Ohh god the house rule gets worse.

[Voidstar01]

So remember that rule I complained about y'know "can't mention game terms penalties", yea the penalties carry over between sessions, and character deaths. I'm being penalized for a thing I said out of character, 2 weeks ago, a character who died, and was actively hemorrhaging life at the time I said it. "You can't say your at low life points, that's metagaming!" as my character is unconscious foaming at the mouth.

[HouseRules]

Wait, you cannot even talk about Fatigue because that is also metagaming.
You cannot say your character is tired or fatigue or exhausted.

However, you could say your character feels weak:
1) Is this strength drain?
2) is this low health?
3) is this fatigue or exhaustion?

A good term to use is: "I'm 5 foot under", given that "6 foot under" means "buried".

[DrMotives]

Your campaign sounds like a TV commercial for Summer's Eve

Fighter: "I feel not-so fresh"

Cleric: "What?

Fighter: "You know, not so fresh. Down there" points to arrow in knee

Cleric: "Oh, why didn't you say so?"

Fighter: "Because I can't mention game terms or anatomy terms the networks are uncomfortable with" get smited

[HouseRules]

Your campaign sounds like a TV commercial for Summer's Eve

Fighter: "I feel not-so fresh"

Cleric: "What?

Fighter: "You know, not so fresh. Down there" points to arrow in knee

Cleric: "Oh, why didn't you say so?"

Fighter: "Because I can't mention game terms or anatomy terms the networks are uncomfortable with" get smited

Wait, another "Got shot in the knee?"

[ExLibrisMortis]

It is around this time that one begins running like hell, I believe.

[Blackhawk748]

Yup. Walk from this. The DM is a control freak and this is just plain absurd. You shouldn't be punished in-game for this in the first place and it carrying over from session to session and character to character even is utterly insane. Eventually, if someone messes up enough they'll have too many negatives to ever play.

God, this reminds me of that awful comic from like the 80s or whatever about how DnD was Devil Worship or something.

[FaerieGodfather]

Why are you even still playing with this ridiculous moron?

[False God]

I would be soooooo gone from that game.

[rrwoods]

As the great Jordan Peele said, Get Out.

[Afghanistan]

Have you considered telling your DM how immersion breaking it is to your role play to not be able to actually communicate your characters thoughts out of character? Because from the sounds of it, your DM is very, very adamant about this being a role playing game, but seems to forget something very basic about that description, that it is a game.

Furthermore, if you are not having fun, and your DM refuses to see how his actions are ruining your ability to play, let alone enjoy, their game than you should probably take the other players who might feel unhappy about the whole experience, get yourself some books, and form your own table without the problematic former DM.

[Telonius]

So not only are you not allowed to say anything about game mechanics, but you're also expected to roleplay as though you're the Black Knight in Monty Python? Yeah, he's not playing D&D, he's playing some kind of Calvinball with dice. I almost never give advice this brutal, but: don't waste a single second more of your life on this lunatic.

[EisenKreutzer]

Quit the group. See if some of the other players will join you. If not, quit anyway. No gaming is better than bad gaming.

[D+1]

So remember that rule I complained about y'know "can't mention game terms penalties", yea the penalties carry over between sessions, and character deaths. I'm being penalized for a thing I said out of character, 2 weeks ago, a character who died, and was actively hemorrhaging life at the time I said it. "You can't say your at low life points, that's metagaming!" as my character is unconscious foaming at the mouth.
That rule is just absurd. I mean I'm all for trying something new occasionally, and I would agree that game mechanics terminology gets very overused and breaks immersion... but THAT? That isn't even worth discussing.

This is D&D. It's a GAME. It has numerical and dice-related mechanics. Players and DM alike need to USE those mechanics in order to even play. That means you have to TALK ABOUT those mechanics and exchange mechanical DATA. And those mechanics DON'T all have "in-character" equivalencies, and I'm guessing the DM damm sure isn't providing you with his Approved List of Game Term Replacements that he will accept. He's just beating the crap out of your PC if you can't make one up FOR him that he'll tolerate.

That rule isn't even worthy of debate, and the campaign isn't worth that level of tolerance by players. Just walk. I would have laughed in his face in the first place and certainly never agreed to abide by that kind of silliness - much less such rabid enforcement of it. I'm the guy that will always say the first and best thing to do is discuss issues between DM's and players, but this is like saying you must explain how to get a rocket to the moon but you can't mention PHYSICS. Don't even waste breath talking about it. Walk away.

[Saintheart]

A good term to use is: "I'm 5 foot under", given that "6 foot under" means "buried".

Given the way this game seems to be getting run, that might be a handy way to pick up a burrow speed.

[daremetoidareyo]

What are the penalties? Maybe we can design around them.

[Doctor Awkward]

That's insane.


I know the last time I mentioned how such a rule is useful as a guard rail to encourage roleplaying, but not being allowed to have any out of character discussions during game is beyond bonkers.

If nothing else you need to be able to communicate information as a player to the DM. Otherwise your turn in a combat round will consist of you shouting, "GRAAA!", moving your miniature towards an enemy, rolling a d20 and saying nothing else until the DM tells you the outcome. Or a player who has a wizard speaking Latin and then pointing his finger at another miniature and waiting for the DM to roll a save.

Does he even enforce his own rules on himself? Because if so he wouldn't be able to tell you the results of your rolls because they are abstract elements that the characters are not aware of.


Talk to your other players about this. If they are just as frustrated as you are, then all of you should talk to the DM as a group. If he refuses to budge, then your only recourse is to tell him that he is not welcome back.

On the other hand if the rest of the players don't see a problem, offer to run a session for them and the DM without this rule and then ask if it was an improvement. If they still think his way of doing things is fine or better, then unfortunately you'll have to find another group.

Regardless of how long that takes, no gaming is better than bad gaming.

[Firebug]

Just tell the GM that your character has developed a quirk that they rate things on a scale of -15 to 36 (or whatever your total hit points are).
I am feeling a 23 out of 36 after that last hit. Also, this ale from the last tavern gets 32 stars.

[animewatcha]

Question. Is he one of those people that get 'triggered' by certain things ( PTSD, guns, politics, etc. )? Could this be the reason why the control attitude? Because of certain terms IRL?

[Karl Aegis]

How do you share snacks?? Is there a host somewhere you can communicate with?

[animewatcha]

There might be a way around this if the other players are willing to play along.. In heroes of horror, there is taint. Moderate Depravity delusional on page 65. Best summarized as.... you can break the 4th wall.

[daremetoidareyo]

If you're not leaving, understand that you entering into someone's game of interpersonal power, fantasy dice edition. You being there endorses his stage.

