PDA

View Full Version : Help, my gender has been changed by a cursed item: will remove curse work?



Starbuck_II
2008-03-02, 08:35 PM
Basically, I found magic items (on dead bodies) with my detect Magic at will ability (I'm a warlock). we got them identified at a shop.

After selling everything but this ring, I was thinking of tryin it on:
The shop keeper said, " it makes Dragons more sexy". I was thinking, " sure, she would have mentioned if it hurt me."

She didn't. Sadly, we have a 1/2 celestial so I couldn't kill the shop keeper (after all this wasn't a haha joke, I lost a ring slot).

She charged 6.5 K to free me (and scrolls of removing curse cost only 375 (if Divine) or 700 if (Arcane) I foumdf out when I got home from the session).

I didn't have the money. The cleric of pelor is prick (just like Pelor).

So I currently lost AC (I used my ring of protection ring finger) so that sucks.

I'll buy a scroll of remove curse next shop we find, but I want to make sure it can work.

The spell says, " certain special curses may not be countered"

Does this mean:
a. I can cast it to remove the ring, but stay a chick
b. I can't remove ring or chickness
c. I can remove being a cjhck but not the ring

What say you all?

Jack_Simth
2008-03-02, 08:51 PM
Does this mean:
a. I can cast it to remove the ring, but stay a chick
b. I can't remove ring or chickness
c. I can remove being a cjhck but not the ring

What say you all?

A couple of things worth mentioning:

There is no standard "Change Gender" curse in 3.5 (at least, not Core) although it is on the drawback table (numbers 30-32). That section lists:

Drawback: Items with drawbacks are usually still beneficial to the possessor but they also carry some negative aspect. Although sometimes drawbacks occur only when the item is used (or held, in the case of some items such as weapons), usually the drawback remains with the character for as long as she has the item.(Emphasis added)

Theoretically, when you remove the ring (which is the cursed aspect, and what Break Curse should handle) it'll go away.

However:
a) Rules say "usually" - which means DM can say otherwise at whim.
b) As the only Core random "change gender" thing is from the Drawbacks table, not the Curse table, and the ring appears to do nothing else, this is a DM specific cursed item.

Basically, ask your DM - who can't tell you, as you don't know in character. Sorry.

Mauril Everleaf
2008-03-02, 09:52 PM
Well, unless the ring says "turns the wearer into a woman", you can always just put it on again to change back into male. "Remove Curse" should be able to remove the ring, but, obviously, that would be up to your DM. So, if the Remove Curse works, you may just need two of them.

horseboy
2008-03-02, 10:02 PM
Are you sure it's not an illusion?

holywhippet
2008-03-02, 10:15 PM
You should always take a copy of the PHB to any gaming session so you can challenge any rulings you think are suspect.

I believe a remove curse spell should do the trick, unless there was some kind of fancy trick to the ring - like a contingency wish (not sure if that's even possible).

Titanium Dragon
2008-03-02, 10:18 PM
You should always take a copy of the PHB to any gaming session so you can challenge any rulings you think are suspect.

I believe a remove curse spell should do the trick, unless there was some kind of fancy trick to the ring - like a contingency wish (not sure if that's even possible).

Remove curse works as long as there isn't a plot reason for it not to.

Neek
2008-03-03, 12:33 AM
However:
a) Rules say "usually" - which means DM can say otherwise at whim.
b) As the only Core random "change gender" thing is from the Drawbacks table, not the Curse table, and the ring appears to do nothing else, this is a DM specific cursed item.

Drawbacks prose problems. They are a vaguely identified effect in a chapter of the DMG (or vale in the SRD), and they say little, such as:
i. There is no introduction as to the source of a drawback is, whether or not it is a property of a Bestow Curse spell (I would say it is; the drawbacks listed are of such a variety. The worst offender is level drain, which is seemingly outside the scope of the spell, but not really... if you consider that a drawback is item-dependent).
ii. There is no description of application of a drawback. It leaves it quite vague, but doesn't describe what items are "use-only", "on equip," or otherwise.
iii. The lack of an onset is offset by the lack of a resolution. While an opposite effect requires a Remove Curse (at least) to remove, drawback does not. The table ought to state if a drawback has a resolution, but only two on the list say "Only happens once."

However, we know that:
iv. A drawback is generally a negative effect bestowed on an item that has a positive benefit.
v. A drawback is meant to limit the benefit of an item, i.e., a ring of invisibility that makes amplifies all of your noises (or a ring of invisibility that, whenever you wear it, you see a giant flaming eye. Nothing more.), a sword +1 that shines brightly and attracts insects that sting. The limiting effect is not to such an extent that it makes the item impossible to use, but an interesting choice if used

So, if a drawback is (a) the product of a Bestow Curse, and that (b) cursed magic items list their resolution in their descriptor and (c) unless otherwise noted, requires no effort upon the recipient of the curse to remove the item to end the curse, then the resolution of the gender-bending ring is simply drop it.

So a ring whose only purpose is to save you on extensive, long-term surgeries and hormone treatment, by SRD, the ring no longer poses a threat once removed. This is by SRD. Your DM may not understand the fine print of an item with a drawback, or perhaps realizes that and is just pulling (what I see as a) jerk move to screw his players by forcing them to pay out of the nose for something basic.

Demented
2008-03-03, 12:49 AM
Roll a new character.


Or, if you really want to get rid of it, use Analyze Dwoemer. That will tell you what type of item it is and how to get rid of it. If it doesn't tell you how to get rid of it, roll a new character, or get used to being a woman.

Also, are the dragons really sexier? Or are you the now-sexier dragon?
Because if you became a female dragon...

Aquillion
2008-03-03, 01:16 AM
As others have said: It's really the DM's call, so we can't predict it.

But. Since the DM made a custom magic item for this, it seems likely that they don't want it just handwaved away that easily. I suspect that you'll find that a Remove Curse only lets you remove the ring, at best, without turning you back. I suspect you'll also find that the ring only works once per person, so you can't change gender again that easily.

Do you care greatly about the gender change, or is it mostly just about the ring slot?

Zincorium
2008-03-03, 01:35 AM
To put a different spin on things:


Have you considered just rolling with it and having fun? A curse is only a curse if it actually hurts you.

ZeroNumerous
2008-03-03, 03:03 AM
Have you considered just rolling with it and having fun? A curse is only a curse if it actually hurts you.

Uh, as he's mentioned, it has hurt him. Because it removes one of his ring slots. Presumably the only complaint is that the ring cannot be removed.

Tempest Fennac
2008-03-03, 03:11 AM
Why isn't your Cleric willinto help exactly? I would have thought that the fact that you're his/her ally that would be enough reason to help, excluding the fact that they woship a good-aligned diety. From what I can gather, a Break Enchantment would be needed to remove the gender change effect, but is the effect that much of a problem?

Bavarian itP
2008-03-03, 06:04 AM
You know you play D&D if one lost item slot bugs you more then the change of your gender.

Starbuck_II
2008-03-03, 06:47 AM
Are you sure it's not an illusion?

I'm pretty sure. I still can't remove the ring. So even if I'm not really a female (though I checked if I had breasts and I seem to unless that was a illusion), I still lost my ring slot.

In character, being as woman and not a man is frightening (losing my manhood); out of character I just my ring slot.


holywhippet
You should always take a copy of the PHB to any gaming session so you can challenge any rulings you think are suspect.

Actually, it was more a DMG issue, I needed prices of scrolls: I mean what caster level arcane caster is worth 6, 500 to cure something with remove curse? I mean, she'd have to be Epic to make that money off it (a very expensive scroll).

In character, I know alot of magic, I worship Baccob (at least he admits he is uncaring) and I'm a warlock.

Aquillion
Do you care greatly about the gender change, or is it mostly just about the ring slot?

I care about ring slot, but my character cares about gender though he'd like his ring slot too.


I appreciate all the replies. I'm considering dispelling it tll it supresses the ring: will that lt me ring it (assumingnot plot item)? I mean, I can keep dispelling until it works as a Warlock (caster level 1-19 I can dispel).

Do cursed items lose their effect when dispelled as well? I mean, I know it wo'nt remove the curse on me, but can they supress the unremovable part?


Tempest Fennac
Why isn't your Cleric willing to help exactly?

Because I won't pay him. He wants me to pay him and charges interest.
Really I find him more neutral than good.

I always found the joke that Pelor was a prick on WotC baords funny, but it apparently is true here. Pelor showed this when he cast Commune and the god dissed me.

Tempest Fennac
2008-03-03, 06:54 AM
If he's like that, an arguement for the DM shifting his alignment to Neutral while causing him to lose all of his Cleric powers if he doesn't help you for free?

JBento
2008-03-03, 07:03 AM
If the GOD dissed him when the cleric cast Commune, I'd say the DM, not Pelor, is a prick - though I'm already used to Good-aligned gods of the Sun being pricks. If you remeber correctly, on the first Neverwinter Nights game...

Lathander made a whole town become lost in time because the bastard was too lazy to pass judgement on two brothers. Nevermind that the townsfolk had nothing to do with it.

OTOH, I think most gods are pricks anyway. I do believe it comes with all the power and (for the most part) not having to have done anything to get it. Apparently, Absolute Power does not corrupt absolutely, nor does it come with Absolute Responsibility. It self-absorbs absolutely and comes with Absolute Prickness. :smallmad:

JBento
2008-03-03, 07:09 AM
If the GOD dissed him when the cleric cast Commune, I'd say the DM, not Pelor, is a prick - though I'm already used to Good-aligned gods of the Sun being pricks. If you remeber correctly, on the first Neverwinter Nights game...

Lathander made a whole town become lost in time because the bastard was too lazy to pass judgement on two brothers. Nevermind that the townsfolk had nothing to do with it.

OTOH, I think most gods are pricks anyway. I do believe it comes with all the power and (for the most part) not having to have done anything to get it. Apparently, Absolute Power does not corrupt absolutely, nor does it come with Absolute Responsibility. It self-absorbs absolutely and comes with Absolute Prickness. :smallmad:

AtomicKitKat
2008-03-03, 09:32 AM
Standard is that RC will let you remove the ring, but the chickness stays until such time as you get another ring or some thing higher than a Quasi Deity can remove it.

