Support the GITP forums on Patreon
Help support GITP's forums (and ongoing server maintenance) via Patreon
Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910
Results 271 to 287 of 287
  1. - Top - End - #271

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Lombra View Post
    That's true, but sometimes nonmagical places, objects, or npcs do make the characters feel in an unpredictable way for the purpose of description and immersion. Sometimes it's hard to describe someone that makes you feel a sense of awe or fear without just saying that it does.
    Yeah, it's hard to describe things, and I'm no professional writer. I still feel that if I want to get across that a person, place, object or creature is creepy or disgusting, I should describe the attributes that give it that quality instead of just saying "this thing is scary". Description conjures emotions, and those emotions are the roots of good roleplay.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lombra View Post
    Because if a party of non-evil aligned characters is facing the tomb of that one ancient hero who sealed the darkness away hundreds of years ago saving the whole multiverse isn't feeling a sense of awe it's just wrong. Even if you are a CN kobold berserker, that doesn't even know who the buried guy was, the place should make you feel how the DM thinks the characters should perceive such an important authority.
    I totally see your point. but from a player perspective, it's hard to project a sense of awe onto the character if the only description of the tomb I get is "it's a big cavern, it looks really cool, be awed", in place of an actual description. Session 0 should have weeded out the people who have literally no interest in trying to roleplay. Immersion is a two way transaction. The DM has to be willing to put themselves out there and describe things, and the player has to be willing to put themselves out there and play a role. Games where everyone is uncomfortable and feels like they're going to be judged rarely ever evolve past doorkicking.
    Last edited by War_lord; 2017-03-19 at 07:10 PM.

  2. - Top - End - #272
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    Shadroth's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Terra Australis Incognito

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Lombra View Post
    Because if a party of non-evil aligned characters is facing the tomb of that one ancient hero who sealed the darkness away hundreds of years ago saving the whole multiverse isn't feeling a sense of awe is just wrong. Even if you are a CN kobold berserker, that doesn't even know who the buried guy was, the place should make you feel how the DM thinks the characters should perceive such an important authority.

    But that walls thing is just stupid.
    So in that example, what I would suggest to a DM, would be to say that the Tomb of the Ancient Hero might have an air of awe, power, mystery, and purpose. The carvings might be indecipherable, the statues might be magnificent and life-like and so on.

    The point I'm trying to make is that a DM can make objects whatever he wants, and he can give them descriptions that might make something awe-inspiring, but he really shouldn't flat out say "your jaw drops open in wonder as you take in the majesty of the tomb". That's not cooperative storytelling. A player who is playing a scholarly type might say "After a few moments of gazing in wonder, I try to inspect the carvings and runes up close", which is more interactive storytelling.

    A CN Kobold Berserker (which is an awesome character stub, by the way) might just be looking at what he can carve off the statues to sell, what stuff would burn in a fire, etc etc. Of course the DM is free to make the character take a Wisdom save to interact negatively with anything in the room, but that's coming back to my point about when and how the DM has power of the characters, and when he doesn't.

  3. - Top - End - #273
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Aug 2016

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Apologies as I seem to be saying this a lot but I don't really get what you're trying to achieve by reframing the language of the discussion BurgerBeast.

    Yes a DM can do whatever they want in their game (they have the 'right' as you put it). A player has the right to talk to the DM if they don't like whats going on and, if the DM doesn't want to change, they have the 'right' to leave.

    Pretty sure everyone here agrees with that.

    What we're here to discuss isn't really if the DM has those 'rights'. Its if it is sensible or appropriate idea to utilise those powers to strictly enforce (sorry, you don't force people, I remember ) limit character archetypes in accordance with only those outlined in the Players Handbook (or phrased more broadly when it is and isn't appropriate for a DM to wrest control of a PCs thought process and feelings away from them).

    My stance (and I believe the stance of the other 'camp' from you) is that this should typically only be done as a matter of last resort so that the players retain a sense of agency and that they feel they are playing their character, not a sock puppet for the DM.

    My understanding is that you are of the opinion that the DM should actively use this as a method of retaining control of the feel of the game and ensuring that play proceeds smoothly according the plan in line with that theme.

