Biggest Dealbreaker for a Game?

[ColossusCrusher]

So I was browsing a few 3.5 games on Myth-Weavers and I noticed that all of the ones I found compelling had one critical problem for me - they all rolled for HP after 1st level. I much prefer taking average HP - I can stomach variance in rolling for stats but not in hit points for some reason, probably because I most enjoy playing melee characters who need every single hit point they can get their hands on.

This got me wondering though, what little things instantly turn you off a game?

[KingSmitty]

spell points, unless extra rage or power attack are free to the fighter and the barb as well.

Its kinda messed up if you think about it

but on HP, we do max hp at all levels

[YossarianLives]

I dislike critical failures, but I can generally live with them if need be.

Most importantly is that I like the players and the DM.

[NichG]

The biggest deal-breaker for me would probably be a PvP-centric campaign/game, especially some kind of arena-style thing where its just 'have your characters try to kill eachother'.

[Amphetryon]

The DM citing 'realism' as a reason for house-rules is generally pretty close to a dealbreaker for me.

[sakuuya]

PvP. I like TTRPGs because they're inherently cooperative, so taking away that aspect makes playing less fun for me. It's just not my jam, even when everyone agreed on it and no one is being a jerk.

[Forrestfire]

The DM citing 'realism' as a reason for house-rules is generally pretty close to a dealbreaker for me.

Yeah, especially since that's generally a warning sign for them not understanding other parts of the game...

[Fax Celestis]

The DM citing 'realism' as a reason for house-rules is generally pretty close to a dealbreaker for me.

House rules that universally harm noncasters and boost casters does it for me.

Also banning without reason non-core subsystems. I can understand if you haven't read it or seen it or understand it or it doesn't fit in the world, but if you're banning non-core subsystems (NO CAPES SHADOWCASTERS) for inexplicable, vague, or nonsensical reasons, I'm out. "Warlocks are broken, wizards are fine" counts as nonsensical.

[Oko and Qailee]

"Warlocks are broken, wizards are fine" counts as nonsensical.

Man, you would not like my DM.

-Duskblades are banned until lvl 5+ because their Arcane channeling is too OP when it first comes online.
-Psions are banned because they're flat out OP, regardless of build.
-DMM:Persist Clerics are 100% ok.
-The entire wizard spell list is totally balanced
-Core, completes, and ToB only... but he homebrews a lot of stuff for enemies... that is nearly the same (though less balanced) as stuff from in banned splatbooks.

[nedz]

Evil parties, or Good ones too to an extent. I prefer more nuance.

[Seerow]

"Core Only" tends to be a big one when playing 3.5

[Fax Celestis]

Man, you would not like my DM.

-Duskblades are banned until lvl 5+ because their Arcane channeling is too OP when it first comes online.
-Psions are banned because they're flat out OP, regardless of build.
-DMM:Persist Clerics are 100% ok.
-The entire wizard spell list is totally balanced
-Core, completes, and ToB only... but he homebrews a lot of stuff for enemies... that is nearly the same (though less balanced) as stuff from in banned splatbooks.

Yup, that's a table I wouldn't play at.

[jjcrpntr]

I dislike critical failures, but I can generally live with them if need be.

Most importantly is that I like the players and the DM.

My table uses critical failures, but we use the critical failure cards. There have been a few times it's hurt the players badly (barbarian having to throw his sword 10 feet away during a big fight) but I use the cards if the enemies roll 1's as well. It's made for some hilarious stuff. We even have a homerule now that if you draw the card that says you throw your weapon in a random direction and that random direction has people either enemies or friends in the path they take 1/2 your strength modifier as dmg. I'd say 95% of the time it ends up being hilarious.

I think for me it would be either a DM that railroads the hell out of a game,or players that go out of their way to mess with people (player or DM).

[Telonius]

I use the Multiclass XP penalty as my bowl of green M&M's (http://brianlord.org/2014/08/21/the-surprising-reason-rock-bands-demand-mms/). It's not exactly a dealbreaker, but I'm on high alert if it's enforced.

[BWR]

There will always be a point where something goes too far. i'm fine with some railroading. I'm fine with some nonsensical bans. I'm fine with house rules. I'm fine with critical failures or any number of other things. It's just that at some point they get taken too far, or in too great a combination with eachother, and at that point I will pull out of a game. Hasn't happened yet, though being bored to tears with D&D (and d20 especially) has come close.

[Omnisandro]

Mostly two things.

Players who talk loud and over everyone else during roleplay and entire groups that laugh or ridiculize people roleplaying in a serious manner.

[Jeff the Green]

Rolling for stats. Sure, let's introduce imbalance to the party even before we choose classes and let some character concepts be viable for one player and not another. :smallannoyed:

I'm a little more okay with rolling for HP, but only because I tend to play characters that will die in one hit regardless of what they roll for HP.

[Snowbluff]

Players/DMs and option bans.

I can't handle people who don't take the game/RP/character building seriously. Players are generally more valuable than DMs who give good options, though.

[ComaVision]

Lots of restrictions. That applies to races, books, classes, whatever.

Also, I like rolling for stats and health.

[Raven777]

Game being "Core Rulebook only" ;
1st party content being banned ;
House-ruling bans and nerfs ;
That's about it.


Basically, I just want to play the game and its expansions as is. By some people you would think this is some kind of heresy.

[Aegis013]

So I was browsing a few 3.5 games on Myth-Weavers and I noticed that all of the ones I found compelling had one critical problem for me - they all rolled for HP after 1st level. I much prefer taking average HP - I can stomach variance in rolling for stats but not in hit points for some reason, probably because I most enjoy playing melee characters who need every single hit point they can get their hands on.

How would you feel about my houserule regarding HP?:
Max HP at first level, then you roll half HD + Half HD (static) + Con mod.
So a Fighter with 14 Con would roll 1d5+7 instead of 1d10+2.

Keeps some of the variance, but generally guarantees that higher HD classes will accumulate more HP over levels.


"Core Only" tends to be a big one when playing 3.5

That's a biggie for me as well.

[oxybe]

In most D&D-like games?
-Forcing me to roll for stats and/or using a very small point buy. Yes I know we don't pick our stats in real life, but I want to play an elf wizard, which is flat-out impossible in real life. Just let me make my magical elf and make him playable. I also like being able to use average HP per level instead of rolling for it (so for a rogue I'll gain 3.5 HP per level, which means a practical gain of 3-4-3-4-3-4... as I level)
-Speaking about magical elves, "realism" is a bad justification for things unless my magical elf is actually just a crazy man in a bathrobe who taped cardboard to his ears and is hurling cheetoes while yelling "FIREBALL" and "KRABOOM!". I already dislike the mundanes as they are in the game, don't make me dislike them more.
-Critical failure charts/decks/anything that isn't just a miss. These hurt the players much more then the monsters. By that extension, I'm not a fan of crit success charts because as rare as these are, I hate random deaths or character-destroying effects.
-going a bit more in-depth about random deaths and character destroying effects, the wanton use us those (like save or die spells), use of anti-magic, rust monsters or general "**** you" type effects. My current group plays with them, and while I openly made my dislike noted, this is the one group I'll let it slide because I've gamed with them for the better part of the last decade, I know them well enought that they won't use it to be horribly mean.
-"all talk is in character". I want to play a magical elf, not be one. Natural language is good if you want to get an idea across but rather bad at discussing technical concepts, especially in a game with rules as convoluted and contradictory at times as D&D. Let me us game-speak when talking about game terms. I'll magical elf talk when I'm talking directly to someone about in-game things. I've been at one session of a game like this and no fun was had by me.
-Being a jerk. Pretty big dealbreaker. I rarely want to suffer jerks in a professional environment, I don't want to suffer them in my off-the-clock time.
-No electronics. This is also a dealbreaker, in that if I can't use my laptop, I probably won't game with you. Carrying around 3-4 books is a pain (for 3.5: core rulebook, monster manual/s for the summons my elf will conjure up, Complete arcane, spell compendium. Add rules compendium and magic item compendium and it starts getting heavy). Being able to keep several tabs open to reference spells, feats, abilities, etc...without taking over an entire table is good. I also keep an up-to-date electronic character in addition to a paper one (the latter I leave with the GM) to help manage my stuff. If I can't use my lappy I won't game with you.

so yeah, in short: less randomization when generating characters, less screw the players effects, no jerk moves and let me keep my lappy as it's a gaming tool not a gaming station.

[Coidzor]

Basically, I just want to play the game and its expansions as is. By some people you would think this is some kind of heresy.

To a certain extent it seems most people here would grok you, but, well, there are some things that are pretty derpy or places where the rules just trail off mid-sentence forcing the group to either not use the rules in that area at all or for the DM to supplement those rules with something, such as drown-healing or what happens when you increase an Animal Companion's intelligence with spells, items, or ability score boosts from HD. :smallconfused:

[oxybe]

Needing to spot weld the game is something I find I often have to ask GMs to do.

For example, what happens when you ready to Steal Breath (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/steal-breath)in case a caster begins to cast a spell with verbal components?

Or how does Swarm Skin (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/swarm-skin)interact with a witch & their familiar (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/witch/witch-s-familiar)thanks to share spell (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/witch/witch-s-familiar#TOC-Share-Spells)?

Is Brewed Reek (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/goods-and-services/herbs-oils-other-substances#TOC-Brewed-Reek)a poison? Because thanks to Beguiling Gift (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/b/beguiling-gift)I can effectively force the normally high fort characters to lose actions rather easily but immunity to poison is surprisingly common.

These are a few things that came up over time that the game has no real answer to.

[Threadnaught]

Me: I go left.

DM: No, this is my Campaign and my story, you go right.

Me: We're done here.

[jedipotter]

Tome of Battle. I know that anyone using this is not going to play a game I'd like.

Max hit points every level. This just says ''no death'' in the game, and that makes the game pointless to me.

Tons of healing, either lots of magic items or 4E like free healing whatever.

[Amphetryon]

Game being "Core Rulebook only" ;
1st party content being banned ;
House-ruling bans and nerfs ;
That's about it.


Basically, I just want to play the game and its expansions as is. By some people you would think this is some kind of heresy.

Not a lot of Mounted Combat showed up in your 3.5 games, I take it?

[Raven777]

To a certain extent it seems most people here would grok you, but, well, there are some things that are pretty derpy or places where the rules just trail off mid-sentence forcing the group to either not use the rules in that area at all or for the DM to supplement those rules with something, such as drown-healing or what happens when you increase an Animal Companion's intelligence with spells, items, or ability score boosts from HD. :smallconfused:

Oh, arbitrating the rules is just fine. That's what the DM's for. I too want to know what happens when a Shadow Demon tries to Magic Jar into a Clone. These are the kind of on the spot calls where a DM is necessary. But deciding "Magus do not exist in this setting", that's just icky. If it's printed in the books we pay for, let me use it.

@Amphetryon Pathfinder

[BWR]

. But deciding "Magus do not exist in this setting", that's just icky If it's printed in the books we pay for, let me use it.


Seriously?
So you'd demand to be allowed to use firearms in settings without firearms? Stupid races in settings without them? No limits on what's available due to culture? Simply because it's in a book made for the same system? So you'd be fine e.g. buying the Technology Guide for Pathfinder and insisting on being able to pick up plasma rifles and power armor in a setting like Dark Sun (run on PF rules)?
Seriously?

[Raven777]

Seriously?
So you'd demand to be allowed to use firearms in settings without firearms? Stupid races in settings without them? No limits on what's available due to culture? Simply because it's in a book made for the same system? So you'd be fine e.g. buying the Technology Guide for Pathfinder and insisting on being able to pick up plasma rifles and power armor in a setting like Dark Sun (run on PF rules)?
Seriously?

Or I could find a game that is set in Golarion. I get the feeling that you seem to assume a lot about what I want from a single sentence. But I find your point to be pretty valid, so thanks for bringing it up, I hadn't thought about it. I actually agree with you. Setting specific constraints are entirely acceptable. But if it means I cannot play what I actually want to play, the wiser decision might as well be to search for a game in a setting with the toys I wanna try.

[Nettlekid]

I'm really surprised at the number of people who are saying that they flat-out won't play in an otherwise tolerable game if the DM dares to make them roll dice for stats and HP. It's almost like the DM expects them to play some kind of largely luck-based dice rolling game!

My biggest dealbreaker is obvious inflexibility in a DM, and I don't mean in a railroading sense. In fact, I think the DM's story is pretty important, and if the DM has an overarching plot then I'm fine with letting them set things up as they please (so long as they aren't restricting the characters.) But no DM has every facet of their world in place and every race's cultural history set in stone. So long as it doesn't interfere with the DM's story, I would hate to hear "No, your Elf Barbarian can't be the sole survivor in a great war because I don't have any Elf wars planned in my background's history." (Again, if the pacifism of the Elves is a key point in the DM's story that's valid, but if this is a werewolf-hunting campaign then it shouldn't come up at all.) Similarly, I see absolutely no reason that a Faerun-inspired setting should be disallowed Changelings or Warforged or Shifters, or an Eberron setting should lack Sun Elves and Deep Imaskari. I would be wary of playing in a campaign where generalizations like setting are so absolute that it takes away from the enjoyment of the players.

[TheIronGolem]

Max hit points every level. This just says ''no death'' in the game
It says nothing of the sort.

[ComaVision]

It says nothing of the sort.

{Scrubbed}

[3drinks]

Houserules that aren't all clearly spelled out in a big neon sign before the game starts.

I'm a by the book, rules lawyer type of guy. So if something doesn't work as the book writes it should, then I need to know so I can plan around that -- not find out mid-session that my Grease spell doesn't work because your CR 1/2 Orcs suddenly grew angel's wings.

[TheIronGolem]

{Scrub the original, scrub the quote}

Good point, I'll leave it alone.

I'll also echo the sentiment regarding "realism" as rationale for screwing over character types who already lag behind the balance curve. If you want realism, you're playing the wrong game, and that's not just because of the wizards and elves.

As for rolling for stats and HP, D&D may be a game where luck and dice play a large role, but the proper place for that role is in the gameplay, not in the preparation phase. I shouldn't do better (or worse) playing the game simply because of the results of a purely luck-based minigame I had to play before I was allowed access to the game I came to play.

[Honest Tiefling]

Gender based stats unless the race is very non-human. That just does not end well in 99% of cases
DMs limiting things for players, but not for minor NPC use. No, I am not going to travel with your damnable dragon DMPC. No, I am not okay with every form of magic not being available to players without good reason.
DMs being too limiting. Having 2 races and 4 classes is a bit much unless they can really sell me on it.
Tables with PvP, or no communication to prevent a Orc and a Orc-Hunter in the same dang party, or an evil assassin and a LG cleric of the god of nobility. I don't mind compromise, but I'd like it if other people had the same idea so we don't want to kill each other in the first five minutes.

[Crake]

I can handle pretty much anything, but for me, it's a dealbreaker when I feel like the players are completely irrelevant to the happenings of the game. If I can ask myself "What would have been different had we not been here?" and the answer is "Nothing" for the majority of the time, then I can't justify even being there.