However, just roll up a totally useless character and egregiously talking about game mechanics is an option. His power over you is that you care to continue. But if your PC sucks anyway, just get in there and gab all ya want, take the riskiest choice in your interactions, eventually roll up a new guy, repeat. Not caring is an option that you can flex.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

...rolling a d20...What?! You're not allowed to roll dice! That's far too gamey and breaks immersion!

And don't you dare use a character sheet. It has numbers and other gaming witchcraft! Blasphemer!

[Saintheart]

What?! You're not allowed to roll dice! That's far too gamey and breaks immersion!

And don't you dare use a character sheet. It has numbers and other gaming witchcraft! Blasphemer!

I believe even describing what one does as a 'game' or 'role-playing' is problematic, but we can take that up after the meeting-which-we-can't-call-a-session.

[NNescio]

What?! You're not allowed to roll dice! That's far too gamey and breaks immersion!

(...)

I think you stumbled across the solution right here.

Take a nerf bat an unsharpened steel sword and LARP it out. Ideally by whacking the DM's head, because of the catharsis factor.

[Eldan]

I'd be tempted to just troll that DM at this point, honestly? Probably not, because the figure I now have in my head is a giant cliché and probably not the reality I'd actually meet at the table, but still.

Just sit down at the table. Play a spellcaster. Every turn in combat, say nothign except "I invoke magic". Don't tell the DM which spell you are casting.

Or play a fighter and just never say a word. Just silently roll dice and stare at the DM.

[javcs]

How the hell does this DM still have a group?


Also ... consider running a character that explicitly gets to utilize information the DM doesn't seem to want to allow you to have/speak of.
I'm thinking something heavy on reroll/forced or granted reroll capability.
If your character has the ability to grant allies a reroll, the DM is going to have to allow you to talk about them.

[Luckmann]

First, not to sound crotchity, but did you really need a new thread to continue telling the collected woes?

Second and more importantly, you should get out of that game. I am known to be a stickler for metagaming, and I do insist that players do not enunciate the state of their character in mechanical terms (your character is "heavily wounded" or "bleeding all over the place", not "down to 2 HP") and I do insist on players that are knocked out or not on-site to be silent in regards to the ongoing scene (you're not there, you can't help them or even joke about "knock on the door fgt!"), but this is patently absurd.

Players need to be able to have degree of seperation, a sense of mechanical-narrative distance, where it's possible to both be in-character and in-game, while sometimes breaking that to discuss the implications of what is going on in regards to the rules of the game itself, even if it's you throwing your arms up and saying "Welp I'm Stunned and at -1, I'm out" just as the orc shoves a greatscimitar through your peripheral spinal cord.

The DM in this case is either completely delusional and just "letting" you go through the motions of "playing" in "his" game, or he's legitimately suffering from some kind of disorder on the autism spectrum where he actually cannot comprehend why his demarchation as to what constitutes metagaming is absurd. If it's the latter and he knows it, there's always the chance that he can be reasoned with in a way that makes him understand that he's "actually" "doing it wrong", but if it's the former, burn this table and moonwalk out of there.

[DarkSoul]

See if you can dig up a copy of the FRUP RPG and play it for a while. It should give your DM an aneurysm within a session or two.

If you can't find a copy, go to whatisfrup.com, read the concept for the game world, and run with it for a game world of your own.

On a more serious note, if you cant get him to lighten the $<"( up about this it's time to walk and take as many with you as you can.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Second and more importantly, you should get out of that game. I am known to be a stickler for metagaming, and I do insist that players do not enunciate the state of their character in mechanical terms (your character is "heavily wounded" or "bleeding all over the place", not "down to 2 HP") and I do insist on players that are knocked out or not on-site to be silent in regards to the ongoing scene (you're not there, you can't help them or even joke about "knock on the door fgt!"), but this is patently absurd.You do realize that phrases like "bleeding" actually have mechanical definitions, and thus a player can't accurately use them to describe their condition unless they are, in fact, suffering bleed damage, right? That's gameist! Using words like that is completely misleading if someone is is paying attention to what you're saying. Plus, hit point "damage" is explicitly a mix between actual damage taken, rapidly depleting luck in dodging lethal blows, and other factors.

You're at full health but take a scimitar swing to the face? At level 1 (excuse me; you're a novice adventurer), you actually take the swing to the face, and you're likely heavily injured or dead. You're a veteran warrior with many years of experience at dealing with world-ending threats (ie, at level 20)? It whiffed by, possibly severing a few hairs that didn't quite make it out of the way.

[SquidFighter]

Your next character should be a caster built around the Command line of spells, with high enough intelligence and/or wisdom to figure out that when people say certain things, unnaturally bad things happen to them. Force the NPCs to break the metagaming rules while staying in-game. Watch the campaign burn.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Also ... consider running a character that explicitly gets to utilize information the DM doesn't seem to want to allow you to have/speak of.
I'm thinking something heavy on reroll/forced or granted reroll capability.
If your character has the ability to grant allies a reroll, the DM is going to have to allow you to talk about them.Now that I think about it, you should do this.

Form your spell list and other character qualities around all the game mechanics that don't have real world explanations. Rerolls, buffs to things like saving throws, manipulate things like XP and level, use Appraise to determine various numbers such as HD and hp (which the BoVD has explicit rules for), and so on. Get your hands on psychic reformation or the Dark Chaos Feat Shuffle to manipulate feats and class abilities, etc. Find ways to manipulate spell slots or power points. Fiddle with transferring hit points. Grant temp hp. Alter the group's initiative rolls.

Everything you do is geared towards mechanics that can't be explained in any other way. After all, it's entirely canonical that creatures have things like Hit Dice and eXperience Points. You have options that let you determine things like that.

Ask the DM how and why you're supposed to not use game terms when your mechanics explicitly tell you these things. At the very least, you can tell him to shove off, since your abilities give you meta knowledge.

[Doctor Awkward]

So for the OP and anyone else still reading at this point, I'd like to take a moment to note how toxic the majority of the advice in this thread is.

"Alright how do I **** with this guy?" is not the appropriate response to a DM who is being a jerk.

[Biggus]

Do you know how the other players feel about it? If most or all of them feel similar to you, then get together and tell the DM you're not happy. If most of them are OK with it, IMO (and I almost never say this) it's time to get the hell out of there.

[Asmotherion]

So remember that rule I complained about y'know "can't mention game terms penalties", yea the penalties carry over between sessions, and character deaths. I'm being penalized for a thing I said out of character, 2 weeks ago, a character who died, and was actively hemorrhaging life at the time I said it. "You can't say your at low life points, that's metagaming!" as my character is unconscious foaming at the mouth.

Step 1: Abandon the Table
Step 2: Use insult of choice to DM. i'd personally suggest he inserts his absurd rules towards his rear cavities because that's probably the most fun anyone can have with those type of rules.
Step 3: Consult the table; Whoever agrees with you can start your own group without any senile rulings.
Step 4 (optional): As you're leaving point towards the cealing with your middle finger and/or throw food or beverage of choice to DM... Aim for the various tomes sitting on the table.
:smalltongue:

in all seriousness though if a game starts to feel more as a chore than entertainment logic dictates you leave it rot.