Leon
2008-03-03, 09:38 AM
If you cant remove the ring - remove the finger

Citizen Joe
2008-03-03, 09:42 AM
First of all, you have 5 fingers on each hand but only ONE ring will work on each hand. So, just cut off the finger with the cursed ring. Now stick your protection ring on one of the other fingers on that hand. Now you have your protection back.

Try other spells like Break Enchantment or simply get yourself polymorphed or altered back into your regular form of (male?) Or, don't worry about it. If the DM put in ONE sex changing item, he's probably happy with the idea and thus there are going to be more gender bending stuff going on.

Solo
2008-03-03, 09:54 AM
Talk to the DM first, and see where that gets you.

Then try Remove Curse

Then help the cleric meet his god.

sikyon
2008-03-03, 10:00 AM
Simple Answer:

Sneak away from the party at night, go back to the shopkeeper, and threaten him with death if he doesn't remove it. If he refuses to comply, toruture him abit. If he still doesn't comply, take his stuff as compensation. If the celestial interferes, well, open conflict is in order. Your character shouldn't take such a ground-breaking trauma with peace and quiet. 5 stages and whatnot. Anger is good.

What level are you? Do you need help with beating up the celestial?

Tempest Fennac
2008-03-03, 10:06 AM
The problem with that is that it wouldn't work if the character was good and he wanted to keep that alignment. Also, cutting off your finger may not work because the DM may rule that you've got to use that finger for wearing rings.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-03-03, 10:19 AM
The problem with that is that it wouldn't work if the character was good and he wanted to keep that alignment. Also, cutting off your finger may not work because the DM may rule that you've got to use that finger for wearing rings.There is NOTHING RAW that would indicate that. The only reason you can only wear 2 is the magic auras don't overlap or something.:smallconfused:

And as for alignment, well, she has a bit of a reason to be upset, especially given the shopkeepers actions are basically extortion. A good character should probably just sic the guards on him if he won't break the curse.


And yes, Pelor is a prick. Most of the good or neutral gods are. There's a reason my mages worship Vecna.

Tempest Fennac
2008-03-03, 10:24 AM
I know there's nothing in the rules that said that, but the DM seems to want to waste a character's ring slot, so there's a chance they would do something like that. Why do a lot of the good and neutral gods come across as being pricks?

Green Bean
2008-03-03, 10:26 AM
Why do a lot of the good and neutral gods come across as being pricks?

Their clerics.

Attilargh
2008-03-03, 10:28 AM
I think neglecting to inform a buyer of the item's curse properly instead of in a smartass "think of words that end in '-GRY'" way should be punishable by law in any kind of jurisdiction. If that doesn't fly, an involuntary change of gender is certainly a threat to a person's mental and emotional well-being. And demanding six and a half thousand pieces of gold to fix something the shopeeker herself inflicted on you might very well fall under extortion or racketeering or something.

Ergo, sue the shopkeeper's socks off. Also, remember to appeal to the half-celestial's and the cleric's good and/or lawful natures.

Starbuck_II
2008-03-03, 11:02 AM
Simple Answer:

Sneak away from the party at night, go back to the shopkeeper, and threaten him with death if he doesn't remove it. If he refuses to comply, toruture him abit. If he still doesn't comply, take his stuff as compensation. If the celestial interferes, well, open conflict is in order. Your character shouldn't take such a ground-breaking trauma with peace and quiet. 5 stages and whatnot. Anger is good.

What level are you? Do you need help with beating up the celestial?

We are ECL 15. I'm a 1/2 dragon so only level 12 in character levels. The 1/2 celestial is level 11 (ECL 15 since 1/2 Celstial is +4)

While I could take him, the Cleric likes the celestial so they would team up I'd figure. Plus, they both worship Pelor.

The nature cleric: I'm not sure what he'd do (not sure what Prc he got either).

The rogue is same alignment as me CN. But I don't know how she'd react (publically, she'd have no issue if she would'nt be caught I think).


My character is CN. I tend toward good. I do my best to follow my concience. I have no issue with eye for a eye: curse for a curse, but I also know my limits in party (I need them to be meatshields/ the characters used to be old friends).

Plus, I was closest to the 1/2 celestial so I'd be rather strange to suddenly fight him.

Hypothetically:
If I fought him alone: I'd target his will save first with Bestow curse: I'm thinking 1/2 chance to act each turn would be most useful.
Than, fly in air, create chilling tentacles to grapple him to death. Most likely that would work.

If he escaped the tentacles (probably try flying out too): I'd blast him with dispel magic dispelling his weapon, armor, or something.
Drawback he has SR. So my eldritch blast wouldn't be useful without vitriolic blast (but he has good Acid resistant).

So I could smack him with my longspear (I have good Str), but that would be a long battle. And it is sure to make too much noise.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-03-03, 11:22 AM
How much GP and spare magic items do you have on hand? Is it enough to bribe the rogue?

sikyon
2008-03-03, 11:31 AM
We are ECL 15. I'm a 1/2 dragon so only level 12 in character levels. The 1/2 celestial is level 11 (ECL 15 since 1/2 Celstial is +4)

While I could take him, the Cleric likes the celestial so they would team up I'd figure. Plus, they both worship Pelor.

The nature cleric: I'm not sure what he'd do (not sure what Prc he got either).

The rogue is same alignment as me CN. But I don't know how she'd react (publically, she'd have no issue if she would'nt be caught I think).


My character is CN. I tend toward good. I do my best to follow my concience. I have no issue with eye for a eye: curse for a curse, but I also know my limits in party (I need them to be meatshields/ the characters used to be old friends).

Plus, I was closest to the 1/2 celestial so I'd be rather strange to suddenly fight him.

Hypothetically:
If I fought him alone: I'd target his will save first with Bestow curse: I'm thinking 1/2 chance to act each turn would be most useful.
Than, fly in air, create chilling tentacles to grapple him to death. Most likely that would work.

If he escaped the tentacles (probably try flying out too): I'd blast him with dispel magic dispelling his weapon, armor, or something.
Drawback he has SR. So my eldritch blast wouldn't be useful without vitriolic blast (but he has good Acid resistant).

So I could smack him with my longspear (I have good Str), but that would be a long battle. And it is sure to make too much noise.

What class is the celestial?

Going back and threatening him/taking his stuff as compensation is 100% Chatoic Neutral. Just don't let the celestial catch you is all you have to do. If he asks where the stuff came from, just say that it was compensation from the shopkeeper for the curse (you should get a circumstance modifier as it is a half-truth). Only fight him if he strikes first. Just maintain that you are trying to get your compensation, and that you don't want to fight him but you need justice to be served. But only if you get caught. Finally, if all else fails, accuse him of wanting you to stay like this because he has a secret crush on you and now can act on it. Say stuff like "I know how you've been looking at me! I don't trust any of you!" and stuff like that. That'll make everyone uncomfortable enough to support you into being changed back.

Edit: Bring the rouge with you when sneaking out, and cut him into some of the loot (though you may not want to take any if the shopekeep agrees to change you back, but the rouge is not bound by those rules). This will also give you backup.

Tempest Fennac
2008-03-03, 02:29 PM
Regarding the good god's Clerics, isn't it more of a case of the Cleric's players deciding that they should play as pricks rather then actually acting in accordance to their god's philosophies? It's like with Miko and Big Ears (from Goblins): Miko is an example of how not to play a Paladin while BE is a good example of how to play one.

Starbuck_II
2008-03-03, 03:47 PM
Regarding the good god's Clerics, isn't it more of a case of the Cleric's players deciding that they should play as pricks rather then actually acting in accordance to their god's philosophies? It's like with Miko and Big Ears (from Goblins): Miko is an example of how not to play a Paladin while BE is a good example of how to play one.

Not when I overheard a commune spell (he was helping us find some information about some bad dudes): he decided for one question about me being stupid or some thing like that. Pelor didn't just say yes, he expounded on it.

So both Pelor andthe Cleric are pricks.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-03, 03:59 PM
COMMUNE DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! GOODNIGHT!

Commune only allows to answer yes or no questions, and with yes, no, or up to five words. The cleric hates you and is a prick.

Perchance you did something IRL to anger him? 'Coz that be no way fo' a NG to act, missy.

Seatbelt
2008-03-03, 04:07 PM
Remove curse works as long as there isn't a plot reason for it not to.

Quoted for Truth.

Rutee
2008-03-03, 04:13 PM
If this doesn't kill your concept, just roll with it. You A: Can't take vengeance, and B: Are only reinforcing that switching your character to a female pisses you off.

Aquillion
2008-03-03, 04:25 PM
Not when I overheard a commune spell (he was helping us find some information about some bad dudes): he decided for one question about me being stupid or some thing like that. Pelor didn't just say yes, he expounded on it.

So both Pelor andthe Cleric are pricks.It sounds like your DM hates you. Expect the ring to chew your finger off and the merchant to have a thousand epic-level guard dogs if you try to sneak in and make them turn you back.

Dervag
2008-03-03, 04:48 PM
Actually, it was more a DMG issue, I needed prices of scrolls: I mean what caster level arcane caster is worth 6, 500 to cure something with remove curse? I mean, she'd have to be Epic to make that money off it (a very expensive scroll).One for whom having the appropriate equipment is very important and worth a large sum of money?


Because I won't pay him. He wants me to pay him and charges interest.
Really I find him more neutral than good.Which do you value more, the money, or having the appropriate equipment?


I always found the joke that Pelor was a prick on WotC baords funny, but it apparently is true here. Pelor showed this when he cast Commune and the god dissed me.If a god of light and good disses you... he may be right.

Not saying he is, y'know, but it's something to think about.

ZeroNumerous
2008-03-03, 05:02 PM
If this doesn't kill your concept, just roll with it. You A: Can't take vengeance, and B: Are only reinforcing that switching your character to a female pisses you off.

Again: The problem is the lost ring-slot.