[Fax Celestis]

I can handle pretty much anything, but for me, it's a dealbreaker when I feel like the players are completely irrelevant to the happenings of the game. If I can ask myself "What would have been different had we not been here?" and the answer is "Nothing" for the majority of the time, then I can't justify even being there.

So basically you don't want to play Indiana Jones...?

[Venger]

fumble rules.

nothing communicates quicker or more clearly that a DM does not understand that casters are more powerful than mundies than something so idiotic as a fumble rule. watch in amazement as you explain that a mundy kicking a scarecrow is more likely to knock his own teeth out as he levels up and get more iteratives.

[ComaVision]

fumble rules.

nothing communicates quicker or more clearly that a DM does not understand that casters are more powerful than mundies than something so idiotic as a fumble rule. watch in amazement as you explain that a mundy kicking a scarecrow is more likely to knock his own teeth out as he levels up and get more iteratives.

A lot of people enjoy them because they add diversity to the game. If you're using a fumble table, something interesting happens. It's not about balance. 3.5 is not about balance. It's fine if you don't like it but it doesn't mean the DM or other players don't understand that casters are already superior.

[Fax Celestis]

A lot of people enjoy them because they add diversity to the game. If you're using a fumble table, something interesting happens. It's not about balance. 3.5 is not about balance. It's fine if you don't like it but it doesn't mean the DM or other players don't understand that casters are already superior.

Sometimes it is though.

[Venger]

A lot of people enjoy them because they add diversity to the game. If you're using a fumble table, something interesting happens. It's not about balance. 3.5 is not about balance. It's fine if you don't like it but it doesn't mean the DM or other players don't understand that casters are already superior.

it's problematic because it penalizes what are already the weakest classes (those who have to make attack rolls) and leaves the ones that don't untouched. DMs who use these rules do not understand this and think that because the fighter deals some HP damage in a round when the wizard "only" debuffs with glitterdust, that clearly the fighter needs to be nerfed so he slices his fingers off every ~5% of the time.

[Wolfepuppy]

The biggest deal breaker for me is poor attendance. I understand that people are busy but sometimes all it takes it's a little effort. The rest of us are let with the choice to leave your character behind or play it or selves.

[ColossusCrusher]

Wow, this thread really took off. I'd have to add PvP that wasn't in the advertisement to my list - it's one thing if we all know it could happen, and another when it's because one person makes so many plans the DM needs a flowchart to keep up and you don't know why you just ate a Sudden Maximized Fireball OOC *or* IC.

As for Stat/HP rolling, the idea of having less HP than the Wizard as a Fighter really puts me on edge. Aegis013, your rule actually provides higher-than-average HP (a Fighter would do 5+CON/6+CON in average), so I like it. :smallbiggrin: Stats are a bit different because I don't always have a concept beforehand - having an array thrown at me can help me figure that out sometimes, but I'll always be happy to take a Point Buy alternative.

[cobaltstarfire]

The DM citing 'realism' as a reason for house-rules is generally pretty close to a dealbreaker for me.

This generally for me as well, because those sorts of houserules always end up being overly complicated and in my opinion a waste of time.

PVP is a deal breaker for me, and so are DM's with a DM Vs PC style of running the game.

DM's that ban things without any good reason.

Players who are patronizing, cheat on their rolls/sheets, are control freakish, and/or are constantly talking over and arguing with everyone (including the GM). Also depending on how strong they smell it may also be a deal breaker. (I have a very sensitive nose...although I haven't met anyone yet who's so stinky that I need to vacate or get sick).

It's not really a "deal breaker" but I do also avoid high op games because I'd just irritate everyone involved since I'm no good at optimizing and am still having trouble with the rules, despite having gotten back into the game for several months now.

[Krobar]

A DM who actually gets ticked in real life when I interrupt his BBEG's arrogant, overly melodramatic speech with even more arrogant smart remarks.

[Venger]

A DM who actually gets ticked in real life when I interrupt his BBEG's arrogant, overly melodramatic speech with even more arrogant smart remarks.

Villain monologues at all. I mean... why are we even here?

[Magma Armor0]

1. Having a game where there is a "high likelihood" of PCs dying, multiple times, in a low-level game. No, thank you, I do not want to roll up my fifth new character for this campaign. And you wonder why people have stopped giving you backstories to work with...

2. Ex post facto fixes. I understand most people do not like the way diplomacy works as written. But if you wait to fix it until the first time my character with a maxed-out diplomacy score tries to use his defining ability, I will not be happy.

2b. Along the same lines: forcing a roleplaying of a diplomacy or bluff check. I appreciate the possibility for a bonus due to a well-phrased request, but do not force me to try to phrase the request appropriately. We are role-playing. You don't force the fighter to actually jump up and down every time he makes a Jump check "for realism's sake," so don't force me to actually try to bluff or negotiate. The reason I'm role-playing a character like this is because I'm terrible at it IRL, and I want to fulfill a fantasy of being a smoothtalking person. :smallmad:

[Jeff the Green]

Villain monologues at all. I mean... why are we even here?

Eh, I like them. Granted, I play mostly PbP where they work and in face-to-face games I like them because they're fun to subvert.

[Roxxy]

Players who try to join a game that just doesn't the thematically fit what they want to play, then argue with me when I veto their character. If the game tone wasn't something you wanted, why did you try to join?

[EisenKreutzer]

Railroading GMs who only play to fulfill some power fantasy or to tell their story no matter what the players do. That **** will not be tolerated.

[Snowbluff]

Eh, I like them. Granted, I play mostly PbP where they work and in face-to-face games I like them because they're fun to subvert.

Additionally, they are good when Hannibal has a point (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HannibalHasAPoint) or Jerkass has a point. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JerkassHasAPoint)

[Raven777]

Anyway, talking is a free action, so I would feel free to monologue right back at them, the hammier the better.

[jedipotter]

It says nothing of the sort.

Sure it does.

So what is the point of more HP? So the characters never die. What else could be the reason? A high hit point character can take hit after hit after hit after hit after hit and still be fine. That is the whole point of high hit points.

And Max Hit Points is a red flag for the type of play style where you won't lose hit points much anyway. It's the style where a beholder uses ''inflict wounds for like seven points of damage'' and not distengrate.

[Threadnaught]

So basically you don't want to play Indiana Jones...?

While Indy never changed the overall outcome, he did have an effect on the story and would've, if he'd been more successful/focused, thwarted the villains' plans himself.


Also in Temple of Doom.. HE DID! :smallbiggrin:


Granted, it was only because he mentioned that one thing in front of that one guy.


Sure it does.

So what is the point of more HP? So the characters never die. What else could be the reason? A high hit point character can take hit after hit after hit after hit after hit and still be fine. That is the whole point of high hit points.

And Max Hit Points is a red flag for the type of play style where you won't lose hit points much anyway. It's the style where a beholder uses ''inflict wounds for like seven points of damage'' and not distengrate.

Actually, that may be a useful one to use when pitting players against every single Elder Evil at once. If I'm going to constantly try to make them reroll characters, I might as well give them a fighting chance. Making characters takes a lot of time.

[eggynack]

Sure it does.

So what is the point of more HP? So the characters never die. What else could be the reason? A high hit point character can take hit after hit after hit after hit after hit and still be fine. That is the whole point of high hit points.

And Max Hit Points is a red flag for the type of play style where you won't lose hit points much anyway. It's the style where a beholder uses ''inflict wounds for like seven points of damage'' and not distengrate.
What's the point of not playing minimum HP on every hit die? Maybe with a modifier for larger HD, like d4 and d6 get +0, d8 and d10 get +1, and d12 gets a +2.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Houserules that aren't in writing. If they aren't in writing they should be short, unless you rewrote spells instead of banning them. This isn't counting stuff like blocking drown healing or unwritten houserules you can tell me verbally in under a minute. Double points against your game, if you spring bans on me rapid fire as I point out potential issues your existing houserules may raise.

Ludicrous DMPC's.

The game not being what it says on the tin. If I make a dirty cop Deputy for an Old West game; I have no interest in getting Rip Van Winkled to a modern setting. I know good games can come from curveball like this, but I had my fill in my teens/early twenties. At this point I feel I'm a mature enough roleplayer to play a fish out of water without being surprised OOC.

[Threadnaught]

Actually, I like the idea of a Beholder casting Inflict Wounds at my players. As long as there are other Beholders and possibly a Daelkyr nearby, ready to use Disintegrate when the players decide to chase it when it "retreats".

[Krobar]

Anyway, talking is a free action, so I would feel free to monologue right back at them, the hammier the better.

Exactly. Only in the case I'm talking about it was more arrogant hubris than ham.

Red Dragons don't like to be told to cease their tedious prattling, pit fiends don't like being called tawdry, unimportant little jackanapes, and High Priests of evil gods don't like when you sarcastically mimic and mock their gods to their faces. My bard did all of those things. He was a fun character.

[The Insaniac]

DMs who violate the rules of the setting. Even if it's a "cutscene", I won't game with someone who breaks the rules of the setting.

[Anlashok]

So what is the point of more HP? So the characters never die. What else could be the reason? A high hit point character can take hit after hit after hit after hit after hit and still be fine. That is the whole point of high hit points.

Nope. Maximized HD rolls are there to make the game less swingy, not less lethal.

There's a big difference between making an encounter threatening and potentially lethal and "Ok the orc rolls... a 19, give me your character sheet".

Rolling every HD is probably a good way for a lazy DM to make encounters look scarier than they actually are though, so if that's your style, more power to you.

[Susano-wo]

I hate fumbles, but its not a gamebreaker(I'm not even worried about caster balance--I hate the damage it does to character concept. I'm this badassed warrior, veteran of a hundred battles, and I just threw my sword into your thigh(and will do so 1 in 20 times... :smallfrown:)

BUt I'm also leery of the you must cooperate no matter what clause--mostly because it can lead to the more...permissive (maybe, not sure the best word to use) characters getting their way. As in, if someone is more law-abiding, or has a stricter moral code, they end up having to go along with the thief, and get along with them even though they realistically would not.

Of course I guess that all just goes to show the importance of everyone being asked to adjust equally, and making sure to tell people what kinds of characters they should create(as in: make sure your characters will be able to cooperate, and we are doing X type of adventure, so make sure they mesh)

I just think I've had groups which typically have poor track records on that account(not that its all bad--I enjoy playing with most, if not all, of the people I play with, there have just been plenty of situations where I feel like I have to fudge things or have my character give in to avoid the game screeching to a halt.

[OldTrees1]

DMs that are unwilling to work with players. If a DM is unwilling to work on homebrewing with a player, then I am unwilling to participate regardless of if I had an idea that needed homebrewing or not(I usually don't have such an idea).

After all, I signed up for a DM, not merely a rulebook and a story.

[Roxxy]

DMs that are unwilling to work with players. If a DM is unwilling to work on homebrewing with a player, then I am unwilling to participate regardless of if I had an idea that needed homebrewing or not(I usually don't have such an idea).

After all, I signed up for a DM, not merely a rulebook and a story.What do you mean by work on homebrewing?

[Forrestfire]

Presumably, figuring out what works for a player's concept the best, and tailoring the build path to make it fit, possibly bending rules, swapping out abilities, or making up new PrCs in the rare case that nothing exists to make it work?

[Seerow]

DMs that are unwilling to work with players. If a DM is unwilling to work on homebrewing with a player, then I am unwilling to participate regardless of if I had an idea that needed homebrewing or not(I usually don't have such an idea).

After all, I signed up for a DM, not merely a rulebook and a story.

That seems a bit harsh. I would never refuse to sit with a DM just because they aren't comfortable with playing armchair game designer. And the closest I would come to asking a DM for homebrew (as opposed to going by what they decide to allow/provide on their own) is minor reinterpretations of things (For example, I recently asked a DM to allow Runesmith to work with Sorcerer casting, despite by RAW it only working for a Wizard).

If that's the sort of thing you mean, then my bad; but your post gives the impression of wanting a DM who will work with you to homebrew up whole new classes/feats/spells to fit a character. To me that sort of thing isn't necessary. I do homebrew because I enjoy it, but 3.5 is a broad and flexible enough system there is almost no concept that can't be handled by following the rules.

[OldTrees1]

What do you mean by work on homebrewing?

Forrestfire has a good guess.


Presumably, figuring out what works for a player's concept the best, and tailoring the build path to make it fit, possibly bending rules, swapping out abilities, or making up new PrCs in the rare case that nothing exists to make it work?

Say a player wants a character that regularly literally swings into action, I would want the DM's reaction to be: "Let's talk about seeing if we can make this work. Are there a reasonable set of rulings to handle this situation? Perhaps these changes would fit better. Maybe this is a feat?". Now in the case of swinging into action there are certainly a reasonable set of rulings(several variants) however not every concept might turn out that way. It is the impulse to consider and try to make it work that I find important.


That seems a bit harsh. I would never refuse to sit with a DM just because they aren't comfortable with playing armchair game designer. And the closest I would come to asking a DM for homebrew (as opposed to going by what they decide to allow/provide on their own) is minor reinterpretations of things (For example, I recently asked a DM to allow Runesmith to work with Sorcerer casting, despite by RAW it only working for a Wizard).

If that's the sort of thing you mean, then my bad; but your post gives the impression of wanting a DM who will work with you to homebrew up whole new classes/feats/spells to fit a character. To me that sort of thing isn't necessary. I do homebrew because I enjoy it, but 3.5 is a broad and flexible enough system there is almost no concept that can't be handled by following the rules.

I am less concerned with the Actions of the DM than I am concerned with the Intent of the DM. A DM that wants to work with a player but only feels comfortable with doing X and not X+1 would not make me leave. If that intent is missing, then I walk.

As an example: The Mirror(aka me as a potential player judging me as a potential DM)
As I DM I am perfectly willing to alter minor things, make rulings on proposed new special attacks(like parry or dramatic charges) and balance new feat ideas. I am not skilled enough to make classes(tried and failed once) or spells. The important part is not that I can get myself to add a new feat to the game, the important part is that I am willing to set aside the rules to make the game richer for my friend.

[BWR]

Or I could find a game that is set in Golarion. I get the feeling that you seem to assume a lot about what I want from a single sentence. But I find your point to be pretty valid, so thanks for bringing it up, I hadn't thought about it. I actually agree with you. Setting specific constraints are entirely acceptable. But if it means I cannot play what I actually want to play, the wiser decision might as well be to search for a game in a setting with the toys I wanna try.

I was unsure. That single sentence of yours did say "If it's printed in the books we pay for, let me use it." That can very easily be interpreted as "I will demand the right to use anything in any source ever because I've paid money for it", and hearing some of the horror stories that float around here I couldn't be sure if you were one of them. Glad to know we are on the same page.

[Diachronos]

Point buy for me, but it's largely because my favorite classes are either not allowed by the DM or MAD and I don't want to be stuck with mediocre stats just to play a class I enjoy.

[AnonymousPepper]

Multiclass XP penalties, core only, and PvP are the big things that come to mind.