[Quertus]

So for the OP and anyone else still reading at this point, I'd like to take a moment to note how toxic the majority of the advice in this thread is.

"Alright how do I **** with this guy?" is not the appropriate response to a DM who is being a jerk.

Disagree, provisionally.

One table, when people didn't get the idea of "balance to the table", and didn't take the hint, I would switch characters next session, to something totally OP that completely outshone them in their specialty, play it for that session, then ask if they'd care to tone it back to the level of the party. Worked like a charm, was a great spectator sport for the other players (and GM).

Telling someone is one thing, showing them is generally vastly superior. Especially when talking to someone as clueless as this GM comes off as being.

[RedMage125]

OP, your DM seems like a douche.

Personally, I prefer to keep metagaming conversations to a minimum. To that end, I use the "bloodied" condition from 4e. "Bloodied" is the 50% hit point threshold. I will never reveal a creature's hp total to my players, but I will say when it gets bloodied, and if they forget and ask, I will point out which creatures are bloodied. I also ask that, during combat, my players not discuss hit point totals, as hp are a metagame concept.

So if the cleric asks "who needs healing?", acceptable answers are things like:
"I'm hurt, but not bloodied"
"I was bloodied 2 hits ago, and I am not okay"
"I'm bloodied, but just barely"
"I probably cannot take another hit like that last one"

Things like that are all okay. HOWEVER, if my players slip and say "I'm at 34/76" or something, all they get is the DM Look of Stern Disapproval +2. Good Lord, no "penalties".

And even if such penalties were to be levied (because the table agreed to such), they shouldn't last more than one session (or less). A character should not continue to be punished for something a player said. And certainly not if it was an out of character comment.

[frogglesmash]

I don't know if anyone's suggested this, but I think it'd be hilarious to see just how many penalties you could collect. Basically, try to "accidentally" mention have terms without the DM realizing you're trying to collect penalties, and see just how far the DM is willing to take this. In order to sorry suspicion, you could even start casually mentioning how you have trouble staying in character, and how these new rules have really brought that to light.

Edit: Oh, and if you do leave the group, don't be a ****. Do explain why you're leaving, but don't start insulting people, there's no point to it.

[Voidstar01]

I don't know if anyone's suggested this, but I think it'd be hilarious to see just how many penalties you could collect. Basically, try to "accidentally" mention have terms without the DM realizing you're trying to collect penalties, and see just how far the DM is willing to take this. In order to sorry suspicion, you could even start casually mentioning how you have trouble staying in character, and how these new rules have really brought that to light.Edit: Oh, and if you do leave the group, don't be a ****. Do explain why you're leaving, but don't start insulting people, there's no point to it.

Not that hard, half my enjoyment from this games is acquiring large numbers on my character sheet (generally something that only has nich use, like jump) and letting other players know that I can infact make a 30ft long jump from a standing position because I get +64 jump.

[Rynjin]

The proper response would have been to just get up from the table the moment penalties were mentioned and just walk out the door, laughing loudly the whole time. Sadly you missed that chance, so I guess just politely leave the game and give them a quick "Sayonara!" on the way out.

[Voidstar01]

I'm also not sure how I feel about his wake up rules.

So enemies come, they're spotted, we're alerted, we all make listen checks to actually hear our look out shouting, we all pass the check (by more than 5), we get a standard action on our next turn, The enemies get their surprise round (even though we spotted them), we roll for initiative (so do the enemies), we convert our one standard action to a move so we can stand up, that's our turns.

If you happen to roll below the enemies on initiative, they get three actions before you can do anything other than stand up.

Important to note we also had an early alert bell fence set up before hand, that they triggered.

The barbarian would have died before any of us could even get out of our tents if the DM hadn't retconned the combat into being a dream.

Yea I think I'm gonna drop :(

[HeraldOfExius]

So remember that rule I complained about y'know "can't mention game terms penalties", yea the penalties carry over between sessions, and character deaths. I'm being penalized for a thing I said out of character, 2 weeks ago, a character who died, and was actively hemorrhaging life at the time I said it. "You can't say your at low life points, that's metagaming!" as my character is unconscious foaming at the mouth.

I would suggest bringing up that both characters having the same player is itself an OoC thing, and punishing PC #2 for something that happened during the (end of the) life of PC #1 should cause this rule to implode in on itself, but unfortunately the GM would likely just cause the issues to be shoved onto PC #3.

[EisenKreutzer]

If leaving is not an option, you could try asking him why he does things like this. He must have a reason for outright banning out of character talk at the table. He might have had experiences where players have never talked in character, and his harsh punishments might have been the only way he could successfully deal with it that time.
If you try to make him understand that this group would talk in character even without the punishments, he might relent.
It could also be a good idea to try and make him see that 3rd Ed. D&D isn’t exactly a good game for banning out of character talk, since the game is so rules heavy and focused on tactical combat. You wouldn’t ban out of character talk if you were playing Warhammer or another miniature combat game, and banning ooc talk during D&D combat is equally unfortunate and debilitating.

[Blackhawk748]

I'm also not sure how I feel about his wake up rules.

So enemies come, they're spotted, we're alerted, we all make listen checks to actually hear our look out shouting, we all pass the check (by more than 5), we get a standard action on our next turn, The enemies get their surprise round (even though we spotted them), we roll for initiative (so do the enemies), we convert our one standard action to a move so we can stand up, that's our turns.

If you happen to roll below the enemies on initiative, they get three actions before you can do anything other than stand up.

Important to note we also had an early alert bell fence set up before hand, that they triggered.

The barbarian would have died before any of us could even get out of our tents if the DM hadn't retconned the combat into being a dream.

Yea I think I'm gonna drop :(

That is...that is not how that works. Seriously, has this dude read the actual books?

[RedMage125]

I'm also not sure how I feel about his wake up rules.

So enemies come, they're spotted, we're alerted, we all make listen checks to actually hear our look out shouting, we all pass the check (by more than 5), we get a standard action on our next turn, The enemies get their surprise round (even though we spotted them), we roll for initiative (so do the enemies), we convert our one standard action to a move so we can stand up, that's our turns.

If you happen to roll below the enemies on initiative, they get three actions before you can do anything other than stand up.

Important to note we also had an early alert bell fence set up before hand, that they triggered.

The barbarian would have died before any of us could even get out of our tents if the DM hadn't retconned the combat into being a dream.

Yea I think I'm gonna drop :(

Your DM appears to have the qualifications of a baked potato.

[RatElemental]

The proper response would have been to just get up from the table the moment penalties were mentioned and just walk out the door, laughing loudly the whole time. Sadly you missed that chance, so I guess just politely leave the game and give them a quick "Sayonara!" on the way out.