Also, I'd think that I'd be pretty pissed off too. Not because my character became female(or male, depending on the original gender), but because there was an arbitrary change forced upon my character by circumstance created purely by DM-fiat.

Jack_Simth
2008-03-03, 07:10 PM
Well, if nothing else, rings have AC, hardness, hit points, and break DC's that aren't too difficult (13, 2, 10, 25, respectively). You can at least get the ring slot back, possibly with a little help from the party fighter (just make sure he lines up the shot very carefully...) or a set of pliers.

JadedDM
2008-03-03, 08:12 PM
I can't believe your character has changed into a woman, but your only real concern is your ring finger.

Ain't that just like a woman? :smallamused:

Mewtarthio
2008-03-03, 08:24 PM
Let's start by assuming the worst-case scenario: Your DM is an evil bastard who hates you personally and wants nothing more than to see you suffer. With this assumption in mind, we've got several options:

1) Exact compensation from the merchant. Do this solo. You are quite likely to die in the attempt, so you can roll up a new character and get back in the game with two ring slots.

2) Cut off the finger. Your DM, being an evil bastard, will immediately claim that you need to have that particular finger for the ring slot. Cast regenerate. The cursed ring will grow back with the finger. Lather, rinse, repeat as desired, then sell all the cursed rings (with free fingers on the side) that you've collected.

3) Bring a handgun to the session. Execute the player you like least so they know you aren't joking.

Mut
2008-03-03, 08:39 PM
OK. My thoughts? You need to talk to your DM out of character (preferably one-on-one, outside the game).

It seems like the DM is pulling out all the stops to put this curse on you and keep it there. So there may be some underlying reason for this. The obvious ones that come to mind are:
a) This is important to advance the plot;
b) The DM thinks this would be a cool role-playing opportunity for you;
c) The NPC has a legitimate motivation to get revenge on your PC (your character slighted him, hurt his daughter, offended his god, whatever) and this is the "punishment";
d) The DM is having fun jerking you around.

If it's (a) then be prepared to roll with it. Probably the DM should have given you some kind of heads-up (or at least told you OOC after-the-fact that this is important), but they may be worried about spoiling the plot or something. (You may be able to bargain for some freebie or XP bonus for putting up with it, at least. Heck, the DM may even have something cool in mind already -- the ring may do something else besides the obvious.)

If it's (b) then the DM should've discussed it with you beforehand (if only so that you two could come up with a more plausible way to sock you with the curse). But even if the initial execution was badly handled, this could still be fun to role-play. If you (as a player) are comfortable with it, why not go for it? Your PC will be the center of attention, you can play out a range of reactions and emotions, you can have the obligatory humorous misunderstandings, you can drag the other characters on side quests to find a cure, etc.

If it's (c) then, well, in the short term those are the lumps. If the character broke the rules, sometimes there are consequences. (But it should always be the character being punished, never the player. If it's a lot less fun for you to play, something isn't right.) On the flip side, this one makes it more legitimate to look for IC solutions like the ones suggested in this thread -- threatening the merchant with harm if he doesn't make things right, robbing the merchant to pay the cleric, petitioning the gods, bringing in the lawyers, and so on. (This may wrap into (a) if the quest to break the curse or appease the god is supposed to be an integral part of the campaign.)

If it's (d) then, really, consider your options. You cannot win an in-game fight against the DM. But I wouldn't be too quick to assume that this is the case -- the whole thing may have happened by accident (merchant rolls a 1 when trying to identify the item!) and gotten out of control because, really, a miniature Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity is hilarious as long as it isn't happening to you personally.

Oh, and as far as the ring slot goes: Try not to sweat it too much. It's only equipment. If this is really, really bugging you then talk to the DM about it and see if you can agree a compromise (like: remove curse to get the ring off but not reverse the effects). There's always the chopping-finger-off suggestion made elsewhere in the thread, but that seems a bit drastic.

Rutee
2008-03-03, 08:54 PM
Again: The problem is the lost ring-slot.

Also, I'd think that I'd be pretty pissed off too. Not because my character became female(or male, depending on the original gender), but because there was an arbitrary change forced upon my character by circumstance created purely by DM-fiat.

I'd have left. Period. That's apparently being done to torment the player; I personally don't sign up for that crap. But I'm assuming the OP has extenuating circumstances that mean he wants to be there, so I'm giving the most effective solution to that.

Starbuck_II
2008-03-03, 09:23 PM
3) Bring a handgun to the session. Execute the player you like least so they know you aren't joking.

We at a dorm... somehow a gun seems like a bad idea at a school.
But I get the joke.



If it's (b) then the DM should've discussed it with you beforehand (if only so that you two could come up with a more plausible way to sock you with the curse). But even if the initial execution was badly handled, this could still be fun to role-play. If you (as a player) are comfortable with it, why not go for it? Your PC will be the center of attention, you can play out a range of reactions and emotions, you can have the obligatory humorous misunderstandings, you can drag the other characters on side quests to find a cure, etc.

That is the thing. I'd rather not take time away for myself.
I got a free drink at a bar as a woman... so that was okay (though drinks are chump change by level 15).
I mean, we still have the main quest of gathering info. Though, I'm definately checking the local church/next scroll shop to try to remove the spell.

I have 2 weeks till next game (spring break occurs starting friday).

Mojo_Rat
2008-03-03, 09:46 PM
Generaly speaking from recent experience the spell you are looking for is Break enchantment. However you need to get it cast at a level sufficient to break the curse.

As an Example in a recent game of my own our party was asked to do a task by a wizard who was secretly workin for our enemies. We were all given a ring with a disguise spell on it to help us (basically while worn we always looked like a specific somone else)

But there was also a lesser geas attatched to the Ring we could remove it at any time but it automatically assumed we were failing to try and complete the geas. End result was ring slot used up and our enemies had us off on a task to keep us busy.

I figured out that Break enchantment would workb ut give the level of the Wizard who made th4 ring You couldnt just buy a scroll. a 20th level wizard castin break enchantment charges about 8000g assuming the Dm hasn assigned anything more to it.

Personally though i dont see anything wrong with how evens were set up.

Xuincherguixe
2008-03-03, 10:55 PM
For reasons I never did really understand, my character kept changing gender in one game. But that wasn't the unsettling part.

The unsettling part was that it didn't really bother him.

Sometimes, taking things well is the scariest thing you can do.


I'm just saying, feel free to use it to your advantage to make things really, really weird.

Fuzzy_Juan
2008-03-04, 03:14 AM
I say get your Warlock knocked up and stay a woman for a year and a half, then remove curse the ring so that you can tell your kid in a manly voice "i'm your mommie" :smallbiggrin:

Tempest Fennac
2008-03-04, 03:18 AM
That would pretty much end the Warlock's involvement in the campaign (besides, if the character is uncomfortable with just being female, why would he want to get pregnant?). Looking at all the ideas, I'd say that trying to find a scroll of Remove Curse to get rid of the ring would be your best bet while worrying about the female part later being as it's not causing any real problems (at the minute at least).

earlblue
2008-03-04, 04:49 AM
Consider this: if the change is done and over with, and there is no more magic, other then having the ring stuck to your finger like super glued, then 'remove curse' or break enchantment, will not changed your sex back. You might need a spell that changes your sex back.

Not that gender changing is considered to be a curse by everyone. I know people who pay good money just to do that in RL... but that's beside the point. Unless, of course, the ring was design to do just that. Then it is not a 'cursed' item per se. The true curse in this case might be to deprive you of a ring slot. Castng remove curse might mean that the ring goes off, and you have your ring slot back... but not your family jewels:smallfurious:.

Removing the finger does not mean that the cursed ring will go away. Cursed items have a nasty habit of returning back to the 'victim'. Chop off one finger, and you might find it 'teleporting' to another finger...

And DMG market prices is just a quick reference for people who don't want to bother with fixing market prices for everything on the market. Market price literally mean the price at the market, and if you have been to a few of them, you will find that even for the same item - a car, for example, of the same model and make, can have different prices. That's why, in RL, we shop around for bargains. The simplest way to define market price is this: I charged what I think the market will pay for it, and if it is too high, nobody will buy it. Of course this is a simple way, and there are many factors as to how much i can charged, but no court on earth will rule that price of an item, any item, is too high. The courts might rule so due to other reasons like profiteering, or monopoly (among others), BUT not simply because someone priced his/her goods too high. So if the shopkeeper decides that his/her scrolls is worth 6,500 gold pieces, or 6.5 million gold, that's his/her decision, and whether your PC is willing to pay it, is your PC's decision. I suggest that you shop around for bargains. Run around the city/town/village a bit. I am sure there are other temples and/or shops that sell remove curse/break enchantment scrolls... you should ask priests from nearby temples if they are willing to cast it on you for a donation (of sorts, to the temple) or even in exchange for a quest. Also remember that you need someone to read the scroll and cast it on you, either a priest or a thief (who will require a certain skill and some die role).

As a side issue, how the courts will rule, depends on how developed the legal system in the world is. In RL, how a court rules depends on... well, we are playing a game here, not having legal lessons. If you are really interested in having a day in court, battling lawyers and such, go and read Law. It is interesting to me, but I am told (repeatedly) that I am the odd guy in the crowd.

Short of gold is a good reason for PC to go on adventuring anyway. Take it as your motive to go down that dark hole in the ground. I mean, which sane person goes into dark holes in the ground, knowing fully that there are a lot of things down there can inflict a lot of PAIN, without a good reason? You have to excuse the true CNs, coz the the true CN, by definition, is insane.

Commune spells... work anyway the gods wants it to. If the gods decided to give a great grand, 12 year long speech to his cleric, the cleric should get down on his knees for such an honor. Having said that, gods are deemed to have a lot of things to do, so that when a cleric cast a spell for divine guidiance, s/he usually get yes/no or a short phrase.

If the gods is willing to talk to you, you don't even have to cast commune spell. There are a few person in RL who can't cast spell - sorry, let me re-phrase that - there are a lot of people who can't cast spell, but there is a few that hear gods in their mind. Hmm... that doesn't sound quite right..:smalltongue:

K.