Another one is one of those games where the DM is completely inflexible - i.e., if playing a martial class (so, not a tier 1 caster that gets handed not just a bone but an entire army of skeletons by the rules already) and every single time I (or someone else) asks to do something that stretches credibility but passes the Rule of Cool test (i.e. the kind of thing that gets you extra dice in Exalted), the DM rigidly says "the rules don't say you can do that, so no."

Like, I know the rules are there for a reason, but, so is rule zero and the resultant implied idea that the DM is free to come up with new things on the fly when the situation calls for it. The rules-as-written of D&D aren't the be-all end-all of DMing, and any DM that forgets or ignores that is just not my kind of DM.

Now, mind you, some campaigns are just made to have a super-serious tone from the get-go, and in that case, a lack of chandelier-swinging shenanigans is perfectly understandable. But in most situations... well, you get what I'm getting at, no?

[Hand_of_Vecna]

I largely agree with Seerow's points about homebrew and will just add to it rather than reiterate anything he's said I'll just share some additional feelings about requests for homebrew.

First when I say homebrew, I'm not including thing like lightning damage Desert Wind or similar thematic favored weapons for Dieties. I generally consider these to be adaptations.

That said, my default rule is to say no to homebrew. Here's why, at actual tables I very rarely encounter a player who has made an equal or greater invesment into mastering 1st party material.

As Seerow said in closing
3.5 is a broad and flexible enough system there is almost no concept that can't be handled by following the rules.

Usually homebrew and other 3rd party is reinventing the wheel, so my process for approving homebrew goes something like this.

Player: Can I use this peice of homebrew?

Me: Maybe, why is it important to your character concept?

Player: *Reasons that involve allowing their character being able to do something they want them to be able to do*

Me: *Thoughtful Pause* Would this feat from one of the completes and this class from a Forgotten Realms splat serve your purposes?

Player: I'm not familiar with that class.

Me: Ok,well check it out while I read this other player's background.

Basically unless someone displays extraordinary game knowledge, I expect someone to look at least one peice of 1st party material before I'll look at and consider homebrew.

[OldTrees1]

Usually homebrew and other 3rd party is reinventing the wheel, so my process for approving homebrew goes something like this.

Player: Can I use this peice of homebrew?

Me: Maybe, why is it important to your character concept?

Player: *Reasons that involve allowing their character being able to do something they want them to be able to do*

Me: *Thoughtful Pause* Would this feat from one of the completes and this class from a Forgotten Realms splat serve your purposes?

Player: I'm not familiar with that class.

Me: Ok,well check it out while I read this other player's background.

Basically unless someone displays extraordinary game knowledge, I expect someone to look at least one piece of 1st party material before I'll look at and consider homebrew.

^Good example of the kind of DM I like. Although I think of it as the general case(start at the 2nd Player line). The player has a concept, the DM tries to make the concept work and is willing to resort to homebrew (when possible) if necessary to make the concept work.



I also liked how AnonymousPepper worded a similar criteria to my own.

[Sith_Happens]

The DM citing 'realism' as a reason for house-rules is generally pretty close to a dealbreaker for me.


"Core Only" tends to be a big one when playing 3.5

Both of these.

[nedz]

Sure it does.

So what is the point of more HP? So the characters never die. What else could be the reason? A high hit point character can take hit after hit after hit after hit after hit and still be fine. That is the whole point of high hit points.

And Max Hit Points is a red flag for the type of play style where you won't lose hit points much anyway. It's the style where a beholder uses ''inflict wounds for like seven points of damage'' and not distengrate.

But if the monsters have max HP as well, then the combats just last longer. It's not a rule I use, but I do like large combats — the PCs having more HPs would just mean that I could throw more, or tougher, enemies at them. Your conclusions do not necessarily follow from this houserule.

[SiuiS]

How would you feel about my houserule regarding HP?:
Max HP at first level, then you roll half HD + Half HD (static) + Con mod.
So a Fighter with 14 Con would roll 1d5+7 instead of 1d10+2.

Keeps some of the variance, but generally guarantees that higher HD classes will accumulate more HP over levels.



That's a biggie for me as well.

I like the idea of literally rolling your hit dice.

Every level, you roll all your hit dice. If the new total does not exceed the old, you get [old]+1. Kinda swift, but you'll never lose out and will eventually gain.

Of course my players all roll near max every dang time ...


I can handle pretty much anything, but for me, it's a dealbreaker when I feel like the players are completely irrelevant to the happenings of the game. If I can ask myself "What would have been different had we not been here?" and the answer is "Nothing" for the majority of the time, then I can't justify even being there.

Oh gosh yes. This. I've up and booted DMs and taken their story back to somewhere tenable before, and have a standing gentleman's agreement that the next time the BBEG wants to do some rigamarole to end the world, I'm joining him and ending the world – just to see if he can handle such a curveball.


Sure it does.

So what is the point of more HP?

So the characters survive more than one hit.

For example, I'm rolling forward with a half dozen zombie war beast geese, who are sitting pretty at 46+ HP (at level 3). I fully expect one or two of them to survive our next fight, if and only if they don't lose initiative.

Some games swing so hard, you must be this tall to ride.


DMs who violate the rules of the setting. Even if it's a "cutscene", I won't game with someone who breaks the rules of the setting.

Ugh. Cutscenes.


I largely agree with Seerow's points about homebrew and will just add to it rather than reiterate anything he's said I'll just share some additional feelings about requests for homebrew.

First when I say homebrew, I'm not including thing like lightning damage Desert Wind or similar thematic favored weapons for Dieties. I generally consider these to be adaptations.

That said, my default rule is to say no to homebrew. Here's why, at actual tables I very rarely encounter a player who has made an equal or greater invesment into mastering 1st party material.

As Seerow said in closing

Usually homebrew and other 3rd party is reinventing the wheel, so my process for approving homebrew goes something like this.

Player: Can I use this peice of homebrew?

Me: Maybe, why is it important to your character concept?

Player: *Reasons that involve allowing their character being able to do something they want them to be able to do*

Me: *Thoughtful Pause* Would this feat from one of the completes and this class from a Forgotten Realms splat serve your purposes?

Player: I'm not familiar with that class.

Me: Ok,well check it out while I read this other player's background.

Basically unless someone displays extraordinary game knowledge, I expect someone to look at least one peice of 1st party material before I'll look at and consider homebrew.

I'm the exact opposite as a DM. I'll straight up ask my players "whats your gimmick?", because if they have one I should know it. I've even tossed overly complex stuff and given "homebrew", because if they want to play a full armor blasting wizard, it can be done; I would rather just say "the cleric does that with better attack and Hp, so sure" than teach a player so focused on concept which ACFs to find, which rules loopholes to look into, and build him a wealth h4x thistle down mithril composite armor wizard who uses still spell and has some extra blasting feats.

Which brings me to my big one; antagonism. I'm a big girl. I can handle it if you have a broken or overpowered character. I refuse to deal with secrecy and deception though. If I have to find out how your, eg, size shifting Goliath with an alchemical gold full blade monkey gripped up to colossal+ sword works, I'm going to be a bit upset. I don't have time for juvenile power fantasies at the meta level. If your jollies come from throwing people off balance and not from throwing characters off balance... Ugh.

[Thelion]

I'm usually quite flexible when it comes down to playing, but I do get annoyed when a DM asks for background stories and makes really sure that we know that he will actually do something with this, but afterwards doesn't give us the possibilities to use this. For example, a few months ago, one of the PC's (Bard) died and my character (Favored Soul) and another character (Cleric) still want to grant his last wish of returning his ancestral sword to his home in the north. The moment we finished that campaign, our DM threw us into another adventure that we had to complete (railroading ftw) and he did this again after that adventure. I do like our characters and the roleplaying that comes with it, so I wish he'd just give us the possibility to do some rp'ing, since he was the one who made a big deal out of it to start with.

[NichG]

As far as the thing about DM willingness to homebrew goes, its not a dealbreaker for me if they aren't, but its pretty high up there. That said, its not really about homebrewing for the player so much as it has to do with whether the DM is helping the game have mystery and novelty. I'm a lot less interested in exploring D&D-as-written-in-the-books than I am in exploring a game which is mostly unknown to me, but which uses D&D as a starting point. If I'm already intimately familiar with everything that is ever going to be in the DM's game, its a bit of a let-down. But if I can expect there to be new things, that's a strong incentive for me to pay close attention to everything in the game world, pursue leads, etc - because I have a hope of discovering something which, had I not taken those actions in game, I could never have had access to.

[Threadnaught]

Let's see, game where official Classes are banned, game where anything goes, game where anything official goes and game where Core is banned.. What's so bad about Core Only again?

Ignoring the rather common story of many Core Only DMs never hosting/joining a game with any additional splats. Let's focus on a hypothetical DM who is willing to run all the types of games listed above. Is there still a problem with them hosting a Core Only game for a while?

[prufock]

Ugh. Cutscenes.
D&D is not the medium for these, in my opinion, but they can work in other genres. Mutants and Masterminds, for example, with its pseudo-comic book feel, can make good use of scene descriptions in which the PCs aren't around.

[atemu1234]

D&D is not the medium for these, in my opinion, but they can work in other genres. Mutants and Masterminds, for example, with its pseudo-comic book feel, can make good use of scene descriptions in which the PCs aren't around.

Eh, it can work on occasion. My PCs once ran into a vampire that was so over-their-level I flat out told them that they couldn't attack him. It was in the early days of my DMing, I've learned since then (and they've leveled up) but we were all happier with the way the story wound up rather than the way it would've ended if I let them roll initiative. :smallwink:

[Elkad]

No PvP (ten chars)

[atemu1234]

No PvP (ten chars)

I believe that was covered in a way that already had more than ten characters, unless I am mistaken.

[Amphetryon]

Let's see, game where official Classes are banned, game where anything goes, game where anything official goes and game where Core is banned.. What's so bad about Core Only again?

Ignoring the rather common story of many Core Only DMs never hosting/joining a game with any additional splats. Let's focus on a hypothetical DM who is willing to run all the types of games listed above. Is there still a problem with them hosting a Core Only game for a while?

Potentially. The switch to Core Only could indicate an overreaction to how a particular splat, or combination of splats, impacted the game. It could be a warning sign of DM burnout, which rarely makes for a good game.

That said, it doesn't guarantee a bad experience.

[The Insaniac]

D&D is not the medium for these, in my opinion, but they can work in other genres. Mutants and Masterminds, for example, with its pseudo-comic book feel, can make good use of scene descriptions in which the PCs aren't around.

The cutscenes that I was referring to are more along the lines of "such and such happens to this NPC or another, what do you do?" or "you're wandering through the woods when all of a sudden..." rather than hijacking PCs.

The example that I was thinking of in particular was a Vampire: the Masquerade game where the GM had some schmuck jump out of nowhere and kill the vampire that I was talking to. I talked to him about it and he agreed to make it a hunter who killed the guy with his powers, not some random dude with a machete (which can't permanently destroy a vampire).

[oxybe]

Always max HP means a fighter getting 13-14 ish per level. Even at the higher end, where the fighter might end up getting 10+8 con mod or so per level, you end up with a level 20 PC with 360 HP. which sounds like a terribly high amount, but when you realize that the fighter is the most likely PC to be rubbing his face into the enemy into the big scary thing with claws, fangs and whatnot, that deal 40 damage per hit and hits like 3 times per round, that 360 hit point fighter is a guy who's unconscious in three rounds. And i'm not talking primary foe, but rather a mook.

A fighter who's been rolling average for those levels will have 10+160+104(5.5*19)= 274, barely enough to survive two rounds.

Note that 40 damage at level 20 is a pittance. In 3.5, most big-weapon users are getting that kind of damage without trying... a full-power attack alone is +40 damage on a greatsword per swing. Add to this the fighter type's high 20's strength and the weapon's average of 7 damage and a +3 or +4 enchantment you're looking at 60 or so damage per hit without really trying.

Now expect to probably be fighting two or more of those beasts per fight.

Now, note that I primarily play pathfinder and haven't play core 3.5 in a while, but look at this chart on the pathfinder site (http://paizo.com/PRD/monsters/monsterCreation.html).

At CR 20 we're looking at things that have 360 HP on average and deal between 120-90 damage average and have a 30 or so unbuffed to-hit. Give these things a flanking buddy, a charge and something to support them and you are hurting and hurting fast.

This is why max HP per level is a godsend for the fighter types who are generally expected to take a few blows.

[nedz]

Always max HP means a fighter getting 13-14 ish per level. Even at the higher end, where the fighter might end up getting 10+8 con mod or so per level, you end up with a level 20 PC with 360 HP. which sounds like a terribly high amount, but when you realize that the fighter is the most likely PC to be rubbing his face into the enemy into the big scary thing with claws, fangs and whatnot, that deal 40 damage per hit and hits like 3 times per round, that 360 hit point fighter is a guy who's unconscious in three rounds. And i'm not talking primary foe, but rather a mook.

A fighter who's been rolling average for those levels will have 10+160+104(5.5*19)= 274, barely enough to survive two rounds.

Note that 40 damage at level 20 is a pittance. In 3.5, most big-weapon users are getting that kind of damage without trying... a full-power attack alone is +40 damage on a greatsword per swing. Add to this the fighter type's high 20's strength and the weapon's average of 7 damage and a +3 or +4 enchantment you're looking at 60 or so damage per hit without really trying.

Now expect to probably be fighting two or more of those beasts per fight.

Now, note that I primarily play pathfinder and haven't play core 3.5 in a while, but look at this chart on the pathfinder site (http://paizo.com/PRD/monsters/monsterCreation.html).

At CR 20 we're looking at things that have 360 HP on average and deal between 120-90 damage average and have a 30 or so unbuffed to-hit. Give these things a flanking buddy, a charge and something to support them and you are hurting and hurting fast.

This is why max HP per level is a godsend for the fighter types who are generally expected to take a few blows.

Yes, it's less rocket taggy.
There are other implications though:
Blasting is even less effective leading casters to take different approaches — but they should probably be doing that anyway.
The Cure X spells are even less effective — though I suppose you could max those too.

[Azoth]

Limiting player actions IC or changing our reactions.

I have had DMs okay with another player doing things to my character, but when my justifiable reaction leads to death of said other PC, it is going overboard and either not allowed to do it or they switch my damage to subdual if I outright attacked and tell me I can't continue attacking or move in for a CDG.

At that point it makes me want to hand over the char sheet and walk away.

Apparently, you aren't allowed to let go of a rope and let the party rogue fall to his death as payback for him having gotten you (and you alone) thrown in jail on trumped up charges.

Nor are you allowed to run through the party ranger who volley fired arrows into you because he thought you were a scout for a night raid at 110ft out. Even after he blamed you for getting shot because you were "sneaking around in the dark".

[Elkad]

No PvP (ten chars)


I believe that was covered in a way that already had more than ten characters, unless I am mistaken.

I read (skimmed?) those other players as not wanting PvP games.
I meant the opposite. A "No PvP" rule means I'll find another game. A little intra-party conflict is a good thing.



