Let's Talk About Some Things that Bug Us

[Octomac]

So, I have been playing and DM'ing D&D for, oh, about 12 years now. And in my time, I have been truly and generously blessed by the various powers of gaming to have a lot of really great players and DMs with whom I've gotten to play. That's awesome. And honestly, maybe a thread about truly great game experiences would be a better use of my time.

But I've had some not-so-good experiences, too. Maybe I'm just in a negative frame of mind today, but there are some things that seem to be unfortunately common across this great hobby of ours. I'm going to call a few things out here, and then, why don't you guys call a few of your own out? Let's have it out in the open. What is it that you don't like in your game? And why?

Here's mine.

As a DM:

"I pee on--"

No, you don't. Stop it. It wasn't funny when we were 14 and it's not funny now. Just stop it. Why does this come up so often? I mean, I know why it does, you get told you're in a realm of fantasy where anything is possible, and you have to -- are almost obligated to -- test those boundaries by acting out in some way that you'd never be allowed to explore in the real world. But please, stop this.

"I'll roll to--"

Why are you, the player, telling me, the DM, what you want to roll? I think this is a holdover from 3rd Edition, where they introduced a set of tables for a whole bunch of skills that said you could do impossible things at arbitrarily high DCs, and then assumed that gamers wouldn't be able to hit them. Which was silly of them. Regardless, don't tell me what you're rolling. It is literally a huge part of my job to tell you what you are rolling, or even if you should be rolling at all. Which, often times, you shouldn't.

"Are there any prostitu--"

You know what, let's just assume there are, you take 40 gold off your sheet, and very pointedly don't tell me or anyone else what you did with it. I get it, you want to carouse and drink and then get involved in the activities that usually follow those things, but I really don't want to hear about it, and I sure as hell don't want to narrate it to you. I'm fine with saying, "You wake the next morning in the company of several attractive humanoids, your wallet considerably lighter. Roll a Constitution save to determine how bad a hangover you suffer." I really don't want to go into more detail with you than that, though.

As a player:

"You rolled a 1, so you drop your sword and cut off your--"

No, I don't. Come on. There is a 5% chance of rolling a 1 on any action in the game for which you roll a d20. 5%. Let me put that in perspective for you. If any given airplane pilot had a 5% chance of bungling the controls and crashing his plane, there would be 1,870,000 plane crashes every single day. So no, my 16th-level master swordsman doesn't inflict any genital-related self-injuries when he misses. He just misses. Maybe he misses in a way that gives the enemy an opening -- that's fine. Critical fumble rules are still dumb because the math favors the enemy over the player, but how would I have survived as a swordsman this time if 1 out of every 20 swings lops off an ear or something?

"It turns out the orc was holding a child, and she screams as you skewer her ba--"

Jesus. What is wrong with you? Is this how you set up a moral quandary? No, that's just... That isn't how that's done. If you want to explore the gray areas of morality, that's fine, and there's a lot of very good fiction that does just that, but why, when it comes to D&D, does it always involve infanticide? Killing babies is wrong and evil, yes, no one is arguing... well, no one except the one creepy guy is arguing that. Come on, you can do better. I know you can do better, because it is literally impossible to do worse.

"Okay, got your characters all figured out? All right, you awaken in a prison cell with none of your--"

Uggggghhhhhhhhhhhh. All right. Okay. Prison break scenario. Sure. That can be a lot of fun. It's been done a lot, but I don't mind it. But please, please-please-please tell me about this before I devote a ton of time to picking out gear and armor and weapons that I may never actually see in-game. I'm not saying that so I can just re-roll as a monk, but if I'm going to start out in a Return to Castle Wolfenstein, knife-and-six-bullets situation, I would like to kind of get a heads-up before the start of the game.

With fellow players:

"Well, my character won't go on the adventure until I--"

Oh, shut up. There's this unspoken agreement among all of us that we've gotten together to play a game, and we've accepted the premise of that game. So when you come along playing your born-and-raised-in-the-streets rogue who won't do anything until he sees how it benefits him personally or a high-born, high-drama bard who refuses to do anything that doesn't coincide with her 74-page backstory novella, you are breaking that social contract. And that's a really crummy thing to do to your friends. Look, have a character in mind, and role-play that character by making decisions as though you were in that character's shoes. That's fine and good, and I encourage it. But don't bring a character to the table that you know isn't going to mesh with where the game is going.

"Hey, I'm chaotic neut--"

Alignments are dumb and not an excuse to do whatever you want. I get that it's fun to do "crazy" stuff every now and then (although this particular behavior tends to be the near-exclusive province of people that think simply using the words "cheese", "monkey", and "weasel" automatically qualifies as zany), but you're playing a character, not an alignment. Think about the consequences of what you're doing. Otherwise, the DM has to waste the rest of the group's time explaining why setting the stables on fire because the attendant "looked at me funny" will result in a summary execution of you and possibly your entire group, or worse, try to play out the results of that idiotic decision, derailing the entire game so you can revel in how "wacky" and "unpredictable" you are.



So that's me, being an old grump. Do you want to grump with me? What are some of your pet peeves. Specifically, tropes or things that keep cropping up in games, not just one singular bad experience.

[Asmotherion]

Most of your points, are just a Reminder to all DMs and Players alike to discuss the tone of the campain/adventure before rolling characters.

There are times I want a serious tone heavy RP campain, where D&D becomes a simutation of a world were magic is real and I'm living in medieval times.

Other times, I just want to grab a pizza, and have fun with the impossible things and dangerous practical jokes we pull at each other, in a world that has no real-life consequences.

I've had fun in both, but it was always anoying when someone took a "trolling" aproach to a serious campain, or a butthurt approach in a "for fun campain". That's why everyone should know what they are signing in for beforehand, so that no complains arise.

-What bugs me the most, is "spotlight stealing", both as a DM and a player really. We get it, your character is cool and all, and can do well in most situations. But if I'm playing a Bard with Persuation expertise, I will be buged if the fighter cut me off, and tried repetedly to steal the spotlight from what appears to be MY job.

Also, when a DM creates a PC-NPC and does the above... it's stupid... You're the DM, literally above gods in your own universe. Who are you trying to impress? The only DM-PC I can accept and like, is a downplayed one, that just sits in the corner, and provides passive help mostly. He might take care of a hoard of fodder to allow the PCs to take care of the Boss Fight, but his actions should never steal the spotlight.

-The second thing is stopping the game to argue rullings. If I'm the DM, things happen the way I say. My world functions as I imagin it. If you feel I was wrong, talk with me in the end of the session, and if you convince me, I'll make it up to you next session. Anything more than a brief mention/reminder I consider stalling. Don't steal valuable playtime from the rest of the group. If I'm a player, I'll just tell whoever is arguing to let it go, and discuss at the end of the session. If arguing goes on for more than a minute, I just quite the table.

-The third thing I can't stand is alignment restrictions. The DM can suggest a preferable alignment, but if I want to be an evil bastard, let me be, and, should I fail to blend in with the group, let me face the concequences. Sure, it might be more dificult to blend in with a group that has a LG Paladin, but why restrict my character, and not his for example? Let me play my character the way I like, and if I can't blend in, punish me in game.

-Finally, the "That's what my character would do" arguement. Damn, I've heard this one too much. "I'm chaotic evil, so I'll just start killing everyone"... no you wouldn't. You're chaotic evil, not chaotic stupid. You may disreguard the rules, and think little about murdering the inocent, but you're still supposed to be a rational person. You wouldn't kill a random hobbo just because "lol, I'm so random", or the next person who sees you will kill you out right, because "lol, I'm so Lawful Good". You may find amusment in torturing and killing, but you wouldn't kill your allies just because it's fun... they are still advantageus to you, and as long as you can keep having a similar goal (potentially for whole diferent reasons), you will work with them, and even turn a blind eye now and then to things that may bother you, such as the Cleric's preaching. They, in turn, will do the same, to be able to travel with a homocidal maniac such as you.

Same applies to the party's rogue: "I'm a chaotic rogue, stilling stuff is what I do". As a player, if I catch you stealing from me, I'll worn you once or twice, but the third time I'll out right attack you, as "this is what I do" literally, to every monster or NPC that tries to wrong me or my party, for the whole game. Just because you're a rogue who might or might not be a cleptomaniac, it does not justyfy stealing from your companions, especially if you've been a group for some time now, and on friendly terms with each other. At the very least, if you indeed are a cleptomaniac, give back what you steal, or I'll steal something from you that I can't give you back (your life).

In a party, everyone, reguardless of alignment, class or profecion, should be a team-player, or it's the DMs job to punish them by taking control of their character, and making them an NPC. Even if you have your own agenda, D&D is played under the assumption you are all working together for a greater purpose (reguardless of your reasons), and this is enough to unite the party.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I hate the trope that the PCs uncover some terrible threat and no one believes them and they have to nobly struggle through the disbelief and hostility and save the ignorant masses from themselves against all odds.

**** that, I say. My default response to NPCs being willfully ignorant is to let horrible things happen to them and then tell them I told them so.

[Arbane]

-The third thing I can't stand is alignment restrictions. The DM can suggest a preferable alignment, but if I want to be an evil bastard, let me be, and, should I fail to blend in with the group, let me face the concequences. Sure, it might be more dificult to blend in with a group that has a LG Paladin, but why restrict my character, and not his for example? Let me play my character the way I like, and if I can't blend in, punish me in game.


Oddly enough, this is one of the things that bugs me.

Edit to add: Over in the Red Flags for GMs thread, a pretty good explanation why this bugs me.


Exactly. My issue with evil characters is that a lot of people will make one who does things like this, then say "but I won't do it to the other PCs!" and expect that to be problem solved. :smallannoyed:

I still don't want to travel around with Hannibal Lector, helping him to gain more power in the process, unless I'm playing an evil character myself. :smallyuk:

And a lot of commonly suggested workarounds are basically forms of "the non-evil characters get to be chumps", like the evil character being smarter/stealthier than anyone else and doing this all unseen, or "there is a greater evil so you have to work with torture dude." No thanks.

And yes, to be fair, bringing a Paladin into an evil campaign and expecting everyone to just roll with that would suck also. I don't think either "no evil character" or "no good characters" is inherently a red flag.

[Velaryon]

As a player:

1. I hate when GM's tell me what my character does or what my character thinks. That's my job to decide, not yours. You have the entire rest of the world to create and run as you see fit. Don't tell me that my character goes into the room unless I tell you first that my character goes into the room, and don't tell me how I feel about what's in the room when I do get there. If there's magic that suddenly starts controlling my actions, thoughts, or feelings, that's different. But if that's not what's happening, you just tell me what is going on around me and wait for me to tell you how I react to it.

2. Making me roll for trivial things that a normal person can do with no problem. Don't make me roll Perception to see that there's a door in front of me. Don't make me roll Dexterity to walk up a flight of stairs. Don't make me roll Intelligence to see whether I remember the name of the town my character was born in. Doing these things adds nothing to the game nor anyone's enjoyment of it. All it accomplishes is to frustrate players (namely, me) when doing simple everyday tasks that real people can do in their sleep become impossible because the d20 hates me that day.


As a GM:

1. Inviting people who are not part of the game to the session. If they are legitimately interested in learning to play the game, then talk to me and we'll see whether this is the right time and place for them to join up with a character. But in my experience, 99% of the time it's a friend, family member, or significant other who just wants to hang out with you. Do that on your own time. People hanging around in the gaming space who are not part of the game inevitably cause a distraction, and frequently bring the game crashing to a halt.

2. Players not keeping their character information straight. As GM, I keep track of all the places you go, the stuff that's in those places, the events that happen, the NPC's you interact with, and the enemies you fight. You keep track of one character and that character's belongings. It's your responsibility to know how your character's abilities work. It's your responsibility to know what items your character has. It's your responsibility to know how much XP you have. We all forget rules sometimes, or can't remember whether we marked off that healing potion that our character chugged in the last battle. That's not what I'm talking about. My problem is when you haven't bothered to read the description of the spell you're trying to cast, and you have to keep asking me how it works.

3. People who don't show up and then can't be reached at game time. Look, I know things come up. If that happens, call me or send me a Facebook message or something. Don't just not show up and then not answer your phone when I call to ask whether you're still coming even though you said three hours ago that you were good to game today. This is basic courtesy.

[TheCountAlucard]

As a GM, it bugs me a little when I go out of my way to make transparent how unpleasant an activity is, but the players freely have their characters soldier on through it since there's no penalties for it.

If you have to sleep on a bench in a galley ship, with hardtack and salt pork as your primary intake for days on end during the rainy season, I don't expect you to be chipper about the prospects of having to keep doing it.

[oxybe]

In general :

"It's what my character would do" - Look : you're being disruptive. Trying to deflect this behaviour on your character is even worse, because it shows you've made the active decision to bring a disruptive character but refuse to accept the consequences that come with being disruptive. I've had times where characters butted heads in a more serious manner, but that was usually because we players talked about it before hand and we're basically just roleplaying our OOC resolution. Being a jackass to Kevin or his PC and blaming it on Toralderan the Vile doesn't excuse the fact you brought Toralderan at the table in the first place.

"For the lols/grossness" : Time and place, dude. We Session 0'd for a reason, so please make characters in line with the genre/themes/tropes we discussed we'd be playing.

"Will brood for GPs" : If you refuse to interact with people, don't be surprised if you're left behind. Part of playing a team-based game is taking an active role in the team. We discussed this in Session 0.

"Munchkin/Dramaqueen-ing" : Session 0 dude. We discussed power level and game's difficulty, so please make characters accordingly. If you're too far over/under the power curve, you're likely affecting everyone's fun. If you need help making a character that fits the power level, ask me or the rest of the group, we're more then happy to help.

"Set Eldritch blasts to Stun. Gate me up, Gandalf!" : Please make characters in line with the genre/themes/tropes we discussed we'd be playing during Session 0. I can understand the fun of making a parody character, but there's a fine line between that parody being on the nose and breaking the nose. Make sure you fit in so it doesn't get too old too quickly.

"I [act of sexual or gore] the NPC" : No. We discussed this in Session 0. At best we do a fade to black, I don't care to roleplay out those scenes. Yes I understand it happens IRL, but this is the land of Elfington and Dwarfsylvania where magical elven princesses ride unicorns and shoot rainbows at poop monsters, we keep things at a relatively-speaking lighthearted PG13 level. Why? because I like it like that. I'm here to have fun, not discuss [the act that started the conversation].

No show, no notice - We discussed session time and attendance during Session 0, if you can't make it, text or email before the session would be nice. We fully understand that real life comes before the game, but if you know in advance, give us a heads up so we can plan accordingly

You'll see a common thread in my resolutions: Session 0. Single best way to nip many issues in the bud before they even show up, and if they do, you can kinda point at session 0, give the person a stern look and wait for them to get the hint or leave unless everyone is cool with amending the status quo.

And finally, the big one for me:

"Hey, let's play this Pathfinder Adventure Path!" - **** that noise. I'm outta here. Peace out. Exit, stage thataway. Aurevoir!

I've spent the better part of my last 10 years gaming under the banner of those wretched modules. I am tired of them and their mediocre plot and railroad. You guys have fun, I'll be staying at home playing TF2 or Final Fantasy Record Keeper on my phone.

[Vitruviansquid]

Y'know what I hate the most?

When people attempt to use the RPG as a vehicle for proving how much smarter they are than the rest of the table.

And I find that half of all the really crummy behaviors at the table are some manifestation of this (the other half is some form of, "I agreed to play even though I don't really want to, but I'm here and miserable, so I'm going to try to sabotage the game")

When the GM's trying to prove how much smarter he is, you end up with unsolvable puzzles, the terrible "moral quandaries" mentioned in the OP, spotlight-stealing NPCs, and the simple unfun garbage games where everything you try turns out to be wrong and bad and terrible.

When the player's trying to prove how much smarter he is, you end up with things like munchkinry, spotlight-stealing, arguing with the GM about rules, and such.

[Ninja-Radish]

I hate the trope that the PCs uncover some terrible threat and no one believes them and they have to nobly struggle through the disbelief and hostility and save the ignorant masses from themselves against all odds.

**** that, I say. My default response to NPCs being willfully ignorant is to let horrible things happen to them and then tell them I told them so.

That's interesting. I actually quite like that trope for one simple reason: I hate having NPCs following the group around. If nobody believes us about the uber threat, fantastic. That just means we won't have to deal with any annoying NPCs in the party and we can handle it on our own as we see fit.

I find that liberating. It's when all the NPCs believe the threat and try to boss you around or force you to handle it their way that I really get irritated.

[Wolfkingleo]

*Snip*



I agree with everything that you posted. In fact I tend hate alligment restrictions because GM's tend to play the "virtuous mission party" all the time, without spots for Anti-heroes (PC's that I like to play with)

Now one thing that I really HATE in RPG's is the "Quatum Ogre Dylemma", seriusly...when a Game Master wants to force his way to the players, fine if ended up being something well done (which, in my 14 years of D&D never happened, but I still hopes that one day it pays off). But doing a stupid railroading because you WANT something to happend disregarding how the party circunvented the trouble or opt for another way, is downright a**pull.

Seriously on one of the sessions that I participated, we manage to obtain a an official pardon from a city because of an accident that have been pinpointed in the group for the sake of the plot. Problem is that we managed to get that "a bit too soon" on our GM's planning and still we were hunted by a bunch of officials that, even showing the letter of amnesty, they act dickish because "they have their honor to abide". The DM denied any persuasion test and then just charged at the group, wich we wouldn't be rewarded with XP because we played too evasive instead of going head on to the trouble....

Man, I feel my blood boiling as I wroted that...

Cheers

[Arbane]

Y'know what I hate the most?

When people attempt to use the RPG as a vehicle for proving how much smarter they are than the rest of the table.


Wow, you are SO lucky you weren't playing in the 1970s. As far as I can tell, D&D was ALL about proving how much bigger your brain was than the other players'. The GM created whatever convoluted screw-you monsters, traps and puzzles they could dream up, and the players spent 6 hours playing mother-may-I trying to weasel their way out of certain death.

[Honest Tiefling]

"Let's do this because it is the DM's story!"

I hate that. I'll compromise with the DM, but at the point that non-evil characters are working with demons, trusting mass murderers, or committing genocide I do actually have to say, no, my character would not do that. Heck most of my evil characters wouldn't do that because most of those are bad ideas.

"Elves!"

If I hear one more backstory about how elves are so much better then humans and yet never help anyone or commit genocide of their own, I will probably end up biting someone.

"Oh, you agreed to this theme for the characters? I'll do something different!"

The session 0 is there for a reason, stick to the guidelines. If you say your character is completely different with a smirk on your face, I am setting the character on fire both in game and out of game.

[Traab]

Im going to agree with the "why would you roll a chaotic evil necromancer who keeps a paladin zombie as his main minion when you know the party is full of lawful good players?" Like was said, there is a social contract to the game. You all got together to play the game, and the game is going to be very short when the rest of the party sees your super eeeeeevil character enter the tavern and they yell out simultaneously, "I attack the evil guy" And it ruins the immersion to force them to ignore the fact that everything their characters stand for insists that you have to die. Same for the chaotic stupids and other such characters that were built for no other reason than to be a giant gaping digested food exhaust port and try to ruin everyone elses good time or just to keep the focus on you and you alone. Go start a video blog if you want to be the center of attention.

With the first example, look, I get it, sometimes you have a really neat idea for a character that you want to try out, but time and place people. Either convince the party to go the evil route with you, or wait till it can fit into the party with minimal conflict.

[minderp]

Players that sabotage the game and other players for the 'lols'.
Scene set as a serious battle, four player party advancing on the demon of sloth, in his home of slender beams hanging just over a lake of putrid and poisonous liquid, (think of Labyrinth the Bog of Eternal Stench, but laced with a poison there is no save from). Three players tiptoeing in magical silence towards the sleeping demon, fourth player..... Turns himself into an air-elemental so he can float above the lake and become a whirlpool.... splattering the other players in copious amounts of the liquid, and waking the demon...

I get that you like to play the jerk. I get it, you're a jerk. That's great. You spent time crafting a character with specific skills to piss everyone else off, and with the details, you spent ALOT of time finding the most annoying, non-party-friendly feats and spells.
Yep. I get it, you're a jerk.
But seriously, why?
It renders the time the other players spent planning pointless. It sabotages our quietly constructed readiness. It ruins the fun for everyone but you. Why not go play a one player campaign and ruin the fun for yourself?

[Frozen_Feet]

1) The assumption that no player wants anything bad happening to their characters.

I can get why a specific person would not want bad things happening to a specific character of theirs. Plenty of reasons, plenty of good reasons, even.

Yet, as a player, I've created characters with the specific intention of making them suffer, or proving them wrong, or them falling from grace. I've witnessed plenty of other people doing the same. As a GM, it is practically a requirement to be good at that position.

So it's clearly not generalizable across everyone.

Related to this is 2) the assumption that bad things happening to a character is inherently unfun. When it's clearly demonstrable that whole genres of games are based on characters suffering and even unexpected bad things happening in a game not of those genres can be engaging, interesting or uproariously amusing.

Again, I have no trouble getting why specific bad thing happening to specific character in a specific situation can be unfunny. But anyone who insists bad things are always unfunny is a sore loser and needs that attitude beaten out of them with a stick.

More concretely tied to my own campaigns: 3) A player saying "Let's just get on with the story."

I can understand why a player of mine might say this, given most of my games are conventions game at this time and no player can reasonably be expected in-depth how I run my games. But it is still amusing when *I* know there isn't really any story other than what the actions of the players are creating and I've been winging it for the last two and half hours.

4) a player wondering "how far we are off the rails" or "how badly we've wrecked the GMs plans".

As above, it's not mysterious why a player who has not played with me before makes such idle musings. But again, it amuses me, and often makes me wonder about what the people saying this were expecting, and how they've been perceiving the events of the game on their end. 'Cause I run location-based sanboxes, wilderness travels featuring heavy randomization, and just generally heavily improvize. So what makes it unclear the rails are not on the ground, but rather, in their heads?

5) Macabre curiosity of players.

I've run Death Love Doom to over 20 different people now, many of which were complete strangers, some of which were new to the entire hobby. Even when it's made abundantly clear something is off and they *don't* have to deal with it, 95% of characters won't quit before seeing the monster. And of the 5% who do chicken out, 95% their players still stick around to watch the horrified expressions of their fellows.

As a consequence of running these games, I have a lot more, hmmm, liberal attitudes towards what makes good.& acceptable gaming than most everyone else. (I may have caused mild embarrassment in the author of Death Love Doom when I told him I ran it in a convention. Thrice. :smallamused: I need to do this more often.)

6) Why do so many players have such crappy sense of direction?

Seriously. A lot of people can't grok left and right, let alone cardinal directions. Map drawing and reading skills are generally poor, except for OSR players or people who started way back.

Spatial visualization skills strike me as extremely useful for the hobby, yet they seem to be neglected by younger hobbyists. Why?

More generally about convention GMing (particular to the Finnish scene; not generalizable to other countries, such as USA): 5) why is there such a lack of female GMs?

In my games, one third of player have been female and lately the number's been closing one half (I actually keep records on this.) Based on visual observation, one third to one half of convention goers seem to be female. Yet, whenever I get a good look of who the other convention GMs are, only between one-twentieth and one-tenth of them are women.

6) Why is there so few convention GMs overall?

There is a small but vital group keeping up local Pathfinder Society. But when it comes to freelance convention GMs like me, running their own material or smaller systems... well, for Tracon Hitpoint, I heard there were a hopping seven of us. For an event with hundreds of goers, and theoretical capacity for a thousand, at least.

Ropecon, an older event, seems to not have had this problem, but still. Is the Finnish RPG community too small to sustain more than one major event focused around it? Or is the fault elsewhere?

It also made me think, what's the turnover rate? I've been convention GMing since 2011. At least one organizer already can distinquish me as "the guy who is always holding a game". Some of the other Convention GMs I know have likewise done this for years. But how many do it just once? Is majority of convention GMing done by a handful of activists, with most people coming and going? If so, is the number of one-off GMs rising or declining? What does this mean for the health of the hobby in general?

7) What is the level of preparation among other convention GMs?

And by this, I don't mean adventure notes or other game material. I mean basic stuff like bringing extra pens, extra dice, extra paper and empty character sheets with you, since a random convention goer might not have them. Because an organizer recently commented I was exceptionally well-prepared.

I can get not everyone has (or needs) multiple folders and a suitcase just to contain stuff for their game. I can get not everyone wants to go through trouble of writing print-outs and ordering art and advert posters for a game. But the basic stuff above? There isn't really excuse not to have them.

8) Is there anyone out there who's thought of actually holding a course to train new convention GMs?

The concept seems obvious enough to border on trivial. Arranging such a course would not be particularly difficult within the context of your typical con. But when I presented blueprints for how such a course could be implemented, I asked myself and others a question:

When was the last time anyone'd seen it done?

Seriously. When was the last time someone made dedicated effort to teach new convention GMs? When was the last time someone aimed such effort, specifically, to beginners?

I can think of (and have been part of) several organized efforts to introduce new players to the hobby, and can think of several RPG clubs and online groups. But teaching new GMs, specifically?

[Geodude6]

Players that don't know how the rules work. AT ALL. In one game I played in in my WM group (5e) one newer player (new to 5e but whet his teeth on 3.x) brought a level 4 Bugbear Knight with a Gazer familiar. He had both 18 Str (point buy) and Polearm Master at level 4, a Gazer familiar when he doesn't even cast spells, and was level 4 when we usually make new characters at level 3 and he explicitly stated that this was a new character. The whole night me and the DM were saying "wait what". The Gazer was part of his backstory (mine said I had a ring of protection +10). He was also unsure how his build worked which was fun. And he wondered why we kept rejecting his DM applications.

[Cluedrew]

People who don't understand you are playing a game with 4-5 other people.

About half the other items are specialization of this. If you spend 5 minutes deciding your reaction (seriously it was fight aggressively or fight defensively, and we told them the better option), break promises to other players (not PCs), cut people up into little boxes in a lighthearted game or otherwise go against the feel the other players and GMs set up, play by yourself, not in a group.

[Pex]

"Let's torture him."

No. I'm sick of this. As soon the party captures a prisoner there's always that one guy who says we should torture him to get answers or in response to not getting answers. I want to slap that guy and not always just in character. If the DM never has the prisoners talk, that's on him. Boo DM and the learns never to take prisoners. Otherwise, if we're given fair chance but we just happen to fail the Diplomacy or Intimidation check needed to get the prisoner to talk, shucks darn move on. I also accept certain prisoners would never talk, such as cult fanatics or mafia-like thieves' guild goons. I've reconciled with myself that it's ok to kill the prisoner even if I'm playing a paladin for party cohesion if nothing else to avoid prisoner dilemma arguments, just make it quick and painless as possible. However, enough with the torture already.

[Ninja-Radish]

"Let's torture him."

No. I'm sick of this. As soon the party captures a prisoner there's always that one guy who says we should torture him to get answers or in response to not getting answers. I want to slap that guy and not always just in character. If the DM never has the prisoners talk, that's on him. Boo DM and the learns never to take prisoners. Otherwise, if we're given fair chance but we just happen to fail the Diplomacy or Intimidation check needed to get the prisoner to talk, shucks darn move on. I also accept certain prisoners would never talk, such as cult fanatics or mafia-like thieves' guild goons. I've reconciled with myself that it's ok to kill the prisoner even if I'm playing a paladin for party cohesion if nothing else to avoid prisoner dilemma arguments, just make it quick and painless as possible. However, enough with the torture already.

Very interesting, I agree. I'm of the "take no prisoners" variety myself. I can't stand the players who want to take prisoners in the middle of a dungeon and insist on escorting them 100 miles through hostile territory to the nearest town so they can go to prison and await a trial.

Seriously, are you f--king kidding me?? The torturers are disconcerting, but the people who insist on playing superheroes from the golden age of comics in a D&D campaign are the ones who REALLY piss me off.

[Arbane]

Very interesting, I agree. I'm of the "take no prisoners" variety myself. I can't stand the players who want to take prisoners in the middle of a dungeon and insist on escorting them 100 miles through hostile territory to the nearest town so they can go to prison and await a trial.

Seriously, are you f--king kidding me?? The torturers are disconcerting, but the people who insist on playing superheroes from the golden age of comics in a D&D campaign are the ones who REALLY piss me off.

Having a reputation for accepting surrenders can be pretty useful, in my experience.

(And yeah, we've got a wanna-be torturemonkey in my current party. I ain't having none of that.)

[oxybe]

Only once had I ever played a full-on Fantasy Cape and it was fun. I went all-out complete with mask, gaudy costume, utility belt, alter ego and whatnot. I even had what was basically a quick costume switch feature: my costume was pretty much always on me when I went out, and by deactivating my magic item it would remove the illusion of my everyday clothes and reveal my costume.

He was basically DCAU Green Arrow by way of Brave and the Bold's Aquaman, but also a bard that focuses on illusions and being a hard to hit distraction in combat.

It also helped it was a location based game and we were fighting a corrupt government.

Character was fun, but more of a fun one-off then something i'd likely do again.

[icefractal]

"Let's torture him."

No. I'm sick of this. As soon the party captures a prisoner there's always that one guy who says we should torture him to get answers or in response to not getting answers. I want to slap that guy and not always just in character.This! And it happens even with characters that are supposedly good-aligned. But really, even when it would be plausible for the character, I'm still sick of that ****.

And it particularly sucks because in a lot of cases I feel like subduing rather than killing makes more sense IC, but if it's just going to lead to torture BS then screw it, everyone dies.

[2D8HP]

...What is it that you don't like in your game? And why?

Here's mine.


"I'll roll to--"

Why are you, the player, telling me, the DM, what you want to roll? I think this is a holdover from 3rd Edition, where they introduced a set of tables for a whole bunch of skills that said you could do impossible things at arbitrarily high DCs, and then assumed that gamers wouldn't be able to hit them. Which was silly of them. Regardless, don't tell me what you're rolling. It is literally a huge part of my job to tell you what you are rolling, or even if you should be rolling at all. Which, often times, you shouldn't....


Can you be my DM?

Seriously, having to play a character sheet instead of a character really bugs me, but lately in my experience, the vast majority of DM's want me to play in the "I roll to" style you decry.

If you keep getting players who play in the "I roll to", style it probably because they have been trained to by their previous DM's. I'm old enough that I remember this not being the default style (I played 1978 to 1992 with most of my "table time" in the early 1980's, quit and started again in 2015), but if I want to play at all now I find I'm always having to say what I roll for instead of, what my character tries to do.


....74-page backstory novella....


I write long back-stories in order to submit to DM's, because DM's demand it, and I've become adept at it, all I have to do is write-up a Mad Max-ish survivor haunted by a tragic past, and BAM! I'm in like Flynn (the longer and more tragic, the more likely it seems that a DM will accept the PC).

But I'm tired of playing brooding PC's weighed down by the ghosts of their lost loved ones!

I want to play a happy-go-lucky swashbuckling hero who does daring feats with a smile!

But lately since I've noticed that by and large no DM ever actual uses any details from the back-stories they demand, I simply copy the longest and more tragic back-stories I've previously written, submit them to the DM, and then ignore them.

I've never played any games where the DM has made any use of the back-story charade, but most demand them, and seem to select potential players based on backstory word count.

In this Forum, I've seen some DM"s post that they don't like the long back-stories, well then GET YOUR FELLOW DM's TO STOP TRAINING PLAYERS TO WRITE THEM!

I don't DM anymore, but one thing that would drive my crazy is that the majority of players now seem to play non-standard classes/races that they find on-line

I wouldn't touch that mess, but to their credit, most current DM's seem to take it in stride.

