powerful than average for their level, relative to the challenges at hand, so you up the CR some...

This only works if your assuming the players want a challenge and they don't want it easy. Sure some players build an anti-undead character and expect the DM to make all the undead a challenge equal to even out any advantage in power. But not all. Some will expect to dominate the game more with their anti-undead character.

And the DM just adds a template or two that adds some turn resistance, and then the character can't turn the undead encountered, even though they made a ''turn undead based character'', will not be seen as ''just keeping the game a challenge''......

[eggynack]

This only works if your assuming the players want a challenge and they don't want it easy. Sure some players build an anti-undead character and expect the DM to make all the undead a challenge equal to even out any advantage in power. But not all. Some will expect to dominate the game more with their anti-undead character.
I addressed this in my last post. If the player isn't satisfied by the campaign where it's his anti-undead character against powerful undead, then he won't be satisfied by the campaign where it's his normal character against the less powerful undead. This is a player issue, rather than an issue with letting folks build characters that work well in the game.


And the DM just adds a template or two that adds some turn resistance, and then the character can't turn the undead encountered, even though they made a ''turn undead based character'', will not be seen as ''just keeping the game a challenge''......

I addressed this also. Give some enemies turn resistance, don't give other enemies turn resistance, and make use of some enemies that just naturally have turn resistance. Tossing a rogue into undead world is a jerk move, but putting some undead in the encounter pile with a rogue in the party is perfectly reasonable. Alternatively, you could always just explicitly tell the player that you're going to put more turn resistant enemies in against his turn undead character. Double-alternatively, you could always just skip the turn resistance altogether. Turning is effective sometimes, but it's not like it's a game ending thing.

[golentan]

I addressed this in my last post. If the player isn't satisfied by the campaign where it's his anti-undead character against powerful undead, then he won't be satisfied by the campaign where it's his normal character against the less powerful undead. This is a player issue, rather than an issue with letting folks build characters that work well in the game.


I addressed this also. Give some enemies turn resistance, don't give other enemies turn resistance, and make use of some enemies that just naturally have turn resistance. Tossing a rogue into undead world is a jerk move, but putting some undead in the encounter pile with a rogue in the party is perfectly reasonable. Alternatively, you could always just explicitly tell the player that you're going to put more turn resistant enemies in against his turn undead character. Double-alternatively, you could always just skip the turn resistance altogether. Turning is effective sometimes, but it's not like it's a game ending thing.

Compromise? A nuanced take on a in game challenge?! What madness is this?!

Seriously. It's not that hard to make a game where death is a possibility but not a matter of time, and where the PCs are competent without being overpowered, all it requires is that the DM and Players work together rather than treat each other as enemies. The BBEG is the enemy, not the other side of the DM's screen. Honestly, Jedipotter, if I somehow found myself in one of your games, I'd rather you hit the "rocks fall everyone dies" button rather than passive aggressively trying to turn the game into an abusive relationship, which is the best metaphor I can come up with for the displayed mix of mistrust and antagonism that you've consistently described.

[Earthwalker]

Why would I lie? The answers are clear enough:
1.A fast paced hard core, deadly, dice fall where they may Old School flavor adventure game
2.D&D 3.5 (or Pathfinder when we do that)
3.Hands new player list of house rules. Player is told there are also secret house rules.


This has pretty much cleared up any argument I could have about secret house rules. If a player knows going in before characters are made that you have rules they aren't allowed to know about then they can choose to play or not. I first thought the term secret house rules meant you didn't tell the players about them at all. Only in the third session when they tried to do X did you go, um no my secret houses rules stop that.

See I don't want to play my 3.5 or pathfinder with secret house rules so I think I would pass on your game but least I would know ahead of time.

With the dice fall as they may quote, I take it you roll in the open when GMing ?



I mostly ''interview'' players when I can. And if a player just wants to ''pew,pew kill monsterz!'' I won't accept them into the game and go tell them to find a 4E game....for example. As I said before, my known house rules keep most of the problem players away. They don't need to read much more then ''what? No Tome of Battle! Screw you guys I'm going home!''

Yep its all about finding people that like the same style as play as you.