Limiting player actions IC or changing our reactions.
This. If the wizard gets dominated, my barbarian is just going to drop his ass before his initiative comes around. Taking a penalty to use the flat of my axe or trying to grapple him or something is a less-optimal solution.
Drop him, pay for the rez.

[oxybe]

Blasting suffers from the fact that it's generally just dice damage. In one game (our "when the main campaign can't happen" campaign) i'm playing a tattooed sorceror/ninja who's using Fiery Shuriken (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/f/fiery-shuriken) to great effect. Sure, it's blasting, but it's effective single target blasting... as long as they don't have acid or fire resistance mind you (i have the metamagic rod that allows me to change it's damage type to acid 3/day).

Sorceror's "add 1 damage per elemental dice damage" to "multiple d8+Xd6 ranged touch sneak attacks" allows me to DPS rather efficiently (currently mainly due to the ninja's swift action vanish). I'm also going into Arcane trickster so the eventual potential of 8x 1d8+6d6+7 damage should average to about 260 damage per round at caster level 15 with a single 2nd level spell slot. Even at caster level 7 it's still 4x 1d8+2d6 about 46 damage per full blast, which is more then enough to drop the average level 7 enemy to about half hit points.

But it is an exception to the rule that blasting is bad.

Note that the max HP thing is really only player-side, not enemy side, so blasting is slightly less effective against players but still just as rather ineffective against enemies. Most enemies that are dealing damage to players tend to be more physical based or use VERY large pools of dice (like dragon breath) so i'm not too worried about enemy blaster mages. High level mages (pc and enemies alike) tend to be more control-y or buffers.

As for the cure spells, they're not worse, they just require more to top you off. The enemies are still dealing more damage then they can heal, which is why they're generally poor use of your spell slots and better used in a wand. I would say that you won't see much change in how often you actually do heal during the game.

Weather you have 100 hit points or 130, if you take 90 points of damage in a fight you'll still require 90 points of cure light wounds to bring you up from 40 to 130 instead of 10 to 100.

[sktarq]

This. If the wizard gets dominated, my barbarian is just going to drop his ass before his initiative comes around. Taking a penalty to use the flat of my axe or trying to grapple him or something is a less-optimal solution.
Drop him, pay for the rez.

Only okay if you pay to get him drunk after.

[Elkad]

Only okay if you pay to get him drunk after.

If I don't, next session he might be a little less careful where he places that AoE spell.
Or hide the "Axe of Big Whacking" he found from me, and sell it to fill his spellbook.
Of such things are grand stories made.

[squiggit]

I read (skimmed?) those other players as not wanting PvP games.
I meant the opposite. A "No PvP" rule means I'll find another game. A little intra-party conflict is a good thing.

Yeah, I've become hesitant about games with "No PvP" rules recently, because to a lot of DMs, apparently No PvP means absolutely no conflict with the party whatsoever. To the point where I've seen players pulled aside and given a stern talking to by a DM for disagreeing too often in a conversation with other characters.

Granted, I don't like overwrought "everyone betrays everyone" PvP too much either, but I think that generally falls under the broader rule of "Don't be a ****".


Personally the more I play the more I start to realize there aren't very many wholly bad DM decisions, rather that the problem with anything tends to come down to execution.

Personally the only thing I tend to be wary of these days are rules that give especially unfavorable character generation. When I see 3d6 in order no rerolls or 10/20 PB (pathfinder and 3.5 respectively ) I tend to be very wary of the game unless it has a really great reason to do it.

[Raven777]

This. If the wizard gets dominated, my barbarian is just going to drop his ass before his initiative comes around. Taking a penalty to use the flat of my axe or trying to grapple him or something is a less-optimal solution.
Drop him, pay for the rez.

If you do not mind me asking, how does your barbarian know the Wizard is dominated until his initiative comes around and he does turn on the party?

[Hiro Protagonest]

Nope. Maximized HD rolls are there to make the game less swingy, not less lethal.

There's a big difference between making an encounter threatening and potentially lethal and "Ok the orc rolls... a 19, give me your character sheet".

Rolling every HD is probably a good way for a lazy DM to make encounters look scarier than they actually are though, so if that's your style, more power to you.

Ah, but Jedipotter has groups of veteran players tired of easy mode marching up to his door wanting to play with him, who want a swingy game where they have to pull out a new character sheet every few sessions, and not get attached to their characters because they're all just expendable suckers.

But really, don't try to argue. He hates our playstyles, we hate his, we come off as conformist or elitist while he comes off as elitist. It's an argument on the internet.

[Elkad]

If you do not mind me asking, how does your barbarian know the Wizard is dominated until his initiative comes around and he does turn on the party?

Choose your answer.

A. I picked a poor example out of the hat.
B. The BBEG gave an exposition and told us.
C. The wizard's eyes started glowing.
D. My barbarian made the Spellcraft check to identify the spell as it was cast.
E. I meta-gamed it.
F. His familiar told us.
G. <insert your own answer here>
F. I made the Sense Motive check (not even hard, DC15). Yes, I edited to add this because I didn't think of it at first. Though I guess a hasty check would be similar to a hasty lockpicking check with enhanced difficulty.

[Coidzor]

What's so bad about Core Only again?

It's a bit boring, especially when the group has access to quite a bit of material to draw upon, and generally an indicator that something fishy is going on.


Ignoring the rather common story of many Core Only DMs never hosting/joining a game with any additional splats. Let's focus on a hypothetical DM who is willing to run all the types of games listed above. Is there still a problem with them hosting a Core Only game for a while?

Depends on why they're doing it.

If they refuse to explain when asked about it, and especially if they then act indignant, well, then, yes, that's a dealbreaker all of its own.


If I don't, next session he might be a little less careful where he places that AoE spell.
Or hide the "Axe of Big Whacking" he found from me, and sell it to fill his spellbook.
Of such things are grand stories made.

Deliberately killing one another and flagrantly stealing from the party as a whole isn't a "little' intraparty conflict. That's the stuff that escalates into perma-killing characters and metagame player vendettas against one another's characters. :smallconfused:


Personally the only thing I tend to be wary of these days are rules that give especially unfavorable character generation. When I see 3d6 in order no rerolls or 10/20 PB (pathfinder and 3.5 respectively ) I tend to be very wary of the game unless it has a really great reason to do it.

Yeah, those are definite warning signs.


Choose your answer.

A. I picked a poor example out of the hat.

I'm leaning this way, since the traditional narrative is that Barbarians get dominated, not Wizards.

[Raven777]

Deliberately killing one another and flagrantly stealing from the party isn't a "little' intraparty conflict. That's the stuff that escalates into perma-killing characters and metagame player vendettas against one another's characters. :smallconfused:

Well, to be fair, I suppose it can work if everybody is in on it. Not sure I would enjoy that kind of atmosphere myself. I have enough worries about my character dying from the monsters without having to worry about my own party members, personally. But that's just, like, my opinion.

[Oko and Qailee]

Let's see, game where official Classes are banned, game where anything goes, game where anything official goes and game where Core is banned.. What's so bad about Core Only again?


To elaborate on the above.

Core only is ok in that it has all the basis you need. But a lot of times there are flavors and mechanics simply not available in core. Additionally, most of the nice things for non-t1 casters are available in non-core. Even with T1 casters, there are a lot of things that are "good but not OP" that core spells don't cover, allowing you more toys without having to use the really crazy spells.



I meant the opposite. A "No PvP" rule means I'll find another game. A little intra-party conflict is a good thing.


I think PvP is fine as long as its tasteful and tactful. Is a player secretly a LE whose going to extreme lengths to hide his evilness so he can eventually rule the world? See that feels fine and it builds up to a dramatic tension filled moment in the campaign. I have 2 players in my campaign (of 5 players), both are evil with different secret agendas. They both realize they're likely going to die for their plan and that excites them.

Now "lol killing" is dumb and tasteless. Bullying other players is tasteless.

I always make sure to tell my players at the start of every campaign that PvP is frowned upon except for really good RP story telling reasons that we'll talk about for years to come.

[Elkad]

I
Deliberately killing one another and flagrantly stealing from the party isn't a "little' intraparty conflict. That's the stuff that escalates into perma-killing characters and metagame player vendettas against one another's characters. :smallconfused:


I've never had a problem with hiding loot. I've had occasional small problems with stealing. It's not usually a source of conflict, it's just part of the game.
"Oh the party Thief died. Lets look in his Bag of Holding."
"Whoa, where did all those gems come from? Guess we don't need to use the party slush fund to pay for the rez."

"Accidentally" fireballing the Barbarian? Depends if it kills him or not. If he lives, it's just slapstick humor.
"Dude, you are only 8th level, I was SURE those 9 CR¼ goblins were going to kill you."
If he drops to negatives before someone stabilizes him, even better!

I've seen 2 Paladins duke it out to the death in the middle of the dungeon. The loser rolled a new character. No hard feelings at all between players.
Meta-vendetta NEVER happens.

[Extra Anchovies]

1. Forcing roleplay for Diplomacy/Bluff: It's fine if you want me to give the gist of what my character says, but I am terrible at spoken communication. My Charisma-16 bard, on the other hand, is not. If the DM and the other players are fine with a bony nerd playing a musclebound meathead, they should be fine with a shy awkward nerd playing a witty, likeable orator.

2. The combination of critical failures, critical successes, and auto-confirmed critical hits: These were fine in middle and high school, when we were just there to have fun with each other and toss popcorn into each others' mouths. Now that I have a handle on character roleplaying, I don't want my carefully thought-out concept eliminated by a single natural 1.

3. Requiring that players roll for ability scores and HP. It's fine if random chance hurts us in-game (e.g. a failed spell penetration check when you really needed that debuff to go through), because for every natural 1 there will be a natural 20, but being permanently screwed by a few poor rolls at the beginning (or at level-up). I do, however, usually manage to get around this by rolling, determining how large of a point buy would be needed for the ability scores rolled, and ask to use a point buy of that value instead of the rolled scores.

4. Cutscenes. The players are not just (as is commonly thought) in charge of characters in the DM's story; everyone at the table is a storyteller, with each person in charge of a different part of the story. If you tell me the actions that my character takes, and my character is not being magically controlled or some such, then I am leaving the table.

5. Games with PvP as the intent. I am at the table to tell a story with others, not against them. If that story leads to moments where two characters have conflicting interests: great! It often makes for an excellent story. But when the PCs will never be truly working together, the game is not fun for me. I game to make friends, not to make enemies.

[Bloody Peasant!]

When the DM explicitly bans certain alignments (Usually CE and CN, let's be honest). That tells me that the DM has a very infantile understanding of how alignment is supposed to work.

[Khosan]

When the DM explicitly bans certain alignments (Usually CE and CN, let's be honest). That tells me that the DM has a very infantile understanding of how alignment is supposed to work.

It's less that they don't understand, more that those alignments are frequently played poorly and/or to the detriment of the story the DM wants to tell.

I'm sure quite a few of the people who do ban CE/CN characters have a story or two about some guy using those alignments as an excuse for disruptive behavior.

[Jeff the Green]

1. Forcing roleplay for Diplomacy/Bluff: It's fine if you want me to give the gist of what my character says, but I am terrible at spoken communication. My Charisma-16 bard, on the other hand, is not. If the DM and the other players are fine with a bony nerd playing a musclebound meathead, they should be fine with a shy awkward nerd playing a witty, likeable orator.

To expand on this, DMs who won't let you roll Intelligence or Wisdom (or crowdsourcing, if the character's score is high enough to warrant it) for puzzles or mysteries. I suppose this is technically a pet peeve rather than a deal-breaker because I am continuing to play with a DM who doesn't allow it (enthusiastically, actually, because the rest of the game is absolutely amazing), but if I knew ahead of time that a DM wouldn't allow it I probably wouldn't bother starting a game with them. It's just too frustrating to have a character who should be able to figure something out fail because my brain doesn't work well enough.

[The Insanity]

In one word: stupidity.

[Venger]

To expand on this, DMs who won't let you roll Intelligence or Wisdom (or crowdsourcing, if the character's score is high enough to warrant it) for puzzles or mysteries. I suppose this is technically a pet peeve rather than a deal-breaker because I am continuing to play with a DM who doesn't allow it (enthusiastically, actually, because the rest of the game is absolutely amazing), but if I knew ahead of time that a DM wouldn't allow it I probably wouldn't bother starting a game with them. It's just too frustrating to have a character who should be able to figure something out fail because my brain doesn't work well enough.

so, DMs who think "guess what the DM's thinking" is a fun game, essentially. yeah, they're the worst. nobody likes "puzzles" or "riddles"

[Extra Anchovies]

so, DMs who think "guess what the DM's thinking" is a fun game, essentially. yeah, they're the worst. nobody likes "puzzles" or "riddles"

In-game "Riddles" are either terrible or actually kinda fun. It depends on whether they're the terrible "guess what I'm thinking" kind (e.g. if the DM made the riddle up themselves and is really proud of it), or if they're the sort that encourages creative thinking rather than guesswork (e.g. that one about going to St. Ives). Puzzles only work if you give the PCs some sort of visual representation of what they've got, and it's a purely step-by-step deductible one like a simple sliding block puzzle or a pattern-recognition thing.

[Threadnaught]

1. Forcing roleplay for Diplomacy/Bluff: It's fine if you want me to give the gist of what my character says, but I am terrible at spoken communication. My Charisma-16 bard, on the other hand, is not. If the DM and the other players are fine with a bony nerd playing a musclebound meathead, they should be fine with a shy awkward nerd playing a witty, likeable orator.

I constantly ask my players to just give me an outline of the kind of deal they want to make. Right before they immediately rush into the worst instance of role playing I have ever heard, without fail, this is what happens when they decide to roll Diplomacy.

Since we use The Giant's Diplomacy fix, they tend to get the worst possible DC by saying something so offensively stupid, without fail. :smallamused:

[Amphetryon]

When the DM explicitly bans certain alignments (Usually CE and CN, let's be honest). That tells me that the DM has a very infantile understanding of how alignment is supposed to work.

It's entirely likely that such bans get put in place because of (to borrow a phrase) 'infantile' behavior of players these DMs have had, or seen, in the past which the players justified by the alignment written on their character sheets. It's not that uncommon for players to play "CE = baby-devouring sociopath," "CN = LOLrandom out of my mind insane," and "LG = Goody-two-shoes with a 2x4 wedged up the backside." Bans on alignment often come about because the DM doesn't want to deal with a player using alignment as a justification for being disruptive, particularly if they notice that the ban actually prevents the disruption without booting the player.

[Venger]

In-game "Riddles" are either terrible or actually kinda fun. It depends on whether they're the terrible "guess what I'm thinking" kind (e.g. if the DM made the riddle up themselves and is really proud of it), or if they're the sort that encourages creative thinking rather than guesswork (e.g. that one about going to St. Ives). Puzzles only work if you give the PCs some sort of visual representation of what they've got, and it's a purely step-by-step deductible one like a simple sliding block puzzle or a pattern-recognition thing.

that's exactly what I'm talking about though. the thread's about red flags and without fail, when a DM says the campaign will be "puzzle-heavy" or "riddle-based" or similar, it means you're in for plenty of "guess what I'm thinking."

see, the one about st. ives though, like any "classic" riddle, basically just hinges on whether or not you've heard it before. if you have, then like the riddle of the sphinx, you just say the answer, and it's more of a memory test, or if you've never heard it, you just flounder for hours because the "cleverness" of the riddle comes from communicating poorly, and not from any actual lateral thinking on the guesser's part.