I've had a big stack of dead PC's from0e/1e games I played (a little bit late 1970's, a little more early 80's), and the majority of my PC's died before reaching Second level, but I was a particularly incautious player:


IIRC-
To illustrate how this played out, the scene:
A dank almost crypt like basement/garage during the waning years of the Carter Administration, two pre-teens and some teenagers surround a ping pong table, that has books, papers, dice, pizza and sodas on it
Teen DM (my best friend's older brother): You turn the corner, and 20' away you see the door shown on the map.
Teen player (who thinks he's all that because he's been playing longer than me with the LBB's, but does he have the new PHB and DMG? No! So who's really the "Advanced" one huh!): With the lantern still tied to the ten foot pole, I slowly proceed forward observing if they are any drafts from unexpected places. You (looks at me) check the floor with the other pole.
Me (pre-teen): Oh man it's late, are we even getting into the treasure room today!
Teen player: You've got to check for traps!
Me: I run up and force the door open!
DM: Blarg the fighter falls through the floor onto the spikes below.
*rolls dice*
Your character is dead.
Teen player: Dude you got smoked!
Me: Look at my next character. I rolled a 15 for Strength.
DM: Really?
Me: Yeah, Derek totally witnessed me rolling it up!
DM: Did he?
Derek (my best friend, another pre-teen who invited me to the game): Are you gonna eat that slice of pizza?
Me: No.
Derek: Yeah I totally saw it.
*munch*
Me: See!
DM: *groan*
:smallwink:


In memory of my best friend, Derek Lindstrom Whaley, who in 6th grade saw me reading the blue book and invited me to play D&D at his house - R.I.P.,

Since by the time I wised up to employing a "ten-foot-poles-and-bags-of-flour", style of play, I just didn't get to play much D&D, I remember 1st level TSR D&D as being a meat-grinder.

Now I'm the cautious one, and urge retreat while other players say things like, "The DM wouldn't scale it so we'd lose."

Do our PC's know this?!

I'm pretty sure my PC has never heard of a CR!

*mumble, grumble, rant, rave, fume*

[LordCdrMilitant]

"Let's torture him."

No. I'm sick of this. As soon the party captures a prisoner there's always that one guy who says we should torture him to get answers or in response to not getting answers. I want to slap that guy and not always just in character. If the DM never has the prisoners talk, that's on him. Boo DM and the learns never to take prisoners. Otherwise, if we're given fair chance but we just happen to fail the Diplomacy or Intimidation check needed to get the prisoner to talk, shucks darn move on. I also accept certain prisoners would never talk, such as cult fanatics or mafia-like thieves' guild goons. I've reconciled with myself that it's ok to kill the prisoner even if I'm playing a paladin for party cohesion if nothing else to avoid prisoner dilemma arguments, just make it quick and painless as possible. However, enough with the torture already.

It makes sense depending on the game.

I expect my Dark Heresy party to take prisoners and walk through the 9 Actions of inquisitorial interrogation.

I do not expect a Traveler party to be torturing prisoners, though, and might have the authorities come if the act is reported.



And with regards to characters who are evil/good, it's possible to play together just fine, depending on setting.

The Paladin thinks that she can turn the evildoer's efforts to a good cause and convince them to seek penitence, the evil wizard finds the good people useful pawns and cover, etc.

But, no, you can't be a Chaos Cultist, because we're playing Dark Heresy, not Black Crusade right now. We can do that afterwords. Right now, the Inquisition can read your mind and you're going to get a bolt pistol round to the back of the head, and your lack of faith in the Emperor means you have no Fate Points, so you're dead.


Can you be my DM?

Seriously, having to play a character sheet instead of a character really bugs me, but lately in my experience, the vast majority of DM's want me to play in the "I roll to" style you decry.

If you keep getting players who play in the "I roll to", style it probably because they have been trained to by their previous DM's. I'm old enough that I remember this not being the default style (I played 1978 to 1992 with most of my "table time" in the early 1980's, quit and started again in 2015), but if I want to play at all now I find I'm always having to say what I roll for instead of, what my character tries to do.


I dislike it too when players tell me what they're going to roll. I tell you what to roll, based on what you said you're doing. You don't get to pick the stat you're rolling on.

I've had a player actually criticize me for this, saying I never let him do what he was good at. I'm sorry, but threatening someone by shoving the business end of a Plasma Rifle into their face is most not SOC [Unless, I guess, you're trying to demonstrate your wealth and influence by the fact you have a Plasma Rifle].

[Guizonde]

This! And it happens even with characters that are supposedly good-aligned. But really, even when it would be plausible for the character, I'm still sick of that ****.

And it particularly sucks because in a lot of cases I feel like subduing rather than killing makes more sense IC, but if it's just going to lead to torture BS then screw it, everyone dies.

i'm joining a pathfinder campaign where the theme is all pc's are divine-casters and one monk from the same god. it'll be interesting. however, the "necessary evil" bit would screw with falling from grace pretty quickly. the players and dm agreed to have one "necessary evil" player. me, an inquisitor. so far, i'm building him to be as glib and intimidating as possible, but thanks to the latitude of actions of the class, i'm the one who's going to have to torture or do unsavory things like assassinating, knocking out, taking prisoner, bribing... pretty much anything that would cause an alignment change. i'm ok with it (i've played good and evil characters before, and feel confident i won't overdo it), but i stated specifically to the party and dm i'm NOT roleplaying that. it gets too grim too quickly.

if you're wondering why i'm the fall guy or why there's a reason i'm the fall guy, most of the campaign will be spent dealing with evil, and it'll be probably a life or death decision to have someone who can mask alignments and infiltrate cults without losing their divine powers. since the god is cayden calean (portfolio is freedom, among others), no one but me could incarcerate a criminal without falling.

as an aside, i'm bummed that the "handle rope" skill was dropped in pathfinder. those 10m of rope have so many uses, from tying up an unsavory character to rappelling down a cliff.

what annoyed me tremendously was that at first, the campaign was meant to be a pretty hardline crusade "good for the good god" church-militant style. everyone was chanting "deus vult", dreaming of burning the evil off the world, until they saw the loyal good deities and how strict and unrelenting they were. it's like they couldn't comprehend how you could play a paladin of sarenrae as anything but a loyal stupid character. i've probably played too long without alignments, but alignments are really a restriction that stops players from playing the game, but play the alignment. that really bugs me. so instead, the party voted for caydean calean, the drunk god. i'm pretty sure our first act is going to be trashing a tavern. i'd be looking forward to it, but a)i've done it too many times before, and b)the tavern is where you get gossip, meaning you move the plot along. reason c is of course: you don't attack the barkeep. he has beer when you don't.

i'm still the fall guy, mind you, but something tells me, i'll actually be playing the voice of reason in that group. i'll keep you posted.

[Silus]

My biggest peeve as a DM currently: Interruptions.

I'm trying to set the scene and give some exposition for whatever job the party is on, and there's like a 70% chance that I get interrupted by some inane BS not related to said scene setting and/or exposition that could very well wait until AFTER the DM is done talking.

Not even kidding I've started docking XP from players for this.

[Darth Ultron]

People who don't understand you are playing a game with 4-5 other people.

This is a big one that bugs me. Sure, when asked most players lie and say they care about everyone in the game...yet one round later they are being the biggest jerk in the world.


"Let's torture him."



This also bugs me....like every player binged watched 24 or something right before the game.

[Vitruviansquid]

My biggest peeve as a DM currently: Interruptions.

I'm trying to set the scene and give some exposition for whatever job the party is on, and there's like a 70% chance that I get interrupted by some inane BS not related to said scene setting and/or exposition that could very well wait until AFTER the DM is done talking.

Not even kidding I've started docking XP from players for this.

It also seems like 70% out of those 70% chance of interruptions is a Monty Python reference.

[Silus]

It also seems like 70% out of those 70% chance of interruptions is a Monty Python reference.

Oh Gods I wish it was Monty Python stuff. Usually it's "so here's a bunch of neat character things that I'm totally gonna get and use" and I don't have the head to process the info 'cause I'm trying to DM.

[2D8HP]

...I dislike it too when players tell me what they're going to roll. I tell you what to roll, based on what you said you're doing. You don't get to pick the stat you're rolling on...


Again, my experience lately is the opposite.

Most DM's get annoyed if I don't cite a stat.

To all the DM's out there:

If you complain about your players being "roll-players" instead of "role-players, maybe you should get your fellow DM's to stop encouraging their players to play "character sheets instead of characters", otherwise, just as with the DM's who post that they're "tired of reading novel length back-stories", WHERE IN THE ABYSS ARE YOU?


...like every player binged watched 24 or something right before the game.


Oh yeah, my wife loved that show.

It disturbed me.


It also seems like 70% out of those 70% chance of interruptions is a Monty Python reference.


Sounds like youe foolishly interrupting Python skit recitals with a game (seriously I'm actually glad to learn that some things haven't changed).

:biggrin:

[Theoboldi]

If you complain about your players being "roll-players" instead of "role-players, maybe you should get your fellow DM's to stop encouraging their players to play "character sheets instead of characters", otherwise, just as with the DM's who post that they're "tired of reading novel length back-stories", WHERE IN THE ABYSS ARE YOU?

I generally tell my players to roll for stuff pre-emptively because I mostly play play-by-post, where an exchange of "Here's what I do. Should I roll anything?" "Yes, here's what you roll." "Okay, I'm gonna roll. What does that result give me?" "Here's what happens." can take several days.

Besides, the pace of play-by-post is so slow that it's actually reasonable for a GM to expect his players to be able to look up their skill modifiers before they post. It's not like that actually slows the game down, like it would at an actual table.

Both kinds of games require different approaches. It actually really bugs me when players don't make rolls pre-emptively in PbP, even if the roll doesn't end up mattering because you wouldn't have called for one. It's just such a basic thing that really speeds up the game's pace when it is implemented, that I am really annoyed when a player refuses to do it. >.>

[LordCdrMilitant]

Again, my experience lately is the opposite.

Most DM's get annoyed if I don't cite a stat.

To all the DM's out there:

If you complain about your players being "roll-players" instead of "role-players, maybe you should get your fellow DM's to stop encouraging their players to play "character sheets instead of characters", otherwise, just as with the DM's who post that they're "tired of reading novel length back-stories", WHERE IN THE ABYSS ARE YOU?


I think it comes from both player and GM. The player wants to pre-empt the GM's roll prompting, to indicate what he's trying to do so he can use his best possible conditions. The GM tolerating this encourages everyone to do it, and he ends up encouraging it if he doesn't provide in-character dialogue and descriptions of his own for NPC's and enemies.

Also, now that I think about it, there are great ways to persuade on SOC with a Plasma Rifle.

[2D8HP]

I generally tell my players to roll for stuff pre-emptively because I mostly play play-by-post....


That's a fair point.

I've found that what's a joy with table top (rolling dice), is an annoyance with PbP, which makes me wonder if "as is" D&D is a good choice for PbP. Sadly I don't know of any good alternative.

And since the caffeine I've ingested is hitting me I'm in a full rant mood... so back to ranting about back-stories!

A while back I asked about this, and I remember that I learned some reasons for back-stories, and some humility... but since then I've forgotten why, so here my question/rant again!

Once upon a time, I'd just say what kind of PC'S I wanted to play, "like Geoffrey Thorpe in The Sea Hawk", Captain Sinbad in The 7th Voyage of Sinbad, Rudolf Rassendyll in The Prisoner of Zenda, Fafhrd, and the Gray Mouser".

Can I do that now?

NOOOOOO!!!

Instead I have to do the "submit a back-story" ritual.

Read (and weep!) the back-stories I've written in a dark mood (if you can stand to!), that every single DM I've submitted them to has accepted:

Here's::
The girl screamed while the soldiers laughed.
He's forgotten so much, but he could remember that.
He didn't understand.
When the Queens soldiers took Paw away, Ma said Paw "was going to the Queen to be a hero", but they were hurting her! Heroes didn't do that!
Ma said that he was as strong as Paw now, maybe stronger, even though he didn't have a beard yet.
Ma said he needed to do what Paw used to, cut the tree's, dig the wells, and when the time came slaughter the pigs. With axe, hammer and shovel he would swing his arms and do what Ma said.
Ma said "Ossian, you listen now to your cousin Gwen, she's got a good head".
Maw was the only one who called him "Ossian", everyone else called him "Ox".
Gwen was screaming!
Maw said "you need to do what your Paw would do".
Paw was a hero.
So he swung his arms.
The soldiers stopped laughing, but Gwen still screamed.
"You've got to run Ox, they'll kill you"! "Run far, go to the rebels".
So he ran.
He ran far and met the rebels.
They gave him a sword.
And he did what they told him.

He swung his arms.

While life on the farm was hard, life in the forest was worse. For years they snipped at the Queen's men and hid and waited, till enough of the people knew that the time had come. Buried under homes, and hidden in wells and the walls of cottages were long stored weapons.
Out they came, by the thousands, and they marched on the capitol.

To defeat the tyrant.

And by the thousands they were slaughtered.

The brave and the good died.

Ox tore off the crimson flower of the rebels, ran and survived.

The gallow men had much work to do.

The walls of the capitol were decorated with the heads of rebels, as were the crossroads of the country, and every village square, to remind the foolish.

For years the heads rotted.

So much he has forgotten.
But he remembered somethings.
He remembered Maw's, Paw's, and Gwen's faces.
Now when he looked into the water he saw Paw's face, but Paw's beard was never grey was it?
He remembered that they called him "hero" once, now if anyone used that word about him they put "was a" in front of it.
He remembered he used to be strong.
He was still strong, but not like he was.
And he remembered the Queen.
And he remembered her hunters, who were now her son, the King's hunters.

And he would have to swing his arms again.

Uncomfortable amidst such strange opulence, and distrustful of nobility in the city, "Ox" closes his eyes in the hopes it will prove a dream, only to remember how that morning he saw a man who looked how Paw looked when the Queens men took him away, and the young lady that man was with looked like cousin Gwen.
But they couldn't be. Ossian was now older then Paw had been when he last saw him, so "Paw" could not be Paw, and Gwen? She would now have grey hairs as well.
More and more he saw memories walking in the day, which wouldn't do. Best not to remember.

Can I get a drink, sir?

And here's:

Though he'd "lived", if you could call it "living" for years, growing soft in this city of men, Riardon remembered the forest.

Riardon loved the forest.

The sound of the wind, the river, the birds.
And foot steps.
He loved his family as well, but he always felt the call of the forest, where he could live without speaking, and be still.
And listen.
And wait.
For his prey.
He told himself he hunted to feed his family and neighbors, but deep inside he knew that wasn't true.
He needed the sounds of the woods, as well as the quiet.
And to watch
And to listen.

He heard the woods burning.

He had lived through forest-fires before, but this was different. There had been no lighting. And he heard screaming. Elf screams!
In an instant from so still he would appear to be part of the woods, he became quick as a deer running from a couger, and he ran towards home.
Towards his family.
Towards everyone he knew.
He saw the burned bodies.
And the arrows.
And something else.

A banner.

Men's banner.

Riardon knew then that he would leave the woods.

He had a new prey.

I actually had tears when I first wrote them, and they've worked like a charm for getting this player invited to play, but why?

"Edgelord-ish", claptrap, the second one in particular is a Barman/Mad Max expy, and just like most every other PC"s back stories, DM's use nothing from them, and until I sussed out that the only purpose of submitting them is to get to play, I foolishly actually would role-play the character suggested by the back-story, which in time most DM's would eventuslly discourage.

What is the purpose of this ritual?

Do DM's just go by back-story word count, and how many of the PC's loved ones are already dead, in deciding who to accept as players?

Long and trite let's me play, so long and trite is what DM's will get.

Why do they want to read this stuff?

What is the purpose of making potential players write it?

Shall I keep copy and pasting Bruce Wayne, but play Julio Scoundrel instead?

[Blue Duke]

"I'm going to build this cool sand box with plot hooks sprinkled about that you can take or ignore" cool awesome i'm going to love this "Nevermind i've decided to run the published adventures because your characters are learning too many skills and getting too rich!" seriously ? SERIOUSLY ? no **** that i'm not going to pretend to have fun doing something i've already done half of.

"and your characters were working so they had no time to train skills" but....this stupid ass published adventure has massive amounts of 'weeks where nothing happens' specifically so the characters can train.....its a published adventure for new characters of which i am one! WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DENYING US TRAINING TIME FOR ?

"i know how much you hate horror and stuff so we're going to run a horror module !" i said i don't like horror, i get that you guys do and feel free to run it but dont assume i'm going to play it......and dont call me a wuss or say 'some times in life we have to do things we don't want to do' THIS IS FREAKING HAPPY FUN TIME WITH FRIENDS!

"I kill/kidnap/other unspeakable things the NPC/steal from a party member" why am i adventuring with psycho paths ?i get the OOC reason is because i am friends with the player but i'm geting to a point where i am tired of people not treating the game world like its real in the context of the game and just going 'well the NPC's are all pretend so they can be killed or tortured or other things freely'.

On the whole 'you are adventuring with these people because of an agreed upon OOC social contract' sure i understand that but if i dont enjoy doing murder hobo stuff am i expected to figure out why my character is hanging out with murder hobos, Cop Killers, Sadistic torturers, people whose favorite impulse when you say 'no i'm taking it because i can use it' is to go 'i roll to steal it from them' and the GM says 'naw you steal it' and other people? because it seems like they arent following it with me or a few others in the party and are just in it 'for the lawls'

[Theoboldi]

I've found that what's a joy with table top (rolling dice), is an annoyance with PbP, which makes me wonder if "as is" D&D is a good choice for PbP. Sadly I don't know of any good alternative.
Nothing really is, because few systems were designed with PbP in mind. Most of them are very clearly made for tabletop. 5e thankfully functions well enough with only a few minor changes, like using group initiative and having attackers roll saving throws for their targets, but there are still some corner cases where it gets a bit iffy.

You know what also bugs me? GMs who do not realize that, and run any system in PbP without modifications, only to hit a stone wall of the game slowing down when they hit obvious issues that they could have easily foreseen. >.>



A while back I asked about this, and I remember that I learned some reasons for back-stories, and some humility... but since then I've forgotten why, so here my question/rant again!

Generally, the point of a backstory is to see how a character would fit into the world, what their status is and how NPCs would react to them. It also helps with binding the PCs into ongoing events, by bringing in villains from their past or having helpful NPCs that they know.

Now, granted, I can't bring up every minor NPC mentioned in a PCs backstory over the course of a campaign, since often that would just end up feeling forced. But I do pride myself in being a GM who actually involves his PCs' backstories into the campaign to some extent. Heck, sometimes I even make up NPCs who the players never mentioned in their characters backstory, but who I told them they've met at some point in the past. For example, the rogue could have met a bandit they encountered on the road before, on a prior heist. And the paladin with the noble background could know the evil baron the party is about to fight because he's from the same city, making a diplomatic approach easier.

All these things are impossible without backgrounds.

Of course, none of the matters if a GM only uses a backstory as writing example from their players. Seriously, that bugs me beyond believe! I don't want to write a novel for my character's background! I only have a vague idea of how exactly he's gonna act like in the actual game! Anything you make me write now is only going to give you the wrong impression, you idiot! And besides, the things that make a backstory interesting to read are not the same things that make a good IC post! A backstory does not require something for the other players to be able to interact with! A backstory does not need to interact with the world in some way! A backstory does not need a character react to something, and never involves anything the player didn't plan for!

Heck, it's not even a good indicator for how much effort they'll put into their posts, as of course everyone is gonna do their best when writing up a backstory as they're applying! It does nothing to show me how that player's posts will look a month down the road, when the game's been going on for a while and they don't have their lengthy background to explore for material!

They're solely there to show me whether a player has some idea of who they want their character to be, how that character is supposed to fit into the world, and why they are going on the adventure that I, as the GM, am proposing.

By the by, another thing that bugs me is players who don't put any effort into creating a character who would go along on the adventure the group has agreed on. Why did you even create that character then? I'm not running a seperate game for you, and I am not interested in contriving reasons for your character to go along with this mission, and for the other characters to trust you. Any character that results in other players having play their characters as stupid, overly trusting, or selectively oblivious can go right into the trash pile.


Geeze. That was a lot of ranting. :smallconfused:



Here's::
The girl screamed while the soldiers laughed.
He's forgotten so much, but he could remember that.
He didn't understand.
When the Queens soldiers took Paw away, Ma said Paw "was going to the Queen to be a hero", but they were hurting her! Heroes didn't do that!
Ma said that he was as strong as Paw now, maybe stronger, even though he didn't have a beard yet.
Ma said he needed to do what Paw used to, cut the tree's, dig the wells, and when the time came slaughter the pigs. With axe, hammer and shovel he would swing his arms and do what Ma said.
Ma said "Ossian, you listen now to your cousin Gwen, she's got a good head".
Maw was the only one who called him "Ossian", everyone else called him "Ox".
Gwen was screaming!
Maw said "you need to do what your Paw would do".
Paw was a hero.
So he swung his arms.
The soldiers stopped laughing, but Gwen still screamed.
"You've got to run Ox, they'll kill you"! "Run far, go to the rebels".
So he ran.
He ran far and met the rebels.
They gave him a sword.
And he did what they told him.

He swung his arms.

While life on the farm was hard, life in the forest was worse. For years they snipped at the Queen's men and hid and waited, till enough of the people knew that the time had come. Buried under homes, and hidden in wells and the walls of cottages were long stored weapons.
Out they came, by the thousands, and they marched on the capitol.

To defeat the tyrant.

And by the thousands they were slaughtered.

The brave and the good died.

Ox tore off the crimson flower of the rebels, ran and survived.

The gallow men had much work to do.

The walls of the capitol were decorated with the heads of rebels, as were the crossroads of the country, and every village square, to remind the foolish.

For years the heads rotted.

So much he has forgotten.
But he remembered somethings.
He remembered Maw's, Paw's, and Gwen's faces.
Now when he looked into the water he saw Paw's face, but Paw's beard was never grey was it?
He remembered that they called him "hero" once, now if anyone used that word about him they put "was a" in front of it.
He remembered he used to be strong.
He was still strong, but not like he was.
And he remembered the Queen.
And he remembered her hunters, who were now her son, the King's hunters.

And he would have to swing his arms again.

Uncomfortable amidst such strange opulence, and distrustful of nobility in the city, "Ox" closes his eyes in the hopes it will prove a dream, only to remember how that morning he saw a man who looked how Paw looked when the Queens men took him away, and the young lady that man was with looked like cousin Gwen.
But they couldn't be. Ossian was now older then Paw had been when he last saw him, so "Paw" could not be Paw, and Gwen? She would now have grey hairs as well.
More and more he saw memories walking in the day, which wouldn't do. Best not to remember.

Can I get a drink, sir?

And here's:

Though he'd "lived", if you could call it "living" for years, growing soft in this city of men, Riardon remembered the forest.

Riardon loved the forest.

The sound of the wind, the river, the birds.
And foot steps.
He loved his family as well, but he always felt the call of the forest, where he could live without speaking, and be still.
And listen.
And wait.
For his prey.
He told himself he hunted to feed his family and neighbors, but deep inside he knew that wasn't true.
He needed the sounds of the woods, as well as the quiet.
And to watch
And to listen.

He heard the woods burning.

He had lived through forest-fires before, but this was different. There had been no lighting. And he heard screaming. Elf screams!
In an instant from so still he would appear to be part of the woods, he became quick as a deer running from a couger, and he ran towards home.
Towards his family.
Towards everyone he knew.
He saw the burned bodies.
And the arrows.
And something else.

A banner.

Men's banner.

Riardon knew then that he would leave the woods.

He had a new prey.

Yeah, wow. Those are garbage. Totally agree with you. I'd say that a GM who accepts these is already a huge red warning flag. :smallconfused:

[Cluedrew]

This is a big one that bugs me. Sure, when asked most players lie and say they care about everyone in the game...yet one round later they are being the biggest jerk in the world.That is a simplification. In my experience it has more to do with people not actually stopping to think (or you know, being incapable there of) about how they are playing the game and how that effects other players. I'm sure people do go out of their way to annoy other people or are uncaring of it. More often, they are unaware.

As a simple example the worst player I ever played with apologized about it after the fact. They may have been lying but since I have seen them at or trying to get into a game since. I think they decided it wasn't for them and packed up... or they left the area or something. Not sure.

"Maybe you should have mentioned that."

Not communicating properly. This might be the cause of the other half of the problems. Seriously if something is not working in the game it is better to say it (politely) than to... be passive aggressive about it or just be unhappy about it.

[Honest Tiefling]

That is a simplification. In my experience it has more to do with people not actually stopping to think (or you know, being incapable there of) about how they are playing the game and how that effects other players. I'm sure people do go out of their way to annoy other people or are uncaring of it. More often, they are unaware.

I find it helpful to assume most players 1) have a limited attention span and 2) are easily excitable...And in many cases, well, it happens. Silus mentioned earlier that they were annoyed by players interrupting the game. Much of which is probably because the players are excited about their players and need to learn to cool it a bit, especially in the early game.

[Darth Ultron]

That is a simplification. In my experience it has more to do with people not actually stopping to think (or you know, being incapable there of) about how they are playing the game and how that effects other players.

Now, see, I encounter more jerks that only care about themselves. Like when you have one player that is a little shy or just a new gamer. The other players will lie and say ''oh we will help them and be good''. Then once the game starts they quickly become ''shut up newbe and just do what we say and don't ruin our fun''.

Or like the player that does some real begging to get a powerful item, but they lie and say they will do the ''dumb cartoon thing'' where they promise not to use is unless ''really in trouble''. Ten minutes later in the game they are like slaughtering every single creature as they feel they are ''in trouble''.

[2D8HP]

...Or like the player that does some real begging to get a powerful item, but they lie and say they will do the ''dumb cartoon thing'' where they promise not to use is unless ''really in trouble''. Ten minutes later in the game they are like slaughtering every single creature as they feel they are ''in trouble''.


Next to "Tenser's Floating Disk", in the bag of holding", is "Stalin's Scimitar of paranoia"?

[Ninja-Radish]

One thing I absolutely despise is the "no swearing" bullcrap I have to deal with sometimes. I don't know why this seems to only be an issue with gamers, as I've never seen this issue come up in any other social setting.

How about you talk the way you wanna talk and I'll talk the way I wanna talk?? If my character is a hard-boiled mercenary then I'm going to rp him that way, including foul language. I'm not going to have that character talk like a choir boy, it just doesn't make any sense. If I decide to play a Disney Princess, then I'll clean up the language.

[Pex]

One thing I absolutely despise is the "no swearing" bullcrap I have to deal with sometimes. I don't know why this seems to only be an issue with gamers, as I've never seen this issue come up in any other social setting.

How about you talk the way you wanna talk and I'll talk the way I wanna talk?? If my character is a hard-boiled mercenary then I'm going to rp him that way, including foul language. I'm not going to have that character talk like a choir boy, it just doesn't make any sense. If I decide to play a Disney Princess, then I'll clean up the language.

Or perhaps you're in a public space so as not to be rude with other people going about their business?

Or perhaps you're in a person's home who doesn't want that kind of language, especially if family is around?

Or perhaps the people you are playing with just don't care for that kind of language in real life?

Or perhaps you are playing with Steven Rogers or Peter Rasputin?

[Arbane]

I agree with your general point, but:


Or perhaps you are playing with Steven Rogers or Peter Rasputin?

"I'm a Brooklyn kid who was in the army. There's not a lot I don't know about swearing." - Steve Rogers, American Captain (Rather fun fancomic.)

Yes, I'm a nitpicker.

[Ninja-Radish]

Or perhaps you're in a public space so as not to be rude with other people going about their business?

Or perhaps you're in a person's home who doesn't want that kind of language, especially if family is around?

Or perhaps the people you are playing with just don't care for that kind of language in real life?

Or perhaps you are playing with Steven Rogers or Peter Rasputin?

Well, we don't play in public spaces so that's not the issue. The host has no issue with swearing either. Also, there aren't any kids. Those are all situations where I understand keeping the language clean.

Since there are no special circumstances, I prefer to be left alone to play my damn character. I've never in my life told another player how to (or how not to) play their characters. I expect the same courtesy in return.

[Quertus]

Probably what I hate most is people hating on, "it's what my character would do". Sorry, GM, your NPC just asked a bunch of good characters, including a paladin, to go assassinate someone? We're gonna respond with "**** you, you steaming pile of ****", because that's what our characters would do. Well, that or kill / imprison said NPC.


Having a reputation for accepting surrenders can be pretty useful, in my experience.

(And yeah, we've got a wanna-be torturemonkey in my current party. I ain't having none of that.)

Having a reputation for killing prisoners who don't talk is even better :smallwink:


My biggest peeve as a DM currently: Interruptions.

I'm trying to set the scene and give some exposition for whatever job the party is on, and there's like a 70% chance that I get interrupted by some inane BS not related to said scene setting and/or exposition that could very well wait until AFTER the DM is done talking.

Not even kidding I've started docking XP from players for this.

Well, I've had too many GMs who follow the "he who screams first acts first" rule (often granting the one who interrupts a free surprise round, no less!), so I suspect that's where this behavior comes from. Annoying as interrupting PCs may be, I think the "initiative by who yells first" GMs are worse.

[Guizonde]

One thing I absolutely despise is the "no swearing" bullcrap I have to deal with sometimes. I don't know why this seems to only be an issue with gamers, as I've never seen this issue come up in any other social setting.

How about you talk the way you wanna talk and I'll talk the way I wanna talk?? If my character is a hard-boiled mercenary then I'm going to rp him that way, including foul language. I'm not going to have that character talk like a choir boy, it just doesn't make any sense. If I decide to play a Disney Princess, then I'll clean up the language.

i spent years playing a dwarven radiant servant of pelor who was a foul-mouthed grump. that included slinging insults and putdowns at both the pc's and ennemies. the pc's took it in jest as i played the "aggravated medic" card, and my insults were usually humorous. the problem was i used very little foul language but colorful expressions that once devolved into a side-splitting monologue against the boss that had the group in tears laughing. after that episode (where i earned 100xp for the improv), the dm asked me to sling curse words instead of expressions so as to avoid spending over 10 minutes per encounter laughing.

whoops, guess people can have a sense of humor.

[Knaight]

If you complain about your players being "roll-players" instead of "role-players, maybe you should get your fellow DM's to stop encouraging their players to play "character sheets instead of characters", otherwise, just as with the DM's who post that they're "tired of reading novel length back-stories", WHERE IN THE ABYSS ARE YOU?

Running closed home games with a stable player base that consists entirely of friends and friends of friends that are explicitly invited. That's just me personally, but it could easily be part of a broader trend in the differences that tend to crop up between these home groups and open groups that do recruitment (with added complications coming from home groups formed out of open groups that did recruitment but that ended up in something actually stable and long lasting). This also means that those of us running home games have absolutely no incentive to encourage our fellow GMs to do anything.

Although technically I don't fit in those categories either. I don't need to complain about "roll-players"*, because it's not an issue. I'm not tired of reading novel length back stories, because I don't get handed excessively long back stories in the first place. Yet another advantage of a home game right there.

*Which is a term I dislike anyways.

[sleepy hedgehog]

Here's::
The girl screamed while the soldiers laughed.
He's forgotten so much, but he could remember that.
He didn't understand.
When the Queens soldiers took Paw away, Ma said Paw "was going to the Queen to be a hero", but they were hurting her! Heroes didn't do that!
Ma said that he was as strong as Paw now, maybe stronger, even though he didn't have a beard yet.
Ma said he needed to do what Paw used to, cut the tree's, dig the wells, and when the time came slaughter the pigs. With axe, hammer and shovel he would swing his arms and do what Ma said.
Ma said "Ossian, you listen now to your cousin Gwen, she's got a good head".
Maw was the only one who called him "Ossian", everyone else called him "Ox".
Gwen was screaming!
Maw said "you need to do what your Paw would do".
Paw was a hero.
So he swung his arms.
The soldiers stopped laughing, but Gwen still screamed.
"You've got to run Ox, they'll kill you"! "Run far, go to the rebels".
So he ran.
He ran far and met the rebels.
They gave him a sword.
And he did what they told him.

He swung his arms.

While life on the farm was hard, life in the forest was worse. For years they snipped at the Queen's men and hid and waited, till enough of the people knew that the time had come. Buried under homes, and hidden in wells and the walls of cottages were long stored weapons.
Out they came, by the thousands, and they marched on the capitol.

To defeat the tyrant.

And by the thousands they were slaughtered.

The brave and the good died.

Ox tore off the crimson flower of the rebels, ran and survived.

The gallow men had much work to do.

The walls of the capitol were decorated with the heads of rebels, as were the crossroads of the country, and every village square, to remind the foolish.

For years the heads rotted.

So much he has forgotten.
But he remembered somethings.
He remembered Maw's, Paw's, and Gwen's faces.
Now when he looked into the water he saw Paw's face, but Paw's beard was never grey was it?
He remembered that they called him "hero" once, now if anyone used that word about him they put "was a" in front of it.
He remembered he used to be strong.
He was still strong, but not like he was.
And he remembered the Queen.
And he remembered her hunters, who were now her son, the King's hunters.

And he would have to swing his arms again.