[Sartharina]

It's worth note, however, that this is exactly the thing that Jedipotter is apparently against. Figuring out the groups already existent power level is a big part of building a character for a particular game, rather than just putting together a character arbitrarily. If all I have to go on is old school, 3.5, and here's some house rules, then I have no idea whether I'm supposed to toss out a crazy aberration themed druid, a reasonably powerful factotum, or a healer using sanctified spells. Building to a campaign isn't always about trying to game the system, and if the particular campaign is, "Ravenloft where everyone is commoners," rather than just Ravenloft, then that should ideally be accounted for in character construction.
I've noticed that you defined each character concept in terms of its power level in your post, instead of as a living person, starting from crunch then trying to make fluff around that. The answer to which you should put together from that list is "Crazy Aberration-themed Druid", because it's the only one that seems to have a sense of character to it, instead of merely being a pile of numbers and abilities.

[eggynack]

I've noticed that you defined each character concept in terms of its power level in your post, instead of as a living person, starting from crunch then trying to make fluff around that. The answer to which you should put together from that list is "Crazy Aberration-themed Druid", because it's the only one that seems to have a sense of character to it, instead of merely being a pile of numbers and abilities.
Most of the characters I construct are naturally high in power level, so it would take more work to give fully fleshed out examples at lower places on the power spectrum. I felt that work was unnecessary, as my argument was based on character power level, rather than on fully realized living characters. Even the druid mostly had a mechanical focus to my mind, as aberration wild shape is one of the most powerful feats a druid has access to. Had I needed more than mechanics for my examples to be effective, I would have provided more than mechanics, but I don't think I did.

Edit: Really, even the little extra stuff I provided was unnecessary. Saying that I would play a druid in a high power game, perhaps a bard or factotum in a moderate power game, and maybe an adept or healer in a low power game, would have been sufficient.

[Segev]

IF Bob the Ranger takes Orcs as his favored enemy, and Orcs never come up, he's going to feel he wasted his choice. This is why uninformed choices are not fun. Would you consider it cheating of Bob the Orc-Hunting Ranger specifically sought out quests which pitted him against Orcs, given that it's his specialty? That would unbalance the game in his favor, wouldn't it?

Conversely, you mention that a cleric who put a lot into turning undead will feel picked-on if all the undead still can't be turned...but won't he likewise feel picked-on if he never faces undead because he wasn't told that the undead portion of the campaign was only going to be up through last level, and now that he's quite in-character taken effort to be good against them, they're never showing up again?

[eggynack]

I think a big part of my problem with this line of thinking is that it's way too intent driven where it should be more results driven. I mean, what if our noble player, taking a complete shot in the dark, puts together a character based entirely around killing undead for the undead focused game? You still have all of the cited problems with that situation, like relatively underpowered cakewalk enemies, except it's apparently fine, because the player didn't mean to break the game over his knee.

As was the case with stat allocation in a past thread, the solution here isn't to just leave things up to chance, but rather it is to just say what it is you want. If you want an undead focused campaign, but don't want undead focused characters, just say, "We're playing an undead focused campaign. Don't build a character focused particularly on killing undead, because the challenges are not calibrated for characters like that." If you do want undead focused characters, or characters that can keep up with them, just say that instead. If a player builds a character not suited to the campaign, tell them that it acts against the explicit thing you said, and ask them to rebuild. As is usually true, simple transparency and honesty work far better than obfuscation and hope.

[Vhaidara]

I think a big part of my problem with this line of thinking is that it's way too intent driven where it should be more results driven. I mean, what if our noble player, taking a complete shot in the dark, puts together a character based entirely around killing undead for the undead focused game? You still have all of the cited problems with that situation, like relatively underpowered cakewalk enemies, except it's apparently fine, because the player didn't mean to break the game over his knee.

As was the case with stat allocation in a past thread, the solution here isn't to just leave things up to chance, but rather it is to just say what it is you want. If you want an undead focused campaign, but don't want undead focused characters, just say, "We're playing an undead focused campaign. Don't build a character focused particularly on killing undead, because the challenges are not calibrated for characters like that." If you do want undead focused characters, or characters that can keep up with them, just say that instead. If a player builds a character not suited to the campaign, tell them that it acts against the explicit thing you said, and ask them to rebuild. As is usually true, simple transparency and honesty work far better than obfuscation and hope.

inb4 comment about playing with saints and resultant discussion about decent human beings not being a myth.