Calling a god, even a minor one, a prick, is NOT a good idea. :smalleek: In the old rule, there is a small chance (something like a 5%) that a god will hear you if you call his name and comes personally for you. IF he don't want to, he might send something after you.

There was that one time one of my players found Geb (an earth god) name funny, and went chanting "Geb, Geb, Geb, Geb..." and couldn't figure out why I was counting with my fingers... until another player reminded him of this rule. Needless to say, his character suffered a great deal, and had an entire clergy screaming for his blood.

Tempest Fennac
2008-03-04, 05:28 AM
Considering how UMD is a class skill for Warlocks and they can "Take 10" on the check, shouldn't he be able to use the scroll himself with very few problems?

tyckspoon
2008-03-04, 05:34 AM
Calling a god, even a minor one, a prick, is NOT a good idea. In the old rule, there is a small chance (something like a 5%) that a god will hear you if you call his name and comes personally for you. IF he don't want to, he might send something after you.

There was that one time one of my players found Geb (an earth god) name funny, and went chanting "Geb, Geb, Geb, Geb..." and couldn't figure out why I was counting with my fingers... until another player reminded him of this rule. Needless to say, his character suffered a great deal, and had an entire clergy screaming for his blood.

*ahem* Hastur, Hastur, Hastur!

Leon
2008-03-04, 06:27 AM
Removing the finger does not mean that the cursed ring will go away. Cursed items have a nasty habit of returning back to the 'victim'. Chop off one finger, and you might find it 'teleporting' to another finger...



Buy a Hand of Glory (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#handofGlory)
And cut off your fingers until all are gone, then it should migrate to the Hand and then get a regenerate on yours

JBento
2008-03-04, 07:25 AM
*ahem* Hastur, Hastur, Hastur!

"cough" Pazuzu, Pazuzu, Pazuzu "cough" :smallbiggrin:

Wreck the merchant's life: go to his wife or girlfriend (if he has one) and say that you can't stand it being the "other" anymore. Make sure EVERYONE knows he's having an affair. Better yet, tell the LG churches that he has raped you. Altenatively, hit on the other party members and ESPECIALLY the NPCs. Make it as awkward for the rest of the players (especially the cleric) and your (apparently) prick of a DM as you can.

They'll PAY you to reverse the change...

Tempest Fennac
2008-03-04, 07:34 AM
I don't know so much about bringing rape allegations into it, but hitting on other party members would be a good idea if they are likely to be unnerved by it, and pretending you've had an affair with the shopkeeper would work well (the problem with the Hand of Glory idea is that the Cleric would probably charge more for a Regenerate then he would for a Remove Curse).

Leon
2008-03-04, 08:23 AM
Find another Cleric of a Non Prick god

Swordguy
2008-03-04, 08:26 AM
You should always take a copy of the PHB to any gaming session so you can challenge any rulings you think are suspect.


If you were in my group and were to do that, for that reason, as a GM, I'd refuse to GM for you ever again. You're out of the group. Gone.



I'd have left. Period. That's apparently being done to torment the player; I personally don't sign up for that crap. But I'm assuming the OP has extenuating circumstances that mean he wants to be there, so I'm giving the most effective solution to that.

You too. It's quite possibly being done to introduce an interesting storyline, or to show the players something new. Hell, it's a good role-playing opportunity that people wouldn't normally experience. If you don't want it to happen, come up to the GM after the game and say I don't like it, and a reasonable GM will usually retcon it or provide a solution.

It's this precise "you can't do that if it's not in the rulebook" attitude that makes me furious at gamers. What the hell happened to the idea of "not letting the rules get in the way of a good story?"

Artemician
2008-03-04, 08:33 AM
It's this precise "you can't do that if it's not in the rulebook" attitude that makes me furious at gamers. What the hell happened to the idea of "not letting the rules get in the way of a good story?"

The logical solution to this problem is, as Swordguy says, to talk it over with your GM. I highly doubt that he's really that kind of evil person, and he'll probably listen to you if you voice your discomfort.

I think Rutee is assuming that the OP has indeed talked with the GM, and he has refused. In which case her response is perfectly justified.

But if you haven't already, please do talk it over with your GM. I don't think he's actively trying to screw you over, very few people actually do that. It's probably a misunderstanding.

Oh, and Swordguy? Take a chill pill. Otherwise you might get other people angry as well. Overzealous indignation is only one step below ridiculous assumption-jumping in terms of how much it pisses people off.

Zincorium
2008-03-04, 08:53 AM
If you were in my group and were to do that, for that reason, as a GM, I'd refuse to GM for you ever again. You're out of the group. Gone.

Challenging the rules because the rules the GM is using are not fun gets me kicked out?

Better hope you get a chance to spit that at me as I'm leaving with all possible speed.


You too. It's quite possibly being done to introduce an interesting storyline, or to show the players something new. Hell, it's a good role-playing opportunity that people wouldn't normally experience. If you don't want it to happen, come up to the GM after the game and say I don't like it, and a reasonable GM will usually retcon it or provide a solution.

Ideally, yes. But a good GM should have realized that maybe the storyline he's trying to introduce is at best cliched (see any gender-shifting webcomic for examples) and at worst harmful to play if it involves changing a central aspect of a character's personality without any collusion with them.

Leaving an obviously unhappy player with no way to get rid of this just cements in my mind that this isn't some noble attempt at a deeper story. If it gets bad, that's when you give them the quest or whatever to fix the problem, you don't frustrate good ideas.


It's this precise "you can't do that if it's not in the rulebook" attitude that makes me furious at gamers. What the hell happened to the idea of "not letting the rules get in the way of a good story?"

In the way of a GOOD story, the players won't say a damn thing.

It's only if the DM is obviously way out of line that I've ever seen anyone open up the rulebook and point out that no other campaign does things that way.

kamikasei
2008-03-04, 08:54 AM
If you were in my group and were to do that, for that reason, as a GM, I'd refuse to GM for you ever again. You're out of the group. Gone.

So if a DM makes an actual error, the players aren't allowed to point it out? That's assuming you didn't really mean to say that you wouldn't allow your players to have PHBs to hand.


You too.

I'm not sure that "if you walk out of my game because you think I'm deliberately trying to screw with you, then I'll never DM for you again" is much of an ultimatum.


It's this precise "you can't do that if it's not in the rulebook" attitude that makes me furious at gamers. What the hell happened to the idea of "not letting the rules get in the way of a good story?"

"Not letting the rules get in the way of a good story", coming from the DM, can be code for "I've decided it'd be cool for X to happen and nothing you attempt will prevent it. No, I'm not going to bother to account for steps you might reasonably take to break this curse; it's unbreakable. Everything you try will fail, without rolling. Only one person will fix it for you, and they will charge an exorbitant amount. Screw the rules, I have fiat!"

...now, of course this may not actually be the case here. Maybe there really is a cool story hatching in the DM's mind which is a hundred times easier and more fun if one point is handwaved than if he tries to justify everything within the RAW. On the other hand, maybe he did it because he thought it would be funny and he's making it harder than it reasonably ought to be to fix it because he's a jerk. DMs can in fact be jerks, or make bad calls, and the hallmark of a good player is not simply to suffer it in silence.

Swordguy
2008-03-04, 08:59 AM
This style of gaming is a sore point with me. You may have noticed.

I stopped a long-running campaign very recently when my players refused to allow me to use a non-standard effect that would have been beneficial to their characters because they couldn't look the effect up in the PHB and see what it did themselves ahead of time.

D&D, and other RPGs, are supposed to be a collaborative effort to create an ongoing story. The rules are there to add drama and to help adjudicate dramatic situations so the outcome isn't decided in advance - not to limit the options in telling the story.

Take the OP - he doesn't seem ticked off that he's been turned into a girl (which means armor will be ill-fitting and uncomfortable, clothes fall off or don't fit, his family won't recognize him, among other things). He's pissed that he lost a ring slot. Where's the concern for the story? Where's the concern for the role-playing? There's just an anger that his character is mechanically slightly gimped. This gimpness is almost certainly intended to be temporary - a plot hook, mayhaps? Perhaps the start of an epic quest to get him de-boobed...yet his response is "you took my ring slot! Wah!" Shouldn't the story be the important thing here?

Is it railroading on the part of the DM? Pretty much. But I'd guess that they're being railroaded onto a storyline - and that's generally the type of railroading that's acceptable, since it permits the story to be told (and the game to be played) in the first place.

I don't know why or what it is, but my exposure to this type of gaming corresponds almost directly with the primacy of D&D 3.x.

Zincorium
2008-03-04, 09:06 AM
This style of gaming is a sore point with me. You may have noticed.

I stopped a long-running campaign very recently when my players refused to allow me to use a non-standard effect that would have been beneficial to their characters because they couldn't look the effect up in the PHB and see what it did themselves ahead of time.

D&D, and other RPGs, are supposed to be a collaborative effort to create an ongoing story. The rules are there to add drama and to help adjudicate dramatic situations so the outcome isn't decided in advance - not to limit the options in telling the story.

Take the OP - he doesn't seem ticked off that he's been turned into a girl (which means armor will be ill-fitting and uncomfortable, clothes fall off or don't fit, his family won't recognize him, among other things). He's pissed that he lost a ring slot. Where's the concern for the story? Where's the concern for the role-playing? There's just an anger that his character is mechanically slightly gimped. This gimpness is almost certainly intended to be temporary - a plot hook, mayhaps? Perhaps the start of an epic quest to get him de-boobed...yet his response is "you took my ring slot! Wah!" Shouldn't the story be the important thing here?

Is it railroading on the part of the DM? Pretty much. But I'd guess that they're being railroaded onto a storyline - and that's generally the type of railroading that's acceptable, since it permits the story to be told (and the game to be played) in the first place.

I don't know why or what it is, but my exposure to this type of gaming corresponds almost directly with the primacy of D&D 3.x.

Yes, yes, yes "None of you understand REAL roleplaying! Stop sullying my noble hobby with this 'fun' business!". It's been said by other people more eloquently and with less ad hominem attacks before.