Uncomfortable amidst such strange opulence, and distrustful of nobility in the city, "Ox" closes his eyes in the hopes it will prove a dream, only to remember how that morning he saw a man who looked how Paw looked when the Queens men took him away, and the young lady that man was with looked like cousin Gwen.
But they couldn't be. Ossian was now older then Paw had been when he last saw him, so "Paw" could not be Paw, and Gwen? She would now have grey hairs as well.
More and more he saw memories walking in the day, which wouldn't do. Best not to remember.

Can I get a drink, sir?

And here's:

Though he'd "lived", if you could call it "living" for years, growing soft in this city of men, Riardon remembered the forest.

Riardon loved the forest.

The sound of the wind, the river, the birds.
And foot steps.
He loved his family as well, but he always felt the call of the forest, where he could live without speaking, and be still.
And listen.
And wait.
For his prey.
He told himself he hunted to feed his family and neighbors, but deep inside he knew that wasn't true.
He needed the sounds of the woods, as well as the quiet.
And to watch
And to listen.

He heard the woods burning.

He had lived through forest-fires before, but this was different. There had been no lighting. And he heard screaming. Elf screams!
In an instant from so still he would appear to be part of the woods, he became quick as a deer running from a couger, and he ran towards home.
Towards his family.
Towards everyone he knew.
He saw the burned bodies.
And the arrows.
And something else.

A banner.

Men's banner.

Riardon knew then that he would leave the woods.

He had a new prey.



I'l disagree, you're first story is plenty good enough.
In fact comparing it to my PC's stories, it made me jealous.


I just ask my PC's for a paragraph or two, because at the end of the day I only care about a few things.

Where are they from?
Where are they now/Why are they here?
What major goals do they have/Why will you stick with the party?
In general what kind of person are they?
Adds something to the world. I always give the PC's the ability to add one thing each to the world.

They usually hit 4 of the 5.

Your first story hit all the requirements.
Enough details I can place you on a map.
It provides sufficient beliefs of your character. Believes in revenge, has patience, cowardly...
Explains why you're here, now and looking for other companions. Provides a character goal going fowards.
And adds another side arc, or at least historical battle/war to the campaign world.

Finally, even though you call it really edgelord. But you spent alot more time writing/proofing/reading it than the DM will spend reading it.
At the end of the day it's still way more fun to read than a paragraph that looks like:
Miss Flaus is a nobelwoman from A. She learned majic from her mentor B. She likes C, D and E. Her goal is to do F...

[LordCdrMilitant]

I think the complaint is more along the lines of how a GM asks for the characters' backstories and then fails to actually incorporate the backstory into the plot.

If I wrote an essay when "I'm going to kill monsters and take their stuff because that's what I'm going to do" is all the GM really wanted, I'd be annoyed.

[2D8HP]

I'l disagree, you're first story is plenty good enough...

....At the end of the day it's still way more fun to read than...


Thanks, your very kind.

Other DM's have liked them too (the first more than the second, as well).

And I have played both of the PC's suggested by the stories, and that's been a problem.

They seldom mesh well with the party and the Adventure, so I usually wind up ignoring what I've written, which begs the question: What are they for?


I think the complaint is more along the lines of how a GM asks for the characters' backstories and then fails to actually incorporate the backstory into the plot.

If I wrote an essay when "I'm going to kill monsters and take their stuff because that's what I'm going to do" is all the GM really wanted, I'd be annoyed.


Yes.

I'd be much happier if GM's would straight up say: "Please provide a writting sample of 'x'-length.", if that's all they want out of the back-stories, and then give clear guidelines for what kind of PC's would mesh well with the adventures they plan.

If the GM wants to tailor the adventure to what kind of characters the players want to play, I'd rather be asked what I plan for thr PC to be like.

I'd like to play a "Julio Scoundrel as played by Douglas Fairbanks/Errol Flynn", and I have no idea of how to write that characters history (probably because they're fictional!). Writing the previous history of Mad Max-ish (or most of Mel Gibson's characters) on the other hand is dead easy for me, but not what I always want to play (I'm getting tired of it).

So I fail to see what the "histories" are for, that's why the ritual bugs me.

[SilverCacaobean]

Very interesting, I agree. I'm of the "take no prisoners" variety myself. I can't stand the players who want to take prisoners in the middle of a dungeon and insist on escorting them 100 miles through hostile territory to the nearest town so they can go to prison and await a trial.

Seriously, are you f--king kidding me?? The torturers are disconcerting, but the people who insist on playing superheroes from the golden age of comics in a D&D campaign are the ones who REALLY piss me off.

Mate, this is the golden (http://www.cracked.com/blog/3-bizarrely-era-specific-comic-book-heroes-part-1/) age (http://www.cracked.com/blog/forget-captain-america-3-real-golden-age-superheroes-part-2/). Forget 100 miles through hostile territory, these people didn't take prisoners in cities or next to cops! This "don't-stab-everyone-through-the-head" policy the heroes have today probably started after the Comics Code Authority was formed.

[Ninja-Radish]

Mate, this is the golden (http://www.cracked.com/blog/3-bizarrely-era-specific-comic-book-heroes-part-1/) age (http://www.cracked.com/blog/forget-captain-america-3-real-golden-age-superheroes-part-2/). Forget 100 miles through hostile territory, these people didn't take prisoners in cities or next to cops! This "don't-stab-everyone-through-the-head" policy the heroes have today probably started after the Comics Code Authority was formed.

Lol oops, guess I got my comics terminology wrong.

[Kalmageddon]

I agree with most of the things that have been said up to this point, but, seeing how I'm almost exclusively a GM, my biggest gripes are against various kinds of player behaviour.
Above all else, I hate player entitlement. The idea that the GM has to cater to each and every need of their players and basically turn any campaign in an ego trip for the players.
Look, it's true, everyone at the table has to have fun. But I, as a GM, need something to work on. If you play the blandest, most stereotypical murderhobo and then think that I have to go out of my way to make your character look good, you are sorely mistaken.
To make a good campaign, I need good characters.

[Ashes]

-The third thing I can't stand is alignment restrictions. The DM can suggest a preferable alignment, but if I want to be an evil bastard, let me be, and, should I fail to blend in with the group, let me face the concequences. Sure, it might be more dificult to blend in with a group that has a LG Paladin, but why restrict my character, and not his for example? Let me play my character the way I like, and if I can't blend in, punish me in game.


Funny, this is what I hate most. If I'm planning a game about beating up the Devil in the name of God, rescuing virgins and being Big Damn Heroes, I don't care how cool you think your Eldritch Horror-powered necromancer-warlock sounds. Save it for the appropriate game.
If I ask everyone to make a character that would work in a group and to be at least somewhat sympathetic to the Native Americans' cause, don't make Lieutenant-Colonel Custer, Jr.

Your little idea is not more important than the story the entire group is trying to tell. I'm sick and tired of trying to think of excuses for not kicking self-serving mercenaries and villains out of the party and even more sick of trying to run my game fluidly, when players keep shooting up the saloon rather than helping the shaman they're meant to find.
I do not run sandboxes. This means there's a time and a place for anything, not that there's room for everything in this particular game.

It's honestly just selfish, is what it is.

[Kalmageddon]

Funny, this is what I hate most. If I'm planning a game about beating up the Devil in the name of God, rescuing virgins and being Big Damn Heroes, I don't care how cool you think your Eldritch Horror-powered necromancer-warlock sounds. Save it for the appropriate game.
If I ask everyone to make a character that would work in a group and to be at least somewhat sympathetic to the Native Americans' cause, don't make Lieutenant-Colonel Custer, Jr.

Your little idea is not more important than the story the entire group is trying to tell.
Agreed.
And there is also the fact that I've never, ever seen "the exception" work. Probably because the only people that would insist to play a character that doesn't fit in the group are the ones that don't give a damn about anyone's else enjoyment of the game or that think they know better than the GM.

[Arbane]

Agreed.
And there is also the fact that I've never, ever seen "the exception" work. Probably because the only people that would insist to play a character that doesn't fit in the group are the ones that don't give a damn about anyone's else enjoyment of the game or that think they know better than the GM.

There's a reason that for a long time, a good working definition of 'munchkin' was 'a player who, upon being told that the game will be about subtle political intrigue in Renaissance Italy, wants to play a ninja.' :smallbiggrin: (Then Assassin's Creed came out....)

Yeah, Belkar Bitterleaf works in the Order of the Stick, but comics aren't games, and most GMs and players aren't Rich Burlew.

[Guizonde]

Agreed.
And there is also the fact that I've never, ever seen "the exception" work. Probably because the only people that would insist to play a character that doesn't fit in the group are the ones that don't give a damn about anyone's else enjoyment of the game or that think they know better than the GM.

in order to have a working exception, the rest of the group needs to throw ideas together and decide if they want the exception and how they're all gonna make it work. if a team is made, it's that all involved can work together. sometimes, you need an attack dog to guard a non-violent party. sometimes, you need a voice of reason in a group of murderhoboes. i've played the exception before, other times, i had an exception on my team. we used session 0 to decide how the campaign was going to fly. we also decided what kind of exception was needed, if one was needed at all.

[Cluedrew]

I also think the exception can work. I once made a gritty realistic mercenary when everyone else decided to play the comic relief. So I was the straight man in a comedy group. It actually worked out pretty well. I do however agree that it is a matter of attitude. If you make the character to spite the campaign concept, or because it is so awesome and cool it can't wait until a more appropriate game, than it is almost certainly going to be an issue. If you to it to bring an interesting twist to the campaign, contrast the other characters or just prevent the group from being too samey, that can be good.

You can have the odd one out in a group, but it should still be in the group.

[Kalmageddon]

There is a pretty big difference between playing a character that is simply different from the rest of the group but still works well with the campaign premise and group dynamic and playing something that has been explicitly forbidden by the GM because it goes against the campaign premise, setting or whatever else.
And let me stress this point: the GM knows best. And even when he doesn't, if he doesn't want to have a particular sort of character in his group, you don't walk all over his fun and enjoyment because you feel entitled. At best, you find a compromise that satisfies everyone. And if you can't find it, you don't play.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Funny, this is what I hate most. If I'm planning a game about beating up the Devil in the name of God, rescuing virgins and being Big Damn Heroes, I don't care how cool you think your Eldritch Horror-powered necromancer-warlock sounds. Save it for the appropriate game.
If I ask everyone to make a character that would work in a group and to be at least somewhat sympathetic to the Native Americans' cause, don't make Lieutenant-Colonel Custer, Jr.

Your little idea is not more important than the story the entire group is trying to tell. I'm sick and tired of trying to think of excuses for not kicking self-serving mercenaries and villains out of the party and even more sick of trying to run my game fluidly, when players keep shooting up the saloon rather than helping the shaman they're meant to find.
I do not run sandboxes. This means there's a time and a place for anything, not that there's room for everything in this particular game.

It's honestly just selfish, is what it is.

I run Dark Heresy, where you have to be a 15-point Elites choice. I see what you say about having characters that don't mesh with the others.

However, I hate it when the GM is more concerned about "his story" than what the players want to do. If the acolytes want to sit on their frigate drinking away the grimdarkness, they're welcome to. But the Chaos Lord isn't going to wait for them to be ready to fight again. The game isn't my story, the game is the players' story, and it's about the players' characters and what the players want them to do and how the players' characters' actions influence the setting.

[DigoDragon]

Back with my old local group, there was only one member besides me that was always willing/ready to be the GM. However, his style of "anything goes" adventuring (like if you wanted to play an AD&D 2e wizard in a 3.5 game, he'd say sure and make up conversions in his head) often bugged people so I was the default choice 4 out of 5 times. This meant that I rarely got to be a PC, and when I was, the campaign didn't last long because the chaos of "anything goes" tends to end sessions real quick (usually by TPK). In time this led to an interesting little quirk in the group that bugged me--

Any time the group got on the subject of awesome accomplishments by their past high-level PCs.

They had many of them because my campaigns often lasted a long time and I tended to be generous in letting the players try heroic stunts and out-of-the-box ideas. Since I was rarely a PC, I often didn't have anything to add to the conversation. I'd just sit behind the GM screen and be jelly. One time I was so flustered by the conversation that I told everyone to shut up about their glory and get back to the current adventure I was running. :smallredface:


After a few years out of the hobby, this year I got with a new local group. Besides myself there are two sane GMs who enjoy running adventures, and willingly rotate with me. I'm quite excited to have my first D&D 3.5 character reach 5th level soon.

[Psikerlord]

That's a fair point.

I've found that what's a joy with table top (rolling dice), is an annoyance with PbP, which makes me wonder if "as is" D&D is a good choice for PbP. Sadly I don't know of any good alternative.

And since the caffeine I've ingested is hitting me I'm in a full rant mood... so back to ranting about back-stories!

A while back I asked about this, and I remember that I learned some reasons for back-stories, and some humility... but since then I've forgotten why, so here my question/rant again!

Once upon a time, I'd just say what kind of PC'S I wanted to play, "like Geoffrey Thorpe in The Sea Hawk", Captain Sinbad in The 7th Voyage of Sinbad, Rudolf Rassendyll in The Prisoner of Zenda, Fafhrd, and the Gray Mouser".

Can I do that now?

NOOOOOO!!!

Instead I have to do the "submit a back-story" ritual.

Read (and weep!) the back-stories I've written in a dark mood (if you can stand to!), that every single DM I've submitted them to has accepted:

Here's::
The girl screamed while the soldiers laughed.
He's forgotten so much, but he could remember that.
He didn't understand.
When the Queens soldiers took Paw away, Ma said Paw "was going to the Queen to be a hero", but they were hurting her! Heroes didn't do that!
Ma said that he was as strong as Paw now, maybe stronger, even though he didn't have a beard yet.
Ma said he needed to do what Paw used to, cut the tree's, dig the wells, and when the time came slaughter the pigs. With axe, hammer and shovel he would swing his arms and do what Ma said.
Ma said "Ossian, you listen now to your cousin Gwen, she's got a good head".
Maw was the only one who called him "Ossian", everyone else called him "Ox".
Gwen was screaming!
Maw said "you need to do what your Paw would do".
Paw was a hero.
So he swung his arms.
The soldiers stopped laughing, but Gwen still screamed.
"You've got to run Ox, they'll kill you"! "Run far, go to the rebels".
So he ran.
He ran far and met the rebels.
They gave him a sword.
And he did what they told him.

He swung his arms.

While life on the farm was hard, life in the forest was worse. For years they snipped at the Queen's men and hid and waited, till enough of the people knew that the time had come. Buried under homes, and hidden in wells and the walls of cottages were long stored weapons.
Out they came, by the thousands, and they marched on the capitol.

To defeat the tyrant.

And by the thousands they were slaughtered.

The brave and the good died.

Ox tore off the crimson flower of the rebels, ran and survived.

The gallow men had much work to do.

The walls of the capitol were decorated with the heads of rebels, as were the crossroads of the country, and every village square, to remind the foolish.

For years the heads rotted.

So much he has forgotten.
But he remembered somethings.
He remembered Maw's, Paw's, and Gwen's faces.
Now when he looked into the water he saw Paw's face, but Paw's beard was never grey was it?
He remembered that they called him "hero" once, now if anyone used that word about him they put "was a" in front of it.
He remembered he used to be strong.
He was still strong, but not like he was.
And he remembered the Queen.
And he remembered her hunters, who were now her son, the King's hunters.

And he would have to swing his arms again.

Uncomfortable amidst such strange opulence, and distrustful of nobility in the city, "Ox" closes his eyes in the hopes it will prove a dream, only to remember how that morning he saw a man who looked how Paw looked when the Queens men took him away, and the young lady that man was with looked like cousin Gwen.
But they couldn't be. Ossian was now older then Paw had been when he last saw him, so "Paw" could not be Paw, and Gwen? She would now have grey hairs as well.
More and more he saw memories walking in the day, which wouldn't do. Best not to remember.

Can I get a drink, sir?

And here's:

Though he'd "lived", if you could call it "living" for years, growing soft in this city of men, Riardon remembered the forest.

Riardon loved the forest.

The sound of the wind, the river, the birds.
And foot steps.
He loved his family as well, but he always felt the call of the forest, where he could live without speaking, and be still.
And listen.
And wait.
For his prey.
He told himself he hunted to feed his family and neighbors, but deep inside he knew that wasn't true.
He needed the sounds of the woods, as well as the quiet.
And to watch
And to listen.

He heard the woods burning.

He had lived through forest-fires before, but this was different. There had been no lighting. And he heard screaming. Elf screams!
In an instant from so still he would appear to be part of the woods, he became quick as a deer running from a couger, and he ran towards home.
Towards his family.
Towards everyone he knew.
He saw the burned bodies.
And the arrows.
And something else.

A banner.

Men's banner.

Riardon knew then that he would leave the woods.

He had a new prey.

I actually had tears when I first wrote them, and they've worked like a charm for getting this player invited to play, but why?

"Edgelord-ish", claptrap, the second one in particular is a Barman/Mad Max expy, and just like most every other PC"s back stories, DM's use nothing from them, and until I sussed out that the only purpose of submitting them is to get to play, I foolishly actually would role-play the character suggested by the back-story, which in time most DM's would eventuslly discourage.

What is the purpose of this ritual?

Do DM's just go by back-story word count, and how many of the PC's loved ones are already dead, in deciding who to accept as players?

Long and trite let's me play, so long and trite is what DM's will get.

Why do they want to read this stuff?

What is the purpose of making potential players write it?

Shall I keep copy and pasting Bruce Wayne, but play Julio Scoundrel instead?
As a GM and player, I am against backstories altogether: http://dndhackersguild.weebly.com/blog/are-pc-backgrounds-more-hindrance-than-help

I prefer a two liner background, a roll on the party bonds table to establish PC connections, and then any other details are made up during the game, when everyone hears about them together (and possibly build on it/interact with it).

[ErebusVonMori]

Worst thing as a player:

DMPCs. Never seen one that wasn't just 'Look how AWESUM I AM! Whoo and I've even got these heroes to act as my cheerleaders!' I don't even mind the DM playing a party member, but don't make them stronger than the party, hell don't even make them equal in strength to the party. If we're in a lv 10 campaign I don't want to have to drag around a damn lv 15 outsider who's minmaxed beyond belief. I swear next DM that does it has their character getting a free all-expenses paid trip to the plane of negative energy as a surprise.

I'm in a PbP game with one right now and the only thing stopping me tanking it is the other players.

Also DMs who make their own pantheons, don't get me wrong, some do a fabulous job and really think things through, and then we have DMs (and this is a real example) who have [Fluffy Bubbles is the name of the Worlds Over-deity. Like Deus Ex Machina mixed with Abridge Kirito.] My response to your over-deity as a non-lunatic character, unless it is the plan of the entire game, should never be 'KILL IT! KILL IT WITH FIRE THEN BURN THE ASHES!'

[Scripten]

Worst thing as a player:

DMPCs. Never seen one that wasn't just 'Look how AWESUM I AM! Whoo and I've even got these heroes to act as my cheerleaders!' I don't even mind the DM playing a party member, but don't make them stronger than the party, hell don't even make them equal in strength to the party. If we're in a lv 10 campaign I don't want to have to drag around a damn lv 15 outsider who's minmaxed beyond belief. I swear next DM that does it has their character getting a free all-expenses paid trip to the plane of negative energy as a surprise.

I'll never understand the draw of DMPCs. I already have so much crap to remember and to run at any one point in the game, so having to babysit the party as a full PC-style character sounds horrible. When the players insist on taking on more characters into the party, I usually just use monster stats and have them sit in the corner while the real party members do their thing.

[Guizonde]

I'll never understand the draw of DMPCs. I already have so much crap to remember and to run at any one point in the game, so having to babysit the party as a full PC-style character sounds horrible. When the players insist on taking on more characters into the party, I usually just use monster stats and have them sit in the corner while the real party members do their thing.

my group and i use so few dmpc's that we just have profiles rolled up and leave them be to their own thing. on the rare occasion that the npc/dmpc's arrive, there's a good chance they're needed, even if it's just to give orders or plan distractions. once, i had a set-up where the dmpc's arrived so the team could know that the endgame had started. they fought off a horde bravely, and the dmpc's gave the team a crowbar each to go get their gear back while the two dmpc's started booby trapping and plotting a distraction. they all met up together during the endgame, one dmpc at death's door. the party spent one in-game week saving his life. he might have been a simple npc, the players loved the gruff character he was. plus, he was about as strong (if maybe a bit weaker) than the pc's. he was just great with maps and survival scenarios.

on the plus side, we tend to make our dmpc's specialists. there's one area where they're awesome, the rest average or frankly lackluster. they do have an affinity for action film one-liners, though. as time passes, we use surviving pc's from previous campaigns and augment their stat blocks representing the xp they would have gained from the time spent, so we don't have to worry about personnalities or gear. we're all familiar with them as npc's and as pc's. it does help that an endgame pc is more than capable of wiping the floor with a mid-game team in combat (even the non-coms of the band), so it gives the pc's reassurance that they are indeed following the plot. usually happens once or twice per year-long campaign, for about a half session at a time.

[LordCdrMilitant]

I'm not entirely certain where the line between DMPC and NPC is.

There are some instances where I think it's in the best interest of everyone to have GMPC, such as the party's patron Inquisitor. Otherwise the game wouldn't go anywhere as the party members all fought each other OOC to be the "leader".

Of course, the Inquisitor is built with an insane amount of XP, because she's the Inquisitor, and has been doing this far longer than they have, and mostly stays out of the way.

[Lord Torath]

I'll never understand the draw of DMPCs. I already have so much crap to remember and to run at any one point in the game, so having to babysit the party as a full PC-style character sounds horrible. When the players insist on taking on more characters into the party, I usually just use monster stats and have them sit in the corner while the real party members do their thing.I suspect it's from a desire to play, instead of DM. It was in my case. I really wanted to play, but there was no one else who could DM. My DMPCs were equal in level to the party, and got just as cool of gear as the rest of the party. I was pretty generous with magic items, and I never heard any complaints. But then I was 15 and my players were 12, and none of us had much experience, so maybe they just didn't know any better. I know better now.

[Knaight]

I'm not entirely certain where the line between DMPC and NPC is.

There are some instances where I think it's in the best interest of everyone to have GMPC, such as the party's patron Inquisitor. Otherwise the game wouldn't go anywhere as the party members all fought each other OOC to be the "leader".

Of course, the Inquisitor is built with an insane amount of XP, because she's the Inquisitor, and has been doing this far longer than they have, and mostly stays out of the way.

There are definite blurry lines - I'm GMing a game currently where there are arguably a bunch of DMPCs, because the PCs are a set of fighter pilots and the ship that launches said pilots has other crew (maintenance crew, mechanics, helmsman, cook, medic, etc.). On the other hand, while these characters aren't minor characters overall (as at least some will show up every session) they're also pretty far from PC status.

As for players fighting OOC to be the leader, I haven't seen it. I've had plenty of games where a player is the leader, such as those about a noble and their retinue, or a ship captain and their crew. It's been fine, and in one of those cases the leader emerged when the rest of the players threw that character under the bus.

[LordCdrMilitant]

There are definite blurry lines - I'm GMing a game currently where there are arguably a bunch of DMPCs, because the PCs are a set of fighter pilots and the ship that launches said pilots has other crew (maintenance crew, mechanics, helmsman, cook, medic, etc.). On the other hand, while these characters aren't minor characters overall (as at least some will show up every session) they're also pretty far from PC status.

As for players fighting OOC to be the leader, I haven't seen it. I've had plenty of games where a player is the leader, such as those about a noble and their retinue, or a ship captain and their crew. It's been fine, and in one of those cases the leader emerged when the rest of the players threw that character under the bus.

You have a fundamentally different party than I do, I suspect. Actually, I have two parties.

One would probably do fine. One guy does the talking and the other two shoot what he says to, and everyone seems fine with it. I try to get the other two "on stage" but they defer to Officer Arg as soon as they can, so I generally let them and give more problems to solve with a heavy flamer and a thunder hammer.

The other party, though, would have a serious problem. There are two players who both want to be the nominated leader in every campaign. If one of the two seems to have better stats for it, then the other will observe that a boss and minions would make for a terrible party dynamic and un-fun roleplaying experience if the other could just execute people for not following orders. In one DH campaign, they both spent the entire operation saving up their XP and Influence to race each other to being able to buy the Inquisitor elite advance. I'm fairly certain that everyone would chafe at their "leadership" anyway, because the rest of the party usurped the elected captain of the Traveler vessel in one campaign.

So, the Inquisitor is always my character. S/he'll sit on the ship, or be out of the way, or do research or something, and find clues the party missed if they miss them enough times.

[2D8HP]

As a GM and player, I am against backstories altogether: http://dndhackersguild.weebly.com/blog/are-pc-backgrounds-more-hindrance-than-help

I prefer a two liner background, a roll on the party bonds table to establish PC connections, and then any other details are made up during the game, when everyone hears about them together (and possibly build on it/interact with it).


That sounds wonderful!

I'd like to have the opportunity to play like that.

Your rules system looks intriguing, but it needs a snazzier name.

How about Swords Against the Darkness?

Which is a wholly original name!


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/37/Swords_Against_Darkness.jpg

Anyway:

I write long back-stories for my first level PC's because DM's demand it.

The longer (and usually more tragic) the back-story is, the more likely it seems that I will be allowed to play.

Simple as that.

[ErebusVonMori]

The line between NPC and DMPC is when the story becomes more about the DMPC than the players.

[JoeJ]

Generally, the point of a backstory is to see how a character would fit into the world, what their status is and how NPCs would react to them. It also helps with binding the PCs into ongoing events, by bringing in villains from their past or having helpful NPCs that they know.

Now, granted, I can't bring up every minor NPC mentioned in a PCs backstory over the course of a campaign, since often that would just end up feeling forced. But I do pride myself in being a GM who actually involves his PCs' backstories into the campaign to some extent. Heck, sometimes I even make up NPCs who the players never mentioned in their characters backstory, but who I told them they've met at some point in the past. For example, the rogue could have met a bandit they encountered on the road before, on a prior heist. And the paladin with the noble background could know the evil baron the party is about to fight because he's from the same city, making a diplomatic approach easier.

All these things are impossible without backgrounds.

The backstory doesn't have to be written before play, however. Backstory elements can be created as they affect the hero's present situation, as long as they makes sense. This is especially easy in a game with something like hero or plot points. For example, if the party is being harassed by the town guard, maybe one of the players can spend a hero point to "discover" that the guard commandant is a former army buddy. Or in another situation, the GM can give a player a hero point and reveal that the BBEG's chief lieutenant is the PC's never-previously-mentioned sister.

Without hero points it can still work though, as long as the players agree on reasonable limits to what can be edited into the universe. (Maybe one revelation per adventure for the entire party, and only if it makes sense to everybody at the table.)

[Jerrykhor]

When I saw the 'Are there any prostitu-' guy, this reminds me of a player that I met not long ago, commonly referred to as 'that guy'. You know, the guy that makes the super edgelord rogue that looks like a masked ninja, his backstory is that he is the best at everything, his character is all about wanting bewbies and more bewbies, and he would attack random NPCs just because.

During session 0 when discussing our plot hook, he wanted to start our campaign in a brothel. Later on he asked a female party member for sex, even offered some gold, and when refused, offered ALL his gold. Still got refused. It was pathetic.

[Theoboldi]

The backstory doesn't have to be written before play, however. Backstory elements can be created as they affect the hero's present situation, as long as they makes sense. This is especially easy in a game with something like hero or plot points. For example, if the party is being harassed by the town guard, maybe one of the players can spend a hero point to "discover" that the guard commandant is a former army buddy. Or in another situation, the GM can give a player a hero point and reveal that the BBEG's chief lieutenant is the PC's never-previously-mentioned sister.

Without hero points it can still work though, as long as the players agree on reasonable limits to what can be edited into the universe. (Maybe one revelation per adventure for the entire party, and only if it makes sense to everybody at the table.)

Oh, I fully agree with that, though personally I prefer something of a hybrid approach. I like my players and myself to have a good idea of where their characters fit into the world, where they come from, and also to have a few plothooks provided.

At the same time, I urge them to stick to the important stuff and keep it relatively undetailed, so that these details and unmentioned things can later be filled in during play, whether that happens per hero points or just stuff that comes up during the game.



By the by, another thing that bugs me (oh boy, another rant from Theo) is people who insist on sorting any particular group into one of however many playstyles they know, those styles most often being combat as war and combat as sport. I often see people on these forums asking for help for their games, only for someone to judge their group as one of these playstyles and only give advice that would be helpful to a very specific caricature of that playstyle.

You like a more open world approach the combat, and enjoy it when your players come up with crazy ideas that allow them to bypass encounters without having to necessarily fight them? Throw out encounter guidelines, and make the enemies fight as unfairly as you can! Only the smartest may survive! Cause that's clearly what your group will enjoy!

[Guizonde]

When I saw the 'Are there any prostitu-' guy, this reminds me of a player that I met not long ago, commonly referred to as 'that guy'. You know, the guy that makes the super edgelord rogue that looks like a masked ninja, his backstory is that he is the best at everything, his character is all about wanting bewbies and more bewbies, and he would attack random NPCs just because.

During session 0 when discussing our plot hook, he wanted to start our campaign in a brothel. Later on he asked a female party member for sex, even offered some gold, and when refused, offered ALL his gold. Still got refused. It was pathetic.

in our universe, we spent what felt like half a campaign hiding in a brothel. all the painted ladies were very nice, too. turns out that when you need to hide a party consisting of very rich drug dealers and kidnappers (long story), there's very few places where they'll fit in better than a brothel. we paid to play cards in locked rooms with the prostitutes and get their take on local info so as not to rip them off (one character had the "card shark" skill and made a buck) until the coast was clear. later on, we discovered it was the seat (no pun intended) of the resistance. we had one lecherous character who spent a lot of time flirting with any woman he came across, but that was par for the course due to his culture and his background, since he was actively looking to buy a wife to send back to his village. it was mostly played for laughs (and once for a better reward, which we got). the creepy thing was my completely oblivious-to-all-things-sexual girl mechanic that kept on getting hit on. those conversations got so creepy the dm at one point just said "you know what? he flirts with you and totally wants to bone you. you're oblivious to it as usual?" the entire party said "yes!" and we sighed a sigh of collective relief.

[PersonMan]

Re: DMPCs

The discussion is always difficult, in part because some people define 'DMPC' as an inherently bad thing, whereas others don't. So if it comes to "what if you have a good DMPC in the game" you inevitably get people saying "that's not a DMPC, DMPCs are bad".

Re: Backstories

This ties in to an actual thing that bugs me, so I'm at last somewhat on topic!

I ask for backstories because I use them practically (for example, as a way to tie the PCs into the setup of the game) and because it's part of the fluff package, which is for me the biggest* factor when picking people. As a DM is can also serve as a source of some ideas or inspiration (if, say, the party needs to acquire Item X and the original method of doing so is gone, I might look over backstories to see if someone has some relevant group or contact I can use) and, for me as a player, it's useful for some more context, especially in longer games. Going back over the original fluff can help get me back into a character's head after the game just came out of a lengthy combat, or I've simply begun to lose touch with the original concept.

While I get that someone can push up their writing for a backstory, then drop it later, it is effective at weeding out people who I wouldn't want to play with due to their writing. I've yet to have someone submit a good well-written sheet's worth of fluff, only to drop down into unbearable writing later.

This is mostly PbP-related, but I imagine it's similarly bothersome in a tabletop scenario; when, after I explicitly state that character fluff and so forth will be a big part of the game, someone still applies with a fluffless or next-to-fluffless sheet, though that's a subset of "doesn't read the info provided". Yes, X is allowed, it's in the first post. No, Y is not allowed, it's in the first post...

* With exceptions for stuff like "is insufferable" or "made a character that is way too strong for the game".


I'd like to play a "Julio Scoundrel as played by Douglas Fairbanks/Errol Flynn", and I have no idea of how to write that characters history (probably because they're fictional!). Writing the previous history of Mad Max-ish (or most of Mel Gibson's characters) on the other hand is dead easy for me, but not what I always want to play (I'm getting tired of it).

I know that, for me at least, that description wouldn't be very helpful; admittedly in part because I have no idea who Fairbanks and Flynn are, apart from "actors, I guess?". It's also vague, unless said character is actually very specific, in which case I'd think there might be issues integrating it into another setting; it leaves me with the questions of 'alright, but who is that? What do they do, and why? What made them this way? Will they do things that fit the theme of the game, and invest themselves in what's going on (IC, not OOC)?'.