    It is a question of degree.

    If I came to a stereotypical D&D game wanting to play psychic monkey from space and the DM told me I wasn't allowed to, I would be fine with that. If I came to a stereotypical D&D game wanting to play a barbarian from a city and a DM told me I wasn't allowed to I would likely walk or be highly cautious out of concern that they were a bad/overly controlling DM (unless their response was that there were no cities in their setting I suppose ). This is because I can't personally think of a single good reason to deny a player such a request so I view doing so as pointlessly punitive - a feature I obviously don't look for in a DM.

    Ad_hoc said in his OP that anyone can play the game however they want and I'm sure some people do play the game that way and enjoy it. I strongly disagree with his suggestion that this is the best way to play the game (and personally would not wish to play with a DM who took that approach) and even more strongly disagree with his claim that playing the game any way other than the way he suggested is somehow breaking the rules of 5E and anything else is houseruling.

    I think it was this second part which earned the most ire in this thread

  4. - Top - End - #274
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Italy
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    War_Lord and Shadroth don't misunderstand my words: descriptions as thick as needed are the key to avoid having to tell the players how their characters *should* feel. What I'm saying is that when descriptions fail there's nothing wrong in nudging the player a little in the atmosphere that you as a DM have designed for that particular moment. You shouldn't obviously manipulate the characters, just a sprinkle of "you feel a shiver down your spinal cord" or "the magnetic beauty of that elf (or kobold) captures your sight"; little hints to help the players understand what you are trying to express when you just can't get that description done right.
    Last edited by Lombra; 2017-03-19 at 07:23 PM.

  5. - Top - End - #275

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    I'm totally sympathetic to your point. Sometimes there are things that are impossible to easily describe using objective language, like characters that are physically beautiful. Or maybe it's something that's minor and you don't feel it's necessary to give it a full description. I just see it has something that needs to be avoided as much as possible, because it does make it harder for the players to get into character. I do know that sometimes one has to settle for less then the ideal.
    Last edited by War_lord; 2017-03-19 at 07:31 PM.

  6. - Top - End - #276
    Banned
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by War_lord View Post
    Yeah, it's hard to describe things, and I'm no professional writer. I still feel that if I want to get across that a person, place, object or creature is creepy or disgusting, I should describe the attributes that give it that quality instead of just saying "this thing is scary". Description conjures emotions, and those emotions are the roots of good roleplay.



    I totally see your point. but from a player perspective, it's hard to project a sense of awe onto the character if the only description of the tomb I get is "it's a big cavern, it looks really cool, be awed", in place of an actual description. Session 0 should have weeded out the people who have literally no interest in trying to roleplay. Immersion is a two way transaction. The DM has to be willing to put themselves out there and describe things, and the player has to be willing to put themselves out there and play a role. Games where everyone is uncomfortable and feels like they're going to be judged rarely ever evolve past doorkicking.
    Descriptions are important yes. Take this example:

    [list][*]In his warp Spasm, Cú Chulainn becomes an unrecognizable monster who knows neither friend nor foe. - from wikipedia[*]as opposed to this very direct translation from the original celtic:
    Then took place the first twisting-fit and rage of the royal hero Cuchulain, so that he made a terrible, many-shaped, wonderful, unheard of thing of himself. His flesh trembled about him like a pole against the torrent or like a bulrush against the stream, every member and every joint and every point and every knuckle of him from crown to ground. He made a mad whirling-feat of his body within his hide. His feet and his shins and his knees slid so that they came behind him. His heels and his calves and his hams shifted so that they passed to the front. The muscles of his calves moved so that they came to the front of his shins, so that each huge knot was the size of a soldier's balled fist. He stretched the sinews of his head so that they stood out on the nape of his neck, hill-like lumps, huge, incalculable, vast, immeasurable and as large as the head of a month-old child.

    He next made a ruddy bowl of his face and his countenance. He gulped down one eye into his head so that it would be hard work if a wild crane succeeded in drawing it out on to the middle of his cheek from the rear of his skull. Its mate sprang forth till it came out on his cheek. His mouth was distorted monstrously. He drew the cheek from the jaw-bone so that the interior of his throat was to be seen. His lungs and his lights stood out so that they fluttered in his mouth and his gullet. He struck a mad lion's blow with the upper jaw on its fellow so that as large as a wether's fleece of a three year old was each red, fiery flake which his teeth forced into his mouth from his gullet.