D&D is for the fun of the players and the DM. If we're having fun, you can't say we're doing it wrong. AND, if we're not having fun, you can't say we're doing it right but just not trying hard enough.


I'm as willing as anyone else to see a storyline develop- But from what the OP says, that isn't happening. The game is floundering. You can't be taken seriously when you lambaste people for denying the potential of something that isn't happening.


And lastly- look at the freaking title. Does it say "Oh, I've lost my ring slot?"

No. So don't accuse him of being that shallow.

Artemician
2008-03-04, 09:09 AM
Take the OP - he doesn't seem ticked off that he's been turned into a girl (which means armor will be ill-fitting and uncomfortable, clothes fall off or don't fit, his family won't recognize him, among other things). He's pissed that he lost a ring slot. Where's the concern for the story? Where's the concern for the role-playing? There's just an anger that his character is mechanically slightly gimped. This gimpness is almost certainly intended to be temporary - a plot hook, mayhaps? Perhaps the start of an epic quest to get him de-boobed...yet his response is "you took my ring slot! Wah!" Shouldn't the story be the important thing here?

You seem to be getting worked up over something that doesn't exist. The OP is not angry that he's lost a ring slot - he talks in a dispassionate tone, and hardly seems very inflamed. He's non unconcerned about the story consequences, he mentions that in-character he's very worried, as he's lost his manhood.

His reaction to the story is an aside, he's simply asking how one could remove the mechanical hindrance, and what the rules say about this matter. There's nothing wrong with that.

Although, from the way he talks, he doesn't seem to take gender-switching as a particularly big deal. Which is a particularly acceptable viewpoint to take, given how his campaign seems to be of the light-hearted silly variety.

kamikasei
2008-03-04, 09:10 AM
I stopped a long-running campaign very recently when my players refused to allow me to use a non-standard effect that would have been beneficial to their characters because they couldn't look the effect up in the PHB and see what it did themselves ahead of time.

Huh, that's pretty stupid on their parts. On the other hand, I don't think anyone you've responded to would recommend such behaviour. There's a difference between "oh no, a houserule/homebrew! Run, it's unpredictable!" and "what the... that's not how poisons work. Shouldn't I get a save?"


Take the OP - he doesn't seem ticked off that he's been turned into a girl (which means armor will be ill-fitting and uncomfortable, clothes fall off or don't fit, his family won't recognize him, among other things). He's pissed that he lost a ring slot. Where's the concern for the story? Where's the concern for the role-playing?
...yet his response is "you took my ring slot! Wah!" Shouldn't the story be the important thing here?

It sounds like concerns about the impact it'll have on the character in the story are present in character, and concerns about what it'll do to his mechanical effectiveness are present out of character.


In character, being as woman and not a man is frightening (losing my manhood); out of character I just my ring slot.
...
I care about ring slot, but my character cares about gender though he'd like his ring slot too.

Presumably he just doesn't feel the need to ask us how to roleplay his character. We can, however, offer advice on how to get rid of a curse.

edit: Bah, ninjas always make these sorts of things look like total dogpiles...

Swordguy
2008-03-04, 09:23 AM
Huh, that's pretty stupid on their parts. On the other hand, I don't think anyone you've responded to would recommend such behaviour. There's a difference between "oh no, a houserule/homebrew! Run, it's unpredictable!" and "what the... that's not how poisons work. Shouldn't I get a save?"



And it's that I'm talking about. Referencing stuff in the PHB at the table is fine for the second, and not okay for the first. I read Holywhippet's quote of "You should always take a copy of the PHB to any gaming session so you can challenge any rulings you think are suspect" as "carry a PHB with you so the GM can't do anything that isn't covered in the rules". That's irksome.

You have to trust that your GM has the best interests of the group at heart. It's a group effort - not the GM v the players. He doesn't "win" anything if everyone is screwed over or killed for the whole campaign. It's his job to make things interesting and challenging, and to ultimately "lose" at the end. Why do people always fail to see this?

For my players, they didn't know it would be beneficial - just a non-standard effect. They demanded to know what it would do ahead of time, and where it was in the rules. I told them that it wasn't there, and they said if I applied it they'd walk. It was the last straw for me (there'd been...other problems), I told them not to bother. If they couldn't trust my judgment as a GM to keep the game entertaining and fair for all parties, then I was out.


The OP is not angry that he's lost a ring slot - he talks in a dispassionate tone, and hardly seems very inflamed.

I read it differently, I suppose. There were several posts in which he talked about being upset his ring slot was gone.

"In character, being as woman and not a man is frightening (losing my manhood); out of character I just [lost, I assume-SG] my ring slot."

"I care about ring slot, but my character cares about gender though he'd like his ring slot too."

That feels to me as though he's primarily concerned about the mechanical disadvantage.

EDIT: I freely admit to hyperbole with the "Wah!" bit.


Yes, yes, yes "None of you understand REAL roleplaying! Stop sullying my noble hobby with this 'fun' business!". It's been said by other people more eloquently and with less ad hominem attacks before.

Nice rhetoric. Do you mind if I borrow it to use on the next person who plays differently than I do? You seem to have gotten plenty of use from it.

Tempest Fennac
2008-03-04, 09:24 AM
Personally, I can see why the player is annoyed about the ring slot (there's no reason why removing the ring wouldn't keep him as a female, and this would allow any possible stories to go ahead). I also fail to see why being annoyed about the ring slot wouldn't be a problem for the character.

Zincorium
2008-03-04, 09:40 AM
Nice rhetoric. Do you mind if I borrow it to use on the next person who plays differently than I do? You seem to have gotten plenty of use from it.

Only if they go into threads and tell several people that they aren't good enough to play in the table of the person you're going to use it on.

I don't have a problem with the way you play. I have problem with you telling other people they're bad people because they don't play the way you do.

sikyon
2008-03-04, 09:43 AM
It's this precise "you can't do that if it's not in the rulebook" attitude that makes me furious at gamers. What the hell happened to the idea of "not letting the rules get in the way of a good story?"

Let me explain something to you here. A DM makes the setting, the players tell the story. A DM does not dictate what adventures can and cannot do. A DM who does this is basically playing a game by himself and the players are there to be an audience that rolls dice.

If players cannot make their own decisions, then they cannot influence the story, and it's just the DM making choices.

If the DM starts springing houserules on the players, then the players no longer have a rules set that they can work with. I'm not talking about "oh I'm inventing a new spell" I'm talking about "no your 19 with a + 15 fort save doesn't work against this poison (I really really want you to get poisoned for the role playing and story)".

How are players supposed to be involved if the DM just pushes the story on them willy nilly? I don't care if it's a good story. If I wanted a good story I would have read a book, not listen to you tell me your amature version of the illiad. I want freedom, which is why I'm playing D&D. I can't have freedom if I don't have a concrete set of rules to play by.

JBento
2008-03-04, 09:58 AM
This style of gaming is a sore point with me. You may have noticed.

I stopped a long-running campaign very recently when my players refused to allow me to use a non-standard effect that would have been beneficial to their characters because they couldn't look the effect up in the PHB and see what it did themselves ahead of time.

IF that's why they did it (and I'm not saying it was), then it's bad role-playing on their part. OTOH, there are other, IC, perfectly valid reasons why they'd refuse, one fo which is the CHARACTERS don't know what it would do ahead of time. My characters are generally wary of any magical effect used on them that they don't know EXACTLY what it does beforehand - in a world where you may very well end up being Dominated, I feel they're quite justified.

That said, you WERE the DM, and you're perfectly in your right to stop DMing whenever you feel like it.


D&D, and other RPGs, are supposed to be a collaborative effort to create an ongoing story. The rules are there to add drama and to help adjudicate dramatic situations so the outcome isn't decided in advance - not to limit the options in telling the story.

What you were doing wasn't exaclty "cooperative", was it? It was you saying something happened to their characters, and the players having to accept it. On a side note, were the characters entitled to a save? Or was it "This happens to you, nyah" kind of thing?


Take the OP - he doesn't seem ticked off that he's been turned into a girl (which means armor will be ill-fitting and uncomfortable, clothes fall off or don't fit, his family won't recognize him, among other things). He's pissed that he lost a ring slot. Where's the concern for the story? Where's the concern for the role-playing? There's just an anger that his character is mechanically slightly gimped. This gimpness is almost certainly intended to be temporary - a plot hook, mayhaps? Perhaps the start of an epic quest to get him de-boobed...yet his response is "you took my ring slot! Wah!" Shouldn't the story be the important thing here? [\QUOTE]

The OP stated on a previous post that while HE was annoyed at losing a ring slot, the CHARACTER was far more upset about the gender-bending. I find this perfectly reasonable, even if it isn't the way you or I would deal with it.

I doubt it's the start of an epic quest, as the merchant offered to "de-boob" him for some gold. Though FAAAAR beyond the normal price range, somehow acquiring the, what was it, 6500 gp? doesn't strike me as very epic...

Still, as roleplaying goes, my charcaters would certainly go out of their way to make the merchant's life a bloody, living hell of such stature that even Asmodeus would sit down and take notes... and that's the GOOD-aligned ones...

Also, no story, as epic as it might be, justifies making a player (or a DM, for that matter) uncomfortable and, therefore, reduce the enjoyment. More than story telling tool, D&D is supposed to be FUN - that's what games are for.


[QUOTE] Is it railroading on the part of the DM? Pretty much. But I'd guess that they're being railroaded onto a storyline - and that's generally the type of railroading that's acceptable, since it permits the story to be told (and the game to be played) in the first place.

I don't know why or what it is, but my exposure to this type of gaming corresponds almost directly with the primacy of D&D 3.x.

And perhaps you guess right. Then again, perhaps you guess wrong. From what I understand (though misunderstanding and misinformation may very well be rearing their ugly head) both the DM and the cleric are just being bastards. Gender-bending, being possible of making the player uncomfortable, should at least be cleared with the player first. The DM (IMHO) should at least have said something on the lines of:

"Dude, I'm gonna pull a rather mean trick on your character, but I assure you this is just to make a better story. If you're uncomfortable with it, I'll pick someone else, but I'd appreciate it if you just bear with me on this, ok?"