>sliding block

oh man, like that one with the colored bottles from the hobbit. I hate those. I do not sit down for a game of deeandee to do math problems.

[Extra Anchovies]

>sliding block

oh man, like that one with the colored bottles from the hobbit. I hate those. I do not sit down for a game of deeandee to do math problems.

That's a good point; us optimizers, we do all the hard math before we come to the table. But I'm still a sucker for a good logic puzzle; I got halfway through the bottle puzzle in the first Harry Potter book before figuring out that it could not be solved since Rowling didn't include a diagram of the bottles and their relative sizes :furious:

[Venger]

That's a good point; us optimizers, we do all the hard math before we come to the table. But I'm still a sucker for a good logic puzzle; I got halfway through the bottle puzzle in the first Harry Potter book before figuring out that it could not be solved since Rowling didn't include a diagram of the bottles and their relative sizes :furious:

yeah, it was just an incomplete, half-remembered version of the bottle puzzle from the hobbit.

[oxybe]

I like logic puzzles in real life, not so much when i'm playing elves and dragons.

Mainly because it's a very metagame-y/minigame-y concept that immediately takes me out of the game.

While Thok the Orc might not know much about Ropers, while Oxybe the player does, very rarely do we sit and wonder the nature of the tentacle rock and simply rock it instead. At best we roll a knowledge check and we either know about it or not and keep playing with that new information.

Very few DMs allow us to roll intelligence/knowledge to bypass their chef-d'oeuvres to continue with the game and want us to puzzle it out. This means if Oxybe is playing Thok, I either stop roleplaying the big dumb brute and help the party solve the problem with my own brain or I go "Thok don't know" and start playing the 3DS.

It gets really weird when the puzzle is based off in-world lore that me, the player, might be unaware of but my high-in wizard might find it common, which means my wizard is unnecessarily struggling with wordplay.

This is why I believe The Legend of Zelda had it right: the best puzzles you can put in D&D are "block puzzles"; puzzles that rely less on real-life knowledge or in-game observation and more on ability/skill use or pure interaction. "there is a pit and crossing it hastens your goal" is much more interesting then "speak friend, and enter" in play.

[Jeff the Green]

I just flat out don't like riddles. Even if they aren't "guess what the DM's thinking" (aforementioned DM's weren't, for instance) I either don't get them and become extremely frustrated or I get them right away and there's no sense of accomplishment.

Ciphers, on the other hand, I like. That's something that you can actually work at; then there's rarely the same frustration and there is a sense of accomplishment.

[Necroticplague]

In terms of actual in-game things, the only real dealbreaker is "core only". Everything else I can adapt to.

However, I have little tolerance for some things that are more like social parts of the game. Most of it I would merely lump together under "being adversarial", and it covers a lot of crap other people already covered.

[Honest Tiefling]

I think my problem with puzzles is that DMs don't seem to like it when your solution is to unmake or to break the puzzle rather then solving it. I could actually see a lot of people preferring that method rather then believing in the whims of crazed dungeon makers.

[Threadnaught]

"there is a pit and crossing it hastens your goal" is much more interesting then "speak friend, and enter" in play.

I must remember to have a security system with that line.

Speak friend and enter.

And as my players keep arguing over whether the Elven word for "friend" is "melon", "mel'lon", "melons" or "I say "friend" in Elven", try to avoid laughing, knowing that all they need to do is speak and enter. :smallamused:

[MesiDoomstalker]

On Custscenes: What my group typically does, when the DM has what would equate to one in a session, before play starts he goes around the table asking "how would your character react to X? How bout Y? Z?" where X, Y, and Z are fairly broad and generic instances that can have a fairly broad and generic response. Usually, only one of them is relevant and the rest are duds but when the cutscene comes, the DM can create a smoother narrative, filling in (Based on the earlier questions) smaller actions the players would have had to interject about midst-exposition. Basically its to create a smoother and more natural expositional dialogue. Big stuff, like, finding out your long dead mentor is now an Undead servant of Evil wouldn't be done like this but "Sudden reveal the prince is a princess" might.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Critical fumble rules
Critical failure/success for skills or other things they're not meant to apply to
An expectation of "realism" out of the noncasters (and often, even that view is skewed by the DM's own physical conditioning)
Spell points
Using a game system I don't want to play
Making a "low magic" or "low wealth" game but then allowing in casters just as normal (low magic almost always = no magic items IME)
Not allowing rolls to benefit as they're supposed to (Ex: you didn't "roleplay enough" on that 40 diplomacy check) or just not giving as much info as they're supposed to (I've gotten "you think it's raining" while raining on a 30 Survival to predict the weather and a statement of already obvious visual qualities and not even the name of a monster on a check that surely beat is DC by at least 15...)
DM who is fine with PCs stealing from or murdering each other unless it's meant to be a short-lived evil game




Not an absolute deal-breaker, but stuff that would strongly encourage me to not join a game:

Rolling for hp or stats. If stat rolls don't work for my concept, I walk. If hp is rolled, I hesitate to play a melee character.
Core only, or even worse... starting at level 1 (or both!). I've been playing a long time. I'm sick of low levels and core classes.
Overt DM complaints about martial classes/feats/etc... that are "too anime" or "videogamey" and banning them
Having a "sandbox" game where it's constantly up to the party for a direction. Those games always drag slow and have poorly/non-planned encounters.
Having a non-core book limit for splat material; this massively favors casters (their goodies are more consolidated)
PCs playing by different rules to "help out" the newbies, which is basically punishing the rest for being experienced (typically by allowing a feat/class/ruling for that person only)
Harsh rules for returning from death. You already died, coming in a lower level (I've seen some games where new characters ALWAYS come in at lvl 1!) is just mean. And IME, most deaths aren't from stupidity but random bad luck or doing something selfless and heroic. Way to punish the wrong things, DM.

[Extra Anchovies]

Having a "sandbox" game where it's constantly up to the party for a direction. Those games always drag slow and have poorly/non-planned encounters.
Having a non-core book limit for splat material; this massively favors casters (their goodies are more consolidated)

Agreed on both counts. Sandbox games can also get quite of a WoW feel to them, as the lack of a coherent story discourages casual roleplaying and tends to produce quest-giver NPCs who might as well be standing around with exclamation marks over their heads. And any caster can break the game with Core + (Complete Arcane or Complete Divine) + (Spell Compendium), or with just core alone.

[Squirrel_Dude]

1. DMs who make house rules on the fly.
2. Critical fumbles.
3. Purely "theatre of the mind" combat. It's just not my preference.

[Bloody Peasant!]

It's entirely likely that such bans get put in place because of (to borrow a phrase) 'infantile' behavior of players these DMs have had, or seen, in the past which the players justified by the alignment written on their character sheets. It's not that uncommon for players to play "CE = baby-devouring sociopath," "CN = LOLrandom out of my mind insane," and "LG = Goody-two-shoes with a 2x4 wedged up the backside." Bans on alignment often come about because the DM doesn't want to deal with a player using alignment as a justification for being disruptive, particularly if they notice that the ban actually prevents the disruption without booting the player.

I suppose that might well be the case sometimes, but at any rate it's still crude and needlessly inhibitive of player creativity. I don't like it when DMs assume the worst of their players, that's all. If a player ends up acting up once the game actual starts, then you can kick them out, but I hate DMs who try to mollycoddle me.

[Amphetryon]

I suppose that might well be the case sometimes, but at any rate it's still crude and needlessly inhibitive of player creativity. I don't like it when DMs assume the worst of their players, that's all. If a player ends up acting up once the game actual starts, then you can kick them out, but I hate DMs who try to mollycoddle me.

Many would simply prefer not to have to boot players, as that's often at least as much of a disruption in the long run as the behavior which such a simple ban circumvents.

[Bloody Peasant!]

Many would simply prefer not to have to boot players, as that's often at least as much of a disruption in the long run as the behavior which such a simple ban circumvents.

That's fair enough for them, but I'm still not going to play in their game- the way I see it, you should just not let bad players play, rather than restricting everyone else in order to reign them in.

[Traab]

Good point, I'll leave it alone.

I'll also echo the sentiment regarding "realism" as rationale for screwing over character types who already lag behind the balance curve. If you want realism, you're playing the wrong game, and that's not just because of the wizards and elves.

As for rolling for stats and HP, D&D may be a game where luck and dice play a large role, but the proper place for that role is in the gameplay, not in the preparation phase. I shouldn't do better (or worse) playing the game simply because of the results of a purely luck-based minigame I had to play before I was allowed access to the game I came to play.

I just wanted to put in that I agree with this. See, if I come to a table and want to play something specific, then obviously, my character has be statted around it. I mean, i guess it could be amusing if my half ogre barbarian has a 7 con and str and his character is based around refusing to accept that he is a cripple, but more honestly, my wizard wouldnt choose to train to be a wizard if his int was so low he needs someone to tie his shoes for him in the morning because after 27 years he still hasnt gotten it down yet. On the other hand, I sorta see a point to rolling, it would be kind of lame if you could just say, "Im going to be "x" class, therefore my str and con are 18 blah blah blah" It just would suck if you were coming to the table intending to play a specific character concept only to roll total garbage for that build and have to drop your idea because it wont work now. I like the idea of point buy though. I admit to not knowing a lot about it, but basically it lets you reasonably customize your character without overpowering or gimping him right out of the gate, right?

[Raven777]

I quite like sandbox games, personally. I feel they leave more time for PCs to develop as individuals and enact their own projects. Besides, a good sandbox will still have a main story arc and one or two side arcs getting attention every few sessions.

[Pyron]

Passsive DMing who doesn't do anything to any fix problems at the table.
DMs who don't pay attention to their players. Either they don't take the time to learn about the player's characters or what the player wants from the game.
Players who are constantly distracted at the table with their iPads or Smart Phones, or who constantly leave the table and bog down the game.
"Low" magic/wealth.
DMs who must hold on to the copy of the player's character sheet.
Critical fumble rules. The rules already have such rules (a natural 1 = auto-miss; that's enough of a fumble for a high level fighter)
House rules or arbitrary decisions that make things overly-complicated
DMs who refuse to reveal information about your character. Such as how much HP damage you took.



Not allowing rolls to benefit as they're supposed to (Ex: you didn't "roleplay enough" on that 40 diplomacy check) or just not giving as much info as they're supposed to (I've gotten "you think it's raining" while raining on a 30 Survival to predict the weather and a statement of already obvious visual qualities and not even the name of a monster on a check that surely beat is DC by at least 15...)


That gets on my nerves too. What's worse, you rolled so high that the DM decides that you failed the check. I've gotten a sorcerer who rolled a natural 20 on intimidate against a captive. Instead of going by the rules as written (getting any information he might know about the dungeon), the goblin was so frightened that he couldn't speak. :smallfurious:

[Bloody Peasant!]

I quite like sandbox games, personally. I feel they leave more time for PCs to develop as individuals and enact their own projects. Besides, a good sandbox will still have a main story arc and one or two side arcs getting attention every few sessions.

I agree. I prefer plots that are player-driven to those that are DM-driven, as a general rule, as long as the players know what they're doing. My campaigns always have a central theme and a well-developed world, but in regard to the players' actions, I like to leave that to them, and not burden them with tasks unless they're lost for ideas.

[Raven777]

DMs who must hold on to the copy of the player's character sheet.


I don't really have a problem with DMs having a copy of the character sheets as a resource. With sheets moving online more and more, like Myth-Weaver's (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=905538), sharing access becomes less and less of a problem.

[Pyron]

I don't really have a problem with DMs having a copy of the character sheets as a resource. With sheets moving online more and more, like Myth-Weaver's (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=905538), sharing access becomes less and less of a problem.

I agree. I don't object to giving DM's a copy , my issue is when they insist on holding on to the only copy because a player "might cheat".

[Bloody Peasant!]

I agree. I don't object to giving DM's a copy , my issue is when they insist on holding on to the only copy because a player "might cheat".

I really can't stand that sort of attitude from DMs. Trust is the most important factor in any relationship, and DM/Player relations are no exception. I will never tolerate a DM who doesn't trust his players. That and railroading/authoritarian DMing are my two biggest pet peeves.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

I perform character audits every few levels. Helps that I have only run simpler games, but I think it is the GM's right to want to double check his players. For example, if I am playing Pathfinder, we might have a 3.5 player that does not know an aspect of a rule that is present in PF, Sneak Attack for example.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I quite like sandbox games, personally. I feel they leave more time for PCs to develop as individuals and enact their own projects. Besides, a good sandbox will still have a main story arc and one or two side arcs getting attention every few sessions.

It seems like almost everyone on the internet prefers "sandbox" style games. I constantly see people state it as their preference, and many game announcements proudly proclaim "sandbox game." When was the last time you saw a DM announce he'll be running a railroading game? And yeah, that has a much more negative connotation. That's kinda the point. Views are so heavily skewed in favor of sandbox, that the common use name for the opposing style is an inherently badwrongfun term. That's really messed up.

I don't like when I have no control over my own actions and such, and I want to be able to have my actions influence the world. But...I like a good "railroad." A tightly organized plot, well-designed fun encounters because the DM could count on us engaging in them well in advance.... But I feel so alone sometimes. Like wanting such a game where there's a rich plot and things move along briskly is somehow a bad thing. And I have seen so many bad sandbox games. Leaving what to do or where to go up to the players *always* leads to big long pointless debates or long spans of confused quiet, and encounters that were picked out of many possible ones and only partly prepared due to the burden of having so many potentials is always less satisfying than a thoroughly developed one.

Unless the DM's game/plot is really intolerable or unless the DM is an adversarial type out to screw you over...I'll generally do my best to go along with his hints on what to do and try to keep things "on track" when playing. Maybe time has something to do with it. It was much less of an issue for me in college when I could do 6-8 hour game sessions than now where I work full time and am lucky to get 3-4 hours of session a week. Time is precious, I hate to waste it piddling around.


I perform character audits every few levels. Helps that I have only run simpler games, but I think it is the GM's right to want to double check his players.

Agreed. I don't hold onto sheets, though. I do like to make them viewable to all party members, though. More eyes means better chances to catch mistakes. And knowing each others' abilities fosters better group tactics. I have a complete intolerance for inter-party strife / PvP, so there's nothing that you should feel the need to hide from the others, generally*. It actually kind of irks me, games I play in where the DM keeps each players' sheets secret to the others...
*Did have a player recently wishing to hide their true racial identity behind a disguise. That was fine, I accommodated that.

[Snowbluff]

I could use more character audits. I keep finding out that my oracle should know more spells than he does.:smallsigh:

[OldTrees1]

I perform character audits every few levels. Helps that I have only run simpler games, but I think it is the GM's right to want to double check his players. For example, if I am playing Pathfinder, we might have a 3.5 player that does not know an aspect of a rule that is present in PF, Sneak Attack for example.
I think it is the attitude the DM has that makes it reasonable or unreasonable.