    There was heard the loud clap of his heart against his breast like the yelp of a howling bloodhound or like a lion going among bears. There were seen the torches of the Badb, and the rain clouds of poison, and the sparks of glowing-red fire, blazing and flashing in hazes and mists over his head with the seething of the truly wild wrath that rose up above him. His hair bristled all over his head like branches of a redthorn thrust into a gap in a great hedge. Had a king's apple-tree laden with royal fruit been shaken around him, scarce an apple of them all would have passed over him to the ground, but rather would an apple have stayed stuck on each single hair there, for the twisting of the anger which met it as it rose from his hair above him.

    The Lon Laith ('Champion's Light') stood out of his forehead, so that it was as long and as thick as a warrior's whetstone. As high, as thick, as strong, as steady, as long as the sail-tree of some huge prime ship was the straight spout of dark blood which arose right on high from the very ridge-pole of his crown, so that a black fog of witchery was made thereof like to the smoke from a king's hostel what time the king comes to be ministered to at nightfall of a winter's day.

    When now this contortion had been completed in Cuchulain, then it was that the hero of valour sprang into his scythed war-chariot, with its iron sickles, its thin blades, its hooks and its hard spikes, with its hero's fore-prongs, with its opening fixtures, with its stinging nails that were fastened to the poles and thongs and bows and lines of the chariot. - source
    In one, It's understood that he's deformed & out of control. In the other.. .................. there is an... "understanding" on just how wrong the wikipedia description feels for it. A gm being able to convey that kind of stuff can add magnitudes to a game
    Last edited by Tetrasodium; 2017-03-19 at 07:35 PM.

  7. - Top - End - #277
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    Shadroth's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Terra Australis Incognito

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Lombra View Post
    War_Lord and Shadroth don't misunderstand my words: descriptions as thick as needed are the key to avoid having to tell the players how their characters *should* feel. What I'm saying is that when descriptions fail there's nothing wrong in nudging the player a little in the atmosphere that you as a DM have designed for that particular moment. You shouldn't obviously manipulate the characters, just a sprinkle of "you feel a shiver down your spinal cord" or "the magnetic beauty of that elf (or kobold) captures your sight"; little hints to help the players understand what you are trying to express when you just can't get that description done right.
    "The hair on your neck stands on end and there is an electric charge in the air" is something I wouldn't have a problem with. Some players will choose for their characters to be cautious and a little spooked, some players might say "I feel a shiver down my spine. Unable to work out why, I go back to what I was doing".

    "The magnetic beauty of the elf (or kobold) is captivating to any who catch their eyes" is again a great description that players can and should feel free to respond however they choose. You could go so far as to say "if you look in this direction, the magnetic beauty locks eyes with you. A captivating sight that is hard to look away from."


    Quote Originally Posted by Tetrasodium View Post
    Descriptions are important yes. Take this example:

    [list][*]In his warp Spasm, Cú Chulainn becomes an unrecognizable monster who knows neither friend nor foe. - from wikipedia[*]as opposed to this very direct translation from the original celtic:
    [SNIP]
    In one, It's understood that he's deformed & out of control. In the other.. .................. there is an... "understanding" on just how wrong the wikipedia description feels for it. A gm being able to convey that kind of stuff can add magnitudes to a game
    This goes on to describe, in great detail, what a loathsome sight Cu Chulainn becomes when that transformation occurs. Different people will react differently. Some people might throw up, some people might grin and want that power for themselves, some people might just decide its another demon that needs to be put down. There are many and varied ways of getting the message of how loathsome this beast is, without resorting to "your character shudders in revulsion at this sight" from the DM.


    Perhaps, in the long run, there is little to no overall difference between your examples and mine. The overarching story effects will most likely be similar. But I am trying to show that, in my opinion, a DM as narrator should not tell the characters what they are doing or thinking or feeling. The DM can tell them they are on fire because they tripped over while trying to do something heroic but misguided, and they are likely to scream in pain, but the DM shouldn't say "you scream in pain when you fall off the table and realise your pants are on fire."