[eggynack]

inb4 comment about playing with saints and resultant discussion about decent human beings not being a myth.
Seems probable, though it's notable that my method would likely weed out jerks with a reasonable success rate. After all, if you say, "Don't build a character focused on murderizing undead," and the player builds a character focused on murderizing undead, then that right there is a butt-face. Sure, it's a low bar of jerkitude, but it's at least a bar of some kind. Not everything in a game has to be some ridiculously elaborate test based on how players respond to particular house rules, after all.

[jedipotter]

IF Bob the Ranger takes Orcs as his favored enemy, and Orcs never come up, he's going to feel he wasted his choice. This is why uninformed choices are not fun. Would you consider it cheating of Bob the Orc-Hunting Ranger specifically sought out quests which pitted him against Orcs, given that it's his specialty? That would unbalance the game in his favor, wouldn't it?

Picking something like a favored enemy is a balance. You don't know what you will encounter, so you need to pick wisely. And in a normal, non-focused game (like a ''all undead game'') the ranger will encounter lots of foes and only be able to use his abilities some of the time. At least until like 6E comes out with ''once an encounter a ranger can ''remember'' a favored enemy for the rest of the combat. Now, see, wow, would that not be awesome, the ranger could have the favored enemy all the time...

And no it's not cheating if Bob says ''guys lets go kill some orcs so I can use my ranger stuff. That is doing something in game, that won't change the balance of anything.



Conversely, you mention that a cleric who put a lot into turning undead will feel picked-on if all the undead still can't be turned...but won't he likewise feel picked-on if he never faces undead because he wasn't told that the undead portion of the campaign was only going to be up through last level, and now that he's quite in-character taken effort to be good against them, they're never showing up again?

I'm sure the think skinned cleric player will always feel ''picked on''. Though it's a failing of the DM to say ''well the only undead in the world were on game level four, now that you guys are on game level five there will be no more undead.'' I would never do that.

[Vhaidara]

You know, it just occurred to me that you said you like Incarnum. Which is rather inconsistent with what you've said about why you dislike ToB. Meldshapers have next to no limitations on how many times per day they can use their abilities, can easily pass ToB for ridiculous numbers (Totemist ftw), and can basically rebuild their character every day. What's that, we need ranged dps? Switch to Manticore Belt. Wait, we need stealth? Kruthik Claws, the darkness cloud soulmeld, and Blink Shirt. Now we need a tank? Lamassu Mantle, Ankheg Breastplate, Wormtail Belt, Totem Avatar, reporting for duty.

[BRC]

IF Bob the Ranger takes Orcs as his favored enemy, and Orcs never come up, he's going to feel he wasted his choice. This is why uninformed choices are not fun. Would you consider it cheating of Bob the Orc-Hunting Ranger specifically sought out quests which pitted him against Orcs, given that it's his specialty? That would unbalance the game in his favor, wouldn't it?

Conversely, you mention that a cleric who put a lot into turning undead will feel picked-on if all the undead still can't be turned...but won't he likewise feel picked-on if he never faces undead because he wasn't told that the undead portion of the campaign was only going to be up through last level, and now that he's quite in-character taken effort to be good against them, they're never showing up again?

I wouldn't call those "House Rules" per say, since a game can include no orcs, or have no easily turnable undead, all without straying from RAW.

A Secret House Rule dealing with Favored Enemies would be more like "Oh, by the way, if you take Orcs as a favored enemy, it means you have an intense hatred of Orcs. The only time you can not try to attack Orcs on sight is if you're waiting for a better chance to attack."

Therefore, there is an increased risk in selecting a favored enemy of a type that you may want to ally with, or simply not attack on sight. A Ranger who knew that Favored Enemy would force him to attack Orcs would be more likely to select a different favored enemy.

If you wait until gameplay has started, then force the ranger to attack a group of Orcs because he's selected them as a favored enemy, thats a problem.

[Sartharina]

I am actually seeing a strong discrepency in Jedipotter's game... Low-op and High-lethality are at odds with each other, because people don't like to die, and the game becomes about surviving (instead of exploring a character), and Optimization is the tool in which they don't die. A low-lethality game gives the 'safety net' to go for low-op characters.

Also, the "old-school" and "Don't hold the game up by trying to prepare" don't go well together, much for the same reasons above.

[kyoryu]

Optimization is the tool in which they don't die.