EDIT: So... manyyyy... ninjaaaaaaaasssss :smallsmile:

Swordguy
2008-03-04, 10:01 AM
Zincorium? Pay attention. THIS is what it looks like when I'm calling something "wrong."


Let me explain something to you here. A DM makes the setting, the players tell the story. A DM does not dictate what adventures can and cannot do. A DM who does this is basically playing a game by himself and the players are there to be an audience that rolls dice.


Wrong. A DM portrays the setting, true. He also plays the challenges that the PCs must face - which, I may add - are a pretty large part of the story. The setting is part of the story. The DM dictates what the players can and cannot do by his portayal of same - if I'm running a game where there's no elves, then you can't play a bloody elf.

We'll make an analogy here: the last time I checked, Darth Vader was a pretty important part of the original SW moves. He's also clearly an NPC (played by the DM). Yet he's clearly part of the story, and takes independent actions of his own accord that have a clear impact on the story.

Leaving the story entirely in the hands of players is a fallacy. You limit their actions as a DM with every NPC you choose to portray and with the very setting of the game.



If players cannot make their own decisions, then they cannot influence the story, and it's just the DM making choices.


Wrong. So, you chose your birth parents then? Chose the country you were born into? Were you ever in a car wreck? Did you choose to get into that? Stuff happens that you have ZERO control over - in a game, that's the work of the DM.



If the DM starts springing houserules on the players, then the players no longer have a rules set that they can work with. I'm not talking about "oh I'm inventing a new spell" I'm talking about "no your 19 with a + 15 fort save doesn't work against this poison (I really really want you to get poisoned for the role playing and story)".


Wrong. You're talking about BREAKING rules, not houserules. If, for example you REALLY want a PC poisoned so you can run a story about the PCs having to race for the cure (which is a damn good story and one that the PCs will never experience unless you intentionally poison them via whatever means) figure the highest Fort save in the party and set the DC, say...15 above that. Does that mean you need a poison with a save DC of 60 perhaps? Sure - but there isn't one in the rulebook. THIS is what we're talking about. Does the DM have the right to insert a DC 60 poison into his game without the player's foreknowledge?

Holywhippet's quote of "You should always take a copy of the PHB to any gaming session so you can challenge any rulings you think are suspect" wold say no. I say yes.



How are players supposed to be involved if the DM just pushes the story on them willy nilly? I don't care if it's a good story. If I wanted a good story I would have read a book, not listen to you tell me your amature version of the illiad. I want freedom, which is why I'm playing D&D. I can't have freedom if I don't have a concrete set of rules to play by.

Now there's valid complaint. You're correct in that a DM shouldn't always railroad the players into a story. I could argue that sometimes it's a good thing, and sometimes a bad thing. However, what happens when there's a particular story the DM really wants to run. Is it okay for him to present that module in the campaign? He is supposed to be able to have fun too, right? I would postulate that he can put the hook into the game - but shouldn't force the players into that story.

How is that different from this ring thing? Railroading the players would include, "you're a girl. Now you have to go fix it". The right way to do it is, "you're a girl. Do you want to go fix it?"

It's okay to drop the hook (the gender-bending ring in this case) on your players. It's NOT okay to force them to bite the hook.

Swordguy
2008-03-04, 10:09 AM
IF that's why they did it (and I'm not saying it was), then it's bad role-playing on their part. OTOH, there are other, IC, perfectly valid reasons why they'd refuse, one fo which is the CHARACTERS don't know what it would do ahead of time. My characters are generally wary of any magical effect used on them that they don't know EXACTLY what it does beforehand - in a world where you may very well end up being Dominated, I feel they're quite justified.

What you were doing wasn't exaclty "cooperative", was it? It was you saying something happened to their characters, and the players having to accept it. On a side note, were the characters entitled to a save? Or was it "This happens to you, nyah" kind of thing?


They had saved a powerful, good-aligned being, who had said "let me lay my hands upon you and you will receive a gift beyond money."

It was going to grant them with luck (rerolls), but they insisted on knowing what that meant ahead of time. When I wouldn't tell them the mechanical consequences, they picked up rulebooks and started scouring them. When they didn't find stuff in rulebooks about "gifts beyond money", they...well, you know the rest.



I doubt it's the start of an epic quest, as the merchant offered to "de-boob" him for some gold. Though FAAAAR beyond the normal price range, somehow acquiring the, what was it, 6500 gp? doesn't strike me as very epic...

Kinda depends on the level of the PC, yeah? Or the amount of wealth inherent in the campaign?



Gender-bending, being possible of making the player uncomfortable, should at least be cleared with the player first. The DM (IMHO) should at least have said something on the lines of:

"Dude, I'm gonna pull a rather mean trick on your character, but I assure you this is just to make a better story. If you're uncomfortable with it, I'll pick someone else, but I'd appreciate it if you just bear with me on this, ok?"


This is EXACTLY what I support. Really. *applauds*

Tempest Fennac
2008-03-04, 10:09 AM
The problem was that the Warlock din't have any reason to believe that it would get stuck to his finger (if they hadn't had it identified, I could see your point, but I'd expect the shopkeeper to fix it free of charge due to him not explaining what it did properly/fumbling the identification check).

Swordguy
2008-03-04, 10:12 AM
The problem was that the Warlock din't have any reason to believe that it would get stuck to his finger (if they hadn't had it identified, I could see your point, but I'd expect the shopkeeper to fix it free of charge due to him not explaining what it did properly/fumbling the identification check).

Or the cleric wanted to do that to shill the PC out of a lot of gold. NPCs have motivations too - and just cause they worship a good-aligned god doesn't mean they're shiny happy people.

Again, I see this as the start of a plotline. Not just a random "plot screw".

JBento
2008-03-04, 10:21 AM
They had saved a powerful, good-aligned being, who had said "let me lay my hands upon you and you will receive a gift beyond money."

It was going to grant them with luck (rerolls), but they insisted on knowing what that meant ahead of time. When I wouldn't tell them the mechanical consequences, they picked up rulebooks and started scouring them. When they didn't find stuff in rulebooks about "gifts beyond money", they...well, you know the rest.

Hmmm... I wouldn't have told them the mechanical consequences either, though they would be on their perfect right to refuse said gift. Good-aligned beings are quite capable of turning a "gift beyond money" into "Purity, love and selflessness are the greatest of gifts - you are now all Lawful Good and love being so." I'd certainly try to ascertain more about this gift before accepting it, and if no information was forthcoming I'd most likely refuse it - though certainly not on the grounds that "it's not on the PHB"



Kinda depends on the level of the PC, yeah? Or the amount of wealth inherent in the campaign?

Isn't he 15 ECL, though? Or am I mixing up threads? 6500 gp isn't all that epic - though it may depend on campaign style, I'm assuming standard WBL guidelines as I haven't seen any information to the contrary


This is EXACTLY what I support. Really. *applauds*

*Bows*

sikyon
2008-03-04, 10:51 AM
He also plays the challenges that the PCs must face - which, I may add - are a pretty large part of the story.


Must the players face these challenges if they don't want to? Why must they do this?


Wrong. So, you chose your birth parents then? Chose the country you were born into? Were you ever in a car wreck? Did you choose to get into that? Stuff happens that you have ZERO control over - in a game, that's the work of the DM.

Nope, you're wrong. The first two things, birth, were part of the setting. The last thing, a car wreck, was totally your choice. We call it physics. If you roll a dice, do you have a choice over the result? Yes, you do. Newtownian physics makes it completely under your control, but you are just choosing to relinquish it by not doing the appropriate physical calculations and applying them.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. If the DM just decides that things happen, then there are no rules in the game. Consistency is the foundation of all science, all rules. Take away consistency and you no longer have a rules system which is understood. In that case, the players are playing blind and have no control. In real life, if you conducted an experiment in which you dropped something and it went upwards, the entire basis of modern physics would be broken. Scientists could no longer work with the previous rules, they would have to devote all their time and energy to explaining this phenomenon before advancing.

In short: Games have rules. Break the rules arbitrarily, and you no longer have a game. If you make new rules that everyone's aware of, however, then really you're just changing the rules, not breaking them.


Wrong. You're talking about BREAKING rules, not houserules. If, for example you REALLY want a PC poisoned so you can run a story about the PCs having to race for the cure (which is a damn good story and one that the PCs will never experience unless you intentionally poison them via whatever means) figure the highest Fort save in the party and set the DC, say...15 above that. Does that mean you need a poison with a save DC of 60 perhaps? Sure - but there isn't one in the rulebook. THIS is what we're talking about. Does the DM have the right to insert a DC 60 poison into his game without the player's foreknowledge?


If the DM inserts elements into the game the players cannot know about then he's taking control away from the players and putting it into his own hands. Why should the players even try if it's impossible? Why should they even play the game if the DM introduces DC 60 poisons?


Now there's valid complaint. You're correct in that a DM shouldn't always railroad the players into a story. I could argue that sometimes it's a good thing, and sometimes a bad thing. However, what happens when there's a particular story the DM really wants to run. Is it okay for him to present that module in the campaign? He is supposed to be able to have fun too, right? I would postulate that he can put the hook into the game - but shouldn't force the players into that story.

How is that different from this ring thing? Railroading the players would include, "you're a girl. Now you have to go fix it". The right way to do it is, "you're a girl. Do you want to go fix it?"

It's okay to drop the hook (the gender-bending ring in this case) on your players. It's NOT okay to force them to bite the hook.

Yes, I concur with your assessment. However, a good DM should be able to drop hooks without having to houserule everything in and forcing the players into it. Because really, if you're going to add a DC60 poison into the game, and there's no way the players can get around it, why not just tell the players it's happened and speed the game along? Why string them along with dicerolls that should matter but really don't? Why present an act of god as science?

Starbuck_II
2008-03-04, 10:58 AM
First, I must say, I'm glad for more responses. I wasn't expecting so much input. Due to being busty with school work I can't ask till after spring break.