It also helps me figure out what the character will behave like, what their motivations are, etc. - for example, the first backstory you posted is interesting as a concept, but I wouldn't accept it just because the character feels like they're more of a drone just following orders than an active person, and there's no real internal conflict, areas to start growing or interesting interactions I can easily see. What I like is when I start thinking 'oh, X will be interesting' or 'hmm I wonder how they'll interact with Y' during my reading of a backstory / other character fluff.

As a player, I can find a good deal of extra development in writing the backstory, going from just a concept to a much more fleshed-out character when I look into their past, how they became who they are now, and so on. A good question is 'why?'.

In addition to other things, they can help clear up setting issues. For example, I was once setting up a game in a homebrew setting and an applicant submitted a profile that had a backstory based around being found in a desert - I realized after reading that a line of description for one of the nations could be misinterpreted as it being a desert, when it was actually meant to be dominated by plains and fields.

[Guizonde]

to create a backstory, i found using a 5-point introduction layout is quite nice. in french universities (in history at least), a standard essay introduction goes like this: (example used, a level 7 dwarven cleric of pelor 5 / radiant servant of pelor 2)

1:the hook (here, i'll go for "foul-mouthed grumpy doctor)
2:the background (from the mountains, now a rover to heal the displaced victims of the war)
3: the details (he's scarred all over his body due to some moral reason, is a vegetarian, and enjoys tattoos and piercings)
4: the problem axis (he's out there for the good of all, and he couldn't do it from the mountains or alone, so he's latching on to the group)
5: the plan (heal all he comes accross, banish evil in all its forms, praise the sun and chuck laser beams, obey his moral code, make sure his team survives)

once you've got that grid, you can flesh it out as needed. i'm currently working on an inquisitor whose grid is just as easy to fill in. with that, you can either keep it to yourself, tell the dm, give him a paragraph or a novella. i'm hitting on all key points mentionned before me, such as the famous "who, what, when, where, why" needed for a character.

hope it helps. i tend to prefer having a couple of lines of backstory and improvising the rest with the team (for example, none of us expected that our merchant was a mutant who was a universal graft receiver. it was only after him accepting his third liver transplant that the question came up), since that gives everyone the same chance of getting hit by revelations.

[Airk]

I know that, for me at least, that description wouldn't be very helpful; admittedly in part because I have no idea who Fairbanks and Flynn are, apart from "actors, I guess?".

If it makes you feel better, the "as played by" is basically non-information here. He's basically said "I want to a play a heroic, quipping swashbuckler, as played by two actors who played lots of heroic, quipping swashbucklers." I can't think of a single thing the actor information adds to this character description. If it were there as a contrast point - ("I want to play Batman as if he were played by Douglas Fairbanks") it'd cast some light on the idea, but as it stands, it's wasted electrons as far as I can tell.

[Theoboldi]

If it makes you feel better, the "as played by" is basically non-information here. He's basically said "I want to a play a heroic, quipping swashbuckler, as played by two actors who played lots of heroic, quipping swashbucklers." I can't think of a single thing the actor information adds to this character description. If it were there as a contrast point - ("I want to play Batman as if he were played by Douglas Fairbanks") it'd cast some light on the idea, but as it stands, it's wasted electrons as far as I can tell.

As far as I'm aware, Fairbanks and Flynn are very famous for playing exactly those kinds of stereotypical swashbucklers. So the information conveyed here would be that he wants to play an archetypical, sword-crossing , quip-slinging swashbuckler.

It's kinda like saying "I want to be a tough, badass soldier with cool one-liners, as played by Schwarzenegger or Bruce Willis." It conjures up a very specific image, in that he wants to play the character archetype straight, not as a tongue-in-cheek thing or as something much deeper than it initially seems.

[Lord Torath]

Tell you what, you get back to me after your first grandchild is born and we'll see how daisy-fresh YOUR pop-culture jokes are, ok? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0746.html) :smallamused:

A quick web search can be helpful for pop-culture references you don't understand. Or just ask the player for clarification.

[2D8HP]

I know that, for me at least, that description wouldn't be very helpful; admittedly in part because I have no idea who Fairbanks and Flynn are, apart from "actors, I guess?". .


I thought that "Julio Scoundrel" from OotS would be enough of a clue.


Tell you what, you get back to me after your first grandchild is born and we'll see how daisy-fresh YOUR pop-culture jokes are, ok? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0746.html) :smallamused:.


I feel their pain.

I'll add that to "Things that Bug Us"

Fewer and fewer know my cultural touchstones.

I have a similar problem following along when people say, "Like in the video game 'x'", or "like in anime 'y'".


"Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra".



"Picard and Dathon at El-Adrel"


Few grok my jive anymore (Man am I grateful people still quote Monty Python!).

For reference here's:

Fairbanks, Jr. (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iEYpwrWRiQU)

And here's:

Flynn (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4MqmpL6X_8w).

[Quertus]

Clearly, we've danced this dance before, as you've quoted me before I could make that reference again.

On the plus side, people with whom you are sharing an enjoyable experience being compelled by that experience to start quoting things you don't recognize seems like a good inventive to expand your experiences to include said material.

[2D8HP]

....seems like a good inventive to expand your experiences to include said material.


Absolutely.

I'm much more familiar with pop-culture from the 1980's than after, so there's a lot that I've missed.

From this Forum I've learned that Firefly must be the best show ever, and I'm looking forward to viewing it.

I just hope it doesn't turn out to be a disappointment like The Avengers movie I watched, which beyond briefly seeing a certain cast member in a tight outfit really bored me.

I have a similar fear of seeing Mad Max: Fury Road, in that if I don't like it, it may in reflection, lessen my enjoyment of the previous trilogy, as with how having Return of the Jedi be the capstone, made Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back diminished (stupid Ewoks!).

[Segev]

When I DM, I work with my players on their backstories, if only because I'm trying to figure out what motivates the characters and how to integrate them into where the game's starting. I also have run Exalted most recently, so working with them on why they have the Backgrounds they do helps me make those Backgrounds interesting.

When I play, I come up with as much backstory as I need to help me know what my character is doing in this adventure. I try to work with the DM to integrate it to the setting so I have a good grounding in how the character will react to things that happen in the setting.


One thing I absolutely despise is the "no swearing" bullcrap I have to deal with sometimes. I don't know why this seems to only be an issue with gamers, as I've never seen this issue come up in any other social setting.

How about you talk the way you wanna talk and I'll talk the way I wanna talk?? If my character is a hard-boiled mercenary then I'm going to rp him that way, including foul language. I'm not going to have that character talk like a choir boy, it just doesn't make any sense. If I decide to play a Disney Princess, then I'll clean up the language.


Or perhaps you're in a public space so as not to be rude with other people going about their business?

Or perhaps you're in a person's home who doesn't want that kind of language, especially if family is around?

Or perhaps the people you are playing with just don't care for that kind of language in real life?

Or perhaps you are playing with Steven Rogers or Peter Rasputin?

Personally, I tend to select against associating with people who swear excessively. Since this is a personal choice, "excessively" is a personally subjective judgment. I can understand not wanting to game with people who swear a lot, because it can mean not enjoying the game or being distracted by it. So, if the majority of the table has a "no swearing" rule, they presumably don't like swearing and don't want to be subjected to it. It's no different than any other social contract. Don't play the flaming homosexual character at the table full of people who are made uncomfortable by shounen-ai and yaoi, and don't play the flaming gay-basher at a table full of LGBTQ-friendly types who are made uncomfortable by such abusive behavior even by fictional characters. Don't play the straight-laced paladin who enforces "good behavior" on the whole party with a group of people playing ne'er-do-wells and sneaky gits, and don't play the NE necromancer who animates the dead and rubs their families' noses in it in the party full of NG and LG heroes. And don't act out the foul-mouthed PC's expletives at a table full of people who don't like swearing.

[Mordar]

Personally, I tend to select against associating with people who swear excessively. Since this is a personal choice, "excessively" is a personally subjective judgment. I can understand not wanting to game with people who swear a lot, because it can mean not enjoying the game or being distracted by it. So, if the majority of the table has a "no swearing" rule, they presumably don't like swearing and don't want to be subjected to it. It's no different than any other social contract. Don't play the flaming homosexual character at the table full of people who are made uncomfortable by shounen-ai and yaoi, and don't play the flaming gay-basher at a table full of LGBTQ-friendly types who are made uncomfortable by such abusive behavior even by fictional characters. Don't play the straight-laced paladin who enforces "good behavior" on the whole party with a group of people playing ne'er-do-wells and sneaky gits, and don't play the NE necromancer who animates the dead and rubs their families' noses in it in the party full of NG and LG heroes. And don't act out the foul-mouthed PC's expletives at a table full of people who don't like swearing.

Wait, what? Segev, are you saying this is a game with a social contract? That we as players really should work together to make it an enjoyable experience for everyone, and not be out for just ourselves at all costs? That's insanity!

Yeah, um...the people who ignore the social contract element kind bug me. That holds both in game/character and out.

It doesn't mean there can't be conflict and even, if appropriate, in-character violence (assuming everyone is properly on board)...but it does mean compromise to make things work. And it really really means no, you don't get to sponge off everyone else for food and drink ALL THE TIME and it especially means that sponges don't get to pick toppings or restaurants. *twitch*

Anyway, it is a social game, so obey social rules. Don't stink, don't be a jerk, don't be a sponge. Or if you like "positive" rules, be clean and odor free, be pleasant and sociable, and be willing to pay your fair share as often as you can and share what you have.

- M

[Airk]

As far as I'm aware, Fairbanks and Flynn are very famous for playing exactly those kinds of stereotypical swashbucklers.

Oh, I know who they both are - my point was that the reference isn't useful.


So the information conveyed here would be that he wants to play an archetypical, sword-crossing , quip-slinging swashbuckler.

Right, but in this case, I think it would've been easier and clearer to say "I want to play an archetypal, sword-crossing, quip-slinging swashbuckler" - in part because it relies less on people getting your references, and in part because the entire descriptor adds to the understanding of the reader. :)



It's kinda like saying "I want to be a tough, badass soldier with cool one-liners, as played by Schwarzenegger or Bruce Willis." It conjures up a very specific image, in that he wants to play the character archetype straight, not as a tongue-in-cheek thing or as something much deeper than it initially seems.

Yeah, and I feel like this statement has the same problem - the second part doesn't add any further info, aside from maybe distracting people with names they may or may not recognize.

[Mordar]

As far as I'm aware, Fairbanks and Flynn are very famous for playing exactly those kinds of stereotypical swashbucklers.


Oh, I know who they both are - my point was that the reference isn't useful.

It provides a stylistic or thematic addition to the stereotype that further specifies the characterization.


So the information conveyed here would be that he wants to play an archetypical, sword-crossing , quip-slinging swashbuckler.


Right, but in this case, I think it would've been easier and clearer to say "I want to play an archetypal, sword-crossing, quip-slinging swashbuckler" - in part because it relies less on people getting your references, and in part because the entire descriptor adds to the understanding of the reader. :)

Well, do you mean one like Sinbad, or one like Thorpe, or one like Wesley from Princess Bride, or one like Aramis, or one like Porthos, or one like Athos, or one like Robin Hood, or one like...

Sure, they have a lot in common, but each has a different flavor.


It's kinda like saying "I want to be a tough, badass soldier with cool one-liners, as played by Schwarzenegger or Bruce Willis." It conjures up a very specific image, in that he wants to play the character archetype straight, not as a tongue-in-cheek thing or as something much deeper than it initially seems.


Yeah, and I feel like this statement has the same problem - the second part doesn't add any further info, aside from maybe distracting people with names they may or may not recognize.

Now I would never have put Schwarzenegger and Willis together in this kind of reference...but the same thing applies. Just look at the cast of Predator (at least 4 different badass soldier archetypes there) vs. the two Rambo archetypes vs. the Platoon archetypes (DaFoe vs. Berringer). Plenty of different flavors.

Referencing a particular role or performer can add quite a bit to the subject/type, but yes, it does require knowledge of the characters/actors on the part of the listeners. In those cases it is excellent short hand and adds far more information than distraction.

- M

[Theoboldi]

Now I would never have put Schwarzenegger and Willis together in this kind of reference...


Eh, blame it on me not watching that many action movies but needing a quick comparison. :smalltongue:

[AshfireMage]

A couple from the in-person games I've been in:


Showing up late to sessions. I'm not always super on-time myself and I'm totally willing to forgive (or heck, most likely not even notice) five, ten, even fifteen minutes here or there. But when you're consistently 20+ minutes late with no warning or for silly reasons (I was half an hour late because I wanted to make dinner, which I neglected to start until five minutes before we were supposed to begin! I can't just make a bowl of cereal or stick something in the microwave! And no, I'm not going to share). If the session time really isn't working for you, it's your responsibility to let the DM know so it can get moved or a compromise can be made. Don't have us all show up and twiddle our thumbs while we wait for you to get your crap together and come downstairs.
Not leveling up your character when that's something you're normally supposed to do between sessions, then making everyone wait while you do it. Particularly annoying for casters who take forever to redo their spell lists.
Showing up to sessions drunk/high/whathaveyou. Either the whole table does, or the whole table doesn't. It's not fun to have everyone sober except the one dude who's had enough to be loud and obnoxious, but still functional enough to play.
Excessive PDA. It's wonderful that you can game with your significant other, and I'm glad you guys love each other. Please stop smooching every five minutes. Especially when you're playing siblings.


From my online games:


Not reading the rules/asking questions that could easily be answered by reading the clearly labeled "New Player Help" section. Related to that, complaining when the GMs won't make exceptions to their clearly stated rules for you. If the V:tM game says the Sabbat clans aren't open, the Sabbat clans are not open. And if there was going to be an exception, it probably would not be this random person we've never met before.
Pitching a fit because the GM's word overrides players'. Context being that because the GMs aren't always around, people will occasionally another player for help/advice. Sometimes a GM will later contradict this, which has led to a couple of meltdowns because "how dare the GM not just go along with what another player told me"/"how dare this other player not be able to magically predict what the GM is going to say with perfect accuracy 100% of the time"
Pitching a fit because the GM wants you to tweak your bio to fit into the game when that was noted as being part of the game in the rules.

[Ninja-Radish]

When I DM, I work with my players on their backstories, if only because I'm trying to figure out what motivates the characters and how to integrate them into where the game's starting. I also have run Exalted most recently, so working with them on why they have the Backgrounds they do helps me make those Backgrounds interesting.

When I play, I come up with as much backstory as I need to help me know what my character is doing in this adventure. I try to work with the DM to integrate it to the setting so I have a good grounding in how the character will react to things that happen in the setting.





Personally, I tend to select against associating with people who swear excessively. Since this is a personal choice, "excessively" is a personally subjective judgment. I can understand not wanting to game with people who swear a lot, because it can mean not enjoying the game or being distracted by it. So, if the majority of the table has a "no swearing" rule, they presumably don't like swearing and don't want to be subjected to it. It's no different than any other social contract. Don't play the flaming homosexual character at the table full of people who are made uncomfortable by shounen-ai and yaoi, and don't play the flaming gay-basher at a table full of LGBTQ-friendly types who are made uncomfortable by such abusive behavior even by fictional characters. Don't play the straight-laced paladin who enforces "good behavior" on the whole party with a group of people playing ne'er-do-wells and sneaky gits, and don't play the NE necromancer who animates the dead and rubs their families' noses in it in the party full of NG and LG heroes. And don't act out the foul-mouthed PC's expletives at a table full of people who don't like swearing.

Oh, so then according to your rules, I get to tell everyone else how to play their characters too, including how to speak and what to say as well as what not to say.

And you think everyone having that level of control over everyone else's gaming is the preferred method? That just doesn't sound fun to me. If I want to be told how to speak and what to do, I'll go to work.

I prefer my method: I have no say in how other people play, and they have no say in how I play.

[2D8HP]

Oh, I know who they both are - my point was that the reference isn't useful....

...in this case, I think it would've been easier and clearer to say "I want to play an archetypical, sword-crossing, quip-slinging swashbuckler" - in part because it relies less on people getting your references, and in part because the entire descriptor adds to the understanding of the reader. :)


That's a fair point, and presumably a GM could judge how a potential player for a PbP writes, but it is a PC description, not a history (For tabletop there's less but still some correlation, between how well one can write and talk).

Since writing a fictive history is in some ways closer to the spur-of-the-moment writing that PbP requires, I can see why a GM would audition potential players that way. I just don't like it because the character histories I can best write, are not the ones I most want to play.

But what I've found with the PbP games that I've been accepted to play in is that length and graphics seems to be what determines who plays (since I can read other players submissions on the thread).

For example in a game which the GM said "no evil", this has resulted in an acceptance of a player that wrote a very long back-story, with a snazzy PC illustration, that had it actually been read by the GM, indicated an evil PC, he even put "Chaotic Neutral" in quotation marks!
Very shortly after play began the GM quit after what was mostly IC bickering amongst the PC's.

From those who defend the "submit a back-story" ritual, I have seen a quality game for a PbP that I was rejected for, so it looks like that GM selected the right players, but mostly I've seen word count be the determining factor, and while learning that has made it easier for me (if I want to play a PbP I just copy and paste long back-stories that I've written before, sometimes I even bother to edit it to fit the character sheet, but usually it makes little difference), still the ritual bugs me.


...do you mean one like Sinbad, or one like Thorpe, or one like Wesley from Princess Bride, or one like Aramis, or one like Porthos, or one like Athos, or one like Robin Hood, or one like...


I like your genre knowledge @Mordar, I'd like to play Thorpe in Sinbad's world please :smile:




From my online games:


Pitching a fit because the GM wants you to tweak your bio to fit into the game when that was noted as being part of the game in the rules.



:redface:

Moi?

[Segev]

Oh, so then according to your rules, I get to tell everyone else how to play their characters too, including how to speak and what to say as well as what not to say. How's that any different from being at work?

And you think everyone having that level of control over everyone else's gaming is the preferred method? Sounds like a complete and utter sh*tshow to me.

I prefer my method: I have no say in how other people play, and they have no say in how I play.

That's quite the impressive straw-stuffed effigy of me you've made. Would you like help soaking it in kerosene?


If I don't like how a large part of a table is playing, I might politely request them to change it, but it is up to them whether they wish to or not. It is also up to me whether I wish to continue gaming with them or not; I have self-removed from tables mid-session when it got too unbearably unpleasant. (This was a one-shot game of a system I only sort-of enjoy where everybody else was getting drunk enough to be obnoxious. As I do not drink, and they kept breaking out the harder liquors, I decided it was not going to get more fun for me and bowed out.) I think that a far cry from dictating to others how they must play.

Conversely, however, I think - to extend a similar straw man of your position - it incredibly selfish of you to demand that everybody else kowtow to your preferences and tolerate your behavior that makes them uncomfortable and enjoy the game less, when the rest of them are all agreed that that kind of behavior is unacceptable. Do you also get to tell them to suck it up when you choose to have your character murder the NPCs they are trying to be friends with and to stop telling you how to play your character when you want to describe your graphic rape scenes?

Seriously, how do you get "I want to tell others how to play" out of "There's a social contract at the table; don't play and behave inappropriately for that group?"

[Ninja-Radish]

That's quite the impressive straw-stuffed effigy of me you've made. Would you like help soaking it in kerosene?


If I don't like how a large part of a table is playing, I might politely request them to change it, but it is up to them whether they wish to or not. It is also up to me whether I wish to continue gaming with them or not; I have self-removed from tables mid-session when it got too unbearably unpleasant. (This was a one-shot game of a system I only sort-of enjoy where everybody else was getting drunk enough to be obnoxious. As I do not drink, and they kept breaking out the harder liquors, I decided it was not going to get more fun for me and bowed out.) I think that a far cry from dictating to others how they must play.

Conversely, however, I think - to extend a similar straw man of your position - it incredibly selfish of you to demand that everybody else kowtow to your preferences and tolerate your behavior that makes them uncomfortable and enjoy the game less, when the rest of them are all agreed that that kind of behavior is unacceptable. Do you also get to tell them to suck it up when you choose to have your character murder the NPCs they are trying to be friends with and to stop telling you how to play your character when you want to describe your graphic rape scenes?

Seriously, how do you get "I want to tell others how to play" out of "There's a social contract at the table; don't play and behave inappropriately for that group?"

Other people do all kinds of stuff that bugs me at the table. I have never once told them to knock it off or asked them to leave. I put my feelings aside so that they can have fun. Why is it so awful to expect the same consideration in return?

That said, you are correct that I read too much into your post and I apologize for that.

[Quertus]

From this Forum I've learned that Firefly must be the best show ever,

It is!

Btw, did you view the other movies before watching Avengers? Did the internets and your friends spoil most of the movie before you watched it? These are the two factors that I have seen make people not enjoy the first Avengers movie when they otherwise would have.

[Segev]

Other people do all kinds of stuff that bugs me at the table. I have never once told them to knock it off or asked them to leave. I put my feelings aside so that they can have fun. Why is it so awful to expect the same consideration in return? You're perfectly free to. I just recommend that, if you really have to play that sailor who swears up a storm (or must swear, yourself, at the table), that you find a group that isn't made uncomfortable by it/doesn't mind, rather than being upset that a group has a - probably unspoken before you came along - prohibition against swearing. (Or, more likely, just a low tolerance for much of it.)

...though now I'm amused by a sailor in a magic-enabled setting who has the magical gift of swearing up literal storms.

Anyway, there's nothing wrong with a group having comfort zones and levels. If their comfort level is incompatible with yours, it's best to find a different group rather than insist they adapt to you. You can try and see if they'll agree to loosen up, or if you can tone it down, but you have no more right to demand that the whole table tolerate your swearing than I would have a right to tell you - at a table where nobody else minded - to stop swearing. I could ask you to stop, but I have no right to demand it. And, if you didn't, I would have the choice of tolerating it or leaving. It would probably only make me leave if it was so excessive that it was unignorable, or if it was the last straw on top of other irritations, personally.


That said, you are correct that I read too much into your post and I apologize for that.Apology accepted.

I really was just trying to make the point that groups are allowed to have social contracts regarding behavior, and individuals can self-select for groups that have social contracts they like. Or at least can tolerate.

[Airk]

Well, do you mean one like Sinbad, or one like Thorpe, or one like Wesley from Princess Bride, or one like Aramis, or one like Porthos, or one like Athos, or one like Robin Hood, or one like...

Sure, they have a lot in common, but each has a different flavor.

Yes, and saying "as played by <actor who has played many of those types>" doesn't help. :)

[Mordar]

Yes, and saying "as played by <actor who has played many of those types>" doesn't help. :)

Except it really does...because often the actors become "typecast" such that virtually all Schwarzenegger soldiers are of the same flavor (as are most Flynn swashbucklers, etc)...so saying Schwarzenegger instead of Dutch (or Matrix or Danko) is much more informative than the character names. You know, avoiding the distraction of names you might or might not know by using one you almost certainly do.

...and then we have the difference between Depardieu's Porthos and Stevenson's Porthos and Platt's Porthos where all have elements that are similar, but still delivered fairly differently.

- M

[AshfireMage]

:redface:

Moi?

That wasn't aimed specifically at you, don't worry. I was thinking more of a couple of (potential) players for the game I'm in right now. It straight-up says in the rules that we're playing in a long-running game in an established fictional setting, so if your backstory contradicts lore or just doesn't fit, we'll ask you to make changes. The players proceeded to loose their minds when they were actually asked to make said changes.

I don't have an issue with people who don't like backstories, or don't think they should have to change them, or whatever. Just please don't ask to skip it in in a game that's been running for years with those rules in place.

[SirBellias]

The one thing that bugs me in a game is when the players decide to do things to purposefully screw with my expectations and plans. This has led me to never make any plans to begin with and not invest very much into my games, and my ability to make a coherent and serious game has suffered for it.

In explanation: In my high-school games, I was the only person who DMed with any regularity. I used to have some sort of adventure planned out, usually with encounters, NPCs with goals and needs and wants, and the standard adventure stuff. My players were the classic murderhobo gambit, but with one caveat: They would only truly enjoy doing something if it was the opposite of what I expected. So it went as they tried to figure out what I wanted them to do and then run in the opposite direction, string up a random NPC in an alleyway, or do something else nonsensical. I didn't realize that they were specifically trying to screw with any plans I had until I stopped making any. I tested this theory last fall when I got everyone together to play PARANOIA and the ringleader decided good teamwork and working together was a good idea with a ****eating grin on his face. And everyone went along with it, and the game was definitely worse off. I did expect him to do that, though, so I won! Right?

On a side note, one of the players in that group has started to try to find what I expect them to do and go along with it, which is a shame because I now don't expect them to do anything at all.

TL;DR: Play with those friends you have that probably aren't out to shatter your ideas of a fun time at every opportunity.

[Octomac]

The one thing that bugs me in a game is when the players decide to do things to purposefully screw with my expectations and plans. This has led me to never make any plans to begin with and not invest very much into my games, and my ability to make a coherent and serious game has suffered for it.

...

TL;DR: Play with those friends you have that probably aren't out to shatter your ideas of a fun time at every opportunity.

So, this hits home for me. I ran a regular game for a while a few months ago. As the game went on over several sessions, I could tell that the players had lost some interest, despite my attempts at remaining dynamic and engaging. So, in an effort to help the group engage with the game more, I went around to each player individually and had a casual conversation about what they liked about the game, and what they were struggling with or would like less of.

One of the members of the group was... you know what, I'm going to go with "disruptive" here. He did the same thing as your players -- tried to figure out what I had planned, and then wreck that for no reason. When I came around to him, for that same conversation that I had with the other players, I asked a few questions.

"Do you want more tactical combat?"

"Nope."

"Do you want more social engagement or longer-running plot-lines?"

"Not really."

"Do you want more puzzles and brain-teasers?"

"Nah."

"Well, I'm at a loss here. How can I make this more interesting for you?"

"Honestly, I really just like messing up your plans. Like, it really amuses me when I ruin your plans and you get frustrated."

Bold-faced and honest, I'll give him that. The game drifted apart shortly thereafter.

[Kane0]

http://pm1.narvii.com/5761/f34356facfe078d96516628511156217a12e1116_hq.jpg

People who cannot see beyond the rules or outside of the box. Those who believe everything goes wrong if you deviate from what is RAW or canon.

The point of fantasy is to imagine and explore all the possible things we can come up with together as a means of entertainment, not to stick to the same tired orcs & elves stories over and over. If I want to make a world where humanoids are split into thematic categories that don't allow for half breeds don't try to tell me that Half-Orcs are integral to the game and nothing will function with their absense. I know you were all going to play humans anyway.
Similarly if I propose homebrew material I will not accept 'It isn't official' as a sufficient reason to disallow it. I'm happy to argue the finer points of balance and flavor within the context it will be introduced but locking everything down to the dev's written-in-stone commandments just stifles creativity and denies people the satisfaction of contributing.
You can't tell me that the whole Homebrew section of this forum or countless other places are a waste of time and effort just because they don't have the creator's seal of approval and a spot in their printed books. Thats just ridiculous. If you're going to knock back custom content or alternative/optional rules then give me a proper reason.

[Godskook]

-The third thing I can't stand is alignment restrictions. The DM can suggest a preferable alignment, but if I want to be an evil bastard, let me be, and, should I fail to blend in with the group, let me face the concequences. Sure, it might be more dificult to blend in with a group that has a LG Paladin, but why restrict my character, and not his for example? Let me play my character the way I like, and if I can't blend in, punish me in game.

Fine.

Your character's reputation and crimes are well known to the powers that "recruited you", your invitation to Kintarra was a mere ploy to lure you into a trap. Your character is sentenced to execution by powers beyond his capability of fighting, roll a new character.

No, this isn't a contrivance, this is the standard campaign hook for my currently running campaign, modified to react to the character you presented to it.

[Honest Tiefling]

Other people do all kinds of stuff that bugs me at the table. I have never once told them to knock it off or asked them to leave. I put my feelings aside so that they can have fun. Why is it so awful to expect the same consideration in return?

Because that's not how most people interact in a positive and healthy way. If something bothers you and you don't mention it, they owe you nothing because they have no way to know that something went wrong. If you game with people you know would rather keep doing something then make sure everyone is having fun, they are self-centered. If you do the same, you are also self-centered because your fun is the only factor, not compromise to find a way to have fun with everyone.

Why you would try to run a social game where everyone is acting in a selfish way is quite beyond me.

[Quertus]

Fine.

Your character's reputation and crimes are well known to the powers that "recruited you", your invitation to Kintarra was a mere ploy to lure you into a trap. Your character is sentenced to execution by powers beyond his capability of fighting, roll a new character.

No, this isn't a contrivance, this is the standard campaign hook for my currently running campaign, modified to react to the character you presented to it.

Alignment =/= criminal status

Now, sure, "don't run a criminal, because your employers will execute you" makes sense. But "don't run alignment foo"? For no reason? Not so much.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Alignment =/= having a reputation either.

[SirBellias]

"Honestly, I really just like messing up your plans. Like, it really amuses me when I ruin your plans and you get frustrated."

Bold-faced and honest, I'll give him that. The game drifted apart shortly thereafter.

Wowza. When I asked, I definitely didn't get any sort of direct answer.

I do recognize that my player's behavior may have been in response to being one of my earlier nerd friends to start gaming with me, so my games were fairly terrible to begin with. I definitely grew into a better GM after listening to feedback and a few pointed criticisms from a friend who was definitely better than me by the time I got around to this point, though, so I don't know if he was still in the "this will make the game better" mindset or not.

Really annoying, either way.

[Pex]

http://pm1.narvii.com/5761/f34356facfe078d96516628511156217a12e1116_hq.jpg

People who cannot see beyond the rules or outside of the box. Those who believe everything goes wrong if you deviate from what is RAW or canon.

The point of fantasy is to imagine and explore all the possible things we can come up with together as a means of entertainment, not to stick to the same tired orcs & elves stories over and over. If I want to make a world where humanoids are split into thematic categories that don't allow for half breeds don't try to tell me that Half-Orcs are integral to the game and nothing will function with their absense. I know you were all going to play humans anyway.
Similarly if I propose homebrew material I will not accept 'It isn't official' as a sufficient reason to disallow it. I'm happy to argue the finer points of balance and flavor within the context it will be introduced but locking everything down to the dev's written-in-stone commandments just stifles creativity and denies people the satisfaction of contributing.
You can't tell me that the whole Homebrew section of this forum or countless other places are a waste of time and effort just because they don't have the creator's seal of approval and a spot in their printed books. Thats just ridiculous. If you're going to knock back custom content or alternative/optional rules then give me a proper reason.

It would be denied because the DM doesn't know it himself. If he doesn't know it he can't plan for it. If it's simple enough he may look it over, but if he has to read its own handbook he's entitled to not even bother. Something being official is also trust in the publishing company that it was vetted and given a stamp of approval to work. That's not a guarantee, of course, since there are plenty of examples of official published stuff not working right, but the company would still have higher credibility than some guy on the internet or third party publishing. It's wonderful if a DM is willing to try out homebrew or 3rd party stuff. Have fun. The DM is not doing it wrong if he would rather not and stick to what he knows.

However, I acknowledge this is a bother for you anyway.

Yes, sometimes I do side with the DM. :smallbiggrin:

[Kane0]

It would be denied because the DM doesn't know it himself. If he doesn't know it he can't plan for it. If it's simple enough he may look it over, but if he has to read its own handbook he's entitled to not even bother. Something being official is also trust in the publishing company that it was vetted and given a stamp of approval to work. That's not a guarantee, of course, since there are plenty of examples of official published stuff not working right, but the company would still have higher credibility than some guy on the internet or third party publishing. It's wonderful if a DM is willing to try out homebrew or 3rd party stuff. Have fun. The DM is not doing it wrong if he would rather not and stick to what he knows.

However, I acknowledge this is a bother for you anyway.

Yes, sometimes I do side with the DM. :smallbiggrin:

That's a totally valid response to me. You are fully justified in not trusting some random on the internet and preferring to read and understand it all before making judgement. If that requires you to read a whole book's worth to get your head around a full subsystem plus accompanying class(es), feats, spells, etc then I understand it's more effort than it's worth. But don't tell me you couldn't be bothered giving a single spell, feat or ability a once over yourself. Thats less than the blurb of the next monster you were going to look up in the Monster Manual.

This irks me in particular because I am resident Rules Guy of my group. If I comment on the balance of something my words are generally heeded. I am lucky enough to have encouraged the freedom to brew enough in my group that I get to try stuff, not just allow it when I DM.