Leaving the group chat (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=24164151&postcount=30) doesn't have quite the same effect.

[Voidstar01]

That is...that is not how that works. Seriously, has this dude read the actual books?

We brought it up to him, his response was something like "well you don't know what woke you up and you're grogy". Hence why I'm dropping, weird houserules are one thing, ignoring your players is something else (though I guess he first did that when we said we didn't like 2 random flaws per extra feat, and he changed it, then decided to change it back the day before session 1).

[RedMage125]

We brought it up to him, his response was something like "well you don't know what woke you up and you're grogy". Hence why I'm dropping, weird houserules are one thing, ignoring your players is something else (though I guess he first did that when we said we didn't like 2 random flaws per extra feat, and he changed it, then decided to change it back the day before session 1).

Did I say Baked Potato?

Better make it a raw potato.

[King of Nowhere]

I'm also not sure how I feel about his wake up rules.

So enemies come, they're spotted, we're alerted, we all make listen checks to actually hear our look out shouting, we all pass the check (by more than 5), we get a standard action on our next turn, The enemies get their surprise round (even though we spotted them), we roll for initiative (so do the enemies), we convert our one standard action to a move so we can stand up, that's our turns.

If you happen to roll below the enemies on initiative, they get three actions before you can do anything other than stand up.

Important to note we also had an early alert bell fence set up before hand, that they triggered.

The barbarian would have died before any of us could even get out of our tents if the DM hadn't retconned the combat into being a dream.

Yea I think I'm gonna drop :(
this seems like he wanted the party to be ambushed, and so he tweaked flat-out rewrote the rules to manage to do so.
tweaking some rules is fine, giving enemies some homebrew abilities to get the drop on the party is fine if done in moderation and with a bit of reason ("this is a boss and he mastered his own special technique, which you may learn if you want to research it" is fine. everyone doing it randomly is not). railroading to push a certain outcome can be acceptable if done in moderation and with some player trust.
inventing new rules to push the game where you want is complete crap. it's an attempt to railroad, except that at least railroading is honest about its nature.
retconning it when it comes too far is the icing on the cake, really.

[Doctor Awkward]

Disagree, provisionally.

One table, when people didn't get the idea of "balance to the table", and didn't take the hint, I would switch characters next session, to something totally OP that completely outshone them in their specialty, play it for that session, then ask if they'd care to tone it back to the level of the party. Worked like a charm, was a great spectator sport for the other players (and GM).

Telling someone is one thing, showing them is generally vastly superior. Especially when talking to someone as clueless as this GM comes off as being.


Because the appropriate response to an already bad situation is escalation?


Seriously, if anyone out there finds themselves agreeing with most of the advice in this thread, and you also simultaneously find it odd how difficult it is to find a gaming group? Those two issues are related.

[Voidstar01]

The part that really gets me is when he said we wouldn't know what woke us. Like what sound do we have trouble recognizing? The bell-fence we set up specifically to wake us up? or the barbarian who's on guard shouting "wake up we've got trouble?"

[Blackhawk748]

Did I say Baked Potato?

Better make it a raw potato.

Please stop insulting the mighty and great potato. It is a powerful and varied root that has helped keep many millions alive.

This dude has the qualifications of pond scum.

[javcs]

Talk to your fellow players. And I seriously recommend all of you either bail or insist on a new DM. Which is more or less the same thing, though the latter could include the current "DM" as a player, whereas the former would not.



But yeah ... this "DM" is terrible.
Get a new DM.

[Feddlefew]

I wouldn't even recommend trying to do a DM swap.

It's time to run and take as many people as you can with you. Tell the DM why you're leaving- suddenly loosing half (or more!) of your players for the same reason sends a very strong message.

[Afghanistan]

We brought it up to him, his response was something like "well you don't know what woke you up and you're grogy".

https://66.media.tumblr.com/ba8790eafcb5d296e61c8db92f9841c3/tumblr_mo91f5bEqO1r2g7mto1_500.jpg
"Not only am I going to not admit to my horrible mistake, I'm going to shoehorn an explanation in that doesn't make it my fault; Roll for initiative."



Hence why I'm dropping, weird houserules are one thing, ignoring your players is something else (though I guess he first did that when we said we didn't like 2 random flaws per extra feat, and he changed it, then decided to change it back the day before session 1).

I am not saying your DM is terrible or lousy, or bad. I think they are inexperienced and need advice. Try maybe talking with them and offering to DM a game and seeing where that goes. If you are able to deliver a much more enjoyable experience, by all means.

[martixy]

Well, this is not a game worth playing anymore.

Your (sane) choices are two here:
1. Run. Get out. As fast as you can. Take as many of your friends as you can.
2. Turn his stupid house rules into the game. See how far you can twist and distort his absurd rulings into something that's amusing to see unfold. Make it into a comedy of errors. See how much you can annoy and frustrate him back. :smallbiggrin:

[Quertus]

Because the appropriate response to an already bad situation is escalation?

Actually, the technique I described invariably resulted in de-escalation. The issue is that the offending player invariably a) did not "balance to the table", and b) was unable to comprehend / respond meaningfully to the GM's request for balance. The technique worked, because it demonstrated to the offending player the exact nature of their offense (and the GM's willingness to "fix" the problem by raising the table's balance point, and letting others outshine them if they could not comprehend how to balance to the table). At which point, they understood the GM's request, and, invariably, respectfully acquiesced to their request.

[Telok]

2. Turn his stupid house rules into the game. See how far you can twist and distort his absurd rulings into something that's amusing to see unfold. Make it into a comedy of errors. See how much you can annoy and frustrate him back. :smallbiggrin:

With that in mind is there any way to op-fu penalties into bonuses?

[Saintheart]

Did I say Baked Potato?

Better make it a raw potato.

You're saying the DM is an artificial OS determined to kill people?

https://cdn.thingiverse.com/renders/88/21/ce/01/d8/364afadd9f57887707b12b90ad8c781a_preview_featured. jpg

[RedMage125]

Please stop insulting the mighty and great potato. It is a powerful and varied root that has helped keep many millions alive.

This dude has the qualifications of pond scum.
I meant the intellectual qualifications of a potato.

I would never demean actual potatoes. I'm Irish, and I have a deep and abiding love of all things potato.

*Bubba impression*: Potato Soup, Mashed Potato, baked Potato, Fried Potatoes, Potatoes Au Gratin, Scalloped Potatoes, Potato Casserole, Potato Sticks, Potato Chips, Potato Bread...Vodka

You're saying the DM is an artificial OS determined to kill people?


That would be giving this DM more credit than he/she deserves. Because "artificial" or not, it implies 'intelligence". Which this DM is sorely lacking.