My main questions will most likely be:
a. why does the cure cost 9x the amount from the shop keeper (thaqt is what 700 scroll x 9 = 6.3K).
b. Isn't that extortion? (I'm glad that was brought up).
c. When will we reach another shop I can buy scrolls/a temple to find clertical help.

But on to more of the thread:



Take the OP - he doesn't seem ticked off that he's been turned into a girl (which means armor will be ill-fitting and uncomfortable, clothes fall off or don't fit, his family won't recognize him, among other things). He's pissed that he lost a ring slot. Where's the concern for the story? Where's the concern for the role-playing? There's just an anger that his character is mechanically slightly gimped. This gimpness is almost certainly intended to be temporary - a plot hook, mayhaps? Perhaps the start of an epic quest to get him de-boobed...yet his response is "you took my ring slot! Wah!" Shouldn't the story be the important thing here?


Oh, I'm cool with being a female for a joke that will be cured, but when that joke cuts into my expenses
a. I don't want to be under equiped
b. Under wealth
c. Unfairly punished for not being paranoid. If I wanted to be paraniod I'd play Parania with that computer thing.

How does being turned into a woman effect the story? This is D&D, that can happen. You can be turned into an animal by a 6th level spell (Baleful Polymorph). While I am cool with a quest to find a cure (that can be solved for very money if following the RAW), but why must it come out of my money!

Why must I be punished?! I have spent all my money in magic items so to cure this one I'd have to sell a few of my stuff for 1/2 price mind you.
This means being weak than the party. I mean, I'm not a Codzilla. Warlocks aren't that big of powerhouses. Having less wealth per level just compounds that issue.

JBento:


I doubt it's the start of an epic quest, as the merchant offered to "de-boob" him for some gold. Though FAAAAR beyond the normal price range, somehow acquiring the, what was it, 6500 gp? doesn't strike me as very epic...

Yeah, if I had the money in gold I'd pay it, but my money is in magic items...so I'd have to find a buyer and sell my stuff. My stuff isn't just just gear to my character. They are are important to him: memories and all.
In fact, he even named them (such like Courage, Strength, etc).

I mean, it is like Roy in OotS, should a DM expect him to sell his grandfather's sword to end a curse? I think that is pretty much a mean wat to think. To torture a playeer for one's amuse.


"Dude, I'm gonna pull a rather mean trick on your character, but I assure you this is just to make a better story. If you're uncomfortable with it, I'll pick someone else, but I'd appreciate it if you just bear with me on this, ok?"

See this? I'd be cool with that.

Swordguy:


Again, I see this as the start of a plotline. Not just a random "plot screw".

I'll post on this topic in 2 weeks (after next game): we will see if it was a random plot screw.

My money is DM was being bored and just wanted to screw with my character. If a plot line does develop we will see than.

Swordguy
2008-03-04, 11:09 AM
Must the players face these challenges if they don't want to? Why must they do this?

They must face challenges. Not necessarily this challenge, or that challenge, but challenges must be faced. That's what a hero does. Read "The Hero of a Thousand Faces".

And occasionally, they must face a specific challenge because that challenge seeks them out. Ever have an enemy in your backstory?

And yes, I assume that people generally play RPGs to be heroes.




Nope, you're wrong. The first two things, birth, were part of the setting. The last thing, a car wreck, was totally your choice.

Clearly, you've never been sitting at a stoplight and been rear-ended. It's not always your choice.




If the DM inserts elements into the game the players cannot know about then he's taking control away from the players and putting it into his own hands. Why should the players even try if it's impossible? Why should they even play the game if the DM introduces DC 60 poisons?

You're focusing on the specific example when you should be focusing on the concept. Some control must rest in the hands of the DM to have a successful game. The specific amount will vary from group to group. What I'm arguing against are the arguments that state the DM may not do anything that's no specifically covered in the rules.

Here, making the save may be impossible - or practically so. But it opens up a whole new storyline that wouldn't be available if you just roll the d20 and say "I'm better". Isn't that a good thing?



Yes, I concur with your assessment. However, a good DM should be able to drop hooks without having to houserule everything in and forcing the players into it. Because really, if you're going to add a DC60 poison into the game, and there's no way the players can get around it, why not just tell the players it's happened and speed the game along? Why string them along with dicerolls that should matter but really don't? Why present an act of god as science?

Honestly, you let them roll the dice because it makes the players feel better about it. And, as long as you keep it behind the screen, the PC have no ability to know what's happened. This is another argument for doing stuff not in the rulebook - when the players have memorized everything out of the books and sit down, do the math, and can calculate the best odds of doing everything in every situation. I postulate that D&D isn't supposed to be a probability class.

Uncertainty creates tension. Tension creates conflict. Conflict is the path to the dark side is the essence of good stories. You can't have uncertainty when the players know everything about everything.

Swordguy
2008-03-04, 11:18 AM
@ Starbuck_II:

I'm thrilled at your response. You've got a very mature and rational response to this - and I'm glad to see you aren't as upset as I thought you were.

So, first, I apologize for misreading (totally) the tone of your post.

Second, "Due to being busty with school work I can't ask till after spring break."

Pics? :smallbiggrin:


Oh, I'm cool with being a female for a joke that will be cured, but when that joke cuts into my expenses
a. I don't want to be under equiped
b. Under wealth
c. Unfairly punished for not being paranoid. If I wanted to be paraniod I'd play Parania with that computer thing.


a and b) I'd think that your GM would note the fact that you'd be under for a little while and give you stuff back specifically to make up the WBL loss. I count this under the whole "trust your GM" thing.
c) Don't be paranoid - even with this. It's the third and fourth time that your GM does this sort of thing that players should start being paranoid. If you turn it on too soon it really gives the game a depressing tone, y'know?

Oh, it's absolutely extortion, btw. Be interesting to take the evidence up the chain of command in the Church of Pelor, since the vast majority of them are going to frown on these sorts of shenanigans, wouldn't you agree? :smallbiggrin:

Please, let us know how it turns out!

Zincorium
2008-03-04, 12:04 PM
Nah, like Swordguy mentions...the OP doesn't seem overly-concerned about being a woman. He's just upset about his ring-slot.

In that case, there are better lines of mine you should have quoted. And really, is there a major reason he shouldn't be a little upset about the ring slot? It's a cursed item, and the DM is denying him access to the usual fix due to a particularly noxious NPC. It's an irritating situation.

What I was talking about was the relative tradeoff. If a DM is jerking my chain about in a way that leads to more fun for me, like I said, more power to them. It's when it's annoying and pointless that I'd lose respect for the DM. The quote you made was specifically about how the 'person x changes gender- laughs ensue' thing is just hack writing on a DM's part, it would need to be more complicated than that to be worth putting into a campaign.

And we still don't even know that the DM's motivation lies there.

Honestly, my beef with swordguy was the 'I'd kick out any player' bit, I have seen otherwise good games go to absolute **** because the DM got the idea that the players weren't allowed to have a differing opinion on the rules. It's everybody's game, and while the DM can mess with the rules, the players shouldn't be stuck with 'deal with it or leave the game'. Even if they do concede grudgingly, the game is hurt. Players get the (not unfounded) belief that the rules are there to hurt them instead of help. If you're not going to go by core, that needs to be an agreed-upon thing, if only to keep the kinds of incidents that swordguy would kick people out for from happening.

JadedDM
2008-03-04, 12:11 PM
Starbuck, for what it's worth, there is an item in the older editions that has this effect. It's a girdle, not a ring. But anyway, the way it works is that Remove Curse would remove the item (but not the curse). The item then loses all power (so placing the item back on would not 'reverse' the curse and turn you back into a man, as someone suggested). This is all assuming your DM is using the girdle as inspiration, though. He may not be.

Swordguy
2008-03-04, 12:18 PM
Honestly, my beef with swordguy was the 'I'd kick out any player' bit, I have seen otherwise good games go to absolute **** because the DM got the idea that the players weren't allowed to have a differing opinion on the rules. It's everybody's game, and while the DM can mess with the rules, the players shouldn't be stuck with 'deal with it or leave the game'. Even if they do concede grudgingly, the game is hurt. Players get the (not unfounded) belief that the rules are there to hurt them instead of help. If you're not going to go by core, that needs to be an agreed-upon thing, if only to keep the kinds of incidents that swordguy would kick people out for from happening.

Y'know...I play ice hockey. I'm a winger - and it would really help my stat block if every assist I made was worth 2 points to my total score instead of just one. Of course, the refs disagree with me...but I'm a player! I'm there to have fun, and my opinion on the rules is just as valid as theirs, right?

At some point, the DM is the final arbiter of the rules, and explicitly has the power to change or make new ones. It's up to him not to abuse that power, but it is HIS game in that he's expending a great deal more time and energy than anyone else in the group - and is more irreplaceable to that game than anyone else. He gets the final say

As a GM, I make this very clear to my players that I don't always follow the book if I feel it will enhance their experience in the long run. They are welcome to disagree, and to venture their own options and opinions, but they will abide my my decision once I've listened and made it. They are welcome to trust the fact that I have their long-term well-being in mind or not - but they will accept the rulings I make. This is an up-front condition for playing in my games. I've tried the other way - and it never ended well.

And I stand by that: I would kick any player out of the game who opened the PHB every time I said something and verified it was "by the rules" and (by extention) refused to accept the effect if it wasn't.

Rutee
2008-03-04, 12:23 PM
At some point, the DM is the final arbiter of the rules, and explicitly has the power to change or make new ones. It's up to him not to abuse that power, but it is HIS game in that he's expending a great deal more time and energy than anyone else in the group - and is more irreplaceable to that game than anyone else. He gets the final say
Getting the final say is not the same thing as using it whenever one has the opportunity. The GM is the first among equals; Nothing more, nothing less. Their character is the setting at large. I can see not bogging down gametime with "Wait, what?" rules things that are not completely out of left field, and asking that stuff be brought up when the schedule gametime is over, of course... but that's not the same thing. In general, everyone needs to agree on the rules, even /if/ the GM is in charge. After all, to use your hockey example, the fact is, most of the players will also agree with the Ref. Not always the case with a rules dispute. Good OOC relations are probably about as important as the story, since it helps in having fun


You too. It's quite possibly being done to introduce an interesting storyline, or to show the players something new. Hell, it's a good role-playing opportunity that people wouldn't normally experience. If you don't want it to happen, come up to the GM after the game and say I don't like it, and a reasonable GM will usually retcon it or provide a solution.
It stops being good storytelling when Pelor is communed with, and basically behaves like a jackass about the situation, in a way that is obviously designed to laugh at the player.