What you are describing sounds more like 1 player(who happens to be the DM) double checking another player's sheet for that player. Kinda like the various build threads on this forum.

I think the unreasonable one is paranoia about the player's cheating. Distrust is contagious and can fragment a game quickly.



@Sandboxes
I think I am probably "guilty" of having too few rails in my sandbox games. In my first group it worked reasonably as the players started with/quickly came up with character goals they could proactively further(which of course lead them towards their opposition). It did not work with the second group. The lack of proactive goals and no rails resulted in random wandering from one adventure to another without concluding any.

So as someone that is a fan of a no rails sandbox, I can attest that it has its problems and is not for everyone.

[JusticeZero]

Core only, random HP rolls, or critical fumbles, and I won't give the game a second glance. As a rule, I have issues with "no psionics" too, but only because the DSP has the only class that counts as a full "healer" that isn't Tier 1. Seriously there are no other options. It's embarrassing.

[Vizzerdrix]

critical failures I can deal with, so long as the DM can handle a build that minimizes D20 rolls.

Core Only is a no go for me. The system has all kinds of fun and interesting stuff to have it all swept away for one silly reason or another.
Honestly if one more DM tells me Core is Balanced I'll eat a glass and ham sammich.

[atemu1234]

Only okay if you pay to get him drunk after.

Get him the good dwarven ale.


In one word: stupidity.

Thread over.

[Honest Tiefling]

It seems like almost everyone on the internet prefers "sandbox" style games. I constantly see people state it as their preference, and many game announcements proudly proclaim "sandbox game." When was the last time you saw a DM announce he'll be running a railroading game? And yeah, that has a much more negative connotation. That's kinda the point. Views are so heavily skewed in favor of sandbox, that the common use name for the opposing style is an inherently badwrongfun term. That's really messed up.
[-snip-]


I actually agree with this a lot and I have come to the conclusion...I might not actually like running sandbox games. I try not to railroad, but I am terribly lazy and don't want to make 50 NPCs for a village only to find out that they much rather set an opposing fortress on fire. Okay, fine, you want to set it on fire, but how was I supposed to know that! It's very hard to make everything in the world compelling on the fly for me.

I'd also reeeaaaaaally love a group that could be cohesive from the start. Not having the ability to speak with other players would do it for me, else it usually becomes a squabble of unrelated strangers as opposed to a rag-tag team that works together.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Nope. Maximized HD rolls are there to make the game less swingy, not less lethal.

There's a big difference between making an encounter threatening and potentially lethal and "Ok the orc rolls... a 19, give me your character sheet".

Rolling every HD is probably a good way for a lazy DM to make encounters look scarier than they actually are though, so if that's your style, more power to you.

I missed posts like this, but I have to say I disagree. It's certainly a better answer than what you replied to, but that's not the reason I prefer high fixed or max HD (I actually tend to go w/ 3/4 max, first still maxed, so that healing and direct damage doesn't fall behind too much). I do it to ensure the respective hit dice of different classes actually mean something. I've seriously been in a game w/ rolled HD and no rerolls where the Con 18 Sorcerer (yay, being SAD!) had significantly more hp than the 14 Con Barbarian (sucks to be MAD). It was ludicrous. What good is a "potential" for lots of hp that doesn't pan out? I'd rather play a low HD class and assume the worst, and use the features I got in exchange for the lower potential to make my defenses god-like. Or have an excuse to stay away from melee completely.

The main reason to use high fixed HD is class balance, not swinginess. In my current game, the d4 HD psion has literally half the hp as the Fighter/Barb/Warblade at level 7, a difference of over 30 hp. He certainly doesn't feel like damage is less swingy, nor should the squishy fellow.
Rolling for hp is like making the casters flip a coin to see if they actually gain each new spell slot as they level; heads they do, tails they get the same # of slots as a martial character (ie, zero). It's stupid and unfair. The martials are supposed to be hardier, but in reality there's no guarantee of that whatsoever.

EDIT: Of course, the psion does know Vigor. :smallwink: There's a lot more issues with class balance than just random HD rolls. But using high fixed values is certainly a step in the right direction.

[Erarem]

I had a DM once that had a ridiculous DMPC that traveled with the party and provided the impetus for the campaign- basically, our bus driver, who would railroad us somewhere, point at something, and say "Kill.", followed by various material and XP rewards.
Well, my rogue had enough of this after about a session and a half, and turned around and said, "No." It ended up with DMPC killing my PC because my PC refused to help him- specifically, DMPC dealt some 20d6 of damage to my level 5 rogue and was surprised when I announced, "Well, negative twenty, I'm dead." I have not played another game with him since.

[The Insanity]

I had a DM once that had a ridiculous DMPC that traveled with the party and provided the impetus for the campaign- basically, our bus driver, who would railroad us somewhere, point at something, and say "Kill.", followed by various material and XP rewards.
Well, my rogue had enough of this after about a session and a half, and turned around and said, "No." It ended up with DMPC killing my PC because my PC refused to help him- specifically, DMPC dealt some 20d6 of damage to my level 5 rogue and was surprised when I announced, "Well, negative twenty, I'm dead." I have not played another game with him since.
What was the DMs introduction to the campaign?

[Yahzi]

The one red flag I have found most consistent: DMPCs.

[Vhaidara]

1. PvP Combat in a lethal degree without prior consent. I've had character slap other PCs around, but I use nonlethal and don't do it in a fight.

2. Arbitrary bans, especially if the NPCs don't follow the ban. This isn't as much of a guarantee, since I have enjoyed a "no ToB" campaign where the GM has started using ToB. But this is because I trust that the GM knows what he's doing, and I know he doesn't really have a problem with ToB.

3. Players who try (and do) get away with stupid rule abuses, like Explosive Runes Claymores.

4. GMs who don't understand how deadly some things are. Allips, level drain, Con drain, that damned crab, etc. My groups tend to not optimize even as far as T3 (T4 is our sweet spot).

5. GMs who aren't willing to modify encounters on the fly or adapt to unusual player decisions
5 ex. The party falls through a teleportation field into a forest. Our frontliners are pretty beaten up, and a pair of trolls arrive. Realizing that the tanks are unlikely to survive a round being hit, I notice that my gnome bard has 1. Way more health than he has any right to (16 CON and 1 point short of max HP) and 2. The ability to speak Giant. So I run up and start insulting the trolls in the vilest terms I can. It works, I pull aggro and we clear it almost unscathed. I turned this into a habit of my gnome (recently did it to a dread wraith to split up the Con drain)

6. Excessive use of Enchantment. It's a fun school, but it's removal of control. It's legal railroading, in a way.

7. Excessive use of disables. This is a personal bias. In every IRL campaign I've been in, there has been at least 1 fight where I am disabled before my first turn (surprise round paralyze, getting pounced, etc). And I'm the only one it's happened to. No one else has been first round disabled. For reference, it was 2 blastlocks (pure warlock) and a bard. In the case of the bard, it was for a big boss fight the GM had been hyping all week. I spent 3 hours sitting on the couch playing solitaire. My bard didn't get to see the fight (he lived because Merciful weapons) and therefore can't tell the tale as firsthand knowledge

8. Rocket tag. It's not a good game state.

9. Antagonistic DM/Player relationships

10. Crit fumbles (beyond fluff): My table rules that you provoke an AoO on a crit fumble, which I can accept because AoO are limited.

[Squark]

While sandboxes aren't for everyone by any means, I think a lot of the problem comes from lazy DMs who don't have sandboxes (Full of fun and interesting characters and plot hooks) so much as Antarctica (without penguins, because interesting NPCs take work to create). It's the difference between a narrative campaign (Where you're a passenger on an exciting railroad vacation with frequent stops at exotic places) and a Railroad campaign (Where you're the train. And the scenery is dull and cliché).

[loodwig]

So many good ones. I'll just add my ordered list, which probably has a dupe elsewhere previously. Some of these are session related, some of these are rules related. While not strictly "deal-breakers," I groan when I encounter them, and given the opportunity I do all I can to avert these conditions.


Backstabbing - I've played evil campaigns where the party was a sociopath, an annoying thief, a charlatan, and a violent actor. It worked reasonably well on the premise that while we were all evil, we would not kill each other (for the sake of cohesion). By contrast, I had a member in my latest group that would try to rob and con the other players every chance he could. This ended with conflict that was resolved only when we stopped being friends.
Roll for HP - Nothing says "I hate my squishy tank" like dumb luck 1 on a D10. Nothing makes you incinerate your character sheet and 20 hours of your life like doing it twice in a row.
Death Penalty - You died in battle, and now must come up with the money for an expensive raise dead spell, and then there's the two negative levels and the 10 minute casting time. That sucks. Permanent level loss, all gear loss, or having to start over from the start is just a little too roguelike for a game that players can invest years in.
Level Disparity - a level 37 sorcerer cannot play with a level 4 archer, without the archer feeling useless, no matter how long the sorcerer and the GM were married. If someone has missed a few sessions and comes back 3 levels weaker, the GM should "magically" level and gear them up, so it's still fun for everyone.
Unrealistically expensive gear - This necklace that gives me a one-time fireball spell costs as much as buying all the houses in the city it's sold in, and it'll take me 3 sessions to afford a +1 upgrade to my weapon by which point I'll need +3. I know magic items are rare, but why would an adventurer try to buy an "edge" in combat when they could just buy a city as if they were related to Richard Daley?
Required Munchkin - Munchkins are annoying in a good session, but as someone who's played PFS, it's practically required to be one once you're above level 7. Spend a gold coin wrong, and you're boned. And forget potions... you need to save every penny! And your two handed weapon better be a falchion (because we all remember the holy knights wielding their falchions), and it better be adamantium or cold iron from the start, even if it makes zero sense when you buy it. Also, your armor is mithral or nothing at all, or that CR 7 fiend is going to mop the floor with you even if it doesn't crit.
Light armor, heavy money - I've started playing games where gold is weightless. It makes things much easier than forcing players to play the minigame of "buying gems and hoping they can sell them for half value somewhere." Less realistic, yes, but at no point in history did the wealthiest people carry around their net worth in coins, especially since for a level 12 adventurer it weighs as much as a small star.
Lawful Stupid - Just because you are a paladin doesn't mean you draw your sword every time a crime has been committed, falling on the ceremony of "but, it's what my alignment requires."
Racial Cliche - Every orc is loud and stupid. Every dwarf is a drunk and Irish. Every human is a racist capitalist. Every elf is an arrogant Vulcan. Every gnome or goblin is a tasteless greed stereotype. Every woman played by a man is skinny with unrealistic breasts (not specifically racist, but still...).
Arguing over rules - If the GM says your fireball doesn't burn down the docs because they're over water, the GM may not understand high school physics, but the docs don't burn down! Why are we arguing physics in a world where it's accepted that sufficiently trained people can throw a fireball with their bare hands?
Arguing over loot - The GM shouldn't give the one ring as an item that people fight over, and similarly the players shouldn't be fighting over who gets the one ring. Give gold, give many magic items, or just sell them quickly.
Railroad Plots - this is a role playing game, not "story time with your host, the GM." The players drive the story, drive the plot's direction, and it may not be where the GM planned. The GM should 'plan' accordingly.

[ComaVision]

Death Penalty - You died in battle, and now must come up with the money for an expensive raise dead spell, and then there's the two negative levels and the 10 minute casting time. That sucks. Permanent level loss, all gear loss, or having to start over from the start is just a little too roguelike for a game that players can invest years in.


It's totally fine that this is your preference but man, I would never knowingly play in a game where death will not happen and is cheap. I don't like playing a game where winning is a default.

[aleucard]

So many good ones. I'll just add my ordered list, which probably has a dupe elsewhere previously. Some of these are session related, some of these are rules related. While not strictly "deal-breakers," I groan when I encounter them, and given the opportunity I do all I can to avert these conditions.


Backstabbing - I've played evil campaigns where the party was a sociopath, an annoying thief, a charlatan, and a violent actor. It worked reasonably well on the premise that while we were all evil, we would not kill each other (for the sake of cohesion). By contrast, I had a member in my latest group that would try to rob and con the other players every chance he could. This ended with conflict that was resolved only when we stopped being friends.
Roll for HP - Nothing says "I hate my squishy tank" like dumb luck 1 on a D10. Nothing makes you incinerate your character sheet and 20 hours of your life like doing it twice in a row.
Death Penalty - You died in battle, and now must come up with the money for an expensive raise dead spell, and then there's the two negative levels and the 10 minute casting time. That sucks. Permanent level loss, all gear loss, or having to start over from the start is just a little too roguelike for a game that players can invest years in.
Level Disparity - a level 37 sorcerer cannot play with a level 4 archer, without the archer feeling useless, no matter how long the sorcerer and the GM were married. If someone has missed a few sessions and comes back 3 levels weaker, the GM should "magically" level and gear them up, so it's still fun for everyone.
Unrealistically expensive gear - This necklace that gives me a one-time fireball spell costs as much as buying all the houses in the city it's sold in, and it'll take me 3 sessions to afford a +1 upgrade to my weapon by which point I'll need +3. I know magic items are rare, but why would an adventurer try to buy an "edge" in combat when they could just buy a city as if they were related to Richard Daley?
Required Munchkin - Munchkins are annoying in a good session, but as someone who's played PFS, it's practically required to be one once you're above level 7. Spend a gold coin wrong, and you're boned. And forget potions... you need to save every penny! And your two handed weapon better be a falchion (because we all remember the holy knights wielding their falchions), and it better be adamantium or cold iron from the start, even if it makes zero sense when you buy it. Also, your armor is mithral or nothing at all, or that CR 7 fiend is going to mop the floor with you even if it doesn't crit.
Light armor, heavy money - I've started playing games where gold is weightless. It makes things much easier than forcing players to play the minigame of "buying gems and hoping they can sell them for half value somewhere." Less realistic, yes, but at no point in history did the wealthiest people carry around their net worth in coins, especially since for a level 12 adventurer it weighs as much as a small star.
Lawful Stupid - Just because you are a paladin doesn't mean you draw your sword every time a crime has been committed, falling on the ceremony of "but, it's what my alignment requires."
Racial Cliche - Every orc is loud and stupid. Every dwarf is a drunk and Irish. Every human is a racist capitalist. Every elf is an arrogant Vulcan. Every gnome or goblin is a tasteless greed stereotype. Every woman played by a man is skinny with unrealistic breasts (not specifically racist, but still...).
Arguing over rules - If the GM says your fireball doesn't burn down the docs because they're over water, the GM may not understand high school physics, but the docs don't burn down! Why are we arguing physics in a world where it's accepted that sufficiently trained people can throw a fireball with their bare hands?
Arguing over loot - The GM shouldn't give the one ring as an item that people fight over, and similarly the players shouldn't be fighting over who gets the one ring. Give gold, give many magic items, or just sell them quickly.
Railroad Plots - this is a role playing game, not "story time with your host, the GM." The players drive the story, drive the plot's direction, and it may not be where the GM planned. The GM should 'plan' accordingly.