[Quentinas]

Well i play basically only online,in a play by chat (not a group) and we clearly don't use OFF game terms in ON game terms (a character will not say how many Hp he has in one situation for absurd my character was that had more hp but he was the worst as wounds) but from here to prohibit using game terms during the OFF game no ,as a community it's rarer to discuss about that i will admit because OFF game it is not so common to say i have 9 level of barbarian but is another type of game that , but we use game terms for example with the bard and inspire courage, or for effect of our spell SO even for me giving penalties from a session to another or even when you have changed character is absurd i would talk with the DM and if not change probably i would leave because is difficult even only to plan something , probably ON character it would not be a problem, but OFF character yes

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Why not suggest using two chats: one specifically for IC roleplaying and in-world descriptions, and one for OOC discussion and rolling? If your DM insists on NO OOC ANYTHING EVER, tell him to go sit and spin, and leave.

[Voidstar01]

My DM explained his reasoning for the "no table talk" rule as "I once had an extrovert player who kept saying 'I should roll this because I have the highest skill' so I made this rule so people who are worse at a thing get to make checks". This logic seems very flawed to me since generally the reason you give your character ranks in a skill is because you want them to do the thing, and the less ranks you have in a skill. What's your opinion on this logic?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

My DM explained his reasoning for the "no table talk" rule as "I once had an extrovert player who kept saying 'I should roll this because I have the highest skill' so I made this rule so people who are worse at a thing get to make checks". This logic seems very flawed to me since generally the reason you give your character ranks in a skill is because you want them to do the thing, and the less ranks you have in a skill. What's your opinion on this logic?Err... I don't see any logic there.

Like, at all.

[Telonius]

My DM explained his reasoning for the "no table talk" rule as "I once had an extrovert player who kept saying 'I should roll this because I have the highest skill' so I made this rule so people who are worse at a thing get to make checks". This logic seems very flawed to me since generally the reason you give your character ranks in a skill is because you want them to do the thing, and the less ranks you have in a skill. What's your opinion on this logic?

IMO: The logical thing for you to do would be to stop asking him to explain his logic. Do not waste any more time, effort, or sanity on this chucklehead. Give a polite goodbye, tell him it isn't working out, get out, and don't look back.

[HeraldOfExius]

My DM explained his reasoning for the "no table talk" rule as "I once had an extrovert player who kept saying 'I should roll this because I have the highest skill' so I made this rule so people who are worse at a thing get to make checks". This logic seems very flawed to me since generally the reason you give your character ranks in a skill is because you want them to do the thing, and the less ranks you have in a skill. What's your opinion on this logic?

It completely fails at the started purpose. Even if nobody is allowed to communicate what sort of bonuses they have, isn't determining the best person for a task relatively trivial? People aren't going to send the barbarian to talk down the guards (for most definitions of "talk") instead of the bard just because they can't say the bard has a +15 on the check compared to the barbarian's -2.

[Voidstar01]

It completely fails at the started purpose. Even if nobody is allowed to communicate what sort of bonuses they have, isn't determining the best person for a task relatively trivial? People aren't going to send the barbarian to talk down the guards (for most definitions of "talk") instead of the bard just because they can't say the bard has a +15 on the check compared to the barbarian's -2.

IDK man, this one fast talking player keeps cutting me off and making all the checks i'm good at, seems to really stop the one extroverted player from making all the checks :|

[False God]

My DM explained his reasoning for the "no table talk" rule as "I once had an extrovert player who kept saying 'I should roll this because I have the highest skill' so I made this rule so people who are worse at a thing get to make checks". This logic seems very flawed to me since generally the reason you give your character ranks in a skill is because you want them to do the thing, and the less ranks you have in a skill. What's your opinion on this logic?

What logic?

The point of a team-based game is niche protection. Everyone is good at something unique. Sure they overlap from time to time, but generally speaking each character is good at different things.

So having to "protect" a player whose character isn't good at stuff from one who is seems silly.

Granted if they were playing nearly identical roles, then the problem is that one player is better than the other player, and really there's no solution to that other than to help the not-so-good player get better.

[16bearswutIdo]

My DM explained his reasoning for the "no table talk" rule as "I once had an extrovert player who kept saying 'I should roll this because I have the highest skill' so I made this rule so people who are worse at a thing get to make checks". This logic seems very flawed to me since generally the reason you give your character ranks in a skill is because you want them to do the thing, and the less ranks you have in a skill. What's your opinion on this logic?

I can... kind of understand this? If he meant he would ask Player A to make a check, and then Player B yells that he's gonna make the check too. it's especially worse if Player B only does it if Player A fails his roll. That behavior always grinds my gears. If this was an open roll, I'd tell everyone to do so. But he's taking this house rule to the extreme if that's the reasoning behind it.

[animewatcha]

IDK man, this one fast talking player keeps cutting me off and making all the checks i'm good at, seems to really stop the one extroverted player from making all the checks :|

Is he only doing it on certain checks or EVERYTHING?

[Voidstar01]

Is he only doing it on certain checks or EVERYTHING?

so far yes. he's at the very least doing every check my character has a positive modifier in.

[Blackhawk748]

so far yes. he's at the very least doing every check my character has a positive modifier in.

Ew. Screw this group and find a new one. This sounds awful

[Voidstar01]

Ew. Screw this group and find a new one. This sounds awful
I am, seems the other players were of similar opinion since some have already left (as of, like an hour ago).

[Blackhawk748]

I am, seems the other players were of similar opinion since some have already left (as of, like an hour ago).

Good job, go grab a Dungeon Crawl Classics or something else and run another game or something.

[EisenKreutzer]

I am, seems the other players were of similar opinion since some have already left (as of, like an hour ago).

Time to start planning a campaign!

[javcs]

My DM explained his reasoning for the "no table talk" rule as "I once had an extrovert player who kept saying 'I should roll this because I have the highest skill' so I made this rule so people who are worse at a thing get to make checks". This logic seems very flawed to me since generally the reason you give your character ranks in a skill is because you want them to do the thing, and the less ranks you have in a skill. What's your opinion on this logic?

Eh ... whut?

As a general rule, the party is going to want the person with the best modifier making the checks. And figuring out who is good at what is going to be one of the first things a party does.

You want the guy with the face skillset being the party face.
You want the guy with the trap skills checking for traps. This person is probably also going to be taking the lead on checking for secret doors and looking for clues and concealed or hidden things.
You want the guy with the relevant knowledge skills making the knowledge checks. They're trained only skills, after all, and there are only a handful that are worth dipping for the synergy bonuses.
You want the guy with the scout skillset being the scout. You don't want the guy who can't sneak around failing at sneaking.

[Quertus]

The point of a team-based game is niche protection.

No. Niche protection is certainly one implementation, certainly one way to attempt to enforce a form of teamwork by forcing you to need your allies, but niche protection is absolutely not the point of a team-based game - and it is, in fact, not even required for one.