[Jerrykhor]

So, this hits home for me. I ran a regular game for a while a few months ago. As the game went on over several sessions, I could tell that the players had lost some interest, despite my attempts at remaining dynamic and engaging. So, in an effort to help the group engage with the game more, I went around to each player individually and had a casual conversation about what they liked about the game, and what they were struggling with or would like less of.

One of the members of the group was... you know what, I'm going to go with "disruptive" here. He did the same thing as your players -- tried to figure out what I had planned, and then wreck that for no reason. When I came around to him, for that same conversation that I had with the other players, I asked a few questions.

"Do you want more tactical combat?"

"Nope."

"Do you want more social engagement or longer-running plot-lines?"

"Not really."

"Do you want more puzzles and brain-teasers?"

"Nah."

"Well, I'm at a loss here. How can I make this more interesting for you?"

"Honestly, I really just like messing up your plans. Like, it really amuses me when I ruin your plans and you get frustrated."

Bold-faced and honest, I'll give him that. The game drifted apart shortly thereafter.

https://i.imgflip.com/1o1pp4.jpg (https://imgflip.com/i/1o1pp4)

[Griffith!]

Well, I'm only in my late twenties, but I'm the "old man" in my regular group - which includes a forty year old - and by default the only regular GM. So my complaints are mostly about the radically different approaches we have to the hobby and, frankly, fantasy in general.

First, I've been playing since I was eleven and I started in 2e. So most of the characters I envision for my stories tend to be things like elves or dragons or githzerai. Modrons, if we're thinking outside the box. They're almost never Shobad, Astomoi or Androids. I'm not opposed to unusual, rare or monstrous PCs, but more and more I'm seeing parties comprised either entirely or almost entirely of them. And in a setting where every village is comprised of 80% humans, do you realise how strange that group must look? I get that elves have been around since the advent of the genre, but picking a "weird" race doesn't make your character more interesting or even less stale and boring, if the only interesting thing about them is their race. Which is my next point.

An unusual or rare race or class isn't a substitute for a character. By which I mean that you can't just play a grippli gunslinger and assume that's the end of the story. How did your grippli become a gunslinger? Why? What led your grippli gunslinger to where he is now? And what makes your grippli gunslinger assume he can seduce the virginal eleven princess? I may or may not be referencing a specific player here.

And while we're on characters and the how's why's and where's, what's so evil about backgrounds? I ask for one and I get groans from the group. Admittedly, I'm the kind of gamer who wrote a background for Hector the farmer you met briefly on the side of the road four sessions ago just in case, but I'm not looking for a masterpiece or an excerpt from your novel. I just want a clear picture of who your character is, as a person. I want to know where he came from and yes, absolutely, I want characters I can work back in as NPCs. Especially family and rivals. I live for that stuff.

What I'm not looking for is the 337th tragic and grimdark revenge tale ripped straight out of a nineties blockbuster. By the time I got to one character's third narrowly escaped rape, I mostly just get slightly concerned for the player. And once again, I might be referring to a specific player here too.

And mechanics divorced from character. That bugs me too. If nothing in your background justifies your alternate racial or class features, why should I allow you take them? Because you really wanted a +2 there? Mechanics are all well and good, and who doesn't love numerical advantages? But this isn't Math Simulator and I'm not going through the effort of describing these myriad people and places so your +2 can blandly wander through and roll dice at them.

And that's more or less the crux of my complaint - this is a collaborative story telling game. We have to actually be trying to tell a story. And that's more than just conflict and resolution, it's role-playing. Don't just ask me if you can roll diplomacy. Tell me what your character says. Don't just wait for the monsters to pop out, take the initiative and do something. Ask for details. Describe your actions. Make the thing come alive a little. I'm so tired and handholding and set pieces. I blame video games - they're waiting for the random encounters and picking actions off a menu.

And power levels - why does every adventurer have to be a super hero? I fondly remember running away, dying suddenly, and out thinking my opponents. But that's a playstyle that has fallen out of vogue, it seems. You need an eighteen in at least one stat and you have to start with a flaming sword and six class features or your character is just pathetic. Never mind that a stat as high as eighteen should be exceedingly rare or that your class features make you Superman next to a commoner - something you are separated from by only a few years of training. Every character has to be super special awesome or it's boring.

Alright, so that last complaint was aimed more at the publishers, but the frankly Final Fantasy level of power most PCs develop has always been a sticking point for me in 3.5 and on.

Speaking of, what is with the endless and pointless collection of variant options? Why are there a dozen mechanically diverse breeds of elf? Why are there several dozen riffs on "fighter", which is already a very diverse class. At what point did making your character different and interesting become the province of mechanics and not imagination? I still remember the days when a Samurai was a fighter with feats that support the conceit. But there are two different Samurai classes in 3.5, both of which are actually mechanically weaker than the refluffed fighter.

But that's just stubborn resistance to something over and done with. Don't let my hatred of Tome of Battle derail my whinging. I still think sorcery or psionics should be an option to tack onto a race, rather than class features. If it comes naturally to you, why should you have to train it at the exclusion of all else? Why can't a psychic be a thief without years of experience? Game balance, of course. The answer is game balance.

But too much focus is put on the rules anyway, while I'm already griping. I've always played it fairly loose with what they've printed - after all, what's Wizards going to do? Arrest me for swapping Fort and Will saves for a player's fighter? He was an iron-willed knight fueled by his determination and unshakable loyalty. It made sense. And in my campaigns, the damage for daggers and long swords have always been switched in close quarters, because you can actually use a short blade when there's little space to swing your arm. Some feats are great mechanically, but too closed off by theme. So sure, Dervish Dance works with a katana, if you wield it in one hand. I don't get GMs that slavishly follow the rules as written at the expense of characters. Mechanics should make your ideas playable, not the other way around. We call them houserules, and they should be embraced.

And on the subject of GMs, your story isn't more important than my character's. In fact, if you're doing your job right then it's a part of it. I agree not to derail your plot if you agree not to derail mine. I've already told you who my character is and what he's trying to accomplish. You were warned in advance. So if my stated objective is to get a castle of my very own and marry my childhood sweetheart, don't tell me halfway through the campaign that I can't get a castle because we're not allowed to build bases. You knew what I wanted out of this campaign, and you should have either adjusted accordingly or told me before we began so that I could.

Use the background I gave you. You asked for it.

Rant over. That's not everything that bugs me, but it's a fairly concise rundown.

[Quertus]

And while we're on characters and the how's why's and where's, what's so evil about backgrounds? I ask for one and I get groans from the group.

and yes, absolutely, I want characters I can work back in as NPCs. Especially family and rivals. I live for that stuff.

While I sympathize with you on a lot of the role-playing stuff, let me 'splain why this bit is something that bugs me, and one of the reasons I play characters who are "not from around here". See, it's about role-playing.

Simply put, if I try to describe my IRL family to you, and then you, having presumably never met them, attempt to use them as NPCs in a game I'm in, well, the performance will fall flat at best, and more likely be an insulting parody. I've never had a GM who could successfully pull off role-playing the background characters with which my character would have formed the relationships he did that turned him into the person he is today (or, at least, the person he was as of when he began adventuring). GMs attempting to run characters from my backstory simply kills my backstory, and, with it, my character. No thank you. So I'm "not from around here".

You should ask your players what their reasons are.


And on the subject of GMs, your story isn't more important than my character's. In fact, if you're doing your job right then it's a part of it. I agree not to derail your plot if you agree not to derail mine.

This is awesome, too.

Admittedly, I usually go the opposite route, and believe that anyone having / trying to force a plan is a bad sign / a recipe for disaster, coming from more of a drop-in game mindset, and gaming with people who seem allergic to communication, but your way is better.

[2D8HP]

Use the background I gave you. You asked for it.


The majority don't.

It's all bout word count.

I keep harping on this, but it's frustrating.

As I said before, I've never seen any back story histories ever used, but most DM's demand them.

I've seen a DM who specified "no evil" PC's accept players as far as I can tell based on word count, including another player who's PC was a Cleric of a "God of Murder", and since I actually read the back stories the other players submitted, it was obvious to me that despite "Chaotic Neutral" being on the character sheet (with quotation marks!), that the PC was evil.

The "campaign" ended very shortly after it started when the DM quit, after the players actually played the characters suggested by their PC's back-stories.

He selected the menagerie of PC's, and had he actually bothered to read the back-stories he demanded he should have guessed how the PC's would have acted, and since all the PC's selected had the longest back-stories it was obvious to me that he just looked for length.

I know that the more text I submit the better my chances of acceptance is.

As an experiment, I submitted the same back-story to two different DM's, one with a few extra paragraphs tacked on at the end that really added nothing to the story

Guess which one got accepted.

For a PbP at this Forum I once submitted this:

"Lokela Makani (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheet.html#id=1050883)
Curses cruel fate:
CURSE YOU, CRUEL FATE!
His misanthropic nature is simply the outward manifestation of a deep-seated insecurity, resulting from the internalization of the notion that he is apart from others and always will be, that he somehow stands alone, and that no one will ever truly understand the incredible, titanic struggle within himself, nor will he ever truly be able to relate this to another person, no matter how close they become.

His behavior and affectations are, in large part, due to this deep-seated need for understanding and acceptance. And yet, who can truly claim to understand or know him? Of course, he does what he must do to survive, but there will always be that shadow of self-doubt. The kind that can usually only be expressed during brooding internal monologues while he crouches, hunched and ready to leap at a moment's notice, as the rain pours down his hooded and implacable face.

THERE WILL BE A RECKONING!

You gotta' have the rain. That makes the whole scene."

That PC was accepted.

I rest my case.

[Griffith!]

Simply put, if I try to describe my IRL family to you, and then you, having presumably never met them, attempt to use them as NPCs in a game I'm in, well, the performance will fall flat at best, and more likely be an insulting parody. I've never had a GM who could successfully pull off role-playing the background characters with which my character would have formed the relationships he did that turned him into the person he is today (or, at least, the person he was as of when he began adventuring). GMs attempting to run characters from my backstory simply kills my backstory, and, with it, my character. No thank you. So I'm "not from around here".
That's 100% valid. I get that actually - I wouldn't like someone else role-playing a character I'd invested time in either. I would actually mitigate that the best I could by getting as much detail about them as I could in order to play them to the best of my ability, but that's no guarantee either. Even with me bothering you with a dozen questions about your NPCs. If that would be a sticking point then yeah, better not to try.

Myself, I don't mind so much just so long as the NPC in question isn't wildly out of character for no good reason. Like an adoring little sister that appears to scream obscenities at my character for no apparent reason and then run away without explanation. The GM says she's angry with my PC, no reason given, and she never appears again. Rude.

Of course, you might be a rarity anyway - not everyone is as attached to their character's background characters or as invested in their accurate characterization. I am, but I think I've already illustrated that I take the "role-playing" side of things a little too seriously.

That said, I'm not insisting every character have family of friends that could pop up in the campaign. I just prefer it when they do. It makes the story feel more personal. But if that's not fun for a player I don't push it. Because the hobby is supposed to be fun, after all.

Admittedly, I usually go the opposite route, and believe that anyone having / trying to force a plan is a bad sign / a recipe for disaster, coming from more of a drop-in game mindset, and gaming with people who seem allergic to communication, but your way is better.
Yeah, depends on the player really. For instance, there is one specific player in my regular group that I'm a little leery of when it comes to planning anything in advance. It's almost always trouble, especially when he says "it's a surprise". He usually stops just short of derailing the campaign, but he really enjoys toeing that line. But I'm always very clear about what my intentions are as GM and as a player. And that's key, really, communication.

In a drop in game or with a random group of strangers online I usually just let the GM take the lead unless I have an idea I'm really desperate to try. Like the Drow brothers thing I'm trying to get off the ground.

[Scripten]

-snip-

"Well, I'm at a loss here. How can I make this more interesting for you?"

"Honestly, I really just like messing up your plans. Like, it really amuses me when I ruin your plans and you get frustrated."

Bold-faced and honest, I'll give him that. The game drifted apart shortly thereafter.

I would have replied that he was not welcome in my games after that, honestly. People who play to ruin other people's fun (including the DM, on either side of the coin) deserve to play in a group of one.


That's a totally valid response to me. You are fully justified in not trusting some random on the internet and preferring to read and understand it all before making judgement. If that requires you to read a whole book's worth to get your head around a full subsystem plus accompanying class(es), feats, spells, etc then I understand it's more effort than it's worth. But don't tell me you couldn't be bothered giving a single spell, feat or ability a once over yourself. Thats less than the blurb of the next monster you were going to look up in the Monster Manual.


Sometimes that depends. 5E (which is what I usually play) isn't really a well-oiled machine, but sometimes small changes can have massive unforeseen impacts on the game. I suppose in this case it's likely that you don't bring unbalanced spells to the game, but a lot of the homebrew races/classes I've seen (usually not from here) end up breaking the game in some fashion or another. While that "broken" part may just be the sudden redundancy of a core class/race, I generally operate under "no homebrew unless you can prove it's balanced and necessary", just for the sake of my own sanity as DM. For instance, why play as what amounts to a Fighter/Bard when you can already make a Fight/Bard and say that your character is a [insert class name here]?

[LordCdrMilitant]

But too much focus is put on the rules anyway, while I'm already griping. I've always played it fairly loose with what they've printed - after all, what's Wizards going to do? Arrest me for swapping Fort and Will saves for a player's fighter? He was an iron-willed knight fueled by his determination and unshakable loyalty. It made sense. And in my campaigns, the damage for daggers and long swords have always been switched in close quarters, because you can actually use a short blade when there's little space to swing your arm. Some feats are great mechanically, but too closed off by theme. So sure, Dervish Dance works with a katana, if you wield it in one hand. I don't get GMs that slavishly follow the rules as written at the expense of characters. Mechanics should make your ideas playable, not the other way around. We call them houserules, and they should be embraced.

And power levels - why does every adventurer have to be a super hero? I fondly remember running away, dying suddenly, and out thinking my opponents. But that's a playstyle that has fallen out of vogue, it seems. You need an eighteen in at least one stat and you have to start with a flaming sword and six class features or your character is just pathetic. Never mind that a stat as high as eighteen should be exceedingly rare or that your class features make you Superman next to a commoner - something you are separated from by only a few years of training. Every character has to be super special awesome or it's boring.


Uh, what? Longswords are not heavy nor difficult to use in close quarters, ignoring the fact that, you know, they can only be used in close quarters at all.

Anyway, my approach towards players using homebrew things is "no, unless I say so."

With regards to power level, I've never found it a problem when players have 18's or higher in their starting stats. From the mechanical balance side of the matter, its fairly irrelevant, since I set the balance and prepare the hostiles based on the party's capabilities. From the roleplay side of the matter, I use the charts on the d20pfsrd for reference. Especially for the mental stats, using the descriptions offered, it's not hard to place yourself and people you know fairly high sometimes:
I'd say I'm
STR 8-9
DEX 10-11
CON 10-11
INT 14-15
WIS 12-13
CHA 16-17
If 10 is the "Average Human Level" for many of these stats, the average seems really low. I suspect most people can guess fairly accurately when someone else is upset, and being greeted and having conversations on the street and public transit is a matter of being cordial, observant, and not having your face buried in your phone all the time. [Actually, I could see the CHA 16-17 description being hard to hit if I didn't use public transit a lot. I see the same people on the bus every day, and know where they get on and get off, and can therefore hold conversations with them and remember them and be remembered.]

STR 18 "can break wood with his bare hands". I can't, but I definitely know someone who might be able to, depending on the quality and type of lumber, and he isn't superman by any means.

[Segev]

The one thing that bugs me in a game is when the players decide to do things to purposefully screw with my expectations and plans. This has led me to never make any plans to begin with and not invest very much into my games, and my ability to make a coherent and serious game has suffered for it.

In explanation: In my high-school games, I was the only person who DMed with any regularity. I used to have some sort of adventure planned out, usually with encounters, NPCs with goals and needs and wants, and the standard adventure stuff. My players were the classic murderhobo gambit, but with one caveat: They would only truly enjoy doing something if it was the opposite of what I expected. So it went as they tried to figure out what I wanted them to do and then run in the opposite direction, string up a random NPC in an alleyway, or do something else nonsensical. I didn't realize that they were specifically trying to screw with any plans I had until I stopped making any. I tested this theory last fall when I got everyone together to play PARANOIA and the ringleader decided good teamwork and working together was a good idea with a ****eating grin on his face. And everyone went along with it, and the game was definitely worse off. I did expect him to do that, though, so I won! Right?

On a side note, one of the players in that group has started to try to find what I expect them to do and go along with it, which is a shame because I now don't expect them to do anything at all.

TL;DR: Play with those friends you have that probably aren't out to shatter your ideas of a fun time at every opportunity.
While I agree that the players who are out just to frustrate the DM by "ruining his plans" are jerks, there is also an understandable satisfaction to discovering the rails and testing to see how far off them you can go.

The distinction is in whether it's a matter of "frustrate the DM" or a matter of "explore the limits of the world."

For you, and the group you're dealing with, SirBellias, I recommend abandoning predictions of what the PCs will do. That doesn't mean you stop planning. Oh, no. It means you have your NPCs and your setting, and you know what your NPCs' plans are. You have a solid idea of how their plans will clash and interact, and a good idea of their motives and resources and why they're doing what they're doing, so that you can predict how the NPCs will react to new situations. Don't try to predict the situations; try to know the NPCs well enough to know how they'll react to any situation. (Just like you would hopefully know how your PC, as a player, would react to any given situation once it's presented to you, without having had to pre-plan that reaction and predict that specific situation.)

Your player trying to "go along with" your plans is trying to be helpful. You can either out-and-out tell him that you no longer have plans for what the PCs will do, but instead have things going on that the PCs can change, which will alter how things go...or you can leave that aside and provide him with the most obvious string-along hooks. Give him NPCs who telegraph how they'd like him to respond, and let him go with it (if he thinks you're hinting at a choice) or fight against it (if he thinks you're hinting that the NPC is not to be trusted)...and just let him believe he's gone along with your plans.

For the player who enjoys wrecking things, either don't play with him, or don't let him bug you because, now, when he plays a CE jerk with an emphasis on "random" Chaos, you have a setting that will react to somebody who picks random people out of the world to execute in a back alley. He'll either enjoy the consequences, or he'll grow frustrated that you "seem" to have "planned" for it (when really, you just have a world and NPCs and they react appropriately to what he does).

[Lord Torath]

Uh, what? Longswords are not heavy nor difficult to use in close quarters, ignoring the fact that, you know, they can only be used in close quarters at all."Close Quarters" means different things in different situations. Compared to a longbow, a sword is definitely "close quarters". Compared to wrestling, not so much. Longswords, daggers, and pikes all have different effective ranges, even if they all qualify as "close quarters" weapons. Greatswords, pikes, halberds, glaives, and similar weapons are designed to be used against opponents 10-15 feet away from you.* Once your opponent is closer than ten feet, you need to drop the spear and draw your longsword. But once your opponent is less than 5 feet away from you, you no longer have the room needed to properly swing your longsword. A short sword or a dagger will be more effective. This is what they mean when someone is "inside your guard".

So when your opponent is less than five feet away from you*, the dagger does more damage than the longsword in Griffith!'s rules. Is it realistic? Kinda-sorta. Does it have verisimilitude? Definitely. Is it a good rule? Depends on what you're trying to accomplish with it and how it compares to the rest of the rules you use.

* Ranges are approximate. See the Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?518251-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XXIII) thread if you want to argue specifics.

[LordCdrMilitant]

"Close Quarters" means different things in different situations. Compared to a longbow, a sword is definitely "close quarters". Compared to wrestling, not so much. Longswords, daggers, and pikes all have different effective ranges, even if they all qualify as "close quarters" weapons. Greatswords, pikes, halberds, glaives, and similar weapons are designed to be used against opponents 10-15 feet away from you.* Once your opponent is closer than ten feet, you need to drop the spear and draw your longsword. But once your opponent is less than 5 feet away from you, you no longer have the room needed to properly swing your longsword. A short sword or a dagger will be more effective. This is what they mean when someone is "inside your guard".

So when your opponent is less than five feet away from you*, the dagger does more damage than the longsword in Griffith!'s rules. Is it realistic? Kinda-sorta. Does it have verisimilitude? Definitely. Is it a good rule? Depends on what you're trying to accomplish with it and how it compares to the rest of the rules you use.

* Ranges are approximate. See the Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?518251-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XXIII) thread if you want to argue specifics.

Having some experience in the matter, I might be inclined to disagree. 5' is plenty of room to stab someone, or cut at them. My arms are only 2-3" long, and if I have to, I can step backwards while making a horizontal cut, or extending as if to stab, in order to maintain the optimum distance. There are also techniques for using a sword at very, very close range, IIRC.

With regards to the wounds inflicted, I've never actually hurt someone, but I'd hazard a stab wound is a stab wound, no matter what. A sword might be marginally worse, being longer and able to penetrate farther, or being a cut. I don't think increasing dagger damage would be more realistic. There are restrictions on what weapons you can use in a grapple, and I don't think longsword is one of them but am fairly certain dagger is, so I think the "inside your guard" effect is fairly modeled.



Anyway, with regards to stats:

It kind of bugs me when players tell me their stats/character and then ask me if they can keep them. I honestly don't care! I might raise my eyebrow if you have straight 40's/12's/18's [and more importantly, so might the rest of the players], but really, it's your problem if you decided to "adjust" your stats, not mine.

Actually, this really bugs me.

You know, I wasn't watching you every minute of your character generation. I can't prove that you didn't make all the survival rolls in the Marines, and scored a promotion every term, and got every skill roll right where you wanted it. You know that to yourself. You don't have to try to deceive me if you didn't, because it's not working and I'm not going to stop you from playing the character concept you wanted to play anyway.

This is a thing I've noticed running Traveler. Less so in D&D and Dark Heresy, because it's not as obvious. Actually, I take that back, it's really obvious sometimes in D&D too.

[Xenohaz]

There's not a lot for me to add that hasn't been said already, but I'll throw in my two cents.
I've been running two campaigns (both 4e) for the last few months. A bit of background on each:

The first is with a group of longtime friends and siblings. It's part of an overarching timeline for which we each take turns DM'ing, and it recently became my turn. Since we're living in different places which are too far apart for us to feasibly meet up in person on a regular basis, it is entirely online, on Roll20. This is my serious campaign, with no murderhobo activity. All the characters are Good or Neutral. For simplicity's sake, I will refer to this as Campaign A from here on out.

The second is with a group of friends I've met in the last year or so at college. None of them had any past experience with D&D, but they all wanted to try it, so I volunteered to DM for them, as I have significantly more experience and resources (sourcebooks and a ddi subscription). I wasn't really sure what they wanted to do as a group in terms of seriousness, so I helped them make level 1 characters and planned a fairly basic "take out the bandits" segment. My plan was to use this to teach them about the game, and to use it as a baseline to get a feel for their roleplaying preferences. To make a long story short, it ended up going off the rails into chaotic shenanigans, and over time it has evolved into a semi-serious all-Evil campaign with a bit of murderhobo activity. Everyone's having a good time, and I am not uncomfortable running a campaign like this, so I never really bothered to turn them off that path. This one meets in person but uses Roll20 for maps, tokens, etc. This is Campaign B.

Both of these campaigns are pretty different, so my tastes on what is and is not acceptable for each are different as well. While there are unique elements in each, it's easy enough to see Campaign A as a "default" serious campaign, while Campaign B is the more chaotic campaign that seems to be fairly unpopular here. For both of them, I would echo the sentiment that the social contract of people playing together is important. There are very different implicit expectations for people playing in a game like Campaign A than there are for Campaign B.

That said, Campaign B has taught me a valuable lesson for DM'ing as well: if everyone's having fun, you don't need to fix anything. I still periodically ask for feedback, but if everyone is obviously enjoying themselves, I take that as indication that I am doing my job correctly.

Finally, some more general pet peeves of mine:

As a player:
-When the DM fails to prepare for each session. This one's pretty self-explanatory.
-When a session is abruptly canceled for an unsatisfying reason. I've had a few cancels for good reasons, but when the DM "just doesn't feel like it," I tend to get a little frustrated.

As a DM:
-"I [something horrifyingly inappropriate] the NPC/party member." This one's been said a lot in this thread, but I have to give some mention to Campaign B here. In the first few weeks of being a full-blown Evil campaign, there were some actions taken by one player that made everyone else extremely uncomfortable. Fortunately this was stopped before it got too out of control, but it was a slippery slope if allowed to continue. Even in an Evil campaign, some things just go too far.
-Extreme special snowflake characters. Admittedly there's some residual bitterness here for me. In the last campaign in Campaign A's timeline, there was a pretty significant amount of this, and it was a long-term issue of tension for the group. I don't think it's coming back, but it can put a damper on everybody else when your character has 30 pages of extremely implausible backstory.
-Lateness. This is just basic manners, and yet it's a recurring problem in both campaigns (but mostly in Campaign B). Being a DM is an investment of my time, and when people show up late and waste that time, it's hard not to feel a little disrespected.
-Showing up drunk/stoned. Again, Campaign B takes the blame on this one. I don't mind if my players are just a little buzzed (honestly, I've often found it makes some of them more animated and eager to participate), but there are limits. When you're so drunk that you shout at everybody and generally waste the DM's time, or so stoned that you just stare at the wall contributing nothing, I don't see why you bother to play the game at all.
-Bringing in spectators. I don't mind an audience if they're trying to understand D&D a little better before potentially starting for themselves, but when you drag your significant other and three random friends in for no apparent reason, that's where I get annoyed.

[RipTide]

One thing that really bugs me as a player is when someone says something along the lines of "You said it so now you have to do it"

Example:

In a recent session I played in, our party had chased the evil necromancer to the back of the cave he was hiding in and found a door. I'm playing a paladin and have been leading everything so far so I approach the door and give it a quick check for traps and find nothing. still not wanting to go through the door yet, and being lawful good wanting to give the necromancer the chance to surrender, I say "I knock on the door". The DM then proceeds to narrate "Ok you stand in front of the door and knock", to which i say "hold up I stand at the side of the door and knock on it not in front of it", to which the smug reply is "oh no you said you knock on the door so now you have to do it". No no no, just because I said I want to do something but didn't have the chance to describe what I do, does not men my character is suddenly a brain dead idiot that, after taking a very cautions approach, suddenly goes about an action in teh worst way possible.

[Lord Torath]

Having some experience in the matter, I might be inclined to disagree. 5' is plenty of room to stab someone, or cut at them. My arms are only 2-3" long, and if I have to, I can step backwards while making a horizontal cut, or extending as if to stab, in order to maintain the optimum distance. There are also techniques for using a sword at very, very close range, IIRC.


* Ranges are approximate. See the Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?518251-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XXIII) thread if you want to argue specifics.The point remains that a longsword has an optimal maximum and minimum effective range, and that range is farther out from your body than the effective range of a dagger. A rule that a weapon deals less damage or has penalties to hit against targets outside of its effective range is not absurd. It's not a rule I would want (it's digging a little too far into the nitty gritty details for me), but it's still a perfectly reasonable rule.

[LordCdrMilitant]

The point remains that a longsword has an optimal maximum and minimum effective range, and that range is farther out from your body than the effective range of a dagger. A rule that a weapon deals less damage or has penalties to hit against targets outside of its effective range is not absurd. It's not a rule I would want (it's digging a little too far into the nitty gritty details for me), but it's still a perfectly reasonable rule.

I, who can only efficiently make fairly simple actions with a two-handed blade, can still fight half-decently up until my knife-wielding opponent has actually grabbed me and restrained me [I'll have to find a sparring partner and test this, actually, but I suspect I can fight him off]. A skilled swordsman would be far better and more fluid than I, and could fight with a larger repertoire of moves than "advance, retreat, thrust, parry", so I don't think the "minimum effective range" of a sword is long enough that I'd drop it for a knife at any range in which I'm not restrained.

[Lord Torath]

[I'll have to find a sparring partner and test this, actually, but I suspect I can fight him off]Do this, and let us know how it goes. I took some fencing lessons in high-school and college, but haven't done anything since, and especially not anything with un-matched weapons, like sword vs dagger. Be fun to hear what you discover. :smallsmile:

[Knaight]

Do this, and let us know how it goes. I took some fencing lessons in high-school and college, but haven't done anything since, and especially not anything with un-matched weapons, like sword vs dagger. Be fun to hear what you discover. :smallsmile:

It depends on both people - I do a lot of mismatched weapon fights (mostly because I'm big on spears and tend to fight in groups which aren't), and there are people who could start at knife range against a spear that I'm still confident I could beat. There are also people who can start at spear range with a knife that I'd give myself less than 50-50 odds for.

[Traab]

This is in regards to an earlier post about roleplaying. They specifically mentioned, "Dont just roll for diplomacy, SAY SOMETHING!" or something to that effect. I personally wouldnt have an issue with that... so long as afterwards I get to roll to see how inspiring or whatever I was. In other words, if I play a diplomancer, I dont want to have to come up with speeches on par with winston churchill or martin luthor king jr in order to be told my attempt worked. Let me give it my best shot, then roll and say, "It looks like your inspired oratory has brought tears to the eyes of the people in the room. They agree wholeheartedly." Or, "The vocal flatulence you emitted has made them more determined to kill you than before." based on the dice, not my skills as an orator.

[LordCdrMilitant]

It depends on both people - I do a lot of mismatched weapon fights (mostly because I'm big on spears and tend to fight in groups which aren't), and there are people who could start at knife range against a spear that I'm still confident I could beat. There are also people who can start at spear range with a knife that I'd give myself less than 50-50 odds for.

I agree. Results of quick and decidedly non-scientific testing indicate that the size of the weapon is irrelevant compared to user training.

Also finding someone willing to let me beat up on them with a stick is fairly challenging.

[Ninja-Radish]

One thing that really irritates me when I GM is when I pitch a campaign and the players get all excited and into it, but then when I run that campaign they decide to play something completely different.

My favorite example of this is in a Traveller campaign I tried to run. I pitched it as a Firefly-like campaign of rogues and misfits with hearts of gold traipsing around the galaxy doing odd jobs. All of my players were excited about the concept.

What ended up happening was the worst murderhobo clusterf--k I've ever seen. Every building they entered, they either blew up or burned down. Everyone they talked to they murdered afterwards. Torture, murder, arson, mass destruction, it was awful. I ragequit that campaign after 4 sessions.

[Knaight]

I agree. Results of quick and decidedly non-scientific testing indicate that the size of the weapon is irrelevant compared to user training.

It definitely matters - I really, really hate going against anyone roughly comparable to me if I've got just a one handed sword and they have a spear, or they have a spear and a shield, or they have a two handed sword. Skill just matters more, which makes proper testing a bit difficult.

[LordCdrMilitant]

One thing that really irritates me when I GM is when I pitch a campaign and the players get all excited and into it, but then when I run that campaign they decide to play something completely different.

My favorite example of this is in a Traveller campaign I tried to run. I pitched it as a Firefly-like campaign of rogues and misfits with hearts of gold traipsing around the galaxy doing odd jobs. All of my players were excited about the concept.

What ended up happening was the worst murderhobo clusterf--k I've ever seen. Every building they entered, they either blew up or burned down. Everyone they talked to they murdered afterwards. Torture, murder, arson, mass destruction, it was awful. I ragequit that campaign after 4 sessions.

Well, the Third Imperium doesn't take kindly to torture, murder, arson, and mass destruction. Let's see how well they can murderhobo their way past a Tigress-Class Battleship.


It definitely matters - I really, really hate going against anyone roughly comparable to me if I've got just a one handed sword and they have a spear, or they have a spear and a shield, or they have a two handed sword. Skill just matters more, which makes proper testing a bit difficult.

Yes, it does. But I was observing that my quickly conscripted opponent, if I need to explain how to hold a sword, is not a valid test subject for the matter of sword vs. knife.

I haven't actually had a proper "fight" in a long time now, so I'm out of practice too, making any comparison matters worse. My brother is an archer for the SCA, his friend does HEMA, and some of my friends in high school were in the SCA, and I fenced fairly well, so I picked up a fair amount of technique from them. But we've all since gone our respective ways, and I haven't done much since then save wave a stick around to try to remember the forms and such. Maybe I should get back into this sort of stuff, since I really do enjoy it.

I can say from experience that it sucks to fight tall people and people with long weapons. Barring some, they can still be used up close.

[Griffith!]