    This last example actually happened in a game recently. One of my party members plays a bumbling mercenary who is also a part-time impersonator of the local town guard and has an owlbear as a domesticed house pet (long story). He is represented rules-wise as a Rogue (Swashbuckler). When our party arrived at an inn after a long travel, and it turned out all the serving and wait staff were demons that started eating people, he heroically attempted to leap onto a centre table to distract the demons from any commoners caught up in the commotion, shouting the whole time. DM ruled it would require an acrobatics check followed by an intimidation check. The acrobatics check failed so badly that the table slipped out from underneath him, collapsing with the candelabra and food and whatever else was on it, he actually voice acted out a heroic but slightly horrified shout, and we all decided he should get advantage on the intimidation check to cause a distraction and hopefully let the commoners avoid becoming demon food for a few seconds longer. Ultimately, that also failed, but credit for trying, right? Some of the party members laughed, others were too busy focusing on their fighting, and one or two were in a different room and only vaguely aware of the fracas that had erupted. All of this is good story, collectively woven by the whole group.


    [EDIT]

    If the DM thinks a player is wasting a chance to role-play or react appropriately, another method that might work would be to say the the player "<Blank> is happening. Isn't this something that <Character> would be interested in watching?" Hamming it up and fishing for a reaction, sure. Pointing at it a bit more abruptly if the player didn't catch what was attempted to be communicated the first time, absolutely. But at no point doing this should the DM cross the line and say "Hey <Player>, your <Character> does this, because we all know he's keenly interested in <Blank>."
    Last edited by Shadroth; 2017-03-19 at 09:06 PM.

  8. - Top - End - #278
    Banned
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Contrast View Post
    Apologies as I seem to be saying this a lot but I don't really get what you're trying to achieve by reframing the language of the discussion BurgerBeast.

    Yes a DM can do whatever they want in their game (they have the 'right' as you put it). A player has the right to talk to the DM if they don't like whats going on and, if the DM doesn't want to change, they have the 'right' to leave.

    Pretty sure everyone here agrees with that.
    They don't. If they did this conversation would have ended a long time ago. It's really that simple.

    What we're here to discuss isn't really if the DM has those 'rights'. Its if it is sensible or appropriate idea to utilise those powers to strictly enforce (sorry, you don't force people, I remember ) limit character archetypes in accordance with only those outlined in the Players Handbook (or phrased more broadly when it is and isn't appropriate for a DM to wrest control of a PCs thought process and feelings away from them).
    This is a conversation that can't go anywhere. If you don't see a point in what I'm discussing, then I'm sorry - but this has less of a point. It is hardly relevant that something is inappropriate if it is allowed. If it's allowed, whether you like it or not, you need to shut up and get over it. That's how the world works. (Someone will inevitably misapply this and bring up social/political change, but this doesn't run counter to my point - it runs with it - because in the same way, you might not like people pursuing political and social change, but they have that right, so you need to shut up and let them.)

    It's socially inappropriate to stare at people, and it makes them uncomfortable, but it is not illegal. If you don't like to be started stared at, tough luck. People can stare at you all they want. Stay home if you don't like it.

    My stance (and I believe the stance of the other 'camp' from you) is that this should typically only be done as a matter of last resort so that the players retain a sense of agency and that they feel they are playing their character, not a sock puppet for the DM.
    And this is my point. I don't care what you think, and you shouldn't care wha I think. It has no relevance. If you are a player, you should just find out and follow suit. You shouldn't try to project your desires in ways that attempt to change the established rules or setting. Fit in or [email protected]#k off. There are other games you can go to if you don't like it.

    My understanding is that you are of the opinion that the DM should actively use this as a method of retaining control of the feel of the game and ensuring that play proceeds smoothly according the plan in line with that theme.
    No, it isn't. My opinion is that any DM that wants to do it can, and it's not my business why he wants to run the game the way he wants to run it. Special snowflakes want it to be their business, and they want to be more than one character in a fictional world. In the case of control of thoughts/feelings... this particularly absurd because they are asking for more control over their own character than they have over themselves.