[Drackstin]

Just give everyone a pair of these

When placed over the eyes, these
ebony lenses allow normal vision and reveal the state of
health of all creatures visible to the wearer within 25
feet . The eyes of dark aura indicate whether each is dead,
fragile (3 or fewer hit points left), fighting off death
(alive with 4 or more hit points), undead, or neither
alive nor dead (a construct, for example)- Members of
the Lamenters' Order (see Chapter 4) are particularly
fond ofthis item-
Caster Level: 3rd ; Prerequisites : Craft Wondrous Item,
deathwatch; Market Price : 2,000 gp.

[NNescio]

Just give everyone a pair of these

When placed over the eyes, these
ebony lenses allow normal vision and reveal the state of
health of all creatures visible to the wearer within 25
feet . The eyes of dark aura indicate whether each is dead,
fragile (3 or fewer hit points left), fighting off death
(alive with 4 or more hit points), undead, or neither
alive nor dead (a construct, for example)- Members of
the Lamenters' Order (see Chapter 4) are particularly
fond ofthis item-
Caster Level: 3rd ; Prerequisites : Craft Wondrous Item,
deathwatch; Market Price : 2,000 gp.

Bonus point: Flavor them as 'Deal With It" thug life sunglasses.

[Luckmann]

Bonus point: Flavor them as 'Deal With It" thug life sunglasses.My current character has light blindness, and when fixing up a portrait for her (https://i.imgur.com/FyKtaP8.png), I forgot about her sunglasses. This was easily remedied by judicious application of deal with it (https://i.imgur.com/IsdY5O6.png), which is now a canonized part of her portrait. Bonus (https://i.imgur.com/qRiY2ce.png).


Just give everyone a pair of these

When placed over the eyes, these
ebony lenses allow normal vision and reveal the state of
health of all creatures visible to the wearer within 25
feet . The eyes of dark aura indicate whether each is dead,
fragile (3 or fewer hit points left), fighting off death
(alive with 4 or more hit points), undead, or neither
alive nor dead (a construct, for example)- Members of
the Lamenters' Order (see Chapter 4) are particularly
fond ofthis item-
Caster Level: 3rd ; Prerequisites : Craft Wondrous Item,
deathwatch; Market Price : 2,000 gp.What book, MIC? I'm going to need this on some sunglasses. :dealwithit:

[NNescio]

My current character has light blindness, and when fixing up a portrait for her (https://i.imgur.com/FyKtaP8.png), I forgot about her sunglasses. This was easily remedied by judicious application of deal with it (https://i.imgur.com/IsdY5O6.png), which is now a canonized part of her portrait. Bonus (https://i.imgur.com/qRiY2ce.png).

Noice.


What book, MIC? I'm going to need this on some sunglasses. :dealwithit:

Song and Silence, the 3.0e Bard/Rogue splatbook.

[Drackstin]

Song and Silence, the 3.0e Bard/Rogue splatbook.

Yep leave it to the bards and rogues to have all the fancy items no one knew they needed.

[JohnRalph]

So, I am the GM in this game. Voidstar01 read my rules, and failed to tell you guys that he knew the rules beforehand. I had every single player read them and tell me that they read the rules before the game started. Here is the part concerning metagaming:

Do not talk about what Hit Points your character has, either currently, or max. Do not talk about your character’s ability stats, skills, or other character info that crosses the boundary into metagaming. E.g. “My character has a lot of diplomacy, so ONLY I, am allowed to talk to NPCs!” or “Guys, I am at 4HP!” or “My intelligence is 23, so I should be the one deciphering the book.” Or “I took the feats XYZ, what do you have?” This info is fine to communicate in a non-metagaming way. E.g. “Dear sir, I have studied at the most prestigious libraries in Waterdeep. I would be honored to decipher the book.” or “My master made me study martial arts in the starlight. I can’t tell you the number of times that my nose was broken because I didn’t know his fist was coming towards me. Needless to say, at the end of our time together, I was blocking his damned fist more times than not.”

Metagaming gives a negative luck penalty that lasts for that session, and the rest of the next session. -1 luck bonus on saving throws, ability checks, and skill checks. If a player metagames again while under a negative luck penalty, then the penalty is increased by one, and the duration is increased by an additional session.

If players have a problem with this, then I expect that they do not play in my game. Obviously Voidstar01 mis-characterized me in a whole slew of ways. I don't really understand it... For example, he said that THEE reason that I created these metagaming rules was because of extroverted players at my table taking the limelight. That is NOT what I said. Instead, (and this is a verbatim cut and paste):

ONE of the issues I have run into at a table, is someone that is extroverted, constantly and loudly saying that their character should be doing XYZ thing because their character is best at it with XYZ ranks.

[JNAProductions]

And those are, to me and a lot of others, bad rules.

They decrease fun.

[JohnRalph]

And those are, to me and a lot of others, bad rules.

They decrease fun.

I disagree. Those rules help immerse the players into the game. I, and a lot of others, appreciate these rules.

They increase fun. Also, you would think that someone that doesn't like these rules, would decide not to play the game. Instead of lying about them?

[Drackstin]

How am i feeling? well on a scale of 1-47 im about a 6, i think i require healing.

[Tallyn]

JohnRalph, based on what he described, and based on what you described, I wouldn't play in your game.

I've been playing for nearly 30 years... I also encourage talking in character. I also try to discourage out of character talk, although I allow some. But I don't penalize people for it. I generally reward the people that are doing a good job of staying in character/roleplaying their character... those rewards can vary given the situation. (Might be XP, might be other things in game if the particular roleplaying situation warrants it)

If a person does get too disruptive, I'll usually talk to them one on one outside of the game itself, and ask them to change their behavior so everyone can have fun. If not, they may be asked to leave the group.

Just my two cents. You can run the game that you want... but if you find yourself having trouble retaining players, you may want to look at the way you run those games... if you want to keep running them.

[Sir Chuckles]

Shame that he mischaracterized you, but honestly it's still a bad houserule to penalize what could have been a slip of the tongue. It's made worse by making it last multiple sessions.

It's fine to say that they shouldn't use game terms in-character or to try not to use game terms to describe actions, but you take it several steps further by adding a penalty and banning all usage. That makes the game more clunky and difficult to play. I love justifying feat choices and abilities with in-character RP. But outright banning above-table "Oh hey, what feat did you take to do that?" and then penalizing it is, IMO, ridiculous.

There are far better ways to encourage immersion than to beat it into your players with a mechanical cudgel. In all honesty, I don't think Voidstar01 mischaracterized you nor did he outright lie about your houserules. Your explanation is the same one he gave.