I like this debate that's sprung up over a single houserule I use in my own, personal games and effects nobody but me and my five regular players, but in good conscious I should point out that this is highly situational, used mainly during grapples or in situations where a character can't easily move their arms. The rule actually comes from one encounter my players had in the sewers, when they were tight in, back to back, and swarmed by cranium rats. They kept banging their elbows because of the penalties - situational penalties I tacked on because they were dumb enough to put themselves in that situation - of fighting like that, so one had the bright idea to drop his sword and pull a dagger. The fight was dragging on, and they were needling the rats to death, so I made up the rule and things went smoothly. We've kept it ever since.

It's not intended to simulate two guys standing adjacent to each other banging away with a full range of motion. That's just silly.

The other place you may be running into trouble is assuming we play with a grid. We don't. I don't like to encourage my players to think in terms of five foot spaces.

But what works for me and my group isn't any kind of standard. Some people love the rules as they're printed and rarely deviate. I like to change them on the fly, as it suits me, the players or the narrative. It's why rules lawyers hate me.

::shrug::

[LordCdrMilitant]

I like this debate that's sprung up over a single houserule I use in my own, personal games and effects nobody but me and my five regular players, but in good conscious I should point out that this is highly situational, used mainly during grapples or in situations where a character can't easily move their arms. The rule actually comes from one encounter my players had in the sewers, when they were tight in, back to back, and swarmed by cranium rats. They kept banging their elbows because of the penalties - situational penalties I tacked on because they were dumb enough to put themselves in that situation - of fighting like that, so one had the bright idea to drop his sword and pull a dagger. The fight was dragging on, and they were needling the rats to death, so I made up the rule and things went smoothly. We've kept it ever since.

It's not intended to simulate two guys standing adjacent to each other banging away with a full range of motion. That's just silly.

The other place you may be running into trouble is assuming we play with a grid. We don't. I don't like to encourage my players to think in terms of five foot spaces.

But what works for me and my group isn't any kind of standard. Some people love the rules as they're printed and rarely deviate. I like to change them on the fly, as it suits me, the players or the narrative. It's why rules lawyers hate me.

::shrug::

I play with a ruler and 25mm bases. 5' is 1", and base-to-base is melee combat. I'm not a fan of grids either.

I probably wouldn't pull a dagger versus rats anyway, though. I suspect that my 3' sword will still serve me better. I've never fought a rat, of course, but just from estimating based on speed and size, I don't think a dagger would give all that much of an advantage.

[Cluedrew]

Two more:

"I don't know why."

Why did you try to bath in the still hot pot of stew? Why did you give me pants to enchant? Why did you try to put pants on the already dressed girl? Why? Why? Why? Just because you can do anything doesn't mean you should.

"Because I'm the GM."

That's not a reason. The absolute closest I have ever come to that is "Spoilers" and if I haven't been gaming with you for a while that can still be a bit of a stretch. We are all here to have fun. I will not support your power trip if you go on one.

[Telok]

One thing that really irritates me when I GM is when I pitch a campaign and the players get all excited and into it, but then when I run that campaign they decide to play something completely different.

My favorite example of this is in a Traveller campaign I tried to run. I pitched it as a Firefly-like campaign of rogues and misfits with hearts of gold traipsing around the galaxy doing odd jobs. All of my players were excited about the concept.

What ended up happening was the worst murderhobo clusterf--k I've ever seen. Every building they entered, they either blew up or burned down. Everyone they talked to they murdered afterwards. Torture, murder, arson, mass destruction, it was awful. I ragequit that campaign after 4 sessions.

Oh hay! That sounds like my Heros game. They had to corner some random drunks at night to help defuse bombs (simultaneous triggers) because two of them decided that chasing a defeated villain was more important than saving 20,000 people in a stadium. By the end of the second adventure they'd killed or hospitalized more people than the villains. By the end of the fourth they almost started an interstellar war.

[Honest Tiefling]

What ended up happening was the worst murderhobo clusterf--k I've ever seen. Every building they entered, they either blew up or burned down. Everyone they talked to they murdered afterwards. Torture, murder, arson, mass destruction, it was awful. I ragequit that campaign after 4 sessions.

I gotta ask, was this intentional on the part of the players? I've been in groups that did so poorly that a few exploded buildings were in fact on accident.

[Velaryon]

This is in regards to an earlier post about roleplaying. They specifically mentioned, "Dont just roll for diplomacy, SAY SOMETHING!" or something to that effect. I personally wouldnt have an issue with that... so long as afterwards I get to roll to see how inspiring or whatever I was. In other words, if I play a diplomancer, I dont want to have to come up with speeches on par with winston churchill or martin luthor king jr in order to be told my attempt worked. Let me give it my best shot, then roll and say, "It looks like your inspired oratory has brought tears to the eyes of the people in the room. They agree wholeheartedly." Or, "The vocal flatulence you emitted has made them more determined to kill you than before." based on the dice, not my skills as an orator.

So much this. On a related note, I once had a DM who encouraged players to roleplay that out instead of making a roll, which frustrated me to no end. If you said you wanted to roll Diplomacy (or another comparable skill depending on the system), he'd just cut directly to the result of the roll and then talk about how "he would have preferred you roleplay it instead, because you could have gotten bonus XP for good roleplaying." The idea of roleplaying it out and making a roll was utterly incomprehensible to him for some reason. He would interpret any attempt to use the skill points you put into social skills as trying to avoid roleplaying.

[Ninja-Radish]

I gotta ask, was this intentional on the part of the players? I've been in groups that did so poorly that a few exploded buildings were in fact on accident.

The arson, murder, and mass destruction were all intentional. They were super paranoid for some reason and used the worst scorched earth tactics I've ever seen in an RPG.

I've never been a "gotcha" type of GM, but I heard their last GM was.

[Guizonde]

The arson, murder, and mass destruction were all intentional. They were super paranoid for some reason and used the worst scorched earth tactics I've ever seen in an RPG.

I've never been a "gotcha" type of GM, but I heard their last GM was.

sounds to me like veteran cthulu players. i've never played the game because of those stories, despite being assured my overkill tendencies would make me a natural at it.

as an aside, a pet peeve of mine is "listen to the dm". i decided to give an introduction to pen and paper to some video-gamers in a post-apocalyptic setting. i told them it was grey and black mentality, among other details. they got the "other details bit" down pat, and i have to applaud their roleplaying skills. problem was the "grey and black mentality". it's loosely based off of wh40k and fallout. there are no nice guys. 2/6 of the players tried to go for antihero types. by the fourth session, they knew they were the good guys even though they aimed for "evil with a heart of gold". by that point i had shocked them at least 7 times with the crapsackiness of the universe. they loved every minute of it, but it took me almost 2 irl months to convince them that they were roleplaying saints compared to the established canon. you can be a douchecanoe and be good simultaneously, or you can be an average joe and be the next mussolini based on the universe. the dm gives you the flavor of the campaign. you as a player must react to it. but when the dm says that "executing cultists is a good deed and does not make you an antihero", please stop considering your character like belkar. you're not evil, you're neutral at worst.

disclaimer: this universe was meant from the start as a satire of grimdark, so of course it would make a lot of squeamish players flee in discomfort. it's homebrewed and i don't force this universe on people i don't think can take it. these guys could, and loved every minute of it. major props to them, for i had a blast narrating the campaign for little over a year. great neophytes all, and i hope to game with them again both as a player and a dm. it just bugged me that "it's par for the course" became a canned statement when referring to atrocities committed by the two wannabe antiheroes of the band.

[Griffith!]

I've always allowed the skill roll, but I adjust the DC based on what you've actually said. A moving speech has a better chance of success than "C'mon man do it." Not that the latter wouldn't work. In fact on good rolls, my PCs have succeeded with the absolute weakest of justifications.

It's also worth noting I don't increase the DC based on terrible attempts at dialogue. I consider the flat DC the maximum. There are exceptions, of course, but if you've done really poorly - like insulting the guy you're trying to convince - you'll just fail outright.

Because I'm a jerk like that.

[Traab]

I've always allowed the skill roll, but I adjust the DC based on what you've actually said. A moving speech has a better chance of success than "C'mon man do it." Not that the latter wouldn't work. In fact on good rolls, my PCs have succeeded with the absolute weakest of justifications.

It's also worth noting I don't increase the DC based on terrible attempts at dialogue. I consider the flat DC the maximum. There are exceptions, of course, but if you've done really poorly - like insulting the guy you're trying to convince - you'll just fail outright.

Because I'm a jerk like that.

Bah, I misread your post, and the worst part is the exact opposite argument could be made. Thats kinda like saying, "Hey player 2, if you can lift that giant slab of stone in my back yard, your character will have a better chance of making his strength check on holding the huge door open." Or, "Player 3, if you can scale the outside of my house without a ladder and reach the chimney, your character will have an easier time climbing the slick stone walls." "Yo, player 4, if you can listen to henery the eighth for 10 minutes straight then NOT hum it at any point, you get an extra 2 points on your next will save." I mean, its an interesting way to reward good roleplaying, but it seems like the sort of thing that is unfair to the other players who dont have a real life task that would make their characters task easier.

[Cealocanth]

Probably my least favorite thing in any game:

GM: "Alright, guys. So, by our session zero, I have prepared a high adventure pirate-themed game."
Player: "Great. I'm playing a Lawful Good Samurai from the great and ancient clan of Shoguki and I won't be tolerating any piracy in this pirate-themed game."

That's it. That's the kind of sentence that can literally end a game. We did a session zero. We agreed on what we wanted to play. You were a part of the session zero, so I don't want to be seeing you completely derail the setting on session 1.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Bah, I misread your post, and the worst part is the exact opposite argument could be made. Thats kinda like saying, "Hey player 2, if you can lift that giant slab of stone in my back yard, your character will have a better chance of making his strength check on holding the huge door open." Or, "Player 3, if you can scale the outside of my house without a ladder and reach the chimney, your character will have an easier time climbing the slick stone walls." "Yo, player 4, if you can listen to henery the eighth for 10 minutes straight then NOT hum it at any point, you get an extra 2 points on your next will save." I mean, its an interesting way to reward good roleplaying, but it seems like the sort of thing that is unfair to the other players who dont have a real life task that would make their characters task easier.

Maybe, perhaps.

But, I don't like the opposite effect that comes from not rewarding dialogue roleplay. That is, I don't like it when people just sit around the table and say "I roll for Command, 2 degrees of success."

I'd much rather hear "Rise up and strike them down in the Emperor's glorious name! Hell has no fury like ours!, Command 2 degrees of success."

[Kalmageddon]

Honestly, I'm completely in favour of having role play and actual content of the dialogue prevail over dice roll result when it comes to social interactions.
Part of the fun for me is seeing players roleplay, if they can get around it by rolling a dice and then saying the first thing that comes to their mind, I'm going to flat out ignore the dice roll even if the result is 30+.
A variant I use to not make the skill check itself useless is giving clues to the player on how to persuade the NPC, what could work and what wouldn't.

[Griffith!]

Bah, I misread your post, and the worst part is the exact opposite argument could be made. Thats kinda like saying, "Hey player 2, if you can lift that giant slab of stone in my back yard, your character will have a better chance of making his strength check on holding the huge door open." Or, "Player 3, if you can scale the outside of my house without a ladder and reach the chimney, your character will have an easier time climbing the slick stone walls." "Yo, player 4, if you can listen to henery the eighth for 10 minutes straight then NOT hum it at any point, you get an extra 2 points on your next will save." I mean, its an interesting way to reward good roleplaying, but it seems like the sort of thing that is unfair to the other players who dont have a real life task that would make their characters task easier.

That's an extreme take on things. Do you play with many people that can't communicate? I don't expect anyone to improvise Churchill. I don't even expect brilliance. I've gotten it from time to time, but my players are - unfortunately, at times - really clever.

Expecting a player of a role-playing game to be able to decide what his character says feels kind of like the bare minimum for role-playing.

It's not at all unfair to ask a role-player to role-play.

Edit - even more confusingly, I basically agreed with your earlier statement. What you're saying now feels like the exact opposite.

[Honest Tiefling]

I think the difference is that describing the diplomacy roll can potentially add more to the game then simply rolling. But unless your group likes watching a member physically extert themselves or suffer, lifting the rock doesn't do much. But the players probably want to know the gist of the speech, assuming they heard it or will hear of it.

I think this is a matter that varies wildly on group preference, but I think an excellent compromise is that the player doing the roll at least gives their approach. As in, reminding some soldiers of their duty to their nation and name dropping a national hero, reminding them of what the enemy did or boasting about how the gods obviously favor their side. No speech needed, but it's a bit more then saying "Do this, guys!"

Just my personal preference.

[GPS]

Bah, I misread your post, and the worst part is the exact opposite argument could be made. Thats kinda like saying, "Hey player 2, if you can lift that giant slab of stone in my back yard, your character will have a better chance of making his strength check on holding the huge door open." Or, "Player 3, if you can scale the outside of my house without a ladder and reach the chimney, your character will have an easier time climbing the slick stone walls." "Yo, player 4, if you can listen to henery the eighth for 10 minutes straight then NOT hum it at any point, you get an extra 2 points on your next will save." I mean, its an interesting way to reward good roleplaying, but it seems like the sort of thing that is unfair to the other players who dont have a real life task that would make their characters task easier.
Ditto man. If I had the charisma of my characters, I wouldn't be here, I'd be the head of the marketing department at PepsiCo. I'm not, I'm a socially awkward introvert playing a fantasy game where my characters can persuade people to do things. Adjusting diplomacy check DC's based on how well I can communicate is like adjusting my Spell Save DC based on how well I can cast spells in real life, and I have a feeling most people save against a 0.

[Traab]

That's an extreme take on things. Do you play with many people that can't communicate? I don't expect anyone to improvise Churchill. I don't even expect brilliance. I've gotten it from time to time, but my players are - unfortunately, at times - really clever.

Expecting a player of a role-playing game to be able to decide what his character says feels kind of like the bare minimum for role-playing.

It's not at all unfair to ask a role-player to role-play.

Edit - even more confusingly, I basically agreed with your earlier statement. What you're saying now feels like the exact opposite.

Heh, the part I disagreed with is giving them what amounts to a bonus to their roll if they did a good enough job talking. I was just trying to point out that its unlikely you have similar potential bonuses for the other skill checks. Which is a bit unfair when you think about it. It really is similar to saying, "The normal dc for you breaking down that door is 32, but since you can bench press 200 lbs irl, I will make it a 30." That you dont punish them for being bad at it is great, since, you know, most of us would be rather terrible at actually being a warrior or wizard, or even a diplomat, but only picking ONE skill to provide a rl bonus to is a bit unfair. If it was something as simple as bonus exp for good roleplaying, that would be fine as it encourages everyone to play their character as well as they can, but this is something that only the face of the group can benefit from realistically. Its not a huge deal really, even though im writing out this long rambling post about why I dont like it. Its honestly fairly minor because the diplomancer or guy trying to intimidate someone or whatever is also generally helping out the group, I just know its the sort of thing that would seem a little annoying seeing one member of the party getting the equivalent of a +1-2 added to their character while noone else gets the same bonus to their skills.

[PanosIs]

I think the difference is that describing the diplomacy roll can potentially add more to the game then simply rolling. But unless your group likes watching a member physically extert themselves or suffer, lifting the rock doesn't do much. But the players probably want to know the gist of the speech, assuming they heard it or will hear of it.

I think this is a matter that varies wildly on group preference, but I think an excellent compromise is that the player doing the roll at least gives their approach. As in, reminding some soldiers of their duty to their nation and name dropping a national hero, reminding them of what the enemy did or boasting about how the gods obviously favor their side. No speech needed, but it's a bit more then saying "Do this, guys!"

Just my personal preference.

This, exactly, I don't want the players giving great speeches and stuff, that's why you have the skill points, and if you do the great speech you'd still have to roll. But I do need you to make clear to me what argument you are using to persuade the king to give you all his lands. Because saying different things to different people leads to different results. If you try to bring on honour to a guard to diplomance your way through your mileage (and diplomacy DC) will vary from guard to guard.

[DrewID]

"Yo, player 4, if you can listen to henery the eighth for 10 minutes straight then NOT hum it at any point, you get an extra 2 points on your next will save."

Can I just say I found your example of strong will highly amusing? Also highly accurate.

Who else here is humming it, in your head at least, after just hearing the title?

DrewID

[Knaight]

Bah, I misread your post, and the worst part is the exact opposite argument could be made. Thats kinda like saying, "Hey player 2, if you can lift that giant slab of stone in my back yard, your character will have a better chance of making his strength check on holding the huge door open." Or, "Player 3, if you can scale the outside of my house without a ladder and reach the chimney, your character will have an easier time climbing the slick stone walls." "Yo, player 4, if you can listen to henery the eighth for 10 minutes straight then NOT hum it at any point, you get an extra 2 points on your next will save." I mean, its an interesting way to reward good roleplaying, but it seems like the sort of thing that is unfair to the other players who dont have a real life task that would make their characters task easier.

Yo, player 5, if you have a knack for navigating complex systems and have put effort into learning the nuances of this game your character will have an easier time doing whatever you want them to do.

The game will generally reward people for some sort of player skill, and rewarding them for social skill is no worse than rewarding them for optimization ability.

[LordCdrMilitant]

I think of it as rewarding being engaged in the game and adding color and character to your actions, and not just rolling a die.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I just don't let people roll until they've made an effort at a convincing IC argument.

[Ninja-Radish]

I just don't let people roll until they've made an effort at a convincing IC argument.

That's great for extroverted players, but punishing for introverted or socially awkward players.

[Quertus]

Expecting a player of a role-playing game to be able to decide what his character says feels kind of like the bare minimum for role-playing.

It's not at all unfair to ask a role-player to role-play.

Role-playing is choosing between using diplomacy and the sword. Note that either option can be correct role-playing, depending on the character and the situation.

Acting is actually verbalizing some variation on what you decided your character would say.

While I prefer role-playing in my role-playing game, I do not require acting in my role-playing game.

That having been said...


This, exactly, I don't want the players giving great speeches and stuff, that's why you have the skill points, and if you do the great speech you'd still have to roll. But I do need you to make clear to me what argument you are using to persuade the king to give you all his lands. Because saying different things to different people leads to different results. If you try to bring on honour to a guard to diplomance your way through your mileage (and diplomacy DC) will vary from guard to guard.

Yeah, the specifics of what you say can matter more than the gist. Trying to get someone to eat their favorite food is a lot easier than trying to get them to eat something they know they're deathly allergic to, even though both generalize to, "try to convince them to eat something". So I all but require the details to know how the NPC will respond.


Yo, player 5, if you have a knack for navigating complex systems and have put effort into learning the nuances of this game your character will have an easier time doing whatever you want them to do.

The game will generally reward people for some sort of player skill, and rewarding them for social skill is no worse than rewarding them for optimization ability.

You are unfortunately not wrong - it is all but impossible to create a game that does not in some way reward player skills. Not that I personally mind rewarding player skills, mind you, just that not doing so seems a quixotic dream.

[Mr Beer]

This, exactly, I don't want the players giving great speeches and stuff, that's why you have the skill points, and if you do the great speech you'd still have to roll. But I do need you to make clear to me what argument you are using to persuade the king to give you all his lands. Because saying different things to different people leads to different results. If you try to bring on honour to a guard to diplomance your way through your mileage (and diplomacy DC) will vary from guard to guard.

This

To use the analogy of 'I roll to attack!', no you don't need to explain the exact lunge-parry-riposte combination you are using (in most systems anyway) but you do need to tell the GM which weapon you are using, since that affects the outcome.

If you're not capable of articulating the general thrust of your argument, you probably shouldn't be playing the face.

[Griffith!]

And all of this? Exactly what I meant in my first post about most of my complaints being a result of different approaches to the game.

[LordCdrMilitant]

And all of this? Exactly what I meant in my first post about most of my complaints being a result of different approaches to the game.

Well, obviously.

But like politics and religion, how to run a RPG is matter of strongly held belief that is not subject to change. Also like politics and religion, it's a matter about which any alternate ideas are entirely incorrect in their very essence and must be dismissed with absolute conviction! ;)


That's great for extroverted players, but punishing for introverted or socially awkward players.

I never really thought about that.

I'm willing to stand up and shout oaths to the Emperor of Man in public, and am damn proud of my 40k collection and participation in RPG group. I have a friend however, who prefers to hide his participation. He also is much less comfortable with actually standing up and playing the character as opposed to rolling.

[Koo Rehtorb]

That's great for extroverted players, but punishing for introverted or socially awkward players.

I didn't say it had to be good. All they really need is to have some sort of leverage that could potentially persuade the other guy, and to be able to express that they have that leverage. Beyond that I don't care if the player is a great actor or not.

[icefractal]

Somewhere in a parallel world:

"So we end up fighting this goblin warband, I roll a 35, and the GM is like 'Which one are you attacking, which weapon?' And it turns out he imposes all kinds of penalties for making the wrong call there."
"What? That's BS, the PC is the one with combat experience, not the player!"
"I know, right? I told him if I was a tactics expert I'd be working at the Pentagon."
"Hey, speaking of dumb gaming stuff: this guy in last night's game brings in a character with the Outlander background, and then he tries to use an Argument from Authority on two nobles who are in Polite Detached stance, while the conversational momentum is negative! Needless to say, epic fail."
"Lol. Tell me this was a newbie, at least."

:smallwink:

[Kalmageddon]

That's great for extroverted players, but punishing for introverted or socially awkward players.
Do you really think you can use that as an excuse to not roleplay in a roleplaying game? Just play some other kind of character or stick to board games if you can't do what the game is based on.

[Knaight]

That's great for extroverted players, but punishing for introverted or socially awkward players.

Maybe, but there are plenty of introverted players I know who would disagree - being introverted doesn't mean having no social skills, and a group of four to six people all of whom you personally know is much easier to be social around than some huge gathering for introverts - and that's without getting into things like stage fright, where giving a speech to a description of a crowd of a thousand people is vastly easier than giving a speech to a crowd of thousand people.

[Kalmageddon]

Besides, and this is marginally off topic but relevant to the conversation, what ever happened to improving oneself? If you are shy and socially awkward, roleplaying games are actually one of the best and safest ways to practice being more extroverted and confident.
But no, lately the trend in society is always "we are what we are", as if passively and blindly accepting your inner status quo is always a good thing. And yet I find working on our flaws and shortcomings to be one if not the most important and fulfilling thing we can do with our life.
But I digress.

My point is, go beyond your perceived limits. Roleplaying games are a safe environment where errors usually have no consequences outside the game itself, there is literally no reason not to at least try.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Besides, and this is marginally off topic but relevant to the conversation, what ever happened to improving oneself? If you are shy and socially awkward, roleplaying games are actually one of the best and safest ways to practice being more extroverted and confident.
But no, lately the trend in society is always "we are what we are", as if passively and blindly accepting your inner status quo is always a good thing. And yet I find working on our flaws and shortcomings to be one if not the most important and fulfilling thing we can do with our life.
But I digress.

My point is, go beyond your perceived limits. Roleplaying games are a safe environment where errors usually have no consequences outside the game itself, there is literally no reason not to at least try.

I mostly agree, but I find it a problem to punish (and thus diminish the fun) of someone who struggles by holding them to someone else's standard. I mostly play with teenagers and I see this a lot. Some it's a victory to get them to have a character name and some non-self-expy characterization. Others speak only in-character as a fully-fleshed out character. Judging the first by the standard of the second will only drive them away from the game. Make no mistake, this is a game. It's not life-skills class. Trying to treat it as the second will destroy the purpose of the first.

I agree that players need to at least state a) what they're trying to accomplish in a conversation and b) how they intend to do it, but I don't expect the statements they make to be in-universe persuasive. The player doesn't have nearly enough information to do that. I assume that the in-universe language, formalities, conversational style, etc translate based on the roll (if one is needed).

When someone says "I roll persuasion," that's not enough. They've stated how they're acting (trying to persuade not intimidate or deceive), but they haven't told me what they're trying to accomplish. "I try to persuade the guard to let us passed by appealing to his honor <rolls persuasion>" works. I don't need the in-character speech, but people are welcome to do it if it matters. Particularly good speeches may get advantage on the roll; particularly ill-aimed approaches (as in trying to appeal to the honor of a sleazy corrupt bureaucrat) may get disadvantage but that's all, and only for exceptional cases.

[Segev]

I just don't let people roll until they've made an effort at a convincing IC argument.


That's great for extroverted players, but punishing for introverted or socially awkward players.

This is one reason I like the idea of trying to design a social interaction system around the notion of personality traits, likes, dislikes, desires, etc. Done well, it will naturally map to the socially skilled player's reasoning that the King will trade his lands for a new name and life of leisure or adventure, if he can be assured that his daughter and people will be well cared-for, while providing the less charismatic but more gameplay-astute player with the tools he needs to recognize that playing on the king's "desire for freedom" that conflicts with his "sense of duty" and "love for his daughter" while making moves to assuage those things so that all work together towards accepting the proposed deal...will likely get him what he wants.

So both kinds of players can see the same thing and work with the mechanical model. The naturally socially adept player instinctively recognizes what arguments to make, and innately makes the social gameplay moves required. The less socially adept player plays with the game pieces and can make informed choices about what to try to play on, against, or through, and what skills with which to target them.

And both are achieving their goal of playing a socialite.

[Velaryon]

That's great for extroverted players, but punishing for introverted or socially awkward players.

As an introvert myself, I appreciate the point you're trying to make, but I think there's a point at which it's going too far.

Roleplaying games are inherently about description and storytelling (even if the story being told is about a group of murderhobos wandering through a dungeon murdering everything that stands between them and the magical MacGuffin at the end). What separates a

If a player who is not particularly charismatic, eloquent, extroverted, or persuasive is playing a character who is all of those things, I wouldn't expect them to break out something that sounds like it was written by a professional speechwriter, nor would (I think it's safe to say) anyone else participating in this conversation. If you've got it in you, then by all means let's hear it, because that sort of thing can make the game more fun for everyone. But if all you've got is "I try to appeal to his vanity by pointing out that by helping us, he will be praised throughout the city for his bravery and wisdom after we topple the evil king," then that's fine. I think it's more than fair to expect a certain minimal level of description along with your dice rolling, regardless of how good the numbers are on your character sheet.

To touch on the point made by someone else that lowering the DC's because of someone's real-life eloquence might unfairly give advantages to that one skill over others, I'd say a certain level of description and thinking about how you're using the skill is something I'd consider equivalent.

For example, a PC is trying to cover his party's tracks to make sure they aren't followed. Sure, you can have him simply make a Survival check or whatever, and move on. I'll be honest, that's how it goes almost all the time. But if a player wants to detail it out more, with something like: "I spread dirt and leaves to cover the tracks, leave a freshly killed deer to muddle the scents in case they have hunting dogs, then make several false sets of tracks leading down the other path, then walk back to my party mates through the stream to avoid leaving a trail," I think it's absolutely fair to give them some sort of bonus to that.

[Telok]

Somewhere in a parallel world:

"So we end up fighting this goblin warband, I roll a 35, and the GM is like 'Which one are you attacking, which weapon?' And it turns out he imposes all kinds of penalties for making the wrong call there."
"What? That's BS, the PC is the one with combat experience, not the player!"
"I know, right? I told him if I was a tactics expert I'd be working at the Pentagon."
Hilarious, I love it.


When someone says "I roll persuasion," that's not enough. They've stated how they're acting (trying to persuade not intimidate or deceive), but they haven't told me what they're trying to accomplish. "I try to persuade the guard to let us passed by appealing to his honor <rolls persuasion>" works. I don't need the in-character speech, but people are welcome to do it if it matters. Particularly good speeches may get advantage on the roll; particularly ill-aimed approaches (as in trying to appeal to the honor of a sleazy corrupt bureaucrat) may get disadvantage but that's all, and only for exceptional cases.
This is pretty much how I deal with social rolls at my table too. When I DM you have to do more than just "I roll diplomacy on the dragon". I'm not expecting grand speeches or major acting talent, I'm expecting roleplaying. This isn't Civ where a diplomat can wave money at a passing airplane and have it change sides.

[Mordar]

The arson, murder, and mass destruction were all intentional. They were super paranoid for some reason and used the worst scorched earth tactics I've ever seen in an RPG.

I've never been a "gotcha" type of GM, but I heard their last GM was.


sounds to me like veteran cthulu players. i've never played the game because of those stories, despite being assured my overkill tendencies would make me a natural at it.

Oh, so not at all... :smallcool: Precisely opposite the way to go...assuming you want a "veteran C'thulhu character" and not just someone who becomes quite skilled at generating characters for C'thulhu.


Role-playing is choosing between using diplomacy and the sword. Note that either option can be correct role-playing, depending on the character and the situation.

Acting is actually verbalizing some variation on what you decided your character would say.

While I prefer role-playing in my role-playing game, I do not require acting in my role-playing game.

That having been said...

Yeah, the specifics of what you say can matter more than the gist. Trying to get someone to eat their favorite food is a lot easier than trying to get them to eat something they know they're deathly allergic to, even though both generalize to, "try to convince them to eat something". So I all but require the details to know how the NPC will respond.

You are unfortunately not wrong - it is all but impossible to create a game that does not in some way reward player skills. Not that I personally mind rewarding player skills, mind you, just that not doing so seems a quixotic dream.

But here's the thing [note assumption is D&D or other games with some tactical combat elements]...the system is already rewarding players with skill at [RPG name] tactical combat. The player with a good grasp of the tactical rules can make use of terrain, other combatants, synergy powers and conditions to maximize the efficacy of their attacks (even if it is just getting +2 for flanking or combat advantage or whatever). I "role played" the decision to attack instead of talk and I got a bonus to the attack based on the specific implementation of that decision. Had I just said "I sword the goblin with the feather hat!" I would not have received a penalty...but I would not have received a bonus.

Saying "I diplomacy the goblin with the feather hat" to make him not attack means no bonus in exactly the same way. If I take into account the conditions, the other people present, the relative strengths and weaknesses of the situation and say "I attempt to convince the goblin in the feather hat that we're only here to talk about the ogres in the forest, not to fight with them. And I compliment his natty fashion choice," then maybe I get a +2 to my diplomacy roll. And it didn't require me to act/orate as my character...just describe in greater detail and make an effort to recognize the specific conditions and surroundings.

Now sure, if there's someone who is really good at the oratory, they might get a greater bonus by play-acting the speech itself, but that's just an exceptional case.

- M

[Kalmageddon]

I mostly agree, but I find it a problem to punish (and thus diminish the fun) of someone who struggles by holding them to someone else's standard. I mostly play with teenagers and I see this a lot. Some it's a victory to get them to have a character name and some non-self-expy characterization. Others speak only in-character as a fully-fleshed out character. Judging the first by the standard of the second will only drive them away from the game. Make no mistake, this is a game. It's not life-skills class. Trying to treat it as the second will destroy the purpose of the first.

I agree that players need to at least state a) what they're trying to accomplish in a conversation and b) how they intend to do it, but I don't expect the statements they make to be in-universe persuasive.
I'm not going to punish anyone for anything, but as I said when I GM, part of the fun is seeing players roleplay their character, in first person, with some amount of pathos and characterization.
If I can't have that from my players I might as well not GM. I mean, I do the same as a GM, I role play every NPC! One time, in order to roleplay an entire town of fallout ghouls I got a sore throat for a week (you know how they speak). Why can't a player at least try to do the same, for one character? That's all I'm asking.
Having said that, I agree with the rest of your post.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm not going to punish anyone for anything, but as I said when I GM, part of the fun is seeing players roleplay their character, in first person, with some amount of pathos and characterization.
If I can't have that from my players I might as well not GM. I mean, I do the same as a GM, I role play every NPC! One time, in order to roleplay an entire town of fallout ghouls I got a sore throat for a week (you know how they speak). Why can't a player at least try to do the same, for one character? That's all I'm asking.
Having said that, I agree with the rest of your post.

I think that this is a difference in styles. I certainly don't try to do voices for each of my NPCs and often summarize their statements. I expect my players to do the same. Some act their character's actions out more, while others simply describe what they're doing. Both are valid. It's up to the player and the table--one isn't "better" role-playing than the other. They're just different acting styles.

I'm AFB right now, but the 5th edition PHB has a discussion about this and points out that it's player's choice which style to do (and says that it can vary between situation). I think that's a good idea. I dislike any kind of mechanical enforcement beyond good feels (or maybe a simple small bonus for effective acting), as I have many players that would be completely turned off to the hobby by such a demand. Saying that there's only one correct way of doing it bugs me.