Not necessarily. Making good in-game decisions is the tool you use to not die in old-school games.

[Vhaidara]

I am actually seeing a strong discrepency in Jedipotter's game... Low-op and High-lethality are at odds with each other, because people don't like to die, and the game becomes about surviving (instead of exploring a character), and Optimization is the tool in which they don't die. A low-lethality game gives the 'safety net' to go for low-op characters.

Also, the "old-school" and "Don't hold the game up by trying to prepare" don't go well together, much for the same reasons above.

Actually, I don't think she cares if you optimize. As far as I can tell, it's if you annoy her. In another thread, someone asked if thy would be a problem showing up with an Incantatrix that abused the ever loving crap out of free metamagics. Got completely okayed.

[AMFV]

Not necessarily. Making good in-game decisions is the tool you use to not die in old-school games.

In new games too, I've seen a lot of people build things off forums and not necessarily be able to pull of any decent form of tactics.

[Coidzor]

Why would I lie? The answers are clear enough:
1.A fast paced hard core, deadly, dice fall where they may Old School flavor adventure game
2.D&D 3.5 (or Pathfinder when we do that)
3.Hands new player list of house rules. Player is told there are also secret house rules.

I still wanna know what you have against retroclones that seem to deliver what you seem to want better than beating 3.5 until it complies. Everything you say just lines up so well with what everyone says about ACKS. :smallconfused:


I mostly ''interview'' players when I can.

Curious. I seem to recall the exact opposite last time the whole "maybe you should actually screen your players for people you actually might like interacting with and might like to play with." And yet you don't like any of your players despite interviewing them before hand? How? :smallconfused: Do you just not like anyone in meatspace?

[kyoryu]

In new games too, I've seen a lot of people build things off forums and not necessarily be able to pull of any decent form of tactics.

Of course. I have yet to see a rule that obsoletes thinking.

My point is just that old-school games, since they really didn't have the optimization handles of newer games (and especially D&D 3.x/PF), really emphasized that over optimization, since optimization really wasn't available in any meaningful way.

[AMFV]

Of course. I have yet to see a rule that obsoletes thinking.

Indeed, I was trying to append to your point, I didn't to come across as contrary.



My point is just that old-school games, since they really didn't have the optimization handles of newer games (and especially D&D 3.x/PF), really emphasized that over optimization, since optimization really wasn't available in any meaningful way.

I've often wondered if AD&D would have been likewise optimized if there was sufficient connectivity of the playerbase. Or if that degree of optimization would be possible in an older system, certainly there are options for some degree of optimization. I think that the reason 3.5 (and somewhat 3.0) really got that started has to do with the ability of collecting everybody on the internet to evaluate rules for loopholes and clever plans. So I often wonder if older systems would have produced similar optimization curves under the same scrutiny.

[The Random NPC]

Similar, but not nearly as high. I was invited to a second edition game, and I Googled some optimization advice and found a build for a bow using fighter that could do something like 15 attacks on the first turn and 30 on the second. It was also able to add strength and dex plus random bonuses. After carefully reviewing it, it turned out that much of the bonuses were mutually exclusive, but I could still do something like 4 attacks on odd turns and 8 on even with strength and dex to damage plus an additional 4 or so. I also took a look at some other classes and found the advice similarly bad. Maybe I was just missing something though.

[eggynack]

Similar, but not nearly as high. I was invited to a second edition game, and I Googled some optimization advice and found a build for a bow using fighter that could do something like 15 attacks on the first turn and 30 on the second. It was also able to add strength and dex plus random bonuses. After carefully reviewing it, it turned out that much of the bonuses were mutually exclusive, but I could still do something like 4 attacks on odd turns and 8 on even with strength and dex to damage plus an additional 4 or so. I also took a look at some other classes and found the advice similarly bad. Maybe I was just missing something though.
I think the idea, theoretically anyway, is that the advice was bad, and that you are just missing something. You were looking at the results of the cited lesser amount of optimization thought that went into 2nd, rather than the greater amount of optimization that would go into theoretically modern second. It's entirely possible that 2nd actually does just have a lower optimization curve, but it's not a certain thing.

[Brookshw]

I think the idea, theoretically anyway, is that the advice was bad, and that you are just missing something. You were looking at the results of the cited lesser amount of optimization thought that went into 2nd, rather than the greater amount of optimization that would go into theoretically modern second. It's entirely possible that 2nd actually does just have a lower optimization curve, but it's not a certain thing.