[RedMage125]

So, I am the GM in this game. Voidstar01 read my rules, and failed to tell you guys that he knew the rules beforehand. I had every single player read them and tell me that they read the rules before the game started. Here is the part concerning metagaming:

Do not talk about what Hit Points your character has, either currently, or max. Do not talk about your character’s ability stats, skills, or other character info that crosses the boundary into metagaming. E.g. “My character has a lot of diplomacy, so ONLY I, am allowed to talk to NPCs!” or “Guys, I am at 4HP!” or “My intelligence is 23, so I should be the one deciphering the book.” Or “I took the feats XYZ, what do you have?” This info is fine to communicate in a non-metagaming way. E.g. “Dear sir, I have studied at the most prestigious libraries in Waterdeep. I would be honored to decipher the book.” or “My master made me study martial arts in the starlight. I can’t tell you the number of times that my nose was broken because I didn’t know his fist was coming towards me. Needless to say, at the end of our time together, I was blocking his damned fist more times than not.”

Metagaming gives a negative luck penalty that lasts for that session, and the rest of the next session. -1 luck bonus on saving throws, ability checks, and skill checks. If a player metagames again while under a negative luck penalty, then the penalty is increased by one, and the duration is increased by an additional session.

If players have a problem with this, then I expect that they do not play in my game. Obviously Voidstar01 mis-characterized me in a whole slew of ways. I don't really understand it... For example, he said that THEE reason that I created these metagaming rules was because of extroverted players at my table taking the limelight. That is NOT what I said. Instead, (and this is a verbatim cut and paste):

ONE of the issues I have run into at a table, is someone that is extroverted, constantly and loudly saying that their character should be doing XYZ thing because their character is best at it with XYZ ranks.
I agree with JNAProductions.

You play online, is there no way that the players are able to communicate things with each other that their characters may know but they don't remember? No one's perfect, and game sessions have longer times in-between them than the characters often experience, and adventurers might know a bit about their party members' abiities that each player should not have to memorize about other players' characters.

For example, Krusk the Barbarian (played by Sarah) and Regdar the Fighter (played by Joe) know that Gimli the Bard (played by Bob) has a silver tongue, they've seen him lie his way out of trouble before. They don't NEED to ask in-character. But Sarah and joe shouldn't be expected to have Bob's character sheet memorized. Do you not allow anyone to say "Hey, Bob, you've got a pretty good Persuasion and Deception modifier, right"?

I usually play in-person only, and talk around the table happens. People either game with friends or become friends with the people they game with. Here's how I handle "metagame talk", which I posted earlier in the thread.

Personally, I prefer to keep metagaming conversations to a minimum. To that end, I use the "bloodied" condition from 4e. "Bloodied" is the 50% hit point threshold. I will never reveal a creature's hp total to my players, but I will say when it gets bloodied, and if they forget and ask, I will point out which creatures are bloodied. I also ask that, during combat, my players not discuss hit point totals, as hp are a metagame concept.

So if the cleric asks "who needs healing?", acceptable answers are things like:
"I'm hurt, but not bloodied"
"I was bloodied 2 hits ago, and I am not okay"
"I'm bloodied, but just barely"
"I probably cannot take another hit like that last one"

Things like that are all okay. HOWEVER, if my players slip and say "I'm at 34/76" or something, all they get is the DM Look of Stern Disapproval +2. Good Lord, no "penalties".

And even if such penalties were to be levied (because the table agreed to such), they shouldn't last more than one session (or less). A character should not continue to be punished for something a player said. And certainly not if it was an out of character comment.

I understand you THINK your rules "encourage roleplay", but do they increase FUN? That's always a question one should ask when making house rules. And having penalties that last multiple sessions just because someone slipped and spoke about a rule because it's a habit is not fun for anyone. Having that penalty last multiple sessions, and even carry over accross different characters when a new one is made is just being mean for no one's benefit.

Really ask yourself: Who benefits from these rules? If the answer is somethign ephemeral, like "the roleplaying atmoshphere benefits", ditch them. Ask "Are they more fun?" If no, ditch them. And put yourself in your players' shoes. If you think having a DM (seemingly) arbitrarily assign you a penalty to every check you make in the next two to three sessions for something you said once that was clearly not an in-character comment would negative affect your own fun, why would you do this to other people?

[JohnRalph]

JohnRalph, based on what he described, and based on what you described, I wouldn't play in your game.

I've been playing for nearly 30 years... I also encourage talking in character. I also try to discourage out of character talk, although I allow some. But I don't penalize people for it. I generally reward the people that are doing a good job of staying in character/roleplaying their character... those rewards can vary given the situation. (Might be XP, might be other things in game if the particular roleplaying situation warrants it)

If a person does get too disruptive, I'll usually talk to them one on one outside of the game itself, and ask them to change their behavior so everyone can have fun. If not, they may be asked to leave the group.

Just my two cents. You can run the game that you want... but if you find yourself having trouble retaining players, you may want to look at the way you run those games... if you want to keep running them.

I also encourage talking in character. I don't however, threaten people with removal from the game if they metagame. I just let the rules handle that. As you mentioned, I retain the players that don't have a problem with these rules.

I make my expectations clear upfront, so that there is no confusion.

[Drackstin]

I disagree. Those rules help immerse the players into the game. I, and a lot of others, appreciate these rules.

They increase fun. Also, you would think that someone that doesn't like these rules, would decide not to play the game. Instead of lying about them?

If its so un-fun that players are complaining about it, its probably not fun.

[JohnRalph]

Really ask yourself: Who benefits from these rules? If the answer is somethign ephemeral, like "the roleplaying atmoshphere benefits", ditch them. Ask "Are they more fun?" If no, ditch them. And put yourself in your players' shoes. If you think having a DM (seemingly) arbitrarily assign you a penalty to every check you make in the next two to three sessions for something you said once that was clearly not an in-character comment would negative affect your own fun, why would you do this to other people?

I do ask my players for feedback. Now, the specific answer to the question is everyone benefits when players aren't telling others that they have 17 ranks in diplomacy, and therefore should be the only one allowed to speak to the important NPCs. Yes, this has been an issue before. I also don't want some players giving a continuous update on their HPs. Just like 4e, saying that they are gravely hurt is fine ('bloodied'). Saying that they are now at 3HPs is not. I find that it detracts from the game.

[Drackstin]

I do ask my players for feedback. Now, the specific answer to the question is everyone benefits when players aren't telling others that they have 17 ranks in diplomacy, and therefore should be the only one allowed to speak to the important NPCs. Yes, this has been an issue before. I also don't want some players giving a continuous update on their HPs. Just like 4e, saying that they are gravely hurt is fine ('bloodied'). Saying that they are now at 3HPs is not. I find that it detracts from the game.

Are they at least aloud to tell you what they rolled or is that too out of character?

[JohnRalph]

If its so un-fun that players are complaining about it, its probably not fun.

Yes, it's unfun for the only player that metagamed and complained that the GM (me) stuck to his word and applied a penalty. I even gave him a warning early in the session to stop telling everyone his HPs constantly.