Also, another thing that bugs me is when people try to make "role-playing" and "acting" synonyms. For me, role-playing is making decisions for a character. The whole spectrum from choosing from a menu (CRPG style) to full on LARPing is part of role-playing. Not everyone is an actor, nor should they try to be.

[Quertus]

Regarding player skills, acting, and self-improvement:

I'm a big fan of self improvement. I call myself a disciple of Kai Zen, and I'm an old-school grognard who believes in player skills, and comes from and believes in the school of, how did someone put it, "git gud".

Even so, I want my experiments at self improvement (or just understanding parts of the human psyche) to be fun, safe, and on my own terms. If acting out an experimental psyche were forced upon me, it would fail at least two of those, and probably all 3.

So, as someone who can, shall we say, have issues with certain kinds of acting, I strongly agree with 5e's advice. Let me act as my muse directs me, and I'll push myself to act as best I can / as much as I can with that character.

-----

Now, I can see the way I run a game bugging some people, because it won't seem terribly consistent.

When it comes to social interaction, matching your strategy to the target's personality is much more valuable than high social stats. But I don't hand you the NPCs sheet - you have to figure out your strategy through observation, asking questions, whatever.

Now, social stats still do a lot, in that they determine how the NPC will respond to unsuccessful (or, heck, even successful) social checks - high social skills allow the NPC to laugh off what could have been an embarrassing failure, while low social skills might have an NPC grudgingly accept a deal (and plot how to get back at the swindler later).

As if this wasn't odd enough, if you try to apply the same tactics to other parts of the game, detailing how you do what you do, if you're lucky, I'll give the group bonus XP for your cool description, and maybe give you a (3e D&D) +2 circumstance bonus for things I see making the task easier; most of the time, I'll just say, "it's great that you know all that, but does your character know that? What did you roll?"

The reasons I think it's more consistent than it seems: you can't succeed at combat by demonstrating your OOC martial arts training, you can't succeed at survival by demonstrating it IRL, you can't succeed at social by making a good speech. But you can gain small advantage in combat by flanking, taking higher ground, etc; small bonus in survival by bringing a blanket, shovel, whatever; small bonus to social by dressing well (or poorly, depending), being polite (or rude, depending), etc. And, just as you can gain a huge advantage in combat by choosing the correct tactic (power attack, grappling, disarm, etc), so, too, do you get a huge advantage in social by choosing the correct tactic (appealing to sense of honor, adventure, family, hedonism, etc).

[Guizonde]

one thing that bugs me that is tangentially related:

you're all talking about acting it out vs rolling it out. i've usually used a middle ground approach to that (and it works, because as much as i enjoy roleplaying it, sometimes, improvisation or natural charisma falls flat. it happens, and that's what the dice are for). what bugged me a lot was next to a "veteran" dm that assured us that whatever we did had an impact on the world. the session went ahead and can only be described as a mix between railroading and math. i hid in a tree? +5 to stealth. the face was wearing bling? +10 to charisma. there was a dungeon? scouting yielded nothing, neither did intel work at the tavern. the dm wanted us to crash the front door, and we did everything we could to avoid that. i didn't expect from the sell that "impact on the world" was only stat bonuses or inconveniences, i thought he'd improvise on the fly lshort-to-long-term repercussions: we go by stealth instead of chaos, that means that we'll alert the guards much later, things like that. nope, psycho-rigid dm wanted us to act out his scenario, and when we actually tried to think about solving a problem as carefully as possible, he forced us into a dungeon-crash. when we complained, he put the blame on us for not playing his scenario correctly. it's been 4 years and i still wonder what he meant. we could have role-played to a point where other dm's would have foregone a skill roll, he'd just hand out a bonus and carry on. if we didn't describe moderately what we were doing, he'd give us a massive penalty. that's not why you roleplay, you could have accurately described that session as basic addition and subtraction in sequence.

the lack of improvisation kind of killed it for me. i'll excuse the lack of improvisation to a beginner or even a moderately experienced dm, but not from self-described "experienced" dm's. "no scenario survives first contact with the players" is one of the cardinal rules of dm'ing. sometimes, you'll have murderhoboes in your campaign, and you'll have to retool everything. other times, you'll have players who'll actually think a bit and bypass encounters, charm the guard, steal the keys, and or solve problems non-violently. my group uses both sides in equal measures, so for our turn when we dm, we always prepare 2 variants to the same scenario so as to improvise as little as possible when the players have enflammed the populace figuratively or litterally. i always respect latteral thinking, and psycho-rigidity is a sign of either railroading, inexperience, or power-tripping.

[Hagashager]

As a player/GM I carry the usual disdain for munchkinry. I'd also like to add that I have a particular irritation towards "Mcgyvering". In which a player "crafts" something out of objects with the assumption that is of equal quality to plate or some other high-level gear.

I don't care how many daggers you picked up and strung them together, putting on "Daggermail" will not set your AC to 0.
No, your hand-crafted pipe-gun from a hollowed-out spear and a bottle of alchemist's fire will not give you the same THAC0 as an actual arquebus.

I can handle munchkinry/mcgyvering, what I really can't stand, however, are players who are deliberately antagonistic or conspiring in a mean-spirited way. I am not a fan of note passing because in the past I've had players use this method to tell me, as I am narrating a scene, how they want to screw another player. I've also had players divide into alliances and had campaigns derailed from two players working to screw another two players.

As for ERP players as long as it's not drawn-out, overtly pornographic, or criminal I've no problem with players RPing someone promiscuous. If a player makes me go into more detail than I think is necessary however, I strike them with an STD to remind them the dangers of not using protection in a medieval setting. :P

[JoeJ]

Also, another thing that bugs me is when people try to make "role-playing" and "acting" synonyms. For me, role-playing is making decisions for a character. The whole spectrum from choosing from a menu (CRPG style) to full on LARPing is part of role-playing. Not everyone is an actor, nor should they try to be.

I have to disagree with this. Acting is making decisions - speaking, moving, behaving, etc. - as if you were somebody other than who you really are. It is playing a character. Role playing is nothing more than one particular form of acting.

[Cluedrew]

Personally, I feel that acting is mimicking the actions of a character, and is completely separate from making decisions like that character would.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I have to disagree with this. Acting is making decisions - speaking, moving, behaving, etc. - as if you were somebody other than who you really are. It is playing a character. Role playing is nothing more than one particular form of acting.

Swordsaged by Cluedrew, but really they're disjoint concepts.

You can act without role-playing: working from a completely pre-written script (ie reading lines). You're not making decisions, you're simply portraying them. Also, most of acting (at least in plays and movies) is done for the audience--Shakespeare's soliloquies are non-character devices used to make the character's thoughts audible. The song-and-dance routines from musicals are probably not happening in universe.

You can role-play without acting: "Bob the fighter does X" without ever getting "into character".

My big beef comes with the identification of "role-playing" with "talking in funny voices" or "talky-time." There is role-play in combat, when you decide how your character would approach that situation. Does he stand in the back and shoot arrows? Does he try to get between the enemy and the allies? Does he betray the party? All of these are decisions that can be made without speaking or acting (in the generic sense) beyond employing the mechanical rules. Many "pure role-players" look down on people who do this as "roll-playing" when they really mean badwrongfun.

[Knaight]

Swordsaged by Cluedrew, but really they're disjoint concepts.

You can act without role-playing: working from a completely pre-written script (ie reading lines). You're not making decisions, you're simply portraying them. Also, most of acting (at least in plays and movies) is done for the audience--Shakespeare's soliloquies are non-character devices used to make the character's thoughts audible. The song-and-dance routines from musicals are probably not happening in universe.

Unless you're speaking in a monotone, you're still bringing something more to the character - it's just focused on a lot of really tiny decisions instead of fewer bigger ones.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Unless you're speaking in a monotone, you're still bringing something more to the character - it's just focused on a lot of really tiny decisions instead of fewer bigger ones.

In many cases there are instructions as to how to portray the character. You're not really making meaningful decisions from the point of view of the character. You're making decisions based on the effect you want that portrayal to have on the audience. This is very different than in an RPG.

I don't doubt that most people do both acting and role-playing in both cases. But they're independent ideas--one is not a subset of the other. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with speaking in the 3rd person about your character or summarizing the essence of how they speak instead of extemporaneously giving a speech. That's what I'm trying to get across (and what I've seen people arguing against on this very thread).

[Velaryon]

Now, social stats still do a lot, in that they determine how the NPC will respond to unsuccessful (or, heck, even successful) social checks - high social skills allow the NPC to laugh off what could have been an embarrassing failure, while low social skills might have an NPC grudgingly accept a deal (and plot how to get back at the swindler later).

I like this a lot. It's not something I've really done in my own games in the past, but once it's pointed out it seems obvious that that's how it should work - a failed Deception roll by the party face results in the shopkeeper not believing that the sword is magic, but thanks to the face's high charisma and good modifier, he may be able to play it off as a joke instead of having the shopkeeper throw him out.

The Fighter with a charisma or 7 and no social skills rolls a natural 20 on Persuasion? He convinces the guard to let him pass, but the guard may say "you owe me one" for the favor, rather than just happily complying with the request.

[Quertus]

Swordsaged by Cluedrew, but really they're disjoint concepts.

You can act without role-playing: working from a completely pre-written script (ie reading lines). You're not making decisions, you're simply portraying them. Also, most of acting (at least in plays and movies) is done for the audience--Shakespeare's soliloquies are non-character devices used to make the character's thoughts audible. The song-and-dance routines from musicals are probably not happening in universe.

You can role-play without acting: "Bob the fighter does X" without ever getting "into character".

My big beef comes with the identification of "role-playing" with "talking in funny voices" or "talky-time." There is role-play in combat, when you decide how your character would approach that situation. Does he stand in the back and shoot arrows? Does he try to get between the enemy and the allies? Does he betray the party? All of these are decisions that can be made without speaking or acting (in the generic sense) beyond employing the mechanical rules. Many "pure role-players" look down on people who do this as "roll-playing" when they really mean badwrongfun.

Love your explanation of acting and role-playing. But I was under the impression that "roll-playing" was a term used to describe someone who views the character as nothing more than a piece in a game - a pile of stats, not a character. Something that would live somewhere in the "neither acting nor role-playing" quadrant of the matrix you've created.

Have I misunderstood the term?


I like this a lot.

:biggrin:

[PhoenixPhyre]

Love your explanation of acting and role-playing. But I was under the impression that "roll-playing" was a term used to describe someone who views the character as nothing more than a piece in a game - a pile of stats, not a character. Something that would live somewhere in the "neither acting nor role-playing" quadrant of the matrix you've created.

Have I misunderstood the term?



:biggrin:

That's the neutral meaning. I've seen it used as an attack to mean "not role-playing like I think you should." Or maybe "not taking in character and relying on the dice to decide how persuasive your character is" which completely removes the possibility of a low-social-ability playing a party face. This is the meaning I'm pushing against.

[Telok]

That's the neutral meaning. I've seen it used as an attack to mean "not role-playing like I think you should." Or maybe "not taking in character and relying on the dice to decide how persuasive your character is" which completely removes the possibility of a low-social-ability playing a party face. This is the meaning I'm pushing against.
I wouldn't say that roll-playing is what happens when someone still developing social skills (or just shy) tries to play a charismatic character. Roll-playing is more when the player makes no attempt to at role-play and wants the dice to do everything. It's something I've seen more of as more people in the hobby have exclusively crpg backgrounds.

"I intimidate the giant king into giving me what I want." <roll>
"I diplomacy the guard to let me go."<roll>

Those are the things that I associate with roll-playing. When people act like their character is a puppet or avatar and their social skills are just another form of rolling a generic attack.

[Fach]

The thing bugs me the most is people talking over the DM.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The thing bugs me the most is people talking over the DM.

So much this. Let me finish describing the room. I'm not given to novel-length descriptions. It's three sentences!

[AtlasSniperman]

Something bugging me in a current game(where I'm a player) is another player describing buildings. For the most part he's been describing the ammenities at inns; bathing in a bathtub, wearing free provided bathrobes of the inn etc. He'll even wear ONLY these bathrobes into the main tavern section of an inn and chat. Fine, I accept that his is him making flavour and fun of the inn. Fine. But when we reached Magnimar, and the characters went round to my characters house for dinner. He:
Stole from a berry bush I fleetingly mentioned is there.
Had a bath in a bathtub that wasn't ever mentioned until he declared it to exist.
walked around in a "Sheepskin towel I found in the bathroom"
and
Went to the toilet, commenting on the stack of "nudie mags" with pages stuck together near it.

I ****ing lost it. Stating what exists in my house is akin to describing and defining MY character.

I know this thread is about things that happen across multiple games, but that's just something I had to vent and kinda fits this thread anyway.

[Honest Tiefling]

But when we reached Magnimar, and the characters went round to my characters house for dinner. He:
Stole from a berry bush I fleetingly mentioned is there.
Had a bath in a bathtub that wasn't ever mentioned until he declared it to exist.
walked around in a "Sheepskin towel I found in the bathroom"
and
Went to the toilet, commenting on the stack of "nudie mags" with pages stuck together near it.

I ****ing lost it. Stating what exists in my house is akin to describing and defining MY character.

I know this thread is about things that happen across multiple games, but that's just something I had to vent and kinda fits this thread anyway.

No, no, I think getting annoyed when someone is mentioning anachronistic details, that's enough to be annoyed. Putting in such details in such a way as to define another character? Yeah, bad move. Suggest, not state.

[Guizonde]

No, no, I think getting annoyed when someone is mentioning anachronistic details, that's enough to be annoyed. Putting in such details in such a way as to define another character? Yeah, bad move. Suggest, not state.

i thought it was protocol to ask the dm is x or y was in the vicinity unless it belonged to a player (with dm approval). frankly, it seems to be a bad call from the player in the best case scenario.

it reminds me of one early faux-pas from an inexperienced player that became a mainstay of my group. he came later than the original band into the campaign, so i devised him as a hermit, living in a scrap desert. he had a lot of bolt-holes and one of the main party crashed through his roof. i told him he had basic amenities (campfire, reloading bench for his rifle, toilet, bed, some dried food). when his bolt-hole was collapsing, he ad-libbed he'd grab maps of the local area and land mines. i flatly told him he had neither (the map was in his head so he never bothered to write it down, the land mines because he botched a roll to get them). he was kind of upset, but i told him that maybe he had that in another bolt hole, and told him to never assume anything. i got that phrase thrown back at me when i became a player in the setting (mentalities evolved a lot, and i assumed badly). as a rule, we ask the dm if there are any details in the vicinity before devising a plan. things go over smoother, and it has led to incongruous moments simply because it made a play funnier for it to have a hot-dog vendor or a window washer in the way.

[Cluedrew]

You know that is why I don't like the "GM is everything else", because a character is not independent of the things around them.

The player should also be the PC's home, their best friends, their family, the dog they adopted and raised. After something has shaped and been shaped by a character, it becomes an extension of the character.

So I guess "Players are PCs and GM is everything else" also bugs me.

[Guizonde]

You know that is why I don't like the "GM is everything else", because a character is not independent of the things around them.

The player should also be the PC's home, their best friends, their family, the dog they adopted and raised. After something has shaped and been shaped by a character, it becomes an extension of the character.

So I guess "Players are PCs and GM is everything else" also bugs me.

rereading my post, i saw that it could have been interpreted as that: for context, the setting is post-apocalyptic. as such, i told the player he'd be pretty poor but resourceful. i once was in a game where a player ass-pulled a rocket-launcher in pathfinder under the pretense he was a gnome in his workshop. the dm shot him down and he had a tantrum, i decided to prevent that. being an inexperienced dm, i did just that, perhaps a bit brutally. by the end of the campaign, said character had all the explosives he desired (and used them to deadly efficiency). i wasn't fundamentally against land-mines, i didn't want him to ad-lib an unfair advantage. plus, his other 17 bolt-holes in that desert came in useful a few times during that campaign. same gimmick: basic amenities, nothing unfair except stealth and quantity. he decided where they were and the layout according to a 10m² grid (they were pretty much hobbit single room homes).

i agree that the players have a lot of leeway for their kin, pets, and homes. the dm should decide how big or how wealthy they are so as to avoid imbalance (or reinforce it if a pc comes from a wealthy or poor background). i got a bit of flak once for underestimating how big a dwarven clan was, and once again for having my dwarf's family be architects, stonemasons, engineers, and rune-smiths, although i did try to hire my brother in law to demolish a dungeon. fair call on the dm (even if i like outsourcing mindless destruction as much as i like committing it).

[Endarire]

As a player:

"I'm too busy to GM."

Sometimes understandable. This phrase meant different things about a decade ago when my in-person group was very active and this seemed like an excuse. Considering most (all?) of our group is/was made of members aged 30+ years with other responsibilities, this phrase (and the threat that this phrase would effectively be uttered when someone wanted to play a tabletop RPG) has meant we've moved to video games.

As a GM:

"You're the best GM I've ever had. No one can beat you."

Thanks! I felt honored! Is it because I treated this campaign like a semi-professional game because I wanted to work greatly in the gaming industry as a game designer? Is it because we bonded as friends over many adventures during more than a year?

But surely there's someone you or we could find who's willing and able to GM who's better! (I've found at least one!) Your remark also implied tabletop gaming was diminished for you after our campaign ended.

[Guizonde]

As a player:

"I'm too busy to GM."

Sometimes understandable. This phrase meant different things about a decade ago when my in-person group was very active and this seemed like an excuse. Considering most (all?) of our group is/was made of members aged 30+ years with other responsibilities, this phrase (and the threat that this phrase would effectively be uttered when someone wanted to play a tabletop RPG) has meant we've moved to video games.

As a GM:

"You're the best GM I've ever had. No one can beat you."

Thanks! I felt honored! Is it because I treated this campaign like a semi-professional game because I wanted to work greatly in the gaming industry as a game designer? Is it because we bonded as friends over many adventures during more than a year?

But surely there's someone you or we could find who's willing and able to GM who's better! (I've found at least one!) Your remark also implied tabletop gaming was diminished for you after our campaign ended.

along the same lines (i have been too busy to gm, meaning we dropped to one monthly session that lasted 8+ hours, instead of weekly), when schedules don't match up and people don't pull their weight trying to find a slot. it happened early in my main group, and after spending 30+ minutes checking every day with notebooks out, with the same player not doing an effort, we chewed him out. soon after that, he left the group due to irl reasons (he tried to steal my then-girlfriend and broke his friend's nose).

now, it's become a ritual: we get our notebooks out at the end of a session and check every date until we can get it. sometimes it's really short, other times it's 6 weeks of wait followed by 3 sessions. on the rare cases when we can't agree on a date due to uncertainty, we created a secret facebook page and post updates. good thing we follow the "written beginning, written ends, improvised middle" approach to campaigns, as that leaves a lot of latitude for the gm to improvise a scenario quickly.

to the "you're the best gm" compliment, i usually answer "thanks, until you find the next best one". i've been said that by neophytes, and as flattering as the compliment is, i'm more glad that they got hooked on pen and paper. i'll give pointers, and tell them i'm a "nice" gm, willing to work with any idea they're giving me, even if that means breaking rules or house-ruling mechanics (goomba-stomping as a viable tactic for aerial characters was a bit tough to balance). i've heard back from them, and they wound up finding a very strict, no-nonsense gm. they enjoyed it too, but for different reasons.

[Quertus]

You know that is why I don't like the "GM is everything else", because a character is not independent of the things around them.

The player should also be the PC's home, their best friends, their family, the dog they adopted and raised. After something has shaped and been shaped by a character, it becomes an extension of the character.

So I guess "Players are PCs and GM is everything else" also bugs me.

I hadn't really thought of it that way before, but I suppose that's the big reason why my characters are "not from around here".

[Segev]

Something bugging me in a current game(where I'm a player) is another player describing buildings. For the most part he's been describing the ammenities at inns; bathing in a bathtub, wearing free provided bathrobes of the inn etc. He'll even wear ONLY these bathrobes into the main tavern section of an inn and chat. Fine, I accept that his is him making flavour and fun of the inn. Fine. But when we reached Magnimar, and the characters went round to my characters house for dinner. He:
Stole from a berry bush I fleetingly mentioned is there.
Had a bath in a bathtub that wasn't ever mentioned until he declared it to exist.
walked around in a "Sheepskin towel I found in the bathroom"
and
Went to the toilet, commenting on the stack of "nudie mags" with pages stuck together near it.

I ****ing lost it. Stating what exists in my house is akin to describing and defining MY character.

I know this thread is about things that happen across multiple games, but that's just something I had to vent and kinda fits this thread anyway.
No, no, I think getting annoyed when someone is mentioning anachronistic details, that's enough to be annoyed. Putting in such details in such a way as to define another character? Yeah, bad move. Suggest, not state.Indeed, that is just bad form. He essentially dictated what your character's possessions looked like (imagine if he'd walked up to your character and stated he was adjusting the cloak you were wearing, which he described in detail, when you hadn't mentioned wearing any such thing). Worse, he declared that your PC was the sort to look at porn in the bathroom, and just how your PC "enjoyed" the hobby. This very much is dictating your character's actions in a general sense.

It is quite unacceptable.


i thought it was protocol to ask the dm is x or y was in the vicinity unless it belonged to a player (with dm approval). frankly, it seems to be a bad call from the player in the best case scenario.This depends on the game and group. Exalted 2e and 3e encourage players to add detail to scenes, even reward them for doing so. It is explicitly a player power to narrate items that "make sense" in the scene to use as part of engaging stunts to describe their actions in more detail, and yes, you're allowed to power-game this, even. The ST has explicit power to veto any such additions that flat-out don't work, but is expected to use this judiciously, generally only when he already has contravening details in mind. NOT as a way to stop players from doing something reasonable.

e.g., he might tell them that there is not a sexy barkeep for the straight female songstress to hit on, because this is a lesbian bar and all the staff are attractive women. He might not allow a stunt involving swinging from a chandelier in a cheap tavern, because it's too small to have more than a few lamp-sconces. But he shouldn't say "no" to the chandelier just because it allowed the PCs to get from the top floor to the bottom in fewer actions than he'd anticipated.

That said, stunting things about other player characters (and even about established NPCs) is a no-no.


it reminds me of one early faux-pas from an inexperienced player that became a mainstay of my group. he came later than the original band into the campaign, so i devised him as a hermit, living in a scrap desert. he had a lot of bolt-holes and one of the main party crashed through his roof. i told him he had basic amenities (campfire, reloading bench for his rifle, toilet, bed, some dried food). when his bolt-hole was collapsing, he ad-libbed he'd grab maps of the local area and land mines. i flatly told him he had neither (the map was in his head so he never bothered to write it down, the land mines because he botched a roll to get them). he was kind of upset, but i told him that maybe he had that in another bolt hole, and told him to never assume anything. i got that phrase thrown back at me when i became a player in the setting (mentalities evolved a lot, and i assumed badly). as a rule, we ask the dm if there are any details in the vicinity before devising a plan. things go over smoother, and it has led to incongruous moments simply because it made a play funnier for it to have a hot-dog vendor or a window washer in the way.I think telling him he kept the map in his head is a bit much, but you obviously played a campaign where you devised this guy's character, rather than having him build his own. I think it would have been a good opportunity for his engagement if his first improv about his character was encouraged, but...that is your option.

Requiring that he roll to find the mine location list is not unreasonable under hectic conditions, however. It didn't tell him his character isn't the sort to have it; it just dealt with in-the-moment inability to FIND it.

[Guizonde]

I think telling him he kept the map in his head is a bit much, but you obviously played a campaign where you devised this guy's character, rather than having him build his own. I think it would have been a good opportunity for his engagement if his first improv about his character was encouraged, but...that is your option.

Requiring that he roll to find the mine location list is not unreasonable under hectic conditions, however. It didn't tell him his character isn't the sort to have it; it just dealt with in-the-moment inability to FIND it.

the mental map was actually part of his character. he told me he wanted to play a survivalist, and as gm of an evolving total homebrew, i gave him those stats. it would have been implausible for him to have spare landmines, but not impossible. i made him a profile, but left free reign to him to devise his character's personnality and most of his gear. i'll get back to it later as an addendum.

edit: his character lived in a rust desert, similar to a junkyard. it's a post-apocalyptic world where paper is not cheap, and maps are one of the most expensive objects you can get. that's why i told him he knew the layout like the back of his hand (yes, he had the stats to back up that claim, and i briefed him separately from the group about the local geography). i did help him building the character and influencing his choice slightly, since all he'd done rp-wise at that point was a bit of forum rp in a high-fantasy, intrigue-heavy setting. at first he wanted to be a face, but was worried about his shyness and inexperience being a problem. i suggested a scout, he jumped on the survivalist idea with a custom homemade gun, and was delighted. creating his character was a team effort, bouncing ideas around for about twenty minutes. once the picture was clear, i created a profile to match, which included camouflaged robes and a hold-all full of useful situational items, plus a few broken or beat-up ones he could fix in side-quests to give him a mutual dependency on the team. for example, he rolled to have a scope on his rifle, the roll was less than successful, so his scope was in a fixed mode giving a lesser bonus. he got it fixed as payment from the group. in another of his bolt-holes, he rolled for explosives and found a few frag grenades. as i said. i wasn't opposed to him having high-ex in the first session, he botched a roll in the blind panic of his bolt-hole being found by a pc and said bolt-hole collapsing.

as i said, being a total homebrew at that point that had one of the main goals be ergonomic gameplay, there was a lot of cooperation between dm and players (still is 4 years later). i did not create his character, but i did help him tease out a valid idea for him and the group. we all loved his character, and due to his natural shyness, his character rarely spoke, but man oh man was he a vital part of the team. didn't expect a heroic mute, but for a paranoid sniper-scout, it made a sort of twisted sense. now, that player is an integral part of the team of players we are, and he's since played a hit-and-run rogue and a beatstick with some face qualities. for his next character he wants to roll up a sawbones. guess the suave talker is not on his immediate to-do list.

[Cluedrew]

"You can play any character combatant you want."

Look, I get that combat rules come easily, but why does everyone have to be some kind of warrior? You aren't a wizard, you're a battle mage. You aren't a priest, you're a crusader. You aren't a doctor, you're a combat medic. And it goes on. For particular types of adventures (dungeon diving for instance) that makes sense, but in a lot of other cases it... starts to feel weird. My "iconic" D&D character has no combat in their concept, but they can beat people up like crazy because they are a D&D character. And when it I do play a combat focused character, it is nice when that choice means something, because it is actually a choice.

[Guizonde]

"You can play any character combatant you want."

Look, I get that combat rules come easily, but why does everyone have to be some kind of warrior? You aren't a wizard, you're a battle mage. You aren't a priest, you're a crusader. You aren't a doctor, you're a combat medic. And it goes on. For particular types of adventures (dungeon diving for instance) that makes sense, but in a lot of other cases it... starts to feel weird. My "iconic" D&D character has no combat in their concept, but they can beat people up like crazy because they are a D&D character. And when it I do play a combat focused character, it is nice when that choice means something, because it is actually a choice.

is your experience limited to dnd and d20 derivatives or is it all across systems? may i suggest ffg's dark heresy and whfrp 2e? both give you possibilities to be a true non-com (with all the disadvantages that confers in those universes). i've seen a player roll up an accountant who was awesome for knowledge, but his only option was to flee in combat he was so frail (and untrained in combat).

i'll be honest with you, i'd never even seen your point before until you shone a light on it. dnd's mage bias does indeed overshadow strict martials in part because of all those arcane combattants being strictly better crunch-wise while casting spells to boot.

[Bohandas]

Here's mine.

As a DM:

"I pee on--"

No, you don't. Stop it. It wasn't funny when we were 14 and it's not funny now. Just stop it. Why does this come up so often? I mean, I know why it does, you get told you're in a realm of fantasy where anything is possible, and you have to -- are almost obligated to -- test those boundaries by acting out in some way that you'd never be allowed to explore in the real world. But please, stop this.

I recommend you point these players towards the videogame Postal 2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_2) by Running With Scissors studios. Public urination;s a major mechanic in that game. They can live out their fantasy there

[Knaight]

"You can play any character combatant you want."

Look, I get that combat rules come easily, but why does everyone have to be some kind of warrior? You aren't a wizard, you're a battle mage. You aren't a priest, you're a crusader. You aren't a doctor, you're a combat medic. And it goes on. For particular types of adventures (dungeon diving for instance) that makes sense, but in a lot of other cases it... starts to feel weird. My "iconic" D&D character has no combat in their concept, but they can beat people up like crazy because they are a D&D character. And when it I do play a combat focused character, it is nice when that choice means something, because it is actually a choice.

This is fairly high up my list of reasons I avoid D&D most of the time.

[Quertus]

"You can play any character combatant you want."

Look, I get that combat rules come easily, but why does everyone have to be some kind of warrior? You aren't a wizard, you're a battle mage. You aren't a priest, you're a crusader. You aren't a doctor, you're a combat medic. And it goes on. For particular types of adventures (dungeon diving for instance) that makes sense, but in a lot of other cases it... starts to feel weird. My "iconic" D&D character has no combat in their concept, but they can beat people up like crazy because they are a D&D character. And when it I do play a combat focused character, it is nice when that choice means something, because it is actually a choice.

As I said in the thread where you quoted this post, my signature character, for whom this account is named, is a tactically inept academia mage, whose contribution to combat should, hopefully, be less than that of the fighters and monks (and, traditionally, has been). And playing him feels quite different from playing other mages.

When the other players want their characters to be obsoleted by a more competent caster, I can of course comply. Similarly, when the DM has issues balancing a game with one (in-combat) functionally non-contributing member, I can always play someone else.

Until then, I enjoy playing my worlds-famous cowardly author / sage. :smallcool:

[Cluedrew]

is your experience limited to dnd and d20 derivatives or is it all across systems?No, I play other systems and it wasn't until I played some other ones that I was able to put my finger on that one.


Until then, I enjoy playing my worlds-famous cowardly author / sage. :smallcool:And I understand it can be done. But if I want to play a game with few combatants, I'm not going to use D&D. D&D still has its roots in dungeon crawl adventures and I don't think it is nearly as generic as a lot of people say it is. In fact, once I realized that that thing bugged me less. It wasn't a mistake, it isn't the point... in D&D. There are other systems too, I use those for the things D&D doesn't do.

Which includes a better resolution time than D&D, so I don't play a lot of D&D anymore.

[Knaight]

D&D still has its roots in dungeon crawl adventures and I don't think it is nearly as generic as a lot of people say it is.

Preach it. There's a reason so many D&D settings look so much like each other, and the idea that D&D is even a generic fantasy game is somewhat ridiculous. That it's a generic game in general is just more absurd.

[Guizonde]

Preach it. There's a reason so many D&D settings look so much like each other, and the idea that D&D is even a generic fantasy game is somewhat ridiculous. That it's a generic game in general is just more absurd.

wouldn't it be the other way around? most fantasy dungeon crawls from the 80's onwards had their roots in dnd. you'd think dnd clones would be "generic fantasy", but not the granddaddy of them all.

[Knaight]

wouldn't it be the other way around? most fantasy dungeon crawls from the 80's onwards had their roots in dnd. you'd think dnd clones would be "generic fantasy", but not the granddaddy of them all.
D&D is frequently presented as generic fantasy, despite there being a whole lot in the mechanics and implicit setting that fits very specific fantasy subgenres. There's the way D&D is built for combatants, there's the way most editions push specific archetypes pretty hard, there's the focus on dungeon crawling, there's the whole matter of a monster manual and how that book is there to fit fantasy worlds where monsters are a big thing, there's an incredibly specific magic system, there's the progression in the level system from ordinary but talented to basically being a god, so on and so forth. I don't consider this a bad thing - we've got a handful of generic systems and a lot of specific systems for good reason - but it's a thing worth noticing.

[Twizzly513]

As as DM:

I hate when people just don't understand what their characters do. Half-orc war cleric? Fine. Great. Understand what channel divinity does, and don't make wisdom your second lowest score. There's someone that actually did that. Then when people say "Why did you heal no one during that fight?" or "Why did you not cast protection of poison when we were all dying of poison?" when they find out he could have done something. Then he gets all defensive and says "Well I'm sorry, I didn't know I could do that!" Then everyone including me says "Well then read the book for it, it's your job to know!" We've actually given him the book so he could read it a number of times and he never even opened it.