Probably built heavily from the book of Elves, there was some pretty great stuff in that book. Throwing was another ranged technique that could get you a high rate of attack.

Yeah, 2e didn't quite have the same optimization ceiling as 3e+ introduced but there were still some powerful combinations and there were a few "immortal" tricks that match some hi op 3e+ tricks. Definitely not as well circulated though.

Edit; now that I think about it there were some downright abusable things in 2e and prior, starting level 1 characters (witch) with a necklace of adaptation and infinite dust of choking, an old version of hide life that effectively made you immortal except against other casters with the spell. And then there was Chromatic Orb.....

[Amphetryon]

Probably built heavily from the book of Elves, there was some pretty great stuff in that book. Throwing was another ranged technique that could get you a high rate of attack.

Yeah, 2e didn't quite have the same optimization ceiling as 3e+ introduced but there were still some powerful combinations and there were a few "immortal" tricks that match some hi op 3e+ tricks. Definitely not as well circulated though.

Edit; now that I think about it there were some downright abusable things in 2e and prior, starting level 1 characters (witch) with a necklace of adaptation and infinite dust of choking, an old version of hide life that effectively made you immortal except against other casters with the spell. And then there was Chromatic Orb.....

Halfling Fighter Dart-spam was actually a pretty good mundane build concept in 2e, which was much more abuse-able, in relative terms, than its equivalent 3.5 build.

[jedipotter]

I still wanna know what you have against retroclones that seem to deliver what you seem to want better than beating 3.5 until it complies. Everything you say just lines up so well with what everyone says about ACKS. :smallconfused:

Well, your stuck on the ''if you play this edition of D&D you must play way x''. It does not work like that.




Curious. I seem to recall the exact opposite last time the whole "maybe you should actually screen your players for people you actually might like interacting with and might like to play with." And yet you don't like any of your players despite interviewing them before hand? How? :smallconfused: Do you just not like anyone in meatspace?

I don't always get to do it, but I try as much as possible.

[kyoryu]

Indeed, I was trying to append to your point, I didn't to come across as contrary.

No worries, I was totally agreeing with you.


I've often wondered if AD&D would have been likewise optimized if there was sufficient connectivity of the playerbase. Or if that degree of optimization would be possible in an older system, certainly there are options for some degree of optimization. I think that the reason 3.5 (and somewhat 3.0) really got that started has to do with the ability of collecting everybody on the internet to evaluate rules for loopholes and clever plans. So I often wonder if older systems would have produced similar optimization curves under the same scrutiny.

I don't think so. Older versions of D&D just didn't have the combinatorial complexity of D&D 3 and 4 (but especially 3). The structure of the game is just very conducive to optimization, beyond even what I typically see in GURPS.

[Zrak]

A Secret House Rule dealing with Favored Enemies would be more like "Oh, by the way, if you take Orcs as a favored enemy, it means you have an intense hatred of Orcs. The only time you can not try to attack Orcs on sight is if you're waiting for a better chance to attack."

I had a DM who interpreted favored enemy basically like this, but didn't tell us until after we'd built our characters. I made a "bounty hunter" themed ranger who favored enemy was humans. It turned out to be an interesting campaign. Basically every NPC we met, I called scum and spit in their face. We once met a half-elven bard and I called him half scum and insisted I be allowed to roll a "called shot" to only get half my spit on his face. The character got increasingly deranged as the campaign went on and began to insist all humans were vampires hiding behind illusions and the only real humans left were moon samurai who had to guard the moon from the werewolves so they didn't set foot on it and turn into gods. One of the other party members used this to convince him to be nice to NPCs, since he didn't have Favored Enemy: Vampires Disguised as Humans.

[Spindrift]

Well, I'm talking about D&D, where the game is made to be generic. If you create a game of ''vampire hunters'', then yes you will only have ''vampire hunter'' characters.

Now I know nothing about the Buffyverse, and never watched the show: but in the big view, yes having a ''special chosen one that can auto kill vampires'' is crap, stupid and very, very, very much cheating. But then that is why I never watched the show. You can do the 'chosen one' right, like say Charmed for example. The Charmed Ones were powerful, but not super anti demon cheater builds.