I actually have a couple ideas for how to work with some of the various things here.

#2: Maybe have the more martial classes get a special quality that takes the place of Toughness and friends like a bonus feat; all HP rolls less than half of the beefcake are rerolled (with 1's adding 1 to the roll also, to the max amount of the die (11+1=12+1 in other words)). If a feat called Improved Toughness is taken, they get +1/HD on top of the normal, and all HD are rerolled at each level and the larger of the two are taken. Kinda complicated how this would work, but I'll try. At level 2, no rerolls are done aside from the base level (let's say they get a 5 off the bat), but at level 3 they reroll their level 2 HD and roll a new HD (lv. 2 HD turns up 6, lv. 3 a 10), thus making it so their level 2 HD is functionally 18 (rolls plus the 1/HD bonus, assuming no Con bonus) rather than the 17 it was before. HD that get the max result can be safely ignored (and for simplicity's sake, switched with the earliest non-max result, so the lv. 3 result is treated as 6 and lv. 2 as 10). Maybe have a bonus if the PC is lucky enough to get max rolls down the board, if the player can be trusted to be honest about their results?

#8: I've always been a fan of my idea where the Powers That Be are not completely incompetent in the realm of Paladin actions, and can tell the difference between Lawful Good and Lawful Stupid. Paladins that go too far in that may turn into Blackguards without realizing it, and Paladin status may be granted without active desire for such on the part of a character. How would a group of Lawful Stupid types react if they start getting smacked around by a demon with obvious Paladin abilities with their own being either locked or indiscriminate? If that doesn't deliver a reality check, nothing will. This also leads into #9 a bit, but that's mainly because I find the concept of anybody but a mindless target's alignment being out of their choice to be oxymoronic. If you're not mindless, you ALWAYS have a choice. Alignment just simply does not work properly without it.

#10: While rules-lawyers are annoying, if you ad-lib too many parts it becomes less DnD 3.5 and more of Playground Fantasy Fighting where an everything-proof shield is just around the corner. That's something where I agree with Yahtzee with.

#12 & #1: It REALLY depends on just how such a thing is put together and presented. For instance, a DM wants to run a War campaign. He tells the players that they should make their characters with a good reason to work for this particular faction and stay that way. Betrayal is discouraged, but if you really want to try and play a double-agent we'll talk but you'd better have a VERY good reason. The backstab CAN be a very effective part of the story and campaign, not to mention a vector to build the world around the players (the thoughts of the Spy when he at least thinks he may eventually have to help kill these people he's spent years if not longer growing beside, for instance). However, if the player just wants to do the LOLPsyche thing of a standard troll, then you can use that as a red flag for the player. They may not even get the chance to do their Face-Heel Turn; both accidents and "accidents" happen, after all, and if the character's enough of a bellend, their original loyalties may think he's compromised or too much of a liability or something comparable. Nobody likes Peter Pettigrew, after all.

[Fax Celestis]

It's totally fine that this is your preference but man, I would never knowingly play in a game where death will not happen and is cheap. I don't like playing a game where winning is a default.

I don't mind some drawbacks, but all of those together is a bit much. The level loss in particular is draconian, because it makes it more likely for it to happen again. Plus you have to revert your sheet, which gives you a spot where error can come into the equation, or can even be beneficial in particular circumstances.

[Sneaky Hue]

1 - People who bring their girlfriends. In fact, any person not related to the game watching us play.

2 - '' - OK Sergio, we got myself as NG Cleric of Pelor, a LG Paladin, a Monk and a Wizard, what u playing?
- A Bard
- Cool!
- DM: Tell me about your Bard.
- He is going to be CN and because of [Insert history here] he signs about death, praising it.
- DM: ...Don't you think that would cause conflict with the party?
- No, i promise.

* Bard proceeds to torture a man while he composes a song about it, behind the party's back *

- DM: You said you would not cause trouble!
- But thats how my character would act!''

[Extra Anchovies]

1 - People who bring their girlfriends. In fact, any person not related to the game watching us play.

Hearing someone ask "Hey, can I bring a [friend/girlfriend] for just the next session? They've never played before but I can try to teach them" is pretty much a cue that the next session is going to be a wash, with "They've never played before" being the key phrase. Having to teach someone character creation, and then to teach them the rules, kills a lot of time, plus they almost never have any idea about how to roleplay their character, instead picking stuff that "looks cool".

Not that having a friend/family member around for one session is always bad; in a short-lived Traveler campaign I played over the summer, the DM's cousin (from out of state) was with us and went through character creation together (plus part of the first adventure). It was plenty of fun, but Traveler is a very simple rules system and backstory creation isn't nearly as freeform as it is in 3.5.

[loodwig]

It's totally fine that this is your preference but man, I would never knowingly play in a game where death will not happen and is cheap. I don't like playing a game where winning is a default.

Oh no, I want death to suck. But I think the idea of "you can't play anymore" or "you are now permanently nerfed for the rest of this campaign" sucks. Re-roll as a new character, do a quest to resurrect, whatever it takes. But don't punish people for dying beyond what the rules already do.

[Sneaky Hue]

Hearing someone ask "Hey, can I bring a [friend/girlfriend] for just the next session? They've never played before but I can try to teach them" is pretty much a cue that the next session is going to be a wash, with "They've never played before" being the key phrase. Having to teach someone character creation, and then to teach them the rules, kills a lot of time, plus they almost never have any idea about how to roleplay their character, instead picking stuff that "looks cool".

Not that having a friend/family member around for one session is always bad; in a short-lived Traveler campaign I played over the summer, the DM's cousin (from out of state) was with us and went through character creation together (plus part of the first adventure). It was plenty of fun, but Traveler is a very simple rules system and backstory creation isn't nearly as freeform as it is in 3.5.

Plus, i get unconfortable really quick about roleplaying in front of a stranger.

[Roxxy]

Railroad Plots - this is a role playing game, not "story time with your host, the GM." The players drive the story, drive the plot's direction, and it may not be where the GM planned. The GM should 'plan' accordingly.
[/LIST]I think it depends on the type of game and the degree of railroading. In Pathfinder, my setting revolves around soldiers and sailors tasked with monster hunting. Part of being military is that people are telling the PCs what their mission is. I try to keep it reasonable, though. Captain says there is a werewolf in that village yonder, and the PCs need to find and eliminate it. How this is to be done is for the PCs to decide. Same for any other threat. Command tells the PCs what the problem is, but not how to rectify it. I disclose that this is how the game works prior to character creation, so that players who don't want to take some orders will understand this is not the right table for them.

[loodwig]

#2: Maybe have the more martial classes get a special quality that takes the place of Toughness and friends like a bonus feat; ...

I really like this. The natural trade-off of "no rolls when you level" is that you end up with very predictable characters. Of course, too much variety gives too much chaos. I like that the Barbarian can roll a 12 for HP at a level. I dislike that he can roll a 1... consistently. When HP is such a magnificently important stat (especially early on), it can really just ruin a character. Of course, a good GM should be able to compensate a little, and maybe the simple thing is to turn the 1 into a 4. Because as a player it's no fun (especially if you're the tank) if you're just unlucky one time and now you're permanently playing with a handicap that screws the group. Then again, I sometimes allow re-specking... but typically only for new players.


Maybe have a bonus if the PC is lucky enough to get max rolls down the board, if the player can be trusted to be honest about their results?

I always do my rolls at the game table. It's not that I don't trust my players, it's that if they get the 20, I want us all to bask in the glory of it. And I don't trust my players.


#8: I've always been a fan of my idea where the Powers That Be are not completely incompetent in the realm of Paladin actions...

This is how I play my paladins. I think they become very fun when you play them like a divine superhero, and not a cliche. Maybe it's the religion thing that rubs PC's the wrong way, but too often I see them just being an absurd blind patron of their chosen deity, and they end up being exactly what the party doesn't want to play with (to the point where I've seen them outright banned from play at some tables). My fault isn't necessarily with people who are lousy at role playing, so much as it is with people that are so terrible and obsessed on lawful stupid that they ruin the game for everyone at the table. It's as bad as when the rogue who's chaotic good says "what, I'm a thief; I would try and steal the crown from the king's head as he's rewarding us for completing a quest."


#10: While rules-lawyers are annoying, if you ad-lib too many parts it becomes less DnD 3.5 and more of Playground Fantasy Fighting where an everything-proof shield is just around the corner. That's something where I agree with Yahtzee with.

I had a case a few months back where my group used a wand of cure light wounds, a well timed fireball spell, and a very stealthy invisible druid to sneak in a bomb into a military ceremony. I thought when they did this, "Wait, this isn't legal. A wand of cure light? No, not a 750gp common item you can buy just about anywhere to straight up murder 40 armed soldiers..." but I allowed it. It was totally unpredictable and out of the box, and it was awesome. The druid failed a reflex save, and I gave everyone there 1 round to keep him from being incinerated, and they found a way to grab him in 6 seconds and they made it out unscathed as the 40 soldiers (and their loot) became a carbon glaze in the military hall.

I state again, it was awesome!

I then told them a few days later, "I'm going to allow that one time for rule of cool, but don't think you can pay 750gp in the future to make an IED. You can use a staff of fireballs in the future if you want to try the same trick, but that costs considerably more gold.


#12 & #1: It REALLY depends on just how such a thing is put together and presented. For instance, a DM wants to run a War campaign. He tells the players that they should make their characters with a good reason to work for this particular faction and stay that way. Betrayal is discouraged, but if you really want to try and play a double-agent we'll talk but you'd better have a VERY good reason. The backstab CAN be a very effective part of the story and campaign, not to mention a vector to build the world around the players (the thoughts of the Spy when he at least thinks he may eventually have to help kill these people he's spent years if not longer growing beside, for instance). However, if the player just wants to do the LOLPsyche thing of a standard troll, then you can use that as a red flag for the player. They may not even get the chance to do their Face-Heel Turn; both accidents and "accidents" happen, after all, and if the character's enough of a bellend, their original loyalties may think he's compromised or too much of a liability or something comparable. Nobody likes Peter Pettigrew, after all.

I 100% agree, and that's a really cool idea.

I'll state for #1, the issue I have is when you have a situation where a character decides, "I'm going to kill a party member, because I'm an ass in character, and while everyone in character knows it, no one will kill me because it's forbidden." At this point (and this has, sadly, happened twice), I will deus ex machina the unfriendly death of the ass character, and then kick them off the table. There's playing the part of the sneaky double agent (which can be awesome), and then there's being an ass (especially if that's breaking the rules). You put it perfectly: nobody likes Pettigrew.

As for #12, when I say railroading, I mean when the GM's defined sequence of events is so tightly scripted that the path the players take is less their role to play than it is the GMs. That's no fun. Of course, total sandbox isn't possible when you're working a full time job and have a family and coming up with 3-5 hours of content each week for your party of four PC's to run through. If I, for example, create a major plot point where a dragon is attacking the town and they are the only ones that can stop it, they're fully within their right to say "nope, we're going to let the city guard or some other adventurers stop it. Let's leave town and see what's down the road." Worst case, I go "Okay, so blah blah blah possible encounter after you leave, the town is destroyed, your are now a bit disliked, and I don't have content for the next town yet." I can ad lib a little if need be, and worse case I end an hour early because "You guys went in a direction I completely hadn't accounted for, which is fine, but I need to prepare for that." I also like to kind of get a feel for what they're going to do "next week" at the end of the night. It also stokes a bit of anticipation over the week, especially when an email thread forms (even better when it forms without me knowing it) about what the party is going to do once they get there. It's just so much more fun when the story is set in the world I (or the GM) makes, but the players really decide the fate. But, this requires a skilled group who are not just familiar with the game rules, but are really good at role playing. When you get that, it's loads of fun. When you get a GM that just wants to push his story around, you may as well play Final Fantasy (I think).

[loodwig]

I think it depends on the type of game and the degree of railroading. In Pathfinder, my setting revolves around soldiers and sailors tasked with monster hunting. Part of being military is that people are telling the PCs what their mission is. I try to keep it reasonable, though. Captain says there is a werewolf in that village yonder, and the PCs need to find and eliminate it. How this is to be done is for the PCs to decide. Same for any other threat. Command tells the PCs what the problem is, but not how to rectify it. I disclose that this is how the game works prior to character creation, so that players who don't want to take some orders will understand this is not the right table for them.

That seems perfectly reasonable to me.

[ComaVision]

I think it depends on the type of game and the degree of railroading. In Pathfinder, my setting revolves around soldiers and sailors tasked with monster hunting. Part of being military is that people are telling the PCs what their mission is. I try to keep it reasonable, though. Captain says there is a werewolf in that village yonder, and the PCs need to find and eliminate it. How this is to be done is for the PCs to decide. Same for any other threat. Command tells the PCs what the problem is, but not how to rectify it. I disclose that this is how the game works prior to character creation, so that players who don't want to take some orders will understand this is not the right table for them.

That's how the current campaign I'm running started. One of the party members decided the assignment was too hard and ran off in to the hills, so I called the session (it was near the end time anyway) and had to figure out what was in the hills...

[Kesnit]

1 - People who bring their girlfriends. In fact, any person not related to the game watching us play.

I would say it depends on the situation...

My now-wife and I met while playing in a game (not D&D) run by a mutual friend. At the same time, my now-wife was running another game (same system) with some of the same people on a different night. When we started dating, I asked if I could join her game. She asked the players (most of whom knew me from the game I was in) and they agreed, with the caveat that I was there as a player, not her boyfriend. I played with the group until I moved out-of-state 3 months later. When we moved back to the area, we rejoined the same gaming group.

[jedipotter]

Oh no, I want death to suck. But I think the idea of "you can't play anymore" or "you are now permanently nerfed for the rest of this campaign" sucks. Re-roll as a new character, do a quest to resurrect, whatever it takes. But don't punish people for dying beyond what the rules already do.

So death can suck as long as it does not suck?

The ''you can't play is silly'', but death can very often cause a ''permanent'' nerf. Like when the group is out in the wild somewhere far from civilization. And the character dies and looses their white elephant, you would say that is wrong right? Like where the elf looses his thinblade, and there are no more thinblades within 100 miles, so his awesome character build is nerfed as he does not have that single weapon(or spiked chain, orc double axe, or whatever).

Same way death can cause a character to loose most of their gear, is that not ok by your way of thinking? Do the bad guys have to leave the bracers of dexterity on the dead archer player character as they (don't) know he will be brought back to life soon?

[Extra Anchovies]

Plus, i get unconfortable really quick about roleplaying in front of a stranger.

Oh, yes. Quickest way for me to accidentally break character is when there's someone in the room who's not playing, just observing. It's even worse when they make comments on how it's "silly" that we act in character.

[Sneaky Hue]

Oh, yes. Quickest way for me to accidentally break character is when there's someone in the room who's not playing, just observing. It's even worse when they make comments on how it's "silly" that we act in character.

Exactly.
Last time it happened was during wedding, when a important NPC turned out to be a traitor and some serious RP was supossed to happen. Totally killed the mood.