FYI: Kicking the figurative me out when I have already stated I'm going to leave, because the figurative you appears to be a jackass is a really good way to prove the figurative me correct.

Aquillion
2008-03-04, 12:38 PM
I'd have left. Period. That's apparently being done to torment the player; I personally don't sign up for that crap. But I'm assuming the OP has extenuating circumstances that mean he wants to be there, so I'm giving the most effective solution to that.
You too. It's quite possibly being done to introduce an interesting storyline, or to show the players something new. Hell, it's a good role-playing opportunity that people wouldn't normally experience. If you don't want it to happen, come up to the GM after the game and say I don't like it, and a reasonable GM will usually retcon it or provide a solution.If they tried to leave your game because they think you're being a jerk to them, you would kick them out? :smallconfused:

"Oh no you don't! You can't quit my game! I am the DM, and you're FIRED, ha!"

sikyon
2008-03-04, 12:49 PM
They must face challenges. Not necessarily this challenge, or that challenge, but challenges must be faced. That's what a hero does. Read "The Hero of a Thousand Faces".

And occasionally, they must face a specific challenge because that challenge seeks them out. Ever have an enemy in your backstory?

And yes, I assume that people generally play RPGs to be heroes.


In real life, sure. In a game, you have just a teeny tiny bit of control over what goes on. If you truly don't want to face a challenge, you should not have to.




Clearly, you've never been sitting at a stoplight and been rear-ended. It's not always your choice.


You chose to drive that day. The odds were perhaps 0.00001% but the fact is, you still took that risk. You chose to take that risk. The risk was so small that you didn't even consider it. But you should have(though you made the right choice.). You may blame the other person, and theirs is the greater liability, but a small, tiny part of it is still yours for getting up that morning. Even making the right choice doesn't mean the right outcome will always happen, because you have limited information. That's what die rolls simulate.



You're focusing on the specific example when you should be focusing on the concept. Some control must rest in the hands of the DM to have a successful game. The specific amount will vary from group to group. What I'm arguing against are the arguments that state the DM may not do anything that's no specifically covered in the rules.

Here, making the save may be impossible - or practically so. But it opens up a whole new storyline that wouldn't be available if you just roll the d20 and say "I'm better". Isn't that a good thing?


Analogies are key. Anyhow, opening up a whole new storyline is a fine thing. What I have a problem is with DM's that justify their actions unfairly or unrealistically. I'm the DM is not a good answer to why this happened. The plot demands it is not a good reason why an action should happen. These are all just arbitrary things that take control away from the player.



Honestly, you let them roll the dice because it makes the players feel better about it. And, as long as you keep it behind the screen, the PC have no ability to know what's happened. This is another argument for doing stuff not in the rulebook - when the players have memorized everything out of the books and sit down, do the math, and can calculate the best odds of doing everything in every situation. I postulate that D&D isn't supposed to be a probability class.


Why even roll the dice if the outcome is certain and the player's will never know what you rolled? Just tell them that they are poisoned. This "facade" of "fairness" honestly bugs me. Also, I postulate that players should get to do whatever it is that they want to do to have fun. People throw around alot of stuff like "play games for fun". Yep, people play games for fun. Munchkins have fun by winning. Therefore they play to win. If you have a problem with that, it's not that they are doing anything wrong, it's just that you and they have fun in different ways. You can't say that your way of having fun is better than theirs.



Uncertainty creates tension. Tension creates conflict. Conflict is the path to the dark side is the essence of good stories. You can't have uncertainty when the players know everything about everything.

They don't know everything about everything. What they should know are all the rules. In real life, there are rules. There are physical laws. If you know all of them, would there still be uncertainty? Yes. Uncertainty requires both rules and information. The people like having the rules, but they don't need all the information. Take away those rules, however, and information no longer matters as well, and there's no point in playing because you can't be sure that action -> outcome.

Swordguy
2008-03-04, 01:04 PM
Munchkins have fun by winning. Therefore they play to win. If you have a problem with that, it's not that they are doing anything wrong, it's just that you and they have fun in different ways. You can't say that your way of having fun is better than theirs.


Yes, yes I can. It's not rational, or necessarily even correct, but I can.

Of course, "winning" is by definition a zero-sum solution. Only 1 person can really "win" - otherwise you're sharing your victory and haven't really "won".

Therefore, in a group game, where the fun of the group is the stated goal of the system, playing to win is playing "wrong."



They don't know everything about everything. What they should know are all the rules. In real life, there are rules. There are physical laws. If you know all of them, would there still be uncertainty? Yes. Uncertainty requires both rules and information. The people like having the rules, but they don't need all the information. Take away those rules, however, and information no longer matters as well, and there's no point in playing because you can't be sure that action -> outcome.

You're one of those people who try to defend memorizing the Monstrous Manual, aren't you?

I don't have time for this. I'm off to the Gygax memorials.

Anteros
2008-03-04, 01:30 PM
If you were in my group and were to do that, for that reason, as a GM, I'd refuse to GM for you ever again. You're out of the group. Gone.



You too. It's quite possibly being done to introduce an interesting storyline, or to show the players something new. Hell, it's a good role-playing opportunity that people wouldn't normally experience. If you don't want it to happen, come up to the GM after the game and say I don't like it, and a reasonable GM will usually retcon it or provide a solution.

It's this precise "you can't do that if it's not in the rulebook" attitude that makes me furious at gamers. What the hell happened to the idea of "not letting the rules get in the way of a good story?"


Because you, like a lot of DM's forget that it's not just "your story" but everyone elses. They play this game to have fun, not listen to your story time.

Also, your ice hockey example was a terrible one. This situation isn't like a ref enforcing the rules. It's like a ref telling you that you can't wear your uniform, or that you can only play a certain position. It's your job as a player to play within the rules, and it's the ref's job to enforce the rules to the enjoyment of all. If the ref made a rule that you could only wear one skate, or had to have a pink jersey while everyone else's was black, you would not play.

I'll say this again. If you want to tell a story, write a book. You can even make money on it. If you want to be controlling over a game and force people to follow along with your plot, then don't be surprised when some people won't play with you. (Although there are always those who are desperate for someone to DM.)

As a DM it's your job to enforce the rules, like ahe referee in your example. It is not your job to make arbitrary decisions that affect the enjoyment of everyone just because "I'M IN CONTROL AND IT'S MY STORY!"

Rutee
2008-03-04, 01:30 PM
Yes, yes I can. It's not rational, or necessarily even correct, but I can.

Of course, "winning" is by definition a zero-sum solution. Only 1 person can really "win" - otherwise you're sharing your victory and haven't really "won".

Therefore, in a group game, where the fun of the group is the stated goal of the system, playing to win is playing "wrong."
The system can't dictate one's intentions. I'm all for talking about system intentions when they're relevant (For instance, whether a stranger is justified in thinking this group won't be comprised of individuals seeking individual victory), but once we're discussing the group's intent, the system intent is only relevant when it makes the group intent difficult.



You're one of those people who try to defend memorizing the Monstrous Manual, aren't you?
God forbid other people have a differing definition of fun. I don't understand it, but if it makes 'em happy and helps their groups enjoy their games (Not helps you enjoy games you're not playing, but helps them enjoy the game they're playing) then godspeed. Just, be prepared to have to forget all that if you play a game I run, in a theoretical sense.




I'll say this again. If you want to tell a story, write a book. You can even make money on it. If you want to be controlling over a game and force people to follow along with your plot, then don't be surprised when some people won't play with you. (Although there are always those who are desperate for someone to DM.)

Nah, playing a game is more fun and is the only way to tell a story with everyone at the table.

Eran of Arcadia
2008-03-04, 01:52 PM
Hey, you know what happens when a GM does things by fiat, that are not in the rules, like making a PC get killed by a trap without being able to make a save?

The players all either kill themselves or start worshipping Satan. (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp)

I know it's true, 'cause it says so.

Wait, what?

Aquillion
2008-03-04, 02:34 PM
Hey, you know what happens when a GM does things by fiat, that are not in the rules, like making a PC get killed by a trap without being able to make a save?

The players all either kill themselves or start worshipping Satan. (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp)

I know it's true, 'cause it says so.

Wait, what?We should make a version of that where the focus is entirely on the evils of DM-fiat gaming (and a competing version where the focus is entirely on the evils of memorizing the books and tables.)

Eran of Arcadia
2008-03-04, 02:40 PM
We should make a version of that where the focus is entirely on the evils of DM-fiat gaming (and a competing version where the focus is entirely on the evils of memorizing the books and tables.)

Any Chick parody is a good one, in my opinion.

Starbuck_II
2008-03-04, 04:46 PM
Yes, yes I can. It's not rational, or necessarily even correct, but I can.

Of course, "winning" is by definition a zero-sum solution. Only 1 person can really "win" - otherwise you're sharing your victory and haven't really "won".

Therefore, in a group game, where the fun of the group is the stated goal of the system, playing to win is playing "wrong."


I disagree.
Look, I've played Halo (1 or 2 same idea) in Team versus Team: when my team wins, it is my victory too.
Winning does not mean (have to mean) winning solo (just yourself).

In Independence Day, the Earth won versus the Aliens; are you saying we didn't win because the Earth shared that victory with every one on earth?

JadedDM: Thanks a bunch, that gives me precedent that I can remove ring.
I'm sure eventually I can cure the gender issue: I mean we are 3/4ths Epic level. But at least, most likely, I can cure 1/2 the issue.

Serpent
2008-03-04, 04:46 PM
I'm sure it's already been said (I haven't read the whole thread) but the simple solution is that if your cleric is a prick and won't heal you, flash him. You've got the boobs, use them.