Ofc, the charmed ones can easily be argued to be the most deplorable characters in their own series. Just check Obscurus Lupa's reviews of the series, she reviewed every season.
http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/teamt/ol/manic
And they fix many of their problems through a special deus ex machina power rather than through skill and training. On the whole as the show progresses they act more and more entitled and whiney, and you get the sense that if they hate protecting innocents so much maybe they should just give someone else their powers(wich has been shown to be possible as they have their powers stolen several times throughout the show). I'd say they did the "chosen one" thing very poorly.

[golentan]

Ofc, the charmed ones can easily be argued to be the most deplorable characters in their own series. Just check Obscurus Lupa's reviews of the series, she reviewed every season.
http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/teamt/ol/manic
And they fix many of their problems through a special deus ex machina power rather than through skill and training. On the whole as the show progresses they act more and more entitled and whiney, and you get the sense that if they hate protecting innocents so much maybe they should just give someone else their powers(wich has been shown to be possible as they have their powers stolen several times throughout the show). I'd say they did the "chosen one" thing very poorly.

Also, the characterization of Buffy as "Auto-kill vampires" is very inaccurate. She's at an advantage compared to normal humans, and even compared to vampires, but she repeatedly goes up against legitimate threats to her power (including vampires who are technically disadvantaged against her, just look at how scary Spike was when he was introduced) and actually winds up technically dead more than once. Buffy is a great example of how powerful PCs designed for their campaign don't necessarily make things boring, and her fellow Scoobies are a good example of how a more powerful character doesn't invalidate other character concepts.

[Spindrift]

Also, the characterization of Buffy as "Auto-kill vampires" is very inaccurate. She's at an advantage compared to normal humans, and even compared to vampires, but she repeatedly goes up against legitimate threats to her power (including vampires who are technically disadvantaged against her, just look at how scary Spike was when he was introduced) and actually winds up technically dead more than once. Buffy is a great example of how powerful PCs designed for their campaign don't necessarily make things boring, and her fellow Scoobies are a good example of how a more powerful character doesn't invalidate other character concepts.

Yeah, Buffy happens to fight mainly vampires and demons, but her combat training and natural talent are applied just as easily to other monster of the week scenarios. If I were to stat her out she wouldn't be built just to fight undead cause it wouldn't reflect the character well, she's just a wellbuilt martial artist with good physical stats. Drop her in a campaign about fighting orcs and she'd do just as well, probably. Her knowledge skills would mostly be about demons and undead ofc, but that's based on personal experience so if buffy's story was about fighting orcs she'd learn more about orcs as time goes by.

[eggynack]

Also, the characterization of Buffy as "Auto-kill vampires" is very inaccurate. She's at an advantage compared to normal humans, and even compared to vampires, but she repeatedly goes up against legitimate threats to her power (including vampires who are technically disadvantaged against her, just look at how scary Spike was when he was introduced) and actually winds up technically dead more than once. Buffy is a great example of how powerful PCs designed for their campaign don't necessarily make things boring, and her fellow Scoobies are a good example of how a more powerful character doesn't invalidate other character concepts.
Indeed. I mean, really, she's lost to pretty standard and non-arc villain vampires, acting alone, really late into the show. Latest I can think of offhand is season five or so, when she got be-stabbed by that hippyish vampire, if I recall correctly, but other instances could have occurred later. She's mostly just a vampire slayer by merit of the fact that she's strong and athletic, with some vague ability to sense vampires in a crowd that's never really used, and some big destiny dealings.

[golentan]

Indeed. I mean, really, she's lost to pretty standard and non-arc villain vampires, acting alone, really late into the show. Latest I can think of offhand is season five or so, when she got be-stabbed by that hippyish vampire, if I recall correctly, but other instances could have occurred later. She's mostly just a vampire slayer by merit of the fact that she's strong and athletic, with some vague ability to sense vampires in a crowd that's never really used, and some big destiny dealings.

Even later, I think in season 6 it was, she screwed up against a mook vampire fresh out of the ground, not even any real combat skills yet, and took her own stake to the stomach. She barely managed to crawl away, and spent the rest of the episode out of commission, which they took the opportunity to make the point that if she can beat a vampire 9,999 times out of a thousand, she hunts vampires every night and all it takes is one vampire to have one good day.