Now, it's no surprise that this player created a massive strawman of what I said and did.

[JohnRalph]

Are they at least aloud to tell you what they rolled or is that too out of character?

Why wouldn't it be allowed? I do GM rolls when I want to keep some things secret.

[frogglesmash]

I disagree. Those rules help immerse the players into the game. I, and a lot of others, appreciate these rules.

They increase fun. Also, you would think that someone that doesn't like these rules, would decide not to play the game. Instead of lying about them?

If it's such a fun rule, then why does it seem that your entire group plans on abandoning your game as a result of it? Or was that also misinformation?

[Deadline]

Why wouldn't it be allowed? I do GM rolls when I want to keep some things secret.

Because it's not clear from your houserule what your definition of metagaming is. Apparently it's ok to state the AC that you hit with your roll, and possibly remind or tell the DM what your AC is, but why is it not ok to mention your hit point total? It seems odd to allow one set of info, but not the other.

That being said, it sounds like you might not game with friends. If that is the case, I can kind of understand your houserule, but it feels very draconian to me. I've never had much luck punishing people into enjoying themselves. For reference, I've only really run games for my friends, or at conventions, and in neither place would your houserule be something that increased fun.

But, as always, if what you do is fun for you and your group, then by all means keep doing it. Because the ultimate measure of a good game is one where everyone is having fun.

[Keltest]

Because it's not clear from your houserule what your definition of metagaming is. Apparently it's ok to state the AC that you hit with your roll, and possibly remind or tell the DM what your AC is, but why is it not ok to mention your hit point total? It seems odd to allow one set of info, but not the other.

That being said, it sounds like you might not game with friends. If that is the case, I can kind of understand your houserule, but it feels very draconian to me. I've never had much luck punishing people into enjoying themselves. For reference, I've only really run games for my friends, or at conventions, and in neither place would your houserule be something that increased fun.

But, as always, if what you do is fun for you and your group, then by all means keep doing it. Because the ultimate measure of a good game is one where everyone is having fun.

Everything ive seen so far suggests that the group is not having fun, and the only reason he is still DM is because they haven't all decided to drop just yet, for various reasons.

As a rule of thumb, any rule that causes people to not want to play with you is a bad rule.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Carrots work much better at encouraging behavior than sticks do with discouraging it, especially in this case. Reward efforts made at in-character roleplaying, but don't ruin people's fun by screwing them over for hours at a time by giving them stacking penalties that could kill off their characters.

XP, luck bonuses, increases in granted WBL, NPC favors, and so on, are much nicer than increasing the risk of failing one's saving throws or lowering AC in ways that could force a player to reroll an entire character. It discourages getting attached to one's character, which actually decreases enjoyment of roleplaying. After all, why should I get attached to my character when you're just trying to kill him off when I'm trying to not die by explaining why my numbers are high enough for you to not kill me? Especially since that automatically means you're gonna be stacking on negatives to ensure that I can't not-die?

It's the same reason why the PF multiclassing rules work and the 3e ones don't.

Carrot, man, not stick.

[RedMage125]

I do ask my players for feedback. Now, the specific answer to the question is everyone benefits when players aren't telling others that they have 17 ranks in diplomacy, and therefore should be the only one allowed to speak to the important NPCs. Yes, this has been an issue before. I also don't want some players giving a continuous update on their HPs. Just like 4e, saying that they are gravely hurt is fine ('bloodied'). Saying that they are now at 3HPs is not. I find that it detracts from the game.

And what about the "waking up" thing? Where they had bell alarms which got tripped, AND had a PC on watch who shouted to everyone to wake up and then they don't get to act because "they're groggy"? (That's not in the rules, and isn't in your disclaimer).

And Enemies still get surprise rounds even if the PCs beat their Stealth check (by more than 5, even) before combat even starts? And they get 3 actions if they roll above PCs on initiative?

How do these things "improve the game"?

I'm with you on discussion of HPs, as I said, but you don't need a hammer when a feather touch will do. When I have new players at my table, it often takes 3 or 4 sessions (and many times that in combat encounters) before they start learning to not discuss it. And his first example was that he joked about being "low on life points", when his character was unconscious. So it was obviously out of character, and clearly kind of a joke, because all the other characters can see that he's unconscious, right? You going to demand that a player has to go completely silent if their character is unconscious?

EDIT:

Carrots work much better at encouraging behavior than sticks do with discouraging it, especially in this case. Reward efforts made at in-character roleplaying, but don't ruin people's fun by screwing them over for hours at a time by giving them stacking penalties that could kill off their characters.

XP, luck bonuses, increases in granted WBL, NPC favors, and so on, are much nicer than increasing the risk of failing one's saving throws or lowering AC in ways that could force a player to reroll an entire character. It discourages getting attached to one's character, which actually decreases enjoyment of roleplaying. After all, why should I get attached to my character when you're just trying to kill him off when I'm trying to not die by explaining why my numbers are high enough for you to not kill me? Especially since that automatically means you're gonna be stacking on negatives to ensure that I can't not-die?

It's the same reason why the PF multiclassing rules work and the 3e ones don't.

Carrot, man, not stick.
So much this.

[Drackstin]

When a character gets these penalties, do they have to RP them as well?

"I feel so sick, i must have numbered too much"

[Afghanistan]

Carrot, man, not stick.

This. Absolutely this. I will 100% let players automatically succeed on diplomacy and bluff checks if they actually present a reasonable explanation for their arguments or lies. If you immediately catch someone in a lie mid explanation? Bam. Automatically successful sense motive attempt. Characters actually roleplay out before the session actually begins? I'd give them benefits to stuff. It's small stuff, a +1 or 2 there, enough to make them know that their role playing is absolutely welcome and appreciated. Usually this is sparing between Rogues and Fighters and martial artist, debates between party faces for the sake of debate, jam sessions between Bards, design planning between artificers, spellcasters or other intellectual types, fawning over your own appearance, or even writing out a piece of scripture for you and your home-made religion.

Small benefits, while not ever ground breaking or encounter breaking make the party actually feel like something they are doing is right, and they will continue to do it.

EDIT: The more I think about the accumulative penalties, the more disappointed I get in it. It is a rather creative way to cause a party death spiral that can not only go from one session into the next session, and the next. It breeds more frustration than a desire to actually play the game.

[16bearswutIdo]

When a character gets these penalties, do they have to RP them as well?

"I feel so sick, i must have numbered too much"

This. What's the in-universe explanation for the stacking penalty? Pelor takes a personal interest in overly punishing you then justifies it in his holy book?

[Voidstar01]

Please leave the DM alone.

[RatElemental]

Bonus point: Flavor them as 'Deal With It" thug life sunglasses.

"Sunglasses of Coping"

[flat_footed]

The Fullmetal Mod: Locked for review.