I also hate when the players say "Well, I think the DM wants us to do this..." Don't do that. Nine times out of ten, you're wrong anyways, and what I actually want from you is to play your character, that's why we have session 0 to discuss what your character will be like.

But for the love of god, if someone asks to eat someone else ONE MORE TIME. I have a player that will just not stop asking. And on that note, stop killing random people because you're so funny. So many people have said this upthread but it's so annoying I deserve to vent as well. In the wise words of the man that brought me into the fantastical world of dungeons and dragons: "We're playing DnD, not Murder-Hobo."

With the player I mention before, we were playing a pretty casual campaign and he put no work into his characters at all so I was merciless with him. He killed a random person on the street in the middle of a marketplace under close observation of the city guard. Obviously, they started to arrest him, so he ran into an alleyway, killed a horse he found, and instead of even continuing to run, HE STARTED TO EAT THE HORSE. Then he was all surprised when they caught him. Then he tried to fight but they easily overpowered him and he got off one action before being arrested. He was then executed and didn't care. He rolled up a new character that was basically the same thing and the same essential thing happened. Multiple times. He would attempt something stupid (which usually failed) which cause him to be arrested and executed or just outright killed. But he thought he was hilarious. A five-star clown with a perfect comedy routine. Then the rest of the group actually stayed alive and leveled up and he was still level one and he just gave up playing because he "couldn't do anything anymore."

[Quertus]

D&D is frequently presented as generic fantasy, despite there being a whole lot in the mechanics and implicit setting that fits very specific fantasy subgenres. There's the way D&D is built for combatants, there's the way most editions push specific archetypes pretty hard, there's the focus on dungeon crawling, there's the whole matter of a monster manual and how that book is there to fit fantasy worlds where monsters are a big thing, there's an incredibly specific magic system, there's the progression in the level system from ordinary but talented to basically being a god, so on and so forth. I don't consider this a bad thing - we've got a handful of generic systems and a lot of specific systems for good reason - but it's a thing worth noticing.

While the rest speaks to some definite biases away from "generic", the bolded part, at least, is a vote in favour of it being playable at, well, in this case, "all levels".


Obviously, they started to arrest him, so he ran into an alleyway, killed a horse he found, and instead of even continuing to run, HE STARTED TO EAT THE HORSE. Then he was all surprised when they caught him.

These wiener dogs will give me the quick energy I need to get away...

[Cluedrew]

While the rest speaks to some definite biases away from "generic", the bolded part, at least, is a vote in favour of it being playable at, well, in this case, "all levels".Except for a few down sides like power ~= complexity and that it is difficult to grow wider without going up as well.

Although with a bit or homebrew you can zero in on the power level you want, take E6 for example.

[Knaight]

While the rest speaks to some definite biases away from "generic", the bolded part, at least, is a vote in favour of it being playable at, well, in this case, "all levels".

Not really. Sure, you can restrict the game to a narrow level range and only operate within that, but it doesn't really do well there, and that makes the gigantic jumps between levels even more noticeable. It's not a good game for sticking at any particular level and staying there - it's very much built around a progression between these, and that's a design decision favoring a specific game over a generic design.

[Asha Leu]

Something that's really starting to get on my tits is D&DWiki. Primarily, people who use it as a resource and assume that the (usually terribly broken and/or conceptually idiotic) homebrew content is actually from the rulebooks.

Admittedly, I think a lot of the blame here lies with the website itself, which doesn't really bother to differentiate between SRD content and homebrew content beyond a differently coloured background and a little tag down at the bottom of the page. Exacerbating the problem is that there are more than a few homebrew options that share names with official/UA content (Artificer, Arcane Archer, Beastmaster, Oathbreaker, etc). I've had more than a few players who genuinely didn't even realize that D&DWiki had homebrew content and thought it all came from the SRD. They really need to separate the SRD and homebrew stuff into two different websites, or put some of sort of massive "This is user-submitted content that hasn't been filtered or edited or play-tested to ensure game balance and general sanity" disclaimer at the the top of each homebrew page.

But, nonetheless, the players who get confused also tend to be those that either don't own the rulebooks or can't be reading through them, and instead just indiscriminately use Google when building their characters or researching magic items. I mean, it isn't that hard to get your hands on actual rulebooks, is it? Even if you seriously cannot afford them, it's pretty easy to acquire them through, er, legally dubious means. Ultimately, it just strikes me as laziness: "Why bother purchasing or properly reading through this 300+ page book when I can just use Google? I'm sure whatever I find will be completely legitimate. It's not like the internet is known for ever steering anyone wrong."

[ijon]

Admittedly, I think a lot of the blame here lies with the website itself, which doesn't really bother to differentiate between SRD content and homebrew content beyond a differently coloured background and a little tag down at the bottom of the page.

there's also the "OFFICIAL 3.5e SYSTEM REFERENCE DOCUMENT PAGE" banner at the top, and it has 'SRD:" at the start of the page title, and it's in a different font

all the non-SRD pages need is a similar banner at the top, and it should be fine

[Quertus]

Not really. Sure, you can restrict the game to a narrow level range and only operate within that, but it doesn't really do well there, and that makes the gigantic jumps between levels even more noticeable. It's not a good game for sticking at any particular level and staying there - it's very much built around a progression between these, and that's a design decision favoring a specific game over a generic design.

Ok, so... How can you build a "generic fantasy" game that simultaneously a) allows for play at all levels; b) allows for a single character to advance through those levels, and c) satisfies your desire to have characters not advance? It doesn't feel like those can all be the same system, and it seems to me that D&D's acceptance of the first two, with a nod to things like E6, or homebrew "we're starting at level 12, and we're always going to be level 12" is the most "generic" solution possible.

Do you have a more generic solution that you feel would better appeal to all play styles?

[Segev]

With the player I mention before, we were playing a pretty casual campaign and he put no work into his characters at all so I was merciless with him. He killed a random person on the street in the middle of a marketplace under close observation of the city guard. Obviously, they started to arrest him, so he ran into an alleyway, killed a horse he found, and instead of even continuing to run, HE STARTED TO EAT THE HORSE. Then he was all surprised when they caught him. Then he tried to fight but they easily overpowered him and he got off one action before being arrested. He was then executed and didn't care. He rolled up a new character that was basically the same thing and the same essential thing happened. Multiple times. He would attempt something stupid (which usually failed) which cause him to be arrested and executed or just outright killed. But he thought he was hilarious. A five-star clown with a perfect comedy routine. Then the rest of the group actually stayed alive and leveled up and he was still level one and he just gave up playing because he "couldn't do anything anymore."

You know, that could make a good horror plot: You hunt down and execute a monster-in-human-form that is this psychopathic killer with barely any sense of self-preservation. But then, shortly thereafter, exactly the same horrific events keep happening. Is it a ghost? Revenant? Ghoul risen from this guy's corpse? No...it's somebody completely different. Except he behaves exactly the same.

Put down that rabid beast, and ANOTHER one shows up.

And again.

And again.

[Airk]

Ok, so... How can you build a "generic fantasy" game that simultaneously a) allows for play at all levels; b) allows for a single character to advance through those levels, and c) satisfies your desire to have characters not advance? It doesn't feel like those can all be the same system, and it seems to me that D&D's acceptance of the first two, with a nod to things like E6, or homebrew "we're starting at level 12, and we're always going to be level 12" is the most "generic" solution possible.

Do you have a more generic solution that you feel would better appeal to all play styles?

Almost any point buy system works well for this sort of thing because characters can learn new stuff without necessarily becoming more "powerful." It works much better than "Your character is frozen in time forever" which is what you get if you play D&D at one level. Also, I could easily be wrong, but I don't think D&D has ever so much as "nodded" towards E6 - that's a fan based concept based around trying to make D&D do something it doesn't do well as written.

So yes?

[S.H.I.N]

- "But that's what my character would do!" as a mean of justifying every single action. Reminds me how important it is to lay out the campaign tone and general plot BEFORE even making starting characters.

- Players not playing as a team but as single units. Lemme be clear about this: i really like for players to see the campaign as "My character story" instead of "The GM & and His Wonderful NPCs story in which i happen to have a guest role" and such to provide their characters with motivations and objectives that goes beyond the campaign plot. It's part of what makes THAT campaign special and different formthe others. However, it becomes really frustrating when they start to see themselves as the only player and so you have a group of three guys doing three completely different things, and playing just with one guy while the other ones watch in silence, waiting for their turn. As a player that doesn't like this behaviour it was awful.

The following entry may turn in a rant. You have been warned

- Players thinking they've got plot armor. It happened recently that one of my players did a really poor decision, and as such he lost a Fate Points (it's a WFRP 2 campaign). He didn't die, he had another one left. He was shocked. I suddenly remebered him spending time with me telling me some time ago, when i was still a player and not his GM, how highly he regarded his character and how this will be his greatest character ever. He totally put the whole mutations, madness, illness and high mortality rate of the Warhammer World out of the question. This is his story, and as such, he can't fail. No matter what he does. I may be a newbie GM but i don't think this is something right and i've never done this as a player. Especially since this guy GMed me in a solo campaign with a character that i really, really liked and the whole affair resulted in a total railroad where i lost almost all the Fate Points in one session, and other 2 sessions were just me tied to a wall with a cultist stabbing me repetitely and casting magic to make me gain even more mutations until i collapsed and turned into a Chaos Spawn.
His situation was similar i must say, however in the end when i saw him almost depressed i told him to keep his Fate Point and the story ended. But i think i shouldn't have.

[Blu]

When i'm playing:

1) Too much RP: RP is an important aspect, but if every goddamn mechanic, ability or other aspect of character creation needs to have a story behind it or a 2 sessions quest to get, it gets tiring pretty fast and doesn't contribute to the story.
"Want to change your animal companion? You will have to make a trip to other country to get it."

On one table DM said i would only get the abilitys of the PrC i choose after an NPC showed up to teach my character... 4 levels later, still no NPC

2) Railroading: Bugs me the most of all. One of the premises for a DM for me is being prepared to be surprised, either for good or for bad, players do that, and can sometimes lead to incredible and fun storys.

One of the most common railroads i normally see happening is the "Low level adventurers need to save the world from impeding doom, with no help or whatsoever".

3) Spotlight stealing: Does not contribute whatsoever to the fun. The final fight or encounter of the campaign normally needs to be defeated or solved BY the party. If the campaign ending is the party watching two powerfull entities fight, your campaign probably has something wrong.

From personal experience, my worst table was one of the "Low level adventurers must save the world" with characters dying left and right were the NPC to teach my character the power of thr PrC never came and eventually a DMPC Wizard(1 to 3 levels higher than my character) showed up to "Teach me how to play a wizard".
And from that table the pearl was when we were level 10ish, just for very good rolls we managed to overcome an encounter that was very close to impossible(Phantasmal Killer worked and fighter managed to cut off one of the enemy's arms in a streak of 20's). At that moment, everyone was having fun, and we were feeling triumphant. Everyone's face's turned sour when the DM said: "You see a very tiny flaming sphere coming at you, Take 20d6, reflex for half" 3 out of 4 party members died to a controled fireball.

[GPS]

You know, that could make a good horror plot: You hunt down and execute a monster-in-human-form that is this psychopathic killer with barely any sense of self-preservation. But then, shortly thereafter, exactly the same horrific events keep happening. Is it a ghost? Revenant? Ghoul risen from this guy's corpse? No...it's somebody completely different. Except he behaves exactly the same.

Put down that rabid beast, and ANOTHER one shows up.

And again.

And again.
This needs to be a movie

[icefractal]

This one is going to be controversial …

People trying to use stupid rules dysfunctions for actual play, or when discussing things for actual play. Now obviously, what’s ‘stupid’ is a subjective question, and probably there are people who consider stuff that I enjoy to be ‘stupid rules dysfunctions’. But still, I’d be happy to never again see:
* Drown healing
* Pulling infinite supplies (like tarts for food) from the spell component pouch
* Pulling deity eyebrows, artifacts, etc from the spell component pouch
* Turning trees / wooden structures into piles of quarterstaves instantly
* Disassembling ladders for profit
Proposed as tactics in a non-comedy game. It was funny ... the first time someone came up with them.

[Knaight]

Ok, so... How can you build a "generic fantasy" game that simultaneously a) allows for play at all levels; b) allows for a single character to advance through those levels, and c) satisfies your desire to have characters not advance? It doesn't feel like those can all be the same system, and it seems to me that D&D's acceptance of the first two, with a nod to things like E6, or homebrew "we're starting at level 12, and we're always going to be level 12" is the most "generic" solution possible.

My point is that you can't - there's a few marginal things that can be done (scrapping levels entirely, Mutants and Masterminds style rank restrictions, and then having advancement in smaller increments works), but then everything else that makes it not generic leaves it not generic. With that said, more generic than D&D is easy; pick an actual generic system and call it a day. Then notice how the generic system is generally not as good as the specific system in the actual niche of said specific system.


Do you have a more generic solution that you feel would better appeal to all play styles?
I have plenty of more generic solutions, none of which better appeal to all play styles - because when a game isn't generic, and it's specifically built for the play style you're using it becoming more generic isn't an improvement for you. A game being more generic doesn't make it better, and while it's good that we have generic systems out there because of the inherent problems involved in having something specific for every play style that people also know about and can find, it's also good that not every system is generic.

[GPS]

This one is going to be controversial …

People trying to use stupid rules dysfunctions for actual play, or when discussing things for actual play. Now obviously, what’s ‘stupid’ is a subjective question, and probably there are people who consider stuff that I enjoy to be ‘stupid rules dysfunctions’. But still, I’d be happy to never again see:
* Drown healing
* Pulling infinite supplies (like tarts for food) from the spell component pouch
* Pulling deity eyebrows, artifacts, etc from the spell component pouch
* Turning trees / wooden structures into piles of quarterstaves instantly
* Disassembling ladders for profit
Proposed as tactics in a non-comedy game. It was funny ... the first time someone came up with them.
While most of those are horrible, I actually kind of want to see how that last one would play out. Tell us more about these ladders of yours.

[Mr Beer]

This one is going to be controversial …

People trying to use stupid rules dysfunctions for actual play, or when discussing things for actual play. Now obviously, what’s ‘stupid’ is a subjective question, and probably there are people who consider stuff that I enjoy to be ‘stupid rules dysfunctions’. But still, I’d be happy to never again see:
* Drown healing
* Pulling infinite supplies (like tarts for food) from the spell component pouch
* Pulling deity eyebrows, artifacts, etc from the spell component pouch
* Turning trees / wooden structures into piles of quarterstaves instantly
* Disassembling ladders for profit
Proposed as tactics in a non-comedy game. It was funny ... the first time someone came up with them.

That's not a controversial opinion, any reasonable DM is going to ban this kind of exploit in a non-silly campaign.

[Hagashager]

This one is going to be controversial …

People trying to use stupid rules dysfunctions for actual play, or when discussing things for actual play. Now obviously, what’s ‘stupid’ is a subjective question, and probably there are people who consider stuff that I enjoy to be ‘stupid rules dysfunctions’. But still, I’d be happy to never again see:
* Drown healing
* Pulling infinite supplies (like tarts for food) from the spell component pouch
* Pulling deity eyebrows, artifacts, etc from the spell component pouch
* Turning trees / wooden structures into piles of quarterstaves instantly
* Disassembling ladders for profit
Proposed as tactics in a non-comedy game. It was funny ... the first time someone came up with them.

Super Mario 64 wants its glitch back.

All of your other complaints fall under the "Mcgyvering" crap my players try to pull on me from time to time. Although, to be honest, that all just sounds really unfair and deliberately cheating.

Some of the shenanigans can be clever though. Currently, it's not taken place yet, but my party druid has a spell that lets her bring any crop to harvest.

so of course the very first idea that pops into her head is to buy Marijuana, plant fields of it, use her Druid magic on them, and sell it as a monopoly since no one else is selling weed currently. I've already told her that she's not gonna have a monopoly on it for very long. To which the rest of the party assured her they would gladly pitch in as hired muscle.

so yeah, that's apparently gonna be in a future at some point.

[ErebusVonMori]

Super Mario 64 wants its glitch back.

All of your other complaints fall under the "Mcgyvering" crap my players try to pull on me from time to time. Although, to be honest, that all just sounds really unfair and deliberately cheating.

Some of the shenanigans can be clever though. Currently, it's not taken place yet, but my party druid has a spell that lets her bring any crop to harvest.

so of course the very first idea that pops into her head is to buy Marijuana, plant fields of it, use her Druid magic on them, and sell it as a monopoly since no one else is selling weed currently. I've already told her that she's not gonna have a monopoly on it for very long. To which the rest of the party assured her they would gladly pitch in as hired muscle.

so yeah, that's apparently gonna be in a future at some point.

Dude, whoever your players are; treasure them.

[Hagashager]

Dude, whoever your players are; treasure them.

I do, it's all in good fun and the set up is brilliant. It practically writes the campaign for me. If she actually does try to become some drug-kingpin I basically have an easy excuse for anything I throw at the party at this point.

The way I've handled this party is that I don't have much of an actual narrative, I let my players decide what they want. At some point I narrow the focus so there's some kind of direction they go on, but once that "arc" so to speak is done they're free to start up whatever new hair-brained idea comes into their head.

[Cluedrew]

A game being more generic doesn't make it betterAnd I should probably clarify that I don't mind that D&D is not generic, I just feel the game suffers when people forget that and treat it like it is generic. And it is moderately generic within the action-fantasy area. But that is still pretty far below what say FATE or GURPS can cover.

Of course, I wouldn't try to use either of those to cover an action-fantasy zero-to-hero story (or small hero to mind-bendingly awesome) when D&D exists.

[Lord Torath]

While most of those are horrible, I actually kind of want to see how that last one would play out. Tell us more about these ladders of yours.As I understand it, two 10-foot poles cost more than a single 10-foot ladder. Buy a ladder, knock out the steps, and re-sell it as two 10-poles for a net profit. I think this was in 3E? In 2E, a pound of wheat was 1 gp. A 2-lb loaf of bread was half that. In a system where a light footman makes 1 gp per month (although I suspect that included room and board).

[Traab]

This needs to be a movie

This is a movie. Its several movies in fact. Its like the generic outline for half a dozen franchises. Friday the 13th, nightmare on elm street, etc etc etc.

That whole, "Its how my character would react" line needs to be treated harshly. "Ok then, why did you create a character that you knew would ruin every semblance of enjoyment anyone else gets to experience? Rocs fall, then devour your body. Now roll a character that isnt out to destroy the game for everyone else." And enforce that rule. Fun is fun, but everyone else is allowed to have fun too, so derailing the whole story so you can rape a horse while the queen is riding it then acting upset when the guards are called is just stupid. Chaotic neutral is not a license to do whatever stupid "wacky" thing you want without consequence.

[Guizonde]

- "But that's what my character would do!" as a mean of justifying every single action. Reminds me how important it is to lay out the campaign tone and general plot BEFORE even making starting characters.

with my friends, we use an unwritten "summoning sickness" rule at character creation. we all leave ourselves about 3 sessions to see our character develop his or her personnality. we start with a vague flavor (sociopath, ornery, silver-tongued, taciturn, grump, naive...) and we let the game interaction create the character's personnality. does wonders when sanity points start to drop. we managed to get a sneaky character crippled by kleptomania. made for a lot of eyebrow-raising when we found out he carried about 70lbs worth of trinkets nobody had seen him steal.


- Players not playing as a team but as single units. Lemme be clear about this: i really like for players to see the campaign as "My character story" instead of "The GM & and His Wonderful NPCs story in which i happen to have a guest role" and such to provide their characters with motivations and objectives that goes beyond the campaign plot. It's part of what makes THAT campaign special and different formthe others. However, it becomes really frustrating when they start to see themselves as the only player and so you have a group of three guys doing three completely different things, and playing just with one guy while the other ones watch in silence, waiting for their turn. As a player that doesn't like this behaviour it was awful.


with my team, we always end up something we hate doing: splitting the party. it might multiply our chances of success, but it also divides our life expectancy accordingly. it turns into 4 playstyles trying to accomplish the same goal, and without severe bookkeeping for all, it used to become a mess until we ended up together again (we evolved workarounds for that, but mostly comm-links helped a lot). i think that the difference between your team and mine are that we see ourselves as one unit with one common goal (and 4 separate sub-quests), and not 4 individuals playing in the dm's world. could talking to your players solve that issue? for me, it was session 0 where i told my players i was a novice and didn't feel like dealing with pvp or characters eating up other's spotlights. my team was half veterans, and half had never played pen and paper. the veterans coached the newbies and we solved that problem before it came up.


- Players thinking they've got plot armor. It happened recently that one of my players did a really poor decision, and as such he lost a Fate Points (it's a WFRP 2 campaign). He didn't die, he had another one left. He was shocked. I suddenly remebered him spending time with me telling me some time ago, when i was still a player and not his GM, how highly he regarded his character and how this will be his greatest character ever. He totally put the whole mutations, madness, illness and high mortality rate of the Warhammer World out of the question. This is his story, and as such, he can't fail. No matter what he does. I may be a newbie GM but i don't think this is something right and i've never done this as a player. Especially since this guy GMed me in a solo campaign with a character that i really, really liked and the whole affair resulted in a total railroad where i lost almost all the Fate Points in one session, and other 2 sessions were just me tied to a wall with a cultist stabbing me repetitely and casting magic to make me gain even more mutations until i collapsed and turned into a Chaos Spawn.
His situation was similar i must say, however in the end when i saw him almost depressed i told him to keep his Fate Point and the story ended. But i think i shouldn't have.


first time i got seriously wounded in a game, i was pissed off. iirc, it was a laceration on my character's face. the other players told me all of their different wounds (busted knees, acid-burns, scars...) and i became ok with the fact that the more dangerous a situation, the less pristine my character will be if he survives at all.
i play in a homebrew based on whfrp. i tell all my players that their idiocy will have consequences on their health (physical and mental). when the first crit hit my players, it happened to be on the veteran. he played a non-combattant and got his shoulder melted to the bone. he was pretty peeved at himself for forgetting he was not a beatstick. emphasis "at himself". not the dm, not the team. he flubbed a situation, and took full responsibility since i'd shown them on npc's and encounters exactly how the crit system worked. we patched him up, and the crits just kept hitting. at the end of the campaign, no character didn't have bionic augmentation or steel-replacement bones (one was 6 vertebrae, another a full shoulder, half a rib-cage...). they succeeded, but victory did not come cheap and was entirely a consequence of their efforts. had they flubbed something, they would not have succeeded. failure is always an option and makes for great stories as well.
your player behaved as that guy by railroading into torturing your character. when you're a gm, you're not meant to power-trip. you're meant to give each and everyone a fighting chance, but when the actions and the dice aren't on the player's side, too bad. crud happens. you warned him repeatedly on the lethality of that world (hell, it's the reason i decided to homebrew that system in the first place). it's his fault he thought he couldn't lose. dude sounds like the kind of guy who'll mary-sue all his characters and abuse dm-powers.

[Quertus]

My old nemesis was excruciating minutia.

Unless it is somehow plot critical, I don't want to have to detail every minor action. I don't want to have to try to explain the exact details of how my character walks through an inch of water vs water up to their knees vs water up to their waist. Unless there's a reason it wouldn't be true, I want to just assume a minimal level of competence from my characters. When I say my character puts on their pants, I don't want to hear that they put them on their head because I didn't specify where they were wearing them. I want to be able to at most say that my character gets dressed, and have that be sufficient. Unless someone has a bomb triggered to my zipper, and the party is in a desperate race against time to find / disarm / relocate said bomb before I reach that step, I don't want to waste precious game time having a Garibaldi-esque conversion about fasten then zip.

These days, I'm more concerned about the rule of 3, and GMs who only have a single point of entry for a single plot and/or single ways to acquire each of Umpteen clues, without all of which their entire game falls over.


When i'm playing:

1) Too much RP: RP is an important aspect, but if every goddamn mechanic, ability or other aspect of character creation needs to have a story behind it or a 2 sessions quest to get, it gets tiring pretty fast and doesn't contribute to the story.
"Want to change your animal companion? You will have to make a trip to other country to get it."

On one table DM said i would only get the abilitys of the PrC i choose after an NPC showed up to teach my character... 4 levels later, still no NPC

2) Railroading: Bugs me the most of all. One of the premises for a DM for me is being prepared to be surprised, either for good or for bad, players do that, and can sometimes lead to incredible and fun storys.

One of the most common railroads i normally see happening is the "Low level adventurers need to save the world from impeding doom, with no help or whatsoever".

3) Spotlight stealing: Does not contribute whatsoever to the fun. The final fight or encounter of the campaign normally needs to be defeated or solved BY the party. If the campaign ending is the party watching two powerfull entities fight, your campaign probably has something wrong.

From personal experience, my worst table was one of the "Low level adventurers must save the world" with characters dying left and right were the NPC to teach my character the power of thr PrC never came and eventually a DMPC Wizard(1 to 3 levels higher than my character) showed up to "Teach me how to play a wizard".
And from that table the pearl was when we were level 10ish, just for very good rolls we managed to overcome an encounter that was very close to impossible(Phantasmal Killer worked and fighter managed to cut off one of the enemy's arms in a streak of 20's). At that moment, everyone was having fun, and we were feeling triumphant. Everyone's face's turned sour when the DM said: "You see a very tiny flaming sphere coming at you, Take 20d6, reflex for half" 3 out of 4 party members died to a controled fireball.

Hmmm... First level characters, railroaded by the gods, to help an epic level DMPC (complete with artifact), in a highly lethal campaign, that ended with said DMPC vs the BBEG... I think I feel your pain.

Although I'll generally take "already an X, and suffering under a curse (of Y negative levels, which I buy off as I level) so as not to go through that "waiting on the GM" ****.


This one is going to be controversial …

People trying to use stupid rules dysfunctions for actual play, or when discussing things for actual play. Now obviously, what’s ‘stupid’ is a subjective question, and probably there are people who consider stuff that I enjoy to be ‘stupid rules dysfunctions’. But still, I’d be happy to never again see:
* Drown healing
* Pulling infinite supplies (like tarts for food) from the spell component pouch
* Pulling deity eyebrows, artifacts, etc from the spell component pouch
* Turning trees / wooden structures into piles of quarterstaves instantly
* Disassembling ladders for profit
Proposed as tactics in a non-comedy game. It was funny ... the first time someone came up with them.

You... Had people actually try those in an actual game? I mean, I'll play TO tier 0 characters in an actual game, but even I have never seen anything like that.

Well, except for the instant staves. As I independently invented that back in Y2K, I did have a character who crafted a staff as a free action every round. :smalltongue: No-one had seen it at the time, so my material was still fresh.

[FreddyNoNose]

-The third thing I can't stand is alignment restrictions. The DM can suggest a preferable alignment, but if I want to be an evil bastard, let me be, and, should I fail to blend in with the group, let me face the concequences. Sure, it might be more dificult to blend in with a group that has a LG Paladin, but why restrict my character, and not his for example? Let me play my character the way I like, and if I can't blend in, punish me in game.


I agree but there is also the need to get the party doing stuff. If you have 18 players and one person wants to wander off in another direction, it doesn't work in the long run.

[FreddyNoNose]

So much this. Let me finish describing the room. I'm not given to novel-length descriptions. It's three sentences!

That's why I don't allow Kayne at my games!

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's why I don't allow Kayne at my games!

I'll let you finish, but teenagers are WAY worse :smallamused:

[FreddyNoNose]

I'll let you finish, but teenagers are WAY worse :smallamused:

:smallbiggrin:

[Bohandas]

This needs to be a movie

I think it was a subplot of In the Mouth of Madness

[Theoboldi]

Lately, I've come to realize that I really dislike grid-based combat. And actually not because I dislike it as a method. I think it actually gives a lot of useful clarity and allows you to make informed decisions more easily (albeit with a lot less potential for spontaneous ideas and ad-hoc details, which I do miss) than theater of mind.

No, I dislike it because every time I've tried it, there always was that one guy who immediately adopts a sort of wargame mindset once initiative is rolled, and plays himself up as the commander of the group. He'll give his opinion on each and every single move and action you take, telling you exactly where to go and what abilities would be most helpful, and will generally not shut up about what the most optimal course of action is. Of course, he'll usually be experienced and make their decisions with good reasons, but that just means someone like me who is not as tactically capable will feel pressured to just go along with what he say.

Usually, it just ends with me feeling like I'm not even controlling my character in battle, and thus not really caring about the outcome.

[Scripten]

Lately, I've come to realize that I really dislike grid-based combat. And actually not because I dislike it as a method. -snip-

No, I dislike it because every time I've tried it, there always was that one guy who immediately adopts a sort of wargame mindset once initiative is rolled, and plays himself up as the commander of the group. -snip-

As someone who mostly DM's, I can entirely see where you're coming from in this. Unfortunately, other than asking the guy to stop, there's not a ton of options for dealing with this from the player's perspective. Have you thought about asking the DM to enforce RP/metagaming rules during combat? While the player may know how your character works mechanically, their character may not. Another upshot to this is that you can make the argument from a position of immersion rather than calling out a fellow player.

[Quertus]

So you... have never had someone boss you around in theatre of mind combat?

[Theoboldi]

As someone who mostly DM's, I can entirely see where you're coming from in this. Unfortunately, other than asking the guy to stop, there's not a ton of options for dealing with this from the player's perspective. Have you thought about asking the DM to enforce RP/metagaming rules during combat? While the player may know how your character works mechanically, their character may not. Another upshot to this is that you can make the argument from a position of immersion rather than calling out a fellow player.
Yeah, it's a tough thing to deal with, since often it does come from a friendly place. Most often, it's just the player trying to help out others, but taking it way too far.

That said, this is more of a hindsight thing for me, as I don't really play systems that require grid-based combat anymore. Mostly because of personal preference. I just was thinking back on those games lately, and recognized a bit of a pattern in my experiences with them.

Perhaps you recommendation can help someone stuck with the same problem, though.


So you... have never had someone boss you around in theatre of mind combat?

No. Absolutely not. At least not in such a tactically focused way. It's really not a knock against that playstyle at all, I see it's value. But for me, it almost always ended up feeling like that. I've certainly seen bossy players in games that had theatre of mind combat. But their bossiness expressed itself differently.

[Segev]

No. Absolutely not. At least not in such a tactically focused way. It's really not a knock against that playstyle at all, I see it's value. But for me, it almost always ended up feeling like that. I've certainly seen bossy players in games that had theatre of mind combat. But their bossiness expressed itself differently.

Weird. My experience is that the tactical wargamer is going to boss people around (or at least give heavy suggestions) regardless of whether it's minis or "theater of the mind."

[Theoboldi]

Weird. My experience is that the tactical wargamer is going to boss people around (or at least give heavy suggestions) regardless of whether it's minis or "theater of the mind."

I suppose I've just been lucky in that regard. Though I don't think it's completely unreasonable to say that those people are more likely to play games with minis, or that those games reward their playstyle more, since they actually involve precise distances and detailed positioning far more than theater of mind ever could.

[Guizonde]

I suppose I've just been lucky in that regard. Though I don't think it's completely unreasonable to say that those people are more likely to play games with minis, or that those games reward their playstyle more, since they actually involve precise distances and detailed positioning far more than theater of mind ever could.

i don't know if it'll help, but i may have a solution. my friends and i pretty much abandonned grids and wargame tables due to a silly reason called "battle in 3 dimensions". we never found a satisfying way of playing out with minis a fight in a corridor that has air-vents, enemies coming from the walls or below you, or even the players. one beautiful battle took place across 3 levels, one staircase, 7 airvents, and an open conduit that stretched up for 50m and went down 200. problem was it wasn't a running battle. the players could see quite a bit of the fight, and so could the enemies. we tried isometric drawings, 3/4 cuts, but unless we took the time to actually build the arena beforehand, we'd never manage it. it came up again a lot later when 3 characters were in trees taking potshots to cover the scout (busy running for his life, i might add). that was before we incorporated flying vehicles, too. the way it plays out is extremely claustrophobic, the dm calling out pre-defined distances in code-phrases: "the enemy's flanking you to your north, he's mid-range and closing in for a charge". those kinds of phrases happen during combat.

... might have something to do with our plan c going from "kill everything to death" to becoming "burn everything and run away".

[Knaight]

Weird. My experience is that the tactical wargamer is going to boss people around (or at least give heavy suggestions) regardless of whether it's minis or "theater of the mind."

I've only seen this with grids*, even dropping to zones tends to curtail the behavior.

*And large networked systems, but that's less RPGs and more Pandemic.