[oxybe]

As a player, in a game where "death happens real often" if the penalties for dying are too harsh I simply stop caring about the PCs and roll up new ones. There is no reason to be invested in something that won't last long enough for me to get attached to. I also find "succeed or die" to be one of the most boring motivations you can give. It's pretty basic but failure is boring. You're dead. Your story is over.

Threatening something else, like having a character's personal goal become even further out of reach or now impossible makes for a far more interesting failure. It means the character must change or overcome a new difficulty.

Death means you're dead.

Now, in a game/world where death is cheap to overcome and resurrection is very easy, you threaten people in more horrible ways.

Death is quick way out. Cheap, easy and rather blunt. You want to stop the hurt? Bite your tongue and bleed out. Done.

You don't get orders to bring them back alive. You get the orders to bring them back in one piece or multiple. Where killing people is a rather effective, if brutal, way to drag them back to face trial though it might not be appreciated and the cost of the rez might be deducted from your final pay.

Now in a world where resurrection is easy, imagined you're captured by enemy soldiers. Resurrection is cheap so you can't just bite your tongue and let yourself bleed out. They will torture you until the brink of death and should they go just a bit too far, one rez later and you're back on the rack.

There is no easy escape. You welcome death but every time it comes, they just reel you back in.

They chip at you and should you end up breaking, they just glue and fuse the pieces back together to chip at you again.

Anyone can die. That's easy. Living? Living is tough.

This is the face of villains of a world where resurrection is cheap: They don't threaten to kill everyone: they threaten to keep everyone alive.

And now I want to run this campaign.

[Coidzor]

So death can suck as long as it does not suck?

No, Death can suck as long as it doesn't end the game.

[Brookshw]

I think it depends on the type of game and the degree of railroading. In Pathfinder, my setting revolves around soldiers and sailors tasked with monster hunting. Part of being military is that people are telling the PCs what their mission is. I try to keep it reasonable, though. Captain says there is a werewolf in that village yonder, and the PCs need to find and eliminate it. How this is to be done is for the PCs to decide. Same for any other threat. Command tells the PCs what the problem is, but not how to rectify it. I disclose that this is how the game works prior to character creation, so that players who don't want to take some orders will understand this is not the right table for them.

Often times that's the general basis of a game, PC get quest, PC figure out how to complete quest, PC get sweet, sweet loot. [Optional/Conditional] PC gets ressed. It's a minor enough degree of railroading (i.e., we're not in a complete sandbox) that I don't think it even registers on most people's scope.

[Threadnaught]

So death can suck as long as it does not suck?

I think what they're referring to is how death causes them to be unable to play with the dead character until a high level enough Caster can cast a Spell that requires an expensive Component, Diamonds worth 5000gp, 10000gp or 25000gp and a 10 minute ritual or that the character be dead for no longer than 2 weeks for casting.

This is no trivial cost.


The ''you can't play is silly'', but death can very often cause a ''permanent'' nerf. Like when the group is out in the wild somewhere far from civilization. And the character dies and looses their white elephant, you would say that is wrong right? Like where the elf looses his thinblade, and there are no more thinblades within 100 miles, so his awesome character build is nerfed as he does not have that single weapon(or spiked chain, orc double axe, or whatever).

I think dying is a little more serious than losing your keys or your phone. I realize that in D&D there's magic to undo death, but it is prohibitively expensive. Weapons are cheap, magical ones aren't, but if all you need to use those Feats is the basic model, then you should be able to just make your own in downtime, if the DM states that they aren't being sold anywhere in the world anymore. Of course, if a DM does this, then they are actively attempting to nerf th character forever and you should be careful about asking how much xp you get from encounters. Not much of a nerf if you're allowed to grow more powerful.


Same way death can cause a character to loose most of their gear, is that not ok by your way of thinking? Do the bad guys have to leave the bracers of dexterity on the dead archer player character as they (don't) know he will be brought back to life soon?

Death itself doesn't guarantee loss of gear.

First of all, how in your example, did the bad guys end up with that one PC's body?
Could the PCs not fight off and potentially defeat an encounter, then carry the body back home?
For the bad guys to have the PC's body long enough to loot it, they must be fully capable of either wiping the party, or at least give the impression that they're insurmountably strong by being able to resist standard adventuring techniques, or in a bad DM's case, be infinitely stronger than the PCs.
There's something high risk about looting a corpse mid-combat, unless the bad guys overpower the party to the point where the party cannot possibly win and are unlikely to make it out alive even if they flee, why are the bad guys able to loot mid-combat?


Now in a world where resurrection is easy, imagined you're captured by enemy soldiers. Resurrection is cheap so you can't just bite your tongue and let yourself bleed out. They will torture you until the brink of death and should they go just a bit too far, one rez later and you're back on the rack.

There is no easy escape. You welcome death but every time it comes, they just reel you back in.

They chip at you and should you end up breaking, they just glue and fuse the pieces back together to chip at you again.

The soul has to want to return. The only way for them to bring you back by force, would be to travel into whatever afterlife you end up in and take you there by force. This upsets the Maruts, you don't want to piss off the Inevitables.

[atemu1234]

No, Death can suck as long as it doesn't end the game.

^ this, basically.

Let the PCs die provided the players can still play and have the option of resurrection.

[BWR]

Hearing someone ask "Hey, can I bring a [friend/girlfriend] for just the next session? They've never played before but I can try to teach them" is pretty much a cue that the next session is going to be a wash, with "They've never played before" being the key phrase. Having to teach someone character creation, and then to teach them the rules, kills a lot of time, plus they almost never have any idea about how to roleplay their character, instead picking stuff that "looks cool".


How do you propose new players learn the game? Having people show interest in your hobby is such a pain you walk from the table?

[Extra Anchovies]

How do you propose new players learn the game? Having people show interest in your hobby is such a pain you walk from the table?

The issue is that, in the cases I refer to, they're only around for one session and have no intention to keep playing. They're just at the table because their friend dragged them there. If they want to play, I teach them, but they often have very little interest in playing and don't pay attention to in-game events, further slowing down play by making the DM repeat things.

[JusticeZero]

If someone wants to join a game who doesn't know the game well, i'm going to need to run something with them first. Probably with their friend too. But I don't want to toss them into the deep end without a bit of a primer. Even if it's just showing up early.

[georgie_leech]

If someone wants to join a game who doesn't know the game well, i'm going to need to run something with them first. Probably with their friend too. But I don't want to toss them into the deep end without a bit of a primer. Even if it's just showing up early.

What he said.

[Amphetryon]

The issue is that, in the cases I refer to, they're only around for one session and have no intention to keep playing. They're just at the table because their friend dragged them there. If they want to play, I teach them, but they often have very little interest in playing and don't pay attention to in-game events, further slowing down play by making the DM repeat things.

Guess it's a good thing nobody made these assumptions with you, huh?

[Extra Anchovies]

I think people aren't properly interpreting my post, and/or I didn't quite arrange my point properly the first time around.


Hearing someone ask "Hey, can I bring a [friend/girlfriend] for just the next session? They've never played before but I can try to teach them" is pretty much a cue that the next session is going to be a wash, with "They've never played before" being the key phrase. Having to teach someone character creation, and then to teach them the rules, kills a lot of time, plus they almost never have any idea about how to roleplay their character, instead picking stuff that "looks cool".

Not that having a friend/family member around for one session is always bad; in a short-lived Traveler campaign I played over the summer, the DM's cousin (from out of state) was with us and went through character creation together (plus part of the first adventure). It was plenty of fun, but Traveler is a very simple rules system and backstory creation isn't nearly as freeform as it is in 3.5.

Bolded for emphasis. The issue is not with people who haven't played before. It's with people who haven't played before and never intend to play again, who are at the game because someone else wanted them to be there, and are there for only one session that is also not the first session of the game. The problem isn't with the new player. It's with the current player who drags their friend to one game session halfway through a campaign without bothering to teach said friend anything about the rules.

I know my re-explanation makes it seem like a bit of a niche case, but it's happened to me aggravatingly often.

[loodwig]

So death can suck as long as it does not suck?

The ''you can't play is silly'', but death can very often cause a ''permanent'' nerf. Like when the group is out in the wild somewhere far from civilization. And the character dies and looses their white elephant, you would say that is wrong right? Like where the elf looses his thinblade, and there are no more thinblades within 100 miles, so his awesome character build is nerfed as he does not have that single weapon(or spiked chain, orc double axe, or whatever).

Same way death can cause a character to loose most of their gear, is that not ok by your way of thinking? Do the bad guys have to leave the bracers of dexterity on the dead archer player character as they (don't) know he will be brought back to life soon?

No, of course nothing that absurd. Consider the following:

The party of 4 has been playing together and leveled 7 times together. They're an effective team, and the campaign is going well. In an encounter in the dungeon, a bad roll happens, an enemy fighter gets a crit, and off goes the cleric's head. The party manages to finish the encounter, but they're in a dungeon, and they're down their bandaid box. Clearly, they're not going to go on in the dungeon (mostly because Tim is sitting quietly in a chair looking at his now defunct character sheet), so they do a hasty retreat, body in tow.

The party does not have enough money, nor do they know a high enough cleric to raise the body. Here, I see the story take two directions:

1 - They travel for a while, possibly with an encounter, to find a cleric, sell their dead friend's gear to pay for it, and he's back but suffering from "I just came back from the dead" sickness as well as "I no longer have armor" sickness. At this point, the classy thing would be to help bolster the lost gear by having them fall upon some above average loot rewards, and hope that the team pitches in to help get Tim caught up (a good team will do this). The death happened, it was a big deal, but it didn't ruin the game (for Tim).

2 - They bury the cleric, have a tasteful funeral, and Tim rolls a new character that's the same level and approximate gear value as the cleric was. I don't like this as much because we lost a lot of story with Tim, but it makes for a decent overall narrative. Plus, it helps if Tim is tired of his character and wants to play as someone else. The death happened, it was not a big deal, but it didn't ruin the game (for Tim).

3 - 1 or 2 happens, but Tim now is a level 1 something, or a level below everyone else, or has no gear at all (way more expensive that resurrection). Maybe I allow them to sell Tim's old gear to help the new guy, but this feels out of character for everyone there. "Why would we suddenly invite this freshman adventurer along, especially after Tim the Cleric was so good." At some point, introspection causes the group to feel cheated by the GM, and the party just disbands and the campaign ends, or they always tow around this freshman that can't contribute to battles in a meaningful manner (or as capably at the very least) for the sake that Tim has something to do when the group gets together to game.

Now, if this were a tournament play setting, then screw it: death can be death. It still sucks, and honestly, if you killed my tourney character I'd probably never play with you again anyway, and I'd just go play somewhere or something else. It's not like there's a real emotional investment in a campaign that lasts an afternoon. But when you're running a good group, it's a serious problem. Death is a funny thing, though. If players are never threatened, the game loses adventure. If the players are in colossal danger (e.g. permanent death), they won't adventure. If I knew my character wouldn't be fun to play anymore, I'd never take on the dragon. It's like "hardcore" mode in a slasher video game: you play to survive or because you've done everything else.

[loodwig]

How do you propose new players learn the game? Having people show interest in your hobby is such a pain you walk from the table?

^ This.

I'm a GM now. I've also been an off-and-on player for 20 years. That said, the first several times I played, I was asking things like:
"So Constitution is my HP and Intelligence is my MP?"
"What's a Thacko again?"
"What do you mean I have to prepare a spell, this is stupid! I'd have the spell learned from yesterday, I wouldn't just suddenly forget!"
"So, I have to hit it before I damage?"
"What do I need to roll again?"
"What's the best sword?"
"Wait, they sell the best armor in this town, and there's more than one town? This is weird."

We all learn somewhere. My girlfriend is interested in playing as a sorceress in my next campaign. I'm going to teach her as best as I can, but I'll also rely on her ability to play well with others and pick things up. It gets rough when someone is highly skilled playing with a bunch of newbie gamers (both in terms of knowing the rules and how to actually role play), and that sucks. But hey, my girlfriend wants to play with me!


I think people aren't properly interpreting my post, and/or I didn't quite arrange my point properly the first time around.
Bolded for emphasis. The issue is not with people who haven't played before. It's with people who haven't played before and never intend to play again, who are at the game because someone else wanted them to be there, and are there for only one session that is also not the first session of the game. The problem isn't with the new player. It's with the current player who drags their friend to one game session halfway through a campaign without bothering to teach said friend anything about the rules.
I know my re-explanation makes it seem like a bit of a niche case, but it's happened to me aggravatingly often.

Absolutely agree. If this happens (or rather, when, because it always does), I like to play the game "no campaign this week, we're playing WoW on paper today!" The campaign becomes a primer on how to play the game and why it is fun, and nothing story related will occur. I look upon this as an opportunity as a GM. As a player, I look upon this as a reasonable week to work late and catch up on housework while my friends play without me... which is admittedly the tragedy of the commons.

[Amphetryon]

I think people aren't properly interpreting my post, and/or I didn't quite arrange my point properly the first time around.



Bolded for emphasis. The issue is not with people who haven't played before. It's with people who haven't played before and never intend to play again, who are at the game because someone else wanted them to be there, and are there for only one session that is also not the first session of the game. The problem isn't with the new player. It's with the current player who drags their friend to one game session halfway through a campaign without bothering to teach said friend anything about the rules.

I know my re-explanation makes it seem like a bit of a niche case, but it's happened to me aggravatingly often.

Why does a person being invited to play at a particular for only one session necessarily equate to a person never intending to play the game? I ask because it seems central to your point, and goes back to the comment I made about what your first RPG experiences might have been like. Perhaps the person is being invited to a more established group to get a feel for the campaign that his/her friend is planning with other newbies, so that the DM isn't the only one with actual play experience (which, again, goes back to the "how could anyone learn to play for the first time if you have to be experienced in order to play" conundrum). Perhaps the person had intentions, not communicated directly to you, of being a more regular player but found something about the game or particular table to be off-putting; if this happens with such regularity at your gaming table, seeking the common cause may be more beneficial than simply bad-mouthing new players who don't immediately take a shine to the hobby or come in with great rules-fu.

[Extra Anchovies]

Why does a person being invited to play at a particular for only one session necessarily equate to a person never intending to play the game? I ask because it seems central to your point, and goes back to the comment I made about what your first RPG experiences might have been like. Perhaps the person is being invited to a more established group to get a feel for the campaign that his/her friend is planning with other newbies, so that the DM isn't the only one with actual play experience (which, again, goes back to the "how could anyone learn to play for the first time if you have to be experienced in order to play" conundrum). Perhaps the person had intentions, not communicated directly to you, of being a more regular player but found something about the game or particular table to be off-putting; if this happens with such regularity at your gaming table, seeking the common cause may be more beneficial than simply bad-mouthing new players who don't immediately take a shine to the hobby or come in with great rules-fu.

It doesn't. However, in my experience it frequently has. I guess I've just had enough bad experiences with this sort of things, which is why I'm so wary of semi- or non-interested people brought in for one session by a friend of theirs. You make a fair point, though; I should probably be a little more open to drop-in players :smallsigh: