PDA

View Full Version : Players, what are things you wish your GM had told you before game start?



Miz_Liz
2019-05-31, 11:48 AM
Hiya,

So this is meant to be kind of a combination group therapy, and a helpful guide for new or new-ish GMs coughmecough. What are some things about the game or the setting you want/wish/expect your GM to lay out before the game starts?

as an example:
I started a new 5e campaign after the group tpk. Decided to roll up a tranquility monk. After everyone have rolled characters and the game had started, the DM dropped the bomb that this would be an almost exclusively nautical campaign. I, being quite literally the only melee combatant (we had a warlock, wizard, gunsmith artificer, and ranged ranger) would be at an immense disadvantage. I got really, really lucky in the fact that I had decided to play a water genasi, so I could just hop in the ocean and start bashing the baddies, but if I hadn't done that I would have been entirely useless for a solid 3/4 of the time in combat.

All that to say I now directly and bluntly ask what the main topography of a campaign is going to be before I start designing my character.

Man_Over_Game
2019-05-31, 12:23 PM
What to do if the GM/Table is wrong regarding a rule.

What changes should we expect to the rules as houserules.

How much will your backstory play into the campaign.



That's about it. Anything else I can work around. I'm fine with a DM that makes rulings on the fly. I'm fine with a DM that makes houserules. I'm not fine with a DM that's unorganized enough to make houserules on the fly. Extra Attack should NOT be used for casting spells, or at least we should have known about that before we started. I'd be fine with a DM that makes mistakes, but I can't again play with one that covers up his mistakes by making on-the-spot houserules that he "definitely" put thought into. Which happens a lot more than I'd like.

Lord Torath
2019-05-31, 12:57 PM
How much "bean-counting" is there going to be? Do I need to bring several weeks' worth of rations for myself and my horse? Should I bring several extra bow-strings? I'm fine with that, but it's nice to know before-hand. I'm used to tracking ammo and encumbrance, but let me know if I need to track other stuff.

Also, something along the lines of this (manifesto (http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/index.htm)) is nice, just to help everyone agree on the "understood" table rules.

GrayDeath
2019-05-31, 01:48 PM
How much of the mentioned System will be houseruled, and how exactly.

If he intends to introduce new rules InGame (unless there is a fluff reason for it, say Magic surging or somesuch, this is a reason for me to leave, bad experience^).

What he intends as start and the type of Campaign its supposed to be.

How (if playing D&D or similar) he will handle XP/Ressurections/similar problems.

The Carta of Snack and Drink.

Themrys
2019-05-31, 01:53 PM
Hiya,

So this is meant to be kind of a combination group therapy, and a helpful guide for new or new-ish GMs coughmecough. What are some things about the game or the setting you want/wish/expect your GM to lay out before the game starts?



Well, this is more of a GM horror story, but I wish Horror-GM had told me he is a misogynist and likes to inflict his misogyny on female characters by twisting a setting that is canonically equal into being as misogynist as the 50s, and the canonically slightly sexist (think LotR) setting into a misogynist dystopia where women are officially considered men's property.

Most likely I would have chosen to not play with him at all, but in case of extreme boredom and lack of alternatives, I might have chosen to play a male character. (Though he also was against playing characters of the other sex ... I wonder why ... no, I actually don't.)


Other things ... I was actually quite happy with all the other GM's I played with, but perhaps things like "historical" accuracy and stuff ... telling people beforehand that it is not going to be perfectly accurate would have spared a group with a quite nice DM the debate on whether or not large amounts of clear glass would have been available in a world with this and that technology, or not.

People also like to know in advance whether you allow fighting other player characters. I'm currently in a group where the GM allows it, and I would still have joined if I had known, but only because I am friendly with the other players. (I heard some GMs don't even allow to roll on social skills when interacting with other player characters, and I think if you play with strangers, that's a sensible policy.)

In general, what you allow and don't allow is going to be of interest. Knowing what I know now, I would immediately leave any group where the GM doesn't ban sexual violence. (Horror GM only inflicted his creepyness on NPCs at first, but I should have been warned ...)

jintoya
2019-05-31, 01:58 PM
Some things to always tell players:

1) The general thrust of the feeling you are projecting into a setting:

For example if it's a happy-fun snuggle campaign with rainbows and unicorns... No dread necromancer!

If it's a fun campaign, where the rule-of-cool applies:
Don't worry about over optimizing...

It's good to let players know what they are getting into.

2) house rules and your stance on meta-gaming:

I've had DMs who were willing to punish us in-game for chatting among ourselves about our reasons for character actions.
I've had some who don't care so long as we don't act on meta-knowledge in-character... That's my stance, but its up to you.

3) your big red NOPE button:

Every human is different, we all have things we just don't tolerate and you are likely no different... Tell them so they do not catch a lighting bolt of DM wrath because they hit a sore topic for you... Just set "the limit" and they will respect it... Or play a different game, that simple.

I think those are what I'd consider rather essential.

jintoya
2019-05-31, 02:09 PM
(I heard some GMs don't even allow to roll on social skills when interacting with other player characters, and I think if you play with strangers, that's a sensible policy

Do you mean like diplomacy or bluff... Or the Pathfinder equivalent?
There is a good reason for that.

Themrys
2019-05-31, 02:24 PM
Do you mean like diplomacy or bluff... Or the Pathfinder equivalent?
There is a good reason for that.

Yeah, that sort of thing. And yes, I read enough horror stories ... including one heartbreaking request by a girl who wanted help with building a character who would be resistant to seduction (I think that might actually have been a skill in that game, it was something more focused on social stuff than D&D) by a character played by a male creep in her group. :smalleek:

In the group I'm currently in, I think it is fun to roll dice to see whether my character fell for the other's blatant lies, but I can already see how it could get annoying with more blatant lying, and I am prepared to speak up if or when that happens.

I'd definitely ban it myself if playing with strangers.

Man_Over_Game
2019-05-31, 02:29 PM
Yeah, that sort of thing. And yes, I read enough horror stories ... including one heartbreaking request by a girl who wanted help with building a character who would be resistant to seduction (I think that might actually have been a skill in that game, it was something more focused on social stuff than D&D) by a character played by a male creep in her group. :smalleek:

In the group I'm currently in, I think it is fun to roll dice to see whether my character fell for the other's blatant lies, but I can already see how it could get annoying with more blatant lying, and I am prepared to speak up if or when that happens.

I'd definitely ban it myself if playing with strangers.

I'd like it if there was some kind of system that allowed social pvp in a way that wasn't forceful and helped the narrative.

Like, successfully "persuading" someone means that they get bonuses to doing what you want, and penalties to act against it. Failing to "persuade" someone means that you suffer penalties for your attempt at being a jerk, and they get benefits towards acting against what you want.

In the end, it still comes down to player decisions, and what they want to do, but they may be more rewarded (with Exp, temporary hitpoints, whatever) by following the narrative. But I'm not sure how people would perceive something like that in real play, though.

hotflungwok
2019-05-31, 02:40 PM
"By the way I'm going to kill each of you at least once in the next three months, usually very arbitrarily with nothing you can do about it, so have some extra characters ready if you want to keep playing."

jintoya
2019-05-31, 03:16 PM
Yeah, that sort of thing. And yes, I read enough horror stories ... including one heartbreaking request by a girl who wanted help with building a character who would be resistant to seduction (I think that might actually have been a skill in that game, it was something more focused on social stuff than D&D) by a character played by a male creep in her group. :smalleek:

In the group I'm currently in, I think it is fun to roll dice to see whether my character fell for the other's blatant lies, but I can already see how it could get annoying with more blatant lying, and I am prepared to speak up if or when that happens.

I'd definitely ban it myself if playing with strangers.

The issue isn't so much an "did/should I?" problem as it is a "can I?"
I ban it because the answer to the question "can I force you to do anything you don't want to with your character?" In D&D should never be "yes"... Ever.
It's about agency. Unless mind controlled, taking actions on another behalf in a way that cannot be combated in-game is a big no-no.
"My number is higher than your number... Sign this paper"
Is not fun and undermines the game in ways larger than it's possible benefits

Cygnia
2019-05-31, 03:23 PM
For one particular GM...:smallmad:

"Hi, I'm anal retentive and passive-aggressive! I will punish you if you are unable to be mind-readers as to what my exact meaning in a post is!"

Jakinbandw
2019-05-31, 03:41 PM
I always make sure I let my players know that they need to player Good aligned characters. I understand that isn't everyone's jam, but I can't enjoy GMing for non Good Characters. If you reaction is 'May I just play chaotic neutral instead' we aren't going to enjoy gaming together.

Quertus
2019-05-31, 10:08 PM
In general, what you allow and don't allow is going to be of interest.

Agreed.


Knowing what I know now, I would immediately leave any group where the GM doesn't ban sexual violence.

I'm more concerned about the GM who doesn't ban fluffy bunnies… if a player explains that they have a problem with fluffy bunnies. Substitute whatever for fluffy bunnies


Some things to always tell players:

1) The general thrust of the feeling you are projecting into a setting:

For example if it's a happy-fun snuggle campaign with rainbows and unicorns... No dread necromancer!

If it's a fun campaign, where the rule-of-cool applies:
Don't worry about over optimizing...

It's good to let players know what they are getting into.

2) house rules and your stance on meta-gaming:

I've had DMs who were willing to punish us in-game for chatting among ourselves about our reasons for character actions.
I've had some who don't care so long as we don't act on meta-knowledge in-character... That's my stance, but its up to you.

3) your big red NOPE button:

1) my Dread Necromancer and his dancing skeletons can absolutely party with happy fun snuggle rainbow unicorns. :smallwink:

2) that GM have a problem with role-playing?

3) very important, that.


In the group I'm currently in, I think it is fun to roll dice to see whether my character fell for the other's blatant lies, but I can already see how it could get annoying with more blatant lying, and I am prepared to speak up if or when that happens.

I'd definitely ban it myself if playing with strangers.

"You are actually an elephant"?

And why ban it with strangers?


I always make sure I let my players know that they need to player Good aligned characters. I understand that isn't everyone's jam, but I can't enjoy GMing for non Good Characters. If you reaction is 'May I just play chaotic neutral instead' we aren't going to enjoy gaming together.

What do you mean by "good"? What about "**** alignment, here's my personality"?

Jakinbandw
2019-05-31, 11:22 PM
What do you mean by "good"? What about "**** alignment, here's my personality"?

Hey, I thought you played rules as written, no fudging things like alignment!

But more seriously, that doesn't cut it. That sounds like just a way to try to get around the restriction, and at the end of the day, that doesn't solve the issue. I don't run games for villains. I run games for character that help people because they want to, not for reward or profit, not because they are forced, and I definitely don't run games to let players be sadistic murderhobos.

Here's the thing. I enjoy evil characters in games and in movies. However I like to watch them fail and lose. If I tried to run for an evil party I would inevitably party kill them by having good characters show up and wreck their day (okay, I wouldn't because I'm not that bad of a GM, but I wouldn't have any enjoyment for the game and I would stop running it after a session).

Case in point; one group of players fought against a friendly enemy who was honorable and viewed the PCs as necessary to kill. If the players had killed him, I wouldn't have minded as it would have been an honest mistake. I don't expect characters to always make the right choice, just to try to. However the players befriended him, and got him working with them. They put effort into befriending him. A session later one of the players decided that this NPC wasn't as useful as he had hoped and mind controlled him, then got him to commit suicide.

I let it work. Then dropped the game and never ran for that player again. I couldn't enjoy the game any more, and I've I'm not having fun as a GM, I don't view it as my duty to keep running the game.

That said, just because I don't run games for characters that exist solely for self profit or whatever doesn't mean I'm a particularly stingy GM. Right now for example my players rule the Astral plane as their own personal paradise and have become divinities in the world. It's not like I'm forcing paladins to fall, or saying that their only reword for saving a town is a feeling of accomplishment. It does mean however that some sessions of our games right now exist around them debating the ethics of hell with a god of betrayal and agony.

Spore
2019-06-01, 04:53 AM
Less like a thing and more of a "if you're a happy-go-lucky thief going out to steal stuff, assume I throw improvised traps and death at you into you know better than to actually RP your character". No, I did not play the "lulul, CN Rogue out there breaking into people's houses to make coffee" random nonsense.

But seriously if you're railroading my character into activating a trap that releases a fire elemental so that my fellow group has something to do/battle while I steal the map we need to progress back please don't let me roll for it?

Same as in when I decided to borrow from the xenophobic dwarves' magic weapons vault, I was expecting a fair few traps and locks. What I was NOT expecting was that my DM literally throws people at me to stop me from getting away (the dwarf merchant's son woke up from my noise and I sprinted over him after I failed a reflex save and badly injured him apparently?). I am all for immersive gaming but that was the last straw for me.

Yes, maybe the character choices were a bit random. But the dwarves showed nothing but disdain for us outsiders, and when we asked for some magic weapons to battle the literal ghosts that murder their citizens we are greeted with: "No, you have to manage on your own." Yea okay, I'm gonna stab this ghost with my masterwork dagger, alright.

Themrys
2019-06-01, 05:47 AM
I'm more concerned about the GM who doesn't ban fluffy bunnies… if a player explains that they have a problem with fluffy bunnies. Substitute whatever for fluffy bunnies


Nice for you.

But I will think twice before ever again playing in a group with a male GM who doesn't ban sexual violence without me asking him to do so.

I told GM of horrors outright that I didn't want sexual violence in my game, and he ... just threw it at me regardless, then first made bull**** claims that love potions didn't constitute sexual violence, then just threw sexual violence at us without even bothering to find excuses.

So, no. Just listening to players and nodding and smiling doesn't cut it.


None of the GMs I played with when I was younger banned sexual violence, but out of two male DMs, one was very young and had only ran games for his all-male friends, and the other was GM of horrors.
And the female GM didn't tell me she wouldn't have sexual violence in the game when we started playing, but later told me that I needn't have played it safe with the rapey cultists we were fighting, they wouldn't ever have managed to rape my character, cause she didn't like that sort of thing in her game. Wish I had known that in advance cause I would have roleplayed my character much better if the out of character fear of things getting ugly hadn't kept me back. (Because back then I was too young to know that I could just tell the GM I didn't want sexual violence in my game. Another good reason to just ban it without anyone asking. Inexperienced players will only realize that it could come up and that they don't want it once you started playing.)

A man my age would have to be extremely sheltered to not know that a) lots of men are creeps and b) almost all women my age have enough negative experiences to not want any sexual violence at all in a game run by a man and c) younger female players may find it cathartic to violently dispose of some rapey cultists, but will leave the group if they are sexually harrassed by male players and the GM thinks that just because they don't verbally object out of character they are okay with it.


Sexual violence isn't some unusual thing to not want in a game, like your tasteless fluffy bunny example. In its extreme unfunnyness, it is akin to a player character getting cancer.

Quertus
2019-06-01, 06:06 AM
Hey, I thought you played rules as written, no fudging things like alignment!

But more seriously, that doesn't cut it. That sounds like just a way to try to get around the restriction, and at the end of the day, that doesn't solve the issue. I don't run games for villains. I run games for character that help people because they want to, not for reward or profit, not because they are forced, and I definitely don't run games to let players be sadistic murderhobos.

Here's the thing. I enjoy evil characters in games and in movies. However I like to watch them fail and lose. If I tried to run for an evil party I would inevitably party kill them by having good characters show up and wreck their day (okay, I wouldn't because I'm not that bad of a GM, but I wouldn't have any enjoyment for the game and I would stop running it after a session).

Case in point; one group of players fought against a friendly enemy who was honorable and viewed the PCs as necessary to kill. If the players had killed him, I wouldn't have minded as it would have been an honest mistake. I don't expect characters to always make the right choice, just to try to. However the players befriended him, and got him working with them. They put effort into befriending him. A session later one of the players decided that this NPC wasn't as useful as he had hoped and mind controlled him, then got him to commit suicide.

I let it work. Then dropped the game and never ran for that player again. I couldn't enjoy the game any more, and I've I'm not having fun as a GM, I don't view it as my duty to keep running the game.

That said, just because I don't run games for characters that exist solely for self profit or whatever doesn't mean I'm a particularly stingy GM. Right now for example my players rule the Astral plane as their own personal paradise and have become divinities in the world. It's not like I'm forcing paladins to fall, or saying that their only reword for saving a town is a feeling of accomplishment. It does mean however that some sessions of our games right now exist around them debating the ethics of hell with a god of betrayal and agony.

Near as I can tell, the bolded bits come closest to explaining how you define "good". Which, depending on the edition/system, is something that my "good" characters could often fail, or my evil characters could often pass (although 3e rather clearly put "sadism" in the "evil" camp). Which is why I asked, because not everyone - and not every system - shares the same definition. And people often debate over what alignment a system will call a set of actions.

It seems much clearer to call out what behaviors you want / don't want, than to hope people mean the same things by those words that you do.

"Evil' GMs can fail in numerous ways, but "Believing that you have communicated" is one of the most common failings of the "good" GM.

Jay R
2019-06-01, 07:52 AM
"Evil' GMs can fail in numerous ways, but "Believing that you have communicated" is one of the most common failings of the "good" GM.

Yup. As George Bernard Shaw wrote, "The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place."

I tend to provide a several-page-long introduction that includes house rules, background, and any other details needed to create a character, and anything that all people in a world should know. [If there are two moons, then people who grew up there don't need to discover it in play.] I also specifically point out what there characters won't know. [In my last game, they grew up in an isolated village deep in a haunted forest, and had no knowledge of any other lands, or any non-forest creatures.] I know (at least some of) the players read it, because one of them quoted it back to me years later.

Pauly
2019-06-01, 07:54 AM
1) what is the social setting of the game? How important is social interaction? Do I need to consider building “talky” skills into my character?

2) what is the general tone? Combat, skullduggery, Monty Python, swashbuckling etc. etc etc.

3) how much book keeping is required? Do you need to keep track of food and ammo, or will it be assumed your character isn’t an idiot and can feed and clothe themselves without explicit instructions.

4) Any no-go areas. Not just sex things, but for example I had a DM sink our ship because he didn’t want us to be traders.

5) what the DM expects of me. How expert do I have to be in the rules, how expert do I have to be in the setting, how forgiving is he/she about SNAFUs.

6) are there any peculiar wrinkles to the setting that would not be obvious to a random player

Jakinbandw
2019-06-01, 11:38 AM
Near as I can tell, the bolded bits come closest to explaining how you define "good". Which, depending on the edition/system, is something that my "good" characters could often fail, or my evil characters could often pass (although 3e rather clearly put "sadism" in the "evil" camp). Which is why I asked, because not everyone - and not every system - shares the same definition. And people often debate over what alignment a system will call a set of actions.

It seems much clearer to call out what behaviors you want / don't want, than to hope people mean the same things by those words that you do.

"Evil' GMs can fail in numerous ways, but "Believing that you have communicated" is one of the most common failings of the "good" GM.

"Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."

If you have an 'evil' character that goes around helping others for no gain, and is not a murder hobo, and treats npcs with respect....

Then why do you try to label them as evil? Dnd does have outlines for what good and evil are. Honestly, eny time someone has asked what I meant and I shared a more in depth view I've ended up with that player trying to rule lawyer their way into following the guidelines I laid out while being as evil as possible within them. It's happened several times to me now. I have never had a problem with a player that didn't ask and just accepted that I only wanted good aligned pcs.


But I will think twice before ever again playing in a group with a male GM who doesn't ban sexual violence without me asking him to do so.
Being honest I've never banned sexual violence. Though to be fair I never inflicted it on players either. That said, I'd like to improve as a GM and I'm not quite clear on what you have an issue with, because I thought you wanted a full ban from your first post, but this one made me doubt that a bit so:

-Sexual violence towards pcs is banned (obviously!)
-Is an NPC having implied to have suffered Sexual Violence in their past okay?
-what about explicitly?
-Is it okay for an NPC to have in the past sexually abused another NPC? (assuming they are a villian that exists to be defeated)
-Is it okay for an NPC to threaten sexual violance is the player is aware that those threats are hot air? (either because it's a bluff, or because the GM won't allow it to happen?)

For the record the furthest I've gone down the list is explicite sexual abuse suffered by an NPC in the past. It was a murder mystery time loop thing, and the pcs were always the only ones left alive on an island. One of the options after solving the mystery was to agree with the killer that certain people (including the killers sexual abuser) needed to die and to work with her to make sure she survived along with the pcs instead of committing suicide (she had reasons to believe everyone but the pcs were horrible people and she was making the world a better place by killing them all.)

Telok
2019-06-01, 01:36 PM
1) Do we care about "alignment" and/or religion? Am I going to be punished for making a character with a personality that doesn't fit nicely into your preconceptions of morality? Is there any difference between being a devout worshipper of a diety and being a cleric of kill-loot-levelup?

2) Did the DM actually read at least most of the rules in the book? Is the DM aware that there's errata which reduces target numbers from 15+(2 x level) to 10+(1.5 x level)? Does the DM know that "move speed (land) 40" does not mean that the critter can make a 40 foot vertical jump from standing still.

3) Does the DM regularly nerf first level spells, feats, and class abilities that negate low level traps and environmental 'hazards' that are just piddly temporary nuisances?

Jakinbandw
2019-06-01, 01:40 PM
1) Is the DM aware that there's errata which reduces target numbers from 15+(2 x level) to 10+(1.5 x level)?

Yikes! What if the GM lets you know they haven't read and memorized all errata for the game their running?

MeimuHakurei
2019-06-01, 01:42 PM
Less like a thing and more of a "if you're a happy-go-lucky thief going out to steal stuff, assume I throw improvised traps and death at you into you know better than to actually RP your character". No, I did not play the "lulul, CN Rogue out there breaking into people's houses to make coffee" random nonsense.

But seriously if you're railroading my character into activating a trap that releases a fire elemental so that my fellow group has something to do/battle while I steal the map we need to progress back please don't let me roll for it?

Same as in when I decided to borrow from the xenophobic dwarves' magic weapons vault, I was expecting a fair few traps and locks. What I was NOT expecting was that my DM literally throws people at me to stop me from getting away (the dwarf merchant's son woke up from my noise and I sprinted over him after I failed a reflex save and badly injured him apparently?). I am all for immersive gaming but that was the last straw for me.

Yes, maybe the character choices were a bit random. But the dwarves showed nothing but disdain for us outsiders, and when we asked for some magic weapons to battle the literal ghosts that murder their citizens we are greeted with: "No, you have to manage on your own." Yea okay, I'm gonna stab this ghost with my masterwork dagger, alright.

To be fair, that last one is less of a situation where you should leave the game/group and more where you should consider siding with the ghosts.

Mad_Saulot
2019-06-01, 02:36 PM
I know you asked for players to post but I thought as DM I would put in my prereq speel for players before we started our current game

- No PvP, this means no fighting, no theft, no plotting against each other, no conspiracies and no refusal of service, and no loot denial, no slander or defamation between characters, all in game characters must sign an ingame "Contract" indicating their chosen representative/quest-leader and listing the above conditions in the agreement, all loot will be kept in a group pot and if a player wants his cut a "Cut Event" is issued and the entire pot is divided equally between contract members (ie the players) once a cut has been divided then loot begins to be stored in pot as beefore til another cut event is called this document exists in-game and is legally binding, we refer to it as an "Adventure Contract".

- Players *Must* come up with their own reasons to be in the group, if a player creates an evil character it is on them to rationalise why they are with the group, it is their responsibility to not break the group, prefereably using their backstory but failing that cite the Adventure Contract, edge-lords arent welcome.

- All rules will be interpreted by RAW and only content from official sources will be considered for inclusion into the game. Any confusion will be resolved out of game in a group quorum.

Wraith
2019-06-01, 05:07 PM
Which of the other players is the GM beholden to, to the point where their opinion can end the game on a whim?

The most recent game I was playing in was over discord, and one of the players was streaming it live on her Twitch account. I'm fine with that; she has ~8 followers, so while it might amuse one or two people it's not like I needed to be worried about my privacy being invaded or suffering from "stage fright" in front of a large audience.

It quickly became apparent that this was the ONLY reason that she was playing, and when her internet started getting throttled due to nearby maintenance work being carried out she quickly put an end to the game, saying that it was "pointless" to keep playing if she couldn't stream and that she was far, far too busy to play just "for fun".
The GM was happy to run "for fun", and the other players were happy to play "for fun", but as the GM's housemate her hour of passive-aggressive explaining why she wasn't there just to play the game with us killed all of our enthusiasm and the game has quietly folded.

An extreme example, but one that applies in other forms. Does the GM bring along their girlfriend/boyfriend and thus needs to refrain from roleplay or events that might raise emotions that would linger after the game? Do they need to get a ride to the game with someone? Is this person as reliable and as committed as the GM is, if their refusal to attend could end the game for everyone else?
I wouldn't ask to pry into someone else's private relationships with each other, but if the case is like above - the GM leaves because one specific player is less committed than they are - it at least lets me be aware that the game is even more precarious than the usual attempt at cat-herding that is getting 5 or 6 strangers together for a few hours a week.

Not exactly a horror story, but it's taught me to be a bit more selfish about what *I* want from the game. If I judge that the GM's co-dependant player is flaky, I know who I need to be more accommodating for... or just to prepare myself not to get too invested in something that has double the usual potential to be a train-wreck.

Quertus
2019-06-01, 05:42 PM
love potions

Here's the thing: I'm not going to hold those who love Harry Potter, and fail to recognize the squick in Rawlings' world-building as inherently irredeemably evil individuals with whom I must never associate.

By the same token, I'll not carte blanche judge all slave holders, people who talk on theaters, or illusionist GMs. I'll reserve my judgement for how they respond to being told the error of their ways.


"Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."

If you have an 'evil' character that goes around helping others for no gain, and is not a murder hobo, and treats npcs with respect....

Then why do you try to label them as evil? Dnd does have outlines for what good and evil are.

Because my character does one or more of… animates the dead; is a sadist / otherwise enjoys the suffering of others (even if they do not cause such suffering themselves); uses poison: owns slaves (OK, that one's unlikely to jive with your definition for long if others poke at their beliefs); believes in revenge; makes hard choices for the greater good; is Athenian

I'm pretty sure any one of those would have the character labeled as "evil" in at least one edition of D&D.

Heck, one of my more recent games, my evil character was concerned about the "good" party's murder of sentient beings. They didn't care when I / he brought it up. He was also the only one interested in second chances, and letting sentient beings repent their evil ways.

Was he evil? Well, does wanton hedonism and willingness to use extreme measures (like torture) make you evil? It did at that table, and it does in my mind. But he matched your definition of good better than most of the "good" characters I've encountered - thus my question of how *you* define it.

Quertus
2019-06-01, 06:59 PM
So, to answer the OP, in addition several answers that have already been given, I want to know if it's worth my time to bring a character as opposed to just a playing piece; I want to know if it's worth my time to use my brain & think about the campaign; and I want to know how well the GM will serve as the eyes & ears of my character / my interface to the game world.

Honest Tiefling
2019-06-01, 07:09 PM
Well...Odd thing, but what the DM actually enjoys. I'm not always the best player ('So...Can I play a tiefling?' might come up a lot), but having an idea of ONE THING that will make the DM happy that I can work towards can help a lot. A happy DM doesn't just run a better game, they don't cancel midway.

For example, you want good aligned characters? Well, if I know that upfront and directly (I might have a real life wisdom score of 8), I can design a character that is good aligned and discuss any issues with that beforehand. I know what NOT to do and what to use for backstory elements. Don't assume I'm going to play attention to hints in game, because I get carried away and distracted. Just tell me a few things to make the DM keep coming back before hand.

Delta
2019-06-01, 07:28 PM
Well... what kind of game he'd like to run and what kind of characters fit (and don't fit) into it.

Once had a really fun case of a GM only telling me where his new campaign was located, I gave him a character concept for a "magical secret service agent", a wizard in service of the local realm, not "lawful stupid", quite willing to go well beyond the limits of the law as long as it's in service of her Empress and magical order. GM was like "Great, that character would be so much fun in this campaign!"

Next thing I know, the first two adventures are almost completely about us trying to break the law for trivial reasons (like stealing important documents from a wealthy merchant to help a friendly NPC get out of her debt) where my character always had to be the "Yeah sorry, I can't do that!" speedbump with the group ending up pulling a BA Baracus on me just so we could get on with the adventure. After the second time something like this happened (again, in the first two adventures) I asked the GM what in the world he was thinking when telling me that character would fit in, and he basically said "Yeah I always accept every character for every adventure, you have to figure out how to make it work"... I switched to a different character after that

Suffice to say, I most definitely disagree with that statement and from that moment on always tried to make extra sure to give any new player a good impression of what they're signing up for and what kind of characters might cause problems.

Jakinbandw
2019-06-01, 07:33 PM
Because my character does one or more of… animates the dead; is a sadist / otherwise enjoys the suffering of others (even if they do not cause such suffering themselves); uses poison: owns slaves (OK, that one's unlikely to jive with your definition for long if others poke at their beliefs); believes in revenge; makes hard choices for the greater good; is Athenian

I'm pretty sure any one of those would have the character labeled as "evil" in at least one edition of D&D.

Heck, one of my more recent games, my evil character was concerned about the "good" party's murder of sentient beings. They didn't care when I / he brought it up. He was also the only one interested in second chances, and letting sentient beings repent their evil ways.

Was he evil? Well, does wanton hedonism and willingness to use extreme measures (like torture) make you evil? It did at that table, and it does in my mind. But he matched your definition of good better than most of the "good" characters I've encountered - thus my question of how *you* define it.
How does animating the dead work? Can you only do it if you're non good? Then there is a good reason for that. For example, in my current campaign one of my players is a necromancer. In the world using necromancy involve using the agony of a soul being bound to the undead to power it. My player spent time and specifically worked to design a spell that worked on different principals.
Honestly, your list explains exactly why I have my rule. You know exactly what behavior I don't want at my table, but you pretend otherwise and hope I make a mistake when listing every little thing so you can slip something by and then make it my fault when you engage in it later on.
For example, in one of the forums I go to there is a phrase that is used: "Hard men making hard decisions while hard." It mocks the whole idea of having characters that make the 'hard decisions' as good people. Those hard decisions are never actually hard. They are just ways to explain away cruelty and expedience.

As to your point at the bottom, just because another player called his character good while his character did evil things does not make your character good for pointing it out while also doing evil things. It's completely possible to play an evil character and still have some virtues. For example one of the big villains in the setting has a hard rule against mind control, and all her evil is focused on torturing people she views as evil for all eternity. She does this as a way to protect good people, but her methods of eternal torture are evil and not something I'd allow players. This is because i wrote her to fail, to possibly die, or to at least have everything she believed come crashing down on her. This rule isn't to stop my players from playing cool ideas, it's to allow me to run a game where I can watch bad people lose. Because at the end of the day, I see evil winning too much in the real world.


Also... Dude, comparing slavery with people who talk in theaters? That's not cool.

Quertus
2019-06-01, 09:53 PM
How does animating the dead work? Can you only do it if you're non good? Then there is a good reason for that. For example, in my current campaign one of my players is a necromancer. In the world using necromancy involve using the agony of a soul being bound to the undead to power it. My player spent time and specifically worked to design a spell that worked on different principals.
Honestly, your list explains exactly why I have my rule. You know exactly what behavior I don't want at my table, but you pretend otherwise and hope I make a mistake when listing every little thing so you can slip something by and then make it my fault when you engage in it later on.
For example, in one of the forums I go to there is a phrase that is used: "Hard men making hard decisions while hard." It mocks the whole idea of having characters that make the 'hard decisions' as good people. Those hard decisions are never actually hard. They are just ways to explain away cruelty and expedience.

As to your point at the bottom, just because another player called his character good while his character did evil things does not make your character good for pointing it out while also doing evil things. It's completely possible to play an evil character and still have some virtues. For example one of the big villains in the setting has a hard rule against mind control, and all her evil is focused on torturing people she views as evil for all eternity. She does this as a way to protect good people, but her methods of eternal torture are evil and not something I'd allow players. This is because i wrote her to fail, to possibly die, or to at least have everything she believed come crashing down on her. This rule isn't to stop my players from playing cool ideas, it's to allow me to run a game where I can watch bad people lose. Because at the end of the day, I see evil winning too much in the real world.


Also... Dude, comparing slavery with people who talk in theaters? That's not cool.

Shrug. I was looking for the most relevant things that most people find objectionable, and then remembered something that I think was a Firefly quote, and referenced it in my list. Also, while I understand people's objection to talking in theaters, I don't always understand everyone's objections to slavery. So I find "talking in theaters" to be a "clearer" evil than slavery. Which is a subtle part of what I intend to imply with that list: should we object more to people who do that which is *clearly* evil, or that which is *greatly* evil? I just regret that I didn't use "spoils the ending of Endgame" as an example.

-----

My point wasn't "my character is good"; my point was what *other* people call "good". My point was that, when some people ask for "good", they mean "torture and kill the *other* guys", or something that you would find equally objectionable.

Thus, when you said "good", I asked, "OK, what do *you* mean by that?"

A GM who cannot answer a simple question is a good sign that they will fail to be my eyes and ears.

You used a great many words to somewhat answer the question I asked, and many other questions as well. Inefficient, but not an untenable start.

However, you falsely accused me of incorrect motives based on shaky to no evidence for this conclusion. That means you'd be a high-maintenance GM at best.

-----

In (most? all?) editions of D&D, Animate Dead is "evil", but rarely if ever is a reason given. Someone who is a saint otherwise, but uses Animate Dead repeatedly, is evil. Even if they don't consider the spell "evil", they still get "evil" on their character sheet.

Or, if you prefer, in my RPG, "talking in theaters" is evil. Even if you're ignorant of that fact, you get "evil" written on your character sheet if you talk in the theater.

In other other words, D&D alignment is arbitrary, in that it cannot be divined from logical principles.

For example, slavery is "evil", right? Yet creating golems enslaves an elemental spirit, but is not considered an evil act. There are plenty of NPCs who have created numerous golems without becoming "evil". There is no discernable logic to D&D alignments.

(Quertus, the only one of my characters to learn this fact, has researched alternate methods to create golems. As his version of Animate Dead is not inherently evil, he still plans to use it in the event he ever encounters a party that does not object. As this hasn't happened yet, he still doesn't have "evil" on his sheet.)

-----

So, it appears that your definition of "good" is "you want bad things to happen bad people". Do note that that is part of my definition of "evil" (bullet point "revenge"). While I'd happily play a revenge character, I'd still label them as "evil".

Whereas the evil character I used as an example is all about second chances, and giving evil a chance to redeem itself. He'd be too "good" for the type of game you want. The evil being he got to surrender, and began discussing redemption with? The party murdered it. It sounds like those "good" murderhobos would be more appropriate for your style than my "more good" / "too good" evil character.

So, "good" is not a clear description of the types of games you run, or the types of characters you want to see. "Revenge porn" is probably a more accurate and descriptive phrase.

And this is why I asked.

Phhase
2019-06-01, 10:18 PM
Because my character does one or more of… animates the dead; is a sadist / otherwise enjoys the suffering of others (even if they do not cause such suffering themselves); uses poison: owns slaves (OK, that one's unlikely to jive with your definition for long if others poke at their beliefs); believes in revenge; makes hard choices for the greater good; is Athenian


I don't know why I keep hearing about this animate dead thing. I thought it was generally accepted that it worked pretty much the way it works in OOTS, dead bodies and a little dark magic, no souls required (Even the intelligent ones, minus any sort of Greg shenanigans). In which case the only real problems people have are that a) dead bodies ew gross unsanitary and b) consent of the dead to being used as weapons (c Possible dangers of intelligent undead running amok or otherwise being unreliable. Yeah, the poison thing is from AD&D. I also find it weird. I mean, as long as it's not cruel and unusual (ex., causes spikes to grow inside the body over the course of 1d3 days), then it's just more damage, more or less.

Athenian....?

Phhase
2019-06-01, 10:28 PM
In other other words, D&D alignment is arbitrary, in that it cannot be divined from logical principles.


I feel you are correct in this, D&D's quantization of alignment is somewhat absurd, especially when odd shenanigans regarding spells that target alignments come up. It is strange to fit ethos principles into a logos mold (if I am using said terms right), and it usually comes down to average outside perception, imo (barring spell shenanigans).

Quertus
2019-06-01, 11:04 PM
Athenian....?

It's a (probably misremembered) history reference. Athens & Sparta, sister city-states. The natives didn't like their presence. So Sparta fought them off whenever they "invaded", leading to hundreds of years of bloodshed. Wise Athens said, "**** that", and killed every last native man, woman, and child, so that they could live in peace.

Grand total, Athens killed fewer people. But that doesn't make them "good".

Pex
2019-06-01, 11:32 PM
Specific or general? Individual DMs have a particular gaming quirk that annoys me. For example, for one 5E DM all skill checks are either 15 if he thinks it easy, 20 if he thinks it hard, and 10 if he wants to tell us something but feels the need there must be a roll. Social skills are irrelevant. He either likes what you say or doesn't, and many conversations or things have DC Paladin. Since I'm playing the Paladin I get the perk but other players are annoyed and have gotten used to it. Fortunately he has gotten better than how things used to be. The cleric and warlock get to have decent conversations now instead of NPCs only talking to me.

However, if there's one universal thing that applies to all DMs it would be what they do when someone rolls a Natural 1. I hate it when DMs treat a 1 as an excuse to have something bad happen to you. It cannot be just failing a task. You have to be punished for it.

Jakinbandw
2019-06-02, 02:20 AM
Shrug. I was looking for the most relevant things that most people find objectionable, and then remembered something that I think was a Firefly quote, and referenced it in my list. Also, while I understand people's objection to talking in theaters, I don't always understand everyone's objections to slavery. So I find "talking in theaters" to be a "clearer" evil than slavery. Which is a subtle part of what I intend to imply with that list: should we object more to people who do that which is *clearly* evil, or that which is *greatly* evil? I just regret that I didn't use "spoils the ending of Endgame" as an example.

-----

My point wasn't "my character is good"; my point was what *other* people call "good". My point was that, when some people ask for "good", they mean "torture and kill the *other* guys", or something that you would find equally objectionable.

Thus, when you said "good", I asked, "OK, what do *you* mean by that?"

A GM who cannot answer a simple question is a good sign that they will fail to be my eyes and ears.

You used a great many words to somewhat answer the question I asked, and many other questions as well. Inefficient, but not an untenable start.

However, you falsely accused me of incorrect motives based on shaky to no evidence for this conclusion. That means you'd be a high-maintenance GM at best.

-----

In (most? all?) editions of D&D, Animate Dead is "evil", but rarely if ever is a reason given. Someone who is a saint otherwise, but uses Animate Dead repeatedly, is evil. Even if they don't consider the spell "evil", they still get "evil" on their character sheet.

Or, if you prefer, in my RPG, "talking in theaters" is evil. Even if you're ignorant of that fact, you get "evil" written on your character sheet if you talk in the theater.

In other other words, D&D alignment is arbitrary, in that it cannot be divined from logical principles.

For example, slavery is "evil", right? Yet creating golems enslaves an elemental spirit, but is not considered an evil act. There are plenty of NPCs who have created numerous golems without becoming "evil". There is no discernable logic to D&D alignments.

(Quertus, the only one of my characters to learn this fact, has researched alternate methods to create golems. As his version of Animate Dead is not inherently evil, he still plans to use it in the event he ever encounters a party that does not object. As this hasn't happened yet, he still doesn't have "evil" on his sheet.)

-----

So, it appears that your definition of "good" is "you want bad things to happen bad people". Do note that that is part of my definition of "evil" (bullet point "revenge"). While I'd happily play a revenge character, I'd still label them as "evil".

Whereas the evil character I used as an example is all about second chances, and giving evil a chance to redeem itself. He'd be too "good" for the type of game you want. The evil being he got to surrender, and began discussing redemption with? The party murdered it. It sounds like those "good" murderhobos would be more appropriate for your style than my "more good" / "too good" evil character.

So, "good" is not a clear description of the types of games you run, or the types of characters you want to see. "Revenge porn" is probably a more accurate and descriptive phrase.

And this is why I asked.

I mean, my players usually redeam foes.

Also, if you don't see anything wrong with slavery, then honestly your concept of morality is far too differant from mine to ever reconcile.

Either way in answed the question with a quote, but like I said. The only types of players I have had a hard time with in any group I run are players that ask the question your asking. That means it's not problem with not knowing the answer. It's trying to rule lawyer your way around it. I wouldn't run for you quertus as you would not be capable of fitting in to the games I GM. I can tell because every question you brought up tells me you know where the line is, you just don't want to follow it.

And here's the thing. That's fine. I just don't run those type of games. I run games where maybe only one quarter of intellegent foes I throw at my players ever get killed. The rest get redeemed. I am running a game about the morality of power and the responsibilities that come with it. I don't run games for murder hobos (out of my last 5 games I ran, only one had foes in it that were intelligent that were killed by the players, and each of those were after they ran out of other options).

This is why it's important for me to tell players up front that if playing evil is there thing, this is not the game for them.

I also don't really care about marvel right now. I haven't bothered watching a movie of theirs since ultron.

jintoya
2019-06-02, 07:15 AM
To be fair, that last one is less of a situation where you should leave the game/group and more where you should consider siding with the ghosts.

This reminds me of one time our DM threw a rude, unhelpful quest giver (King) at us for a "save the kingdom from Invaders" quest
Should have seen the look on the DMs face when I laughed and said "I turn and leave, laughing all the way back to the base, and I'll watch the flames rise from the tower"

He was scrambling to get us to care about this King who we all hated... We didn't help, he barely survived the war he got into, he was not so rude about asking us for help next time, by that point the DM knew he had irritated all 5 of us.

Pleh
2019-06-02, 07:45 AM
For me, the core experience is defined by the core rules.

The example in the OP takes some optional rules (nautical scenarios) and shifts them into the focus.

Basically, if a DM deliberately deviates from the core rules or basic experience, I want to know about it.

If you're going to mod the game, let me know it isn't plain vanilla.

stack
2019-06-02, 08:37 AM
Things I wish the GM said: "After spending hours in character creation working with my thousands of words of houserules, I will disappear before the game is a week old. A week later, I will be recruiting for a new game."

PBP is terrible. I won't name any names, but you know who you are.

Pleh
2019-06-02, 09:29 AM
Things I wish the GM said: "After spending hours in character creation working with my thousands of words of houserules, I will disappear before the game is a week old. A week later, I will be recruiting for a new game."

PBP is terrible. I won't name any names, but you know who you are.

Actually, I wonder if there's not room in our communities for DMs to "adopt" abandoned games in these instances, if there was real interest in the game to begin with.

D+1
2019-06-02, 09:56 AM
If I'm running a game, players get my manifesto: http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/dnd/manifesto.htm
As a player, I pretty much want to know the DM's take on what's in that. They don't need to agree with MY takes on all of it, but I'll certainly want to know what those attitudes are. The rest is almost always negotiable because this IS just an RPG, not nuclear disarmament.

I don't even (necessarily) have to have all the DM's house rules in writing. But if we're 4 sessions into the campaign and THEN you tell me just how f'd my PC is because of some combat rule you have that you never mentioned, or that you run some spell or ability differently, or that you're annoyed because you actually really hate the character class I chose... yeah, that's YOUR fault as GM for failure to do YOUR job, not my fault as player for not having ESP, and YOU will pay that cost, not I.

patchyman
2019-06-02, 10:06 AM
Well... what kind of game he'd like to run and what kind of characters fit (and don't fit) into it.

Once had a really fun case of a GM only telling me where his new campaign was located, I gave him a character concept for a "magical secret service agent", a wizard in service of the local realm, not "lawful stupid", quite willing to go well beyond the limits of the law as long as it's in service of her Empress and magical order. GM was like "Great, that character would be so much fun in this campaign!"


I had a similar problem. The DM pitches the game to us as "after many years, the turbulent seas around your island home have become calm. Your characters will be the first explorers to leave your island home." Cool, very atmospheric idea with a lot of potential.

So, the group rolls up (1) an ivory tower academic wizard with (2) his 16-year old bratty kid sister, (3) a paladin of devotion; and (4) a scholarly alchemist who wishes to leave the island to find out more about his lost tribe.

First session rolls around, and the DM tells us that although the focus of the game will be as described, we begin the game in a tavern seeking membership in a company of mercenaries. Which wouldn't normally be a problem, except we were (1) an ivory tower academic wizard with (2) his 16-year old kid sister, (3) a paladin of devotion; and (4) a scholarly alchemist who wishes to leave the island to find out more about his lost tribe.

We got a lot of laughs about what kind of lame-ass mercenary company would recruit someone's 16-year old bratty kid sister.

Quertus
2019-06-02, 12:54 PM
Actually, I wonder if there's not room in our communities for DMs to "adopt" abandoned games in these instances, if there was real interest in the game to begin with.

Story time!

So, once upon a time, a GM decides to run a high-level module for us. Everyone was psyched. Then the GM bailed. Everyone seemed bummed. But what could I do?

I asked the GM if i could borrow the module and run it. They said yes. So, score one for adopting a game!

I read through the module, asking WWQD as I went, so that I could run him fairly as a DMPC.

Then I got to this part that the old GM and I had been taking about, and, although the details were a bit different, Quertus would do something equivalent to what I'd said - which would result in the quest-giver kicking him out of the quest.

So, I ran the module. Everything was going OK (although the players commented that the NPCs were all jerks. I agreed, and silently was like, "but just you wait").

Then we got to the quest-giver. The party didn't change the equation, so Quertus started in on his bit. The party didn't stop events, so the quest-giver kicked Quertus out of the adventure. :smalleek: The players just kinda sat there stunned for a bit

Fortunately, Quertus is not without resources. He did some research, and got back into the adventure later. But it made for quite the memorable scene. :smallbiggrin:


I mean, my players usually redeam foes.

I'm not sure how "redemption" qualifies as bad things happening to bad people. If that's how you use your words, you might want to work on that.


Also, if you don't see anything wrong with slavery, then honestly your concept of morality is far too differant from mine to ever reconcile.

No, oft times, I don't follow other people's logic when explaining why slavery is bad. To be fair, many other Playgrounders also cannot follow or do not agree with some of their logic. Thus my comments about how "clear" taking in theaters is in comparison.


Either way in answed the question with a quote, but like I said. The only types of players I have had a hard time with in any group I run are players that ask the question your asking. That means it's not problem with not knowing the answer. It's trying to rule lawyer your way around it. I wouldn't run for you quertus as you would not be capable of fitting in to the games I GM. I can tell because every question you brought up tells me you know where the line is, you just don't want to follow it.

Again, if that's what you hear, you might want to work on that.

Delta
2019-06-02, 03:22 PM
We got a lot of laughs about what kind of lame-ass mercenary company would recruit someone's 16-year old bratty kid sister.

Ironically, out of all those characters, the 16 year old bratty kid sister is IMO the least problematic of that bunch by about a mile. Any remotely fit 16 year old should be able to handle juust about any task that needs doing every day for a mercenary company, and if her older brother joins, problem solves itself, a big part of the support structure of a typical mercenary company should be filled by the families of the fighting members.

But yeah, the point stands, that's the kind of thing a GM should tell the players in advance.

Quertus
2019-06-02, 04:51 PM
I don't know why I keep hearing about this animate dead thing. I thought it was generally accepted that it worked pretty much the way it works in OOTS, dead bodies and a little dark magic, no souls required (Even the intelligent ones, minus any sort of Greg shenanigans). In which case the only real problems people have are that a) dead bodies ew gross unsanitary and b) consent of the dead to being used as weapons (c Possible dangers of intelligent undead running amok or otherwise being unreliable. Yeah, the poison thing is from AD&D. I also find it weird. I mean, as long as it's not cruel and unusual (ex., causes spikes to grow inside the body over the course of 1d3 days), then it's just more damage, more or less.

I could almost understand "any attack that deals more than X damage is 'evil', because it doesn't give foes a chance to surrender". But there is no rule like that, so killing someone mercifully quickly with poison is evil, while the Paladin gives the death of a thousand paper cuts over tens of minutes.

Animate Dead… any grognard remember if a cause was ever actually given for it being evil by RAW? I vaguely remember something about it stealing the soul away from its afterlife (which sounds Chaotic rather than Evil, and might be mercy compared to some afterlives), but that might have been table specific, rather than something in the published rules.

Really, I think they wanted the vibe of the good swordsman killing the evil Necromancer. Personally, I want the good Necromancer to kill the evil war monger. :smalltongue:

Tanuki Tales
2019-06-02, 05:07 PM
Depending on the edition, Undead are also very hygienic, by the by. Negative Energy kills off any kind of microbial life, parasites, carrion eaters, etc. that would normally be found on the body, unless they're part of that undead's intrinsic nature.

Floret
2019-06-03, 02:34 AM
In the group I'm currently in, I think it is fun to roll dice to see whether my character fell for the other's blatant lies, but I can already see how it could get annoying with more blatant lying, and I am prepared to speak up if or when that happens.

One of my characters was exemplified by a) being basically a Pariah in her own society, and b) having basically the highest possible (total) Willpower from chargen. Now, because the setting is a horrible place and sometimes it's fun to mess with people, NPCs but especially other players tried to tempt her (with booze, mind you). I could have reasonably decided "nope". But... Where would the fun be in that? So I rolled. And somehow botched it every time.

Point being, the option to leave it up to the dice is great if it's an option.


I'd like it if there was some kind of system that allowed social pvp in a way that wasn't forceful and helped the narrative.

Like, successfully "persuading" someone means that they get bonuses to doing what you want, and penalties to act against it. Failing to "persuade" someone means that you suffer penalties for your attempt at being a jerk, and they get benefits towards acting against what you want.

In the end, it still comes down to player decisions, and what they want to do, but they may be more rewarded (with Exp, temporary hitpoints, whatever) by following the narrative. But I'm not sure how people would perceive something like that in real play, though.

Apocalypse World runs things that way. People who like the system see it as a great feature, most of the time. Other people have tried using it in their campaign on how the game is evil and horrible (Because you're taking suboptimal routes if you decline which is basically forcing you anyways, iirc). I fall into the former camp. It does what you describe wanting, rather straightforwardly.

Basically, Apocalypse World is not a good game for min-maxers. Or DMs that don't understand "this is rules, keep within them. No, there is no Rule 0."


Was he evil? Well, does wanton hedonism and willingness to use extreme measures (like torture) make you evil?

Hey, what's wrong with wanton hedonism?

On the topic, I'd like to know how much the rules are gonna matter. Because most players I know lean somewhat narrative, but the most common gamesystem around these parts has a significant simulationist bend. The answer? Just ignore most of the rules! Sometimes! ...I can play those games, and I'd probably loathe to play them by perfect rules, but dammit people, play systems befitting your playstyle! There are so many damn games out there, there's bound to be something...

It just gets annoying when I build my character with skills, invested resources, and then everyone can do it despite them not doing so, because the GM doesn't care for the fact this has the rules it has. At least look over my character sheet and tell me where my wasted points are. And be aware enough that you can tell me.

Kardwill
2019-06-03, 06:08 AM
I'd like it if there was some kind of system that allowed social pvp in a way that wasn't forceful and helped the narrative.

Like, successfully "persuading" someone means that they get bonuses to doing what you want, and penalties to act against it. Failing to "persuade" someone means that you suffer penalties for your attempt at being a jerk, and they get benefits towards acting against what you want.

In the end, it still comes down to player decisions, and what they want to do, but they may be more rewarded (with Exp, temporary hitpoints, whatever) by following the narrative. But I'm not sure how people would perceive something like that in real play, though.

FATE kinda does that with the aspect mechanic. Put the result of the social conflict as an aspect on the "loser", and let said loser play it as any other of the aspects on their character sheet.

For example, Jimmy, one of the PCs of my Dresden Files game, failed a willpower conflict against a White Court Vampire (emotional parasite), and got the aspect "Under Demetria's charm". Jimmy's player is allowed to play that aspect any way they want (outright love, hidden obsession, simple physical attraction, trouble to concentrate whenever Demetria is present, resentment over her influence, willingness to see her as a "good, harmless vampire, different from the other mindsuckers"... Anything that would reasonably match the aspect, and that the player is confortable with). If they want to take direct action against Demetria, and I call them about it, they can pay a Fate point and do it anyway. If they do anything that would be detrimental because of that aspect (like defending Demetria during the next council, or failing a test because they were distracted, or having Jimmy's unwanted attraction complicate his other relationships), they get a shiny Fate point.
This was for a supernatural, "charm"-like ability, but it also works for intimidation and other social conflicts : Put an aspect the player is confortable with ("Johny Marcone is a dangerous man" after an intimidation, for example), let the player roleplay the aspect in a way that feels "right" for their character, and use the Aspect and Fate Points mechanic whenever appropriate (for example feeding points to the player when he decides to avoid conflict with Marcone, or tries to be more subtle about it than he would usually be).


But I think having explicit player buy-in is important, in any case. That's the reason why I try to stick to the consent rule that I lifted from old MUSH games : Nothing can happen to a character unless the player gives consent.
Sure, it's not always appropriate (if your character goes against armed guards, you kinda implicitly agreed one of the possible consequences will be a lot of bullet holes. Although I will probably remind you those possible consequences, so that there are no mistakes about the campaign tone and to make sure your character's charge was an informed decision and you thus agree with the possible results of a failed roll), but it's really important for stuff the player might be unconfortable with.
For example, I asked one of my players if it was okay his character's family was involved in the campaign's bad-guys'-evil-plot. Sure, I spoiled the surpise reveal that would have happened a few sessions later, and the player quite obviously designed those family members as plot-hooks anyway (the missing mother killed during a mysterious raid against Hades' vault, the distant father who thinks the PC is responsible and handle some shady "family business", the teenage bumbling witch envious of her powerful big-sis), but they took a life of their own during the campaign, so I felt that asking the player was needed before I used them as plot-chow.

And for intra-party interaction, I decided this rule was absolute. Want your PC to have a rivalry, a conflict, or a romantic attraction to another PC? Will happen only if both players are okay with it, and agree on the stakes and the way it would develop.
If the thief doesn't want to play the usual cat-and-mouse with the paladin, then the paladin will never notice the thief's misdemeanor or will find good reason to ignore them (and the thief will never take action against the paladin's interest or in a way that would get the paladin to be forced to react, either. It goes both ways, it's not a "be a jerk and get away with it" card like no-PVP rules can sometimes be.)
Want to settle a PC debate with a roll ? Only if both parties agree to the roll and its stakes.
Want your character to be attracted by another player's PC? Ask if the player is confortable with the idea first.


It took me quite some time to handle this kind of things. I have all the social grace and perception of a rock, so putting as much as I could on explicit player choice felt like a good solution.

Kardwill
2019-06-03, 07:11 AM
And, on topic, what I wish my GM had told me a few times is

"Your character is going to be useless or severely underpowered, because I'm not going to use the ruleset/skills you're specializing in".

Happened pretty much every freaking time I designed a pilot or a sailor, be it in SciFi or Swashbuckling games.
Also happened when I sunk many point in my talky-man's charisma/diplomacy/deception/information, and the GM then proceeded and ignored the social rules "because in a RPG, you're supposed to roleplay everything, so don't roll, and convince me instead" (Yeah, IRL, I am NOT a 17 charisma, 85% bluff diplomat, just like I'm not a greataxe wielding 17th level barbarian, so I might want to roll that 85% to see if my PC is better at it than me)
Also works if the character concept is woefully inadapted to the campaign, but the GM won't tell it because it would "spoil the surprise". Even if the first 15 minutes of play take place in a city, it would be useful to know that maaaaybe the 1 strenghth political agitator halfling is not the best fit for your "trek in the swamp and bash zombies" warhammer game?

If you don't intend to use part of the character sheet, just tell me. That way, I know what my dump stats are supposed to be, or at least I won't invest too heavily in purely "flavor" skills.

Pleh
2019-06-03, 07:52 AM
And, on topic, what I wish my GM had told me a few times is

"Your character is going to be useless or severely underpowered, because I'm not going to use the ruleset/skills you're specializing in".

Happened pretty much every freaking time I designed a pilot or a sailor, be it in SciFi or Swashbuckling games.
Also happened when I sunk many point in my talky-man's charisma/diplomacy/deception/information, and the GM then proceeded and ignored the social rules "because in a RPG, you're supposed to roleplay everything, so don't roll, and convince me instead" (Yeah, IRL, I am NOT a 17 charisma, 85% bluff diplomat, just like I'm not a greataxe wielding 17th level barbarian, so I might want to roll that 85% to see if my PC is better at it than me)
Also works if the character concept is woefully inadapted to the campaign, but the GM won't tell it because it would "spoil the surprise". Even if the first 15 minutes of play take place in a city, it would be useful to know that maaaaybe the 1 strenghth political agitator halfling is not the best fit for your "trek in the swamp and bash zombies" warhammer game?

If you don't intend to use part of the character sheet, just tell me. That way, I know what my dump stats are supposed to be, or at least I won't invest too heavily in purely "flavor" skills.

To be fair, in D&D like systems, pilot and diplomacy are tricky to incorporate into the adventure.

I am running a SWSE game where one player is aiming for Ace Pilot and another for a Smooth Talking Crime Lord/Officer type character. Half the party specializes in noncombat or combat tangential skills.

I've settled into a nice alternative playstyle, thougy. They're currently taking over an Imperial space station. So the smooth talker takes some grunts onto the station under Imperial disguise and gets taken to the bridge, then the Pilot leads a few fighter disguised as Space Pirates to attack the station, allowing the party on the bridge to ambush the commander and seize control of the station.

Then one session for the pilot to fight the tie fighters in a nearby asteroid field, where his superior pilot skills negates their advantage of superior numbers, while Mr Officer back at the station starts clearing the station, depressurizing the facility to cut their numbers to a manageable portion.

From there, it's basically a Dungeon Crawl through the facility where I get to use more traditional character maps with gun fights and Mr Officer gets to try to Persuade/Intimidate enemies to surrender and join his army of minions.

All while the Droid PC they left on the bridge to keep the stormtroopers from retaking control works to monitor stormtrooper activity and use bridge commands to stifle their progress.

Point being that working to include a bunch of alternative skill paths can actually be rather daunting for a DM and it tends to really change the feel of the adventure, but if DMs can get their heads out of their butts and put the pen to paper, it can also vastly improve their games.

Quertus
2019-06-03, 08:39 AM
Point being that working to include a bunch of alternative skill paths can actually be rather daunting for a DM and it tends to really change the feel of the adventure, but if DMs can get their heads out of their butts and put the pen to paper, it can also vastly improve their games.

Why is that on the GM, and not on the players, to make the PCs' abilities useful?


the GM then proceeded and ignored the social rules "because in a RPG, you're supposed to roleplay everything, so don't roll, and convince me instead" (Yeah, IRL, I am NOT a 17 charisma, 85% bluff diplomat, just like I'm not a greataxe wielding 17th level barbarian, so I might want to roll that 85% to see if my PC is better at it than me)

So, you still have to choose which squares to move through, which enemy to attack, which weapon and combat maneuver your Barbarian uses. Why should choosing to feed steak to a vegetarian or telling short jokes to a sensitive dwarf be any different than choosing to attack the tank, or to attack the illusion that the enemy Wizard cast over a Sphere of Annihilation?

Kardwill
2019-06-03, 09:07 AM
So, you still have to choose which squares to move through, which enemy to attack, which weapon and combat maneuver your Barbarian uses. Why should choosing to feed steak to a vegetarian or telling short jokes to a sensitive dwarf be any different than choosing to attack the tank, or to attack the illusion that the enemy Wizard cast over a Sphere of Annihilation?

Oh, I have no problem with a DM that asks me what kind of tactics my PC aims for in his argument. I do have a problem if he demands me to make the full speech, and then never asks me to roll the dice (for your analogy, it would be like a DM that demands the exact minutia of swordfighting, including complete description of your steps, hand positions, guards and moves, breathing, and decides based on it if you hit and how much damage you do. Or even asks you to show it live with a wooden sword. That would hugely advantage the player who is doing fencing IRL, wouldn't it?)

I agree that at a tabletop, speech based game, making your speech feels more natural than re-enacting the way you bend your prison's bars, but hey, maybe a timid player just wants to say "I convince the guard to let us through" and roll a dice, just as the party fighter just says "I hit the dragon with my sword" and hopes for a crit.

If a player is never expected to roll a stat, just take that stat out of the game, otherwise it becomes a trap. If Charisma is useless, just be honest about it, and I'll put my points in "kill stuff with my sword". Don't trap me into a subsystem that doesn't exist in your games (like starship piloting if your entire campaign is planet-based)

Pleh
2019-06-03, 09:33 AM
Why is that on the GM, and not on the players, to make the PCs' abilities useful?

The DM determines the scenario. It's not hard to write a PC out of a scenario entirely just by playing constantly to their weaknesses.

How might you feel if a wizard you were playing discovers themselves in an entire campaign in a magical location that has a permanent anti magic field effect of god level strength? The DM has surgically removed the minigame your character skills rely on. It's not that much different than putting a pilot in a footpath exclusive dungeon where they'll never see a vehicle, much less use their pilot skills.

Why is the impetus on the DM? The impetus is evenly shared between all participants. If the DM plans a game where pilots are useless, they should say so before the game (hence, the subject of the thread). If the DM has no plans (as I suspect you are advocating a more sandbox style of game), then the pilot PC could go attain a vehicle for their more constant use, but then we have nothing the DM needed to warn the players about before the game and we find ourselves outside of the scope of the thread.

Ergo, if a game is TRULY sandbox, there should be very few things the DM needs to tell players before the start of the game.

The whole subject of our conversation is rather naturally constrained to DM limitations that should really be made clear at session 0. The fact that it isn't a sandbox is certainly something that should come up, if it's true.

Herabec
2019-06-03, 10:52 AM
Less like a thing and more of a "if you're a happy-go-lucky thief going out to steal stuff, assume I throw improvised traps and death at you into you know better than to actually RP your character". No, I did not play the "lulul, CN Rogue out there breaking into people's houses to make coffee" random nonsense.

But seriously if you're railroading my character into activating a trap that releases a fire elemental so that my fellow group has something to do/battle while I steal the map we need to progress back please don't let me roll for it?

Same as in when I decided to borrow from the xenophobic dwarves' magic weapons vault, I was expecting a fair few traps and locks. What I was NOT expecting was that my DM literally throws people at me to stop me from getting away (the dwarf merchant's son woke up from my noise and I sprinted over him after I failed a reflex save and badly injured him apparently?). I am all for immersive gaming but that was the last straw for me.

Yes, maybe the character choices were a bit random. But the dwarves showed nothing but disdain for us outsiders, and when we asked for some magic weapons to battle the literal ghosts that murder their citizens we are greeted with: "No, you have to manage on your own." Yea okay, I'm gonna stab this ghost with my masterwork dagger, alright.


Oof. In the same spot here. Once ran with a GM who, when my rogue went burgling a general store after-hours during some downtime and ended up paralyzed and dropped to 0 strength. How, you ask? Because apparently this general store keeper was affluent enough to coat his doorknob every night at closing with Black Lotus Extract, which did STR instead of CON damage "so it wouldn't kill me." And apparently said Black Lotus Extract was potent enough to completely ignore my gloves, since I'd think thick leather gloves designed for adventuring would prevent contact poisons, but hey. Shows what I know.

I was then arrested and lost the rest of my downtime and got to sit around doing nothing for two hours. Yay. Last time I play a thievery-focused rogue instead of a stabby kill-all-your-NPCs rogue... >_> *still salty*

Fortis
2019-06-03, 05:31 PM
"Oh, you rolled a 1 on your attack? Let me get out my critical fumble table."

I personally hate critical fumbles with the fury of a thousand suns. In a game like pathfinder, where it's heavy on the fighting types getting more attacks as they level up, it creates a situation where a more experienced warrior is MORE likely to drop their weapon than a novice. Not to mention the time I was playing an alchemist and had bombs BLOW UP IN HER FACE because of critical fumbles. I've started asking point blank if the game will have critical fumbles. Even had one GM that lied to me, trying to say dropping a weapon isn't really a critical fumble (despite the fact it can cost a martial character two rounds of full attacks.)

Arbane
2019-06-03, 10:10 PM
I'd like it if there was some kind of system that allowed social pvp in a way that wasn't forceful and helped the narrative.

Like, successfully "persuading" someone means that they get bonuses to doing what you want, and penalties to act against it. Failing to "persuade" someone means that you suffer penalties for your attempt at being a jerk, and they get benefits towards acting against what you want.

FATE's been mentioned, and also the game Legends of the Wulin uses this exact system for social mechanics. It's quite nice. (It uses the same system for injuries, prophecies, and curses.)



"Oh, you rolled a 1 on your attack? Let me get out my critical fumble table."

I personally hate critical fumbles with the fury of a thousand suns.

You and me both.
Legends of the Wulin has a fun approach to fumbles - you get a Luck Point if you let it complicate the situation, otherwise it's a normal failure. You can get them on successes, too! "Well, you cut through the ninja, AND the stone pillar behind him, so now the building is about to collapse..."

Jay R
2019-06-03, 10:26 PM
I wish one DM had told me, "Your character may someday become a noble, complete with a castle and lands around it."

He did this to my 2e Thief. How do you use your Thief skills when you own everything for 20 miles in all directions?

Arbane
2019-06-04, 02:07 AM
I wish one DM had told me, "Your character may someday become a noble, complete with a castle and lands around it."

He did this to my 2e Thief. How do you use your Thief skills when you own everything for 20 miles in all directions?

Taxation? :smallbiggrin:

Take long rides along the borders?

Kardwill
2019-06-04, 03:00 AM
I'm more concerned about the GM who doesn't ban fluffy bunnies… if a player explains that they have a problem with fluffy bunnies. Substitute whatever for fluffy bunnies


Anya, is that you?

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e8/43/8d/e8438dd36a2b4f5cecc576e06eba89f1.jpg


I wish one DM had told me, "Your character may someday become a noble, complete with a castle and lands around it."

He did this to my 2e Thief. How do you use your Thief skills when you own everything for 20 miles in all directions?

That puts a new meaning to "robber baron" ^^
You didn't even have some nice, shiny temple or merchant guild to "stealth-tax"?

Malphegor
2019-06-04, 03:32 AM
"Okay, so when you say 'just the core books', what does that actually mean?"

Our group actually seems to run with 'any book published by Wizards of the Coast themselves that isn't a d20 system offshoot, that said stuff like the Dragon Compendium and the Swords and Sorcery series of books or whatever it was called dealt with on a case by case basis'. Core meaning 'Wotc'. Also with sprinkling of pathfinder especially on the monster side for the DM.

What I thought 'just the core books' meant on the first session was PHB, DMG, MM1.

(As someone who rampantly picks and mixes from various books to create a frankenstein build that somehow holds together pretty well, I restricted my last character way more than I needed to in a bid to try to at least resemble a character who's mostly from those 3 books)

Delta
2019-06-04, 06:50 AM
Oh, another one I'd like to have known in advance...

"I don't plan on giving out XP more than every half dozen sessions, hardly any loot or riches, and I'll look at anyone disapprovingly who asks for things like that because only bad powergamers care about stuff like that"

Quertus
2019-06-04, 09:56 AM
Oh, I have no problem with a DM that asks me what kind of tactics my PC aims for in his argument. I do have a problem if he demands me to make the full speech, and then never asks me to roll the dice (for your analogy, it would be like a DM that demands the exact minutia of swordfighting, including complete description of your steps, hand positions, guards and moves, breathing, and decides based on it if you hit and how much damage you do. Or even asks you to show it live with a wooden sword. That would hugely advantage the player who is doing fencing IRL, wouldn't it?)

I agree that at a tabletop, speech based game, making your speech feels more natural than re-enacting the way you bend your prison's bars, but hey, maybe a timid player just wants to say "I convince the guard to let us through" and roll a dice, just as the party fighter just says "I hit the dragon with my sword" and hopes for a crit.

If a player is never expected to roll a stat, just take that stat out of the game, otherwise it becomes a trap. If Charisma is useless, just be honest about it, and I'll put my points in "kill stuff with my sword". Don't trap me into a subsystem that doesn't exist in your games (like starship piloting if your entire campaign is planet-based)

Hmmm… thank you for pointing out how I should make sure that players become clear on what I'm doing.

So, just to check: suppose you ran a character under me, and found that I make you play it out. In one social situation (unbeknownst to you), if you mention "Gandalf", the NPC will reject your offer; if you don't, but name-drop any other nobility, they'll accept; otherwise, it's a diplomacy roll. Further, if you mention the elves, they'll give you extra information that may be useful.

How would you feel about this kind of scenario, where, if you research the target (they hate Gandalf, they something power), you can know what tools to leverage; otherwise, there are seemingly "random" good paths / land mines, with the default being a roll?

Just like throwing a fireball at a red dragon isn't as effective as a lightning bolt, what you know about the target changes how effective your tactics can be - and you have to pick blind if you lack the knowledge?


The DM determines the scenario. It's not hard to write a PC out of a scenario entirely just by playing constantly to their weaknesses.

How might you feel if a wizard you were playing discovers themselves in an entire campaign in a magical location that has a permanent anti magic field effect of god level strength? The DM has surgically removed the minigame your character skills rely on. It's not that much different than putting a pilot in a footpath exclusive dungeon where they'll never see a vehicle, much less use their pilot skills.

Why is the impetus on the DM? The impetus is evenly shared between all participants. If the DM plans a game where pilots are useless, they should say so before the game (hence, the subject of the thread). If the DM has no plans (as I suspect you are advocating a more sandbox style of game), then the pilot PC could go attain a vehicle for their more constant use, but then we have nothing the DM needed to warn the players about before the game and we find ourselves outside of the scope of the thread.

Ergo, if a game is TRULY sandbox, there should be very few things the DM needs to tell players before the start of the game.

The whole subject of our conversation is rather naturally constrained to DM limitations that should really be made clear at session 0. The fact that it isn't a sandbox is certainly something that should come up, if it's true.

Hmmm… you're a rebel pilot, this is a political sandbox. Your pilot skills aren't likely to come up much, but your pilot status may. What onus is upon whom in this scenario?


I wish one DM had told me, "Your character may someday become a noble, complete with a castle and lands around it."

He did this to my 2e Thief. How do you use your Thief skills when you own everything for 20 miles in all directions?

Hold my beer.

So, you could Hide and Move Silently towards the Bath House. Then Open Lock and Find / Remove Traps as needed. Perhaps Pick Pockets to remove articles of clothing (hardly seems necessary), or to move items around between individuals. Hear Noise to make sure no-one has noticed you; Climb Walls to make good on your escape if they do. Read Languages… I guess if you sneak a peak at a message in a courier's bag?

Just make bathing required for anyone who wishes to meet with you, and *bang*, you've got a use for all your skills. :smalltongue:

Delta
2019-06-04, 10:01 AM
Hmmm… you're a rebel pilot, this is a political sandbox. Your pilot skills aren't likely to come up much, but your pilot status may. What onus is upon whom in this scenario?

The GM should tell the player exactly that in advance.


Hmmm… you're a rebel pilot, this is a political sandbox. Your pilot skills aren't likely to come up much, but your pilot status may.

Then the player can decide for themselves what to do, if they still want to play the pilot for the status, maybe keep the general background, but use a few points that would've usually gone into space combat relevant skills to beef up other stats instead.

Man_Over_Game
2019-06-04, 11:21 AM
I just realized a big one:

Are my stats restrictive of my character's capabilities?

If The Player is smart, can The Character do smart things? Some would say "yes", that they would not want the actions of the player to be limited by the character's capabilities, however:
If The Player is strong, can The Character do strong things?
Or are the mental capabilities of the player the only thing that can bridge the gap between player and character?

It's a tough question to answer, and one that inevitably comes up partway through the campaign.

"I said I looked up, it doesn't matter if I have a -5 in Perception".
"Sorry, Grog, you're too dumb to even know basic math. Yes, we all know that the answer is '4'".

Pleh
2019-06-04, 12:32 PM
Hmmm… you're a rebel pilot, this is a political sandbox. Your pilot skills aren't likely to come up much, but your pilot status may. What onus is upon whom in this scenario?

Assuming this is information given at session 0, after I've proposed playing a pilot and before I've made the character, onus is on me as the player to abide by the DM's constraints. If I continue to make the character, I do so with the knowledge of the type of game that will likely result in.

However, if I were asked first to make the character and so I've already done the work of fabricating the statistics, and *then* I am told the above information, I might feel a bit cheated. I was asked to make a legal character and after doing so, was suddenly provided relevant information that might have changed my build choices. Why should I have to redo my work to accomodate the DM when it was their responsibility to inform my decisions?

Hence the subject at hand: things you wish your DM had told you beforehand.

FaerieGodfather
2019-06-04, 12:46 PM
I was then arrested and lost the rest of my downtime and got to sit around doing nothing for two hours. Yay. Last time I play a thievery-focused rogue instead of a stabby kill-all-your-NPCs rogue... >_> *still salty*

Man, that would have been the last time I played any goddamned character at his table. I've got some words to describe my strong negative opinion of his playstyle and his moral character, and more than half of them would get me banned here. Hell, some of them would get me excommunicated.

Jay R
2019-06-04, 05:51 PM
Taxation? :smallbiggrin:

Doesn't use Thief skills. No stealth, no pickpocketing, no open lock. That comes to me by using the law, not by violating it.


Take long rides along the borders?

Even if I were willing to steal from the neighboring nobles, picking pockets is best done without a retinue of heralds, servants, and guards.


That puts a new meaning to "robber baron" ^^

Yes, indeed. But it's a meaning that does not use Thief skills


You didn't even have some nice, shiny temple or merchant guild to "stealth-tax"?

Why use a "stealth-tax" on people whose above-board taxes already get paid to me?

You are both correct that there are ways to take advantage of it, and I built up quite a successful fiefdom.

But using a Thief to accomplish that role is the equivalent of using a Fighter to arrange classes for the needle-work guild's annual convention. It can be done, but you aren't using the build.

Resileaf
2019-06-05, 10:57 AM
But using a Thief to accomplish that role is the equivalent of using a Fighter to arrange classes for the needle-work guild's annual convention. It can be done, but you aren't using the build.

Well I guess this all depends on if you prefer the RP or the building.

JNAProductions
2019-06-05, 11:13 AM
Well I guess this all depends on if you prefer the RP or the building.

Why can't it be both?

You like the mechanics of the game and want to use them, but also enjoy roleplaying.

Quertus
2019-06-05, 12:23 PM
Why can't it be both?

You like the mechanics of the game and want to use them, but also enjoy roleplaying.

And I've already given a way to use the mechanics. It's not that hard to find creative ways to utilize your skills, is it?

Jay R
2019-06-05, 08:43 PM
Well I guess this all depends on if you prefer the RP or the building.

I much prefer the RP. This character was a quiet, alienated outcast orphan, who had been fading into the background whenever the party dealt with outsiders. Then suddenly he was put in the middle of diplomacy, politics, and wide-ranging social situations.

I think I did a good job at it, farming out my mines to a homeless dwarf king who owned no land. He got the underground kingdom, and I got 2/3 of the metals.

I started a military college, training the first professional army on that world. I also started a Swiss-like militia; I armed all my peasants with swords, if they agreed to come for training once a year

I developed a co-operative crafts village, giving skilled crafts folk a good place to live.

I tried to present all this as what he did out of necessity, and as character growth.

But it wasn’t really the outcast orphan I had decided to play.

Pelle
2019-06-06, 04:44 AM
But it wasn’t really the outcast orphan I had decided to play.

But could the GM have known that at the start of the campaign? It sounds a bit unfair to expect the GM to know how the dynamics of the game will make it turn out.

Jay R
2019-06-06, 07:34 AM
But could the GM have known that at the start of the campaign? It sounds a bit unfair to expect the GM to know how the dynamics of the game will make it turn out.

A. As I understand it, yes, he knew from first level that we were in position to save the lost Crown prince eventually, bring him back to the main continent, and be rewarded. He had the politics for such an occurrence already worked out.

B. He had a four-page description of my outcast loner orphan.

C. I'm not upset with him; it was a great game. But I still wish I'd known that my character might someday have to get involved in diplomacy when dumping charisma and developing him as the guy who would "go stand guard" whenever we were talking to anybody outside the party.

I really enjoyed the character, and his disdain for most societal structure. In an discussion about what the party should do, he once said, "Yes, well, that's because you're a paladin, sworn to do what's Lawful, and what's Good. I'm just a thief, free to do what's right."

Lord Arkon
2019-06-06, 08:43 PM
Not before the game start, but... "I'm going to ask you to swap out your mage for a werewolf from here on out; the session one characters were too similar. Now, even though I'm asking you to do this, I'm never going to add opportunities for you to earn Renown, so your magic gifts and rites will be forever locked at level one. Oh, you're making a theurge and focusing on rites? Cool. I'll encourage it, because I'm laughing at you on the inside."

"Using your ability to step into the spirit world will NEVER be the solution to any problem or a way to bypass ANY obstacle."

"Don't worry about what you do; your character's just here to watch my real friend's character star in big scenes."

"Don't think too much about your choices; I would never accept the shame of a PC surviving a game I run."

"I encourage PvP at my table."

"Be extra careful if only a couple of players show up; I do not adjust combat encounters just because less than half the group is here."

Man_Over_Game
2019-06-07, 03:30 PM
Not before the game start, but... "I'm going to ask you to swap out your mage for a werewolf from here on out; the session one characters were too similar. Now, even though I'm asking you to do this, I'm never going to add opportunities for you to earn Renown, so your magic gifts and rites will be forever locked at level one. Oh, you're making a theurge and focusing on rites? Cool. I'll encourage it, because I'm laughing at you on the inside."

"Using your ability to step into the spirit world will NEVER be the solution to any problem or a way to bypass ANY obstacle."

"Don't worry about what you do; your character's just here to watch my real friend's character star in big scenes."

"Don't think too much about your choices; I would never accept the shame of a PC surviving a game I run."

"I encourage PvP at my table."

"Be extra careful if only a couple of players show up; I do not adjust combat encounters just because less than half the group is here."

Either you're over exaggerating, or you've had a lot of terrible experiences. Sorry, man, that's rough.

Lord Arkon
2019-06-07, 05:30 PM
I'm not certain how much is exaggeration, and how much is just memory poisoning certain games in my mind. I'm certain all of them except "Don't think too much about your choices; I would never accept the shame of a PC surviving a game I run." were ultimately mistakes by well-meaning people, but ones I do not wish to play under again.

But the one about never let a PC survive is more likely that my brother is just a jerk (which I know to be true) who wanted to get rid of his baby brother as fast as possible. I haven't played an RPG with him in 35 years anyway.

These were built up over a long time.

Spiritus
2019-06-08, 04:16 AM
That they
A) Refused to use MM guidelines when building Homebrew monsters (while only using Homebrew monsters)
B) Don't it badly (yes, those 4 creatures all have AC 35+ at level 6, why do you ask?)
C) "Freely adjust" saves and hp of their monsters in combat so things are "sufficiently cinematic"

noob
2019-06-08, 05:17 AM
That they
A) Refused to use MM guidelines when building Homebrew monsters (while only using Homebrew monsters)
B) Don't it badly (yes, those 4 creatures all have AC 35+ at level 6, why do you ask?)
C) "Freely adjust" saves and hp of their monsters in combat so things are "sufficiently cinematic"

maybe his standard for cinematic is horror ghost movies?

Pex
2019-06-08, 11:52 PM
I'm not certain how much is exaggeration, and how much is just memory poisoning certain games in my mind. I'm certain all of them except "Don't think too much about your choices; I would never accept the shame of a PC surviving a game I run." were ultimately mistakes by well-meaning people, but ones I do not wish to play under again.

But the one about never let a PC survive is more likely that my brother is just a jerk (which I know to be true) who wanted to get rid of his baby brother as fast as possible. I haven't played an RPG with him in 35 years anyway.

These were built up over a long time.

I got you covered. I've had those DMs way back when in my 2E days for mostly the same things.

Honest Tiefling
2019-06-09, 11:07 AM
But the one about never let a PC survive is more likely that my brother is just a jerk (which I know to be true) who wanted to get rid of his baby brother as fast as possible. I haven't played an RPG with him in 35 years anyway.

High Five! Another member of the 'Can't game with family' club!

As for the thief dilemma, why were you not breaking into people's houses to keep an eye on them? I mean, yes, they were YOUR people, but a demon cult has to start somewhere, let it go start in some other person's backyard. It would also inform you about any potential rebellion, as well as tax dodgers.

If you were really good, you could use your skills to slowly convince them to join a particular religion that benefits you. Little 'miracles' or 'blessings' to nudge people in the right direction.

Lord Arkon
2019-06-10, 04:28 AM
High Five! Another member of the 'Can't game with family' club!

High five! Yeah, family or not, don't game with someone who wants a radically different play-style than you do. Also, thanks for the support Pex and Man_Over_Game.

Actually here's a good one for the topic:

"Okay players listen up, this is the sort of game I want to run, and what I, personally, want from the game..."

Cygnia
2019-06-10, 08:13 AM
But that would actually MAKE SENSE!

Meanwhile, the feeling I get from my current tabletop GM...

"So yeah, I don't wanna make anyone feel bad by actually enforcing consequences for your fellow PCs' actions against you so Wacky Boi can keep annoying you and no-selling the fact that he's going too far with his antics both IC and OOC. Also, Wacky Boi is gonna level up at the same rate as you guys are even when he misses several sessions in a row, posting at the very last second he can't come and you guys are doing all the hard work and suffering all the HP damage while he's MIA, brainwashing bears to his tasteless fake god. But TRUST ME! It'll all work out..."