    It is a question of degree.
    If you mean the degree established by the DM, then you're right.

    If I came to a stereotypical D&D game wanting to play psychic monkey from space and the DM told me I wasn't allowed to, I would be fine with that. If I came to a stereotypical D&D game wanting to play a barbarian from a city and a DM told me I wasn't allowed to I would likely walk or be highly cautious out of concern that they were a bad/overly controlling DM (unless their response was that there were no cities in their setting I suppose ). This is because I can't personally think of a single good reason to deny a player such a request so I view doing so as pointlessly punitive - a feature I obviously don't look for in a DM.
    That's fine. We agree. I don't care why you chose to walk. You have that right.

    Ad_hoc said in his OP that anyone can play the game however they want and I'm sure some people do play the game that way and enjoy it. I strongly disagree with his suggestion that this is the best way to play the game (and personally would not wish to play with a DM who took that approach) and even more strongly disagree with his claim that playing the game any way other than the way he suggested is somehow breaking the rules of 5E and anything else is houseruling.
    I don't care bout your personal opinions. I'm not the thought police (pun intended). Ad_hoc has every right to run his game the way he runs it, and you have every right to avoid it. No problems here.

    I think it was this second part which earned the most ire in this thread
    I've noticed. If anyone became irate, then they're a special snowflake. They need to realize exactly how far their rights as a player extend. But they won't. They insist on asserting rights that they don't have, and they're willing to deny the rights of others in order to get their own way. They're babies, and most of them don't know it because society failed them. They never had a chance.
    Last edited by BurgerBeast; 2017-03-19 at 09:15 PM.

  9. - Top - End - #279
    Banned
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadroth View Post
    "The hair on your neck stands on end and there is an electric charge in the air" is something I wouldn't have a problem with. Some players will choose for their characters to be cautious and a little spooked, some players might say "I feel a shiver down my spine. Unable to work out why, I go back to what I was doing".
    What? How could you not have a problem? The DM has taken control of the hair on your character's neck! That's not allowed!

    This is not hyperbole. I am with you. The special snowflakes cannot accept this if they wish to be consistent. In fact, this is more invasive of player freedom than the invasion that started this thread.

    "The magnetic beauty of the elf (or kobold) is captivating to any who catch their eyes" is again a great description that players can and should feel free to respond however they choose. You could go so far as to say "if you look in this direction, the magnetic beauty locks eyes with you. A captivating sight that is hard to look away from."
    Never, evil DM! How dare you decide what captivates my character? Also, only I can decide if I look away unless it is some mechanical effect.

    Again, not hyperbole.

    This goes on to describe, in great detail, what a loathsome sight Cu Chulainn becomes when that transformation occurs. Different people will react differently. Some people might throw up, some people might grin and want that power for themselves, some people might just decide its another demon that needs to be put down. There are many and varied ways of getting the message of how loathsome this beast is, without resorting to "your character shudders in revulsion at this sight" from the DM.
    Which begs the question: Is there even such a thing as an involuntary reflex in the fantasy worlds of the special snowflakes? Well, there can't be. If the player chooses to have it, then it's not really involuntary, but if the DM enforces it, then it's violating the player's rights.

    (edit: I'm not being facetious, here. How far are you willing to take this? Can the DM enforce that you have to go to the bathroom twice a day? Or is that a violation of your rights to completely control your character's actions? There's nothing in the rules that says that characters have to go to the bathroom.)

    Perhaps, in the long run, there is little to no overall difference between your examples and mine. The overarching story effects will most likely be similar. But I am trying to show that, in my opinion, a DM as narrator should not tell the characters what they are doing or thinking or feeling. The DM can tell them they are on fire because they tripped over while trying to do something heroic but misguided, and they are likely to scream in pain, but the DM shouldn't say "you scream in pain when you fall off the table and realise your pants are on fire."
    The screaming is an acton, so I'm with you in saying the DM can't make the PC scream. But feeling pain is not a choice in any context. If the player just says "I'm on fire, but I feel no pain since I decide what my character feels," then the character is an [email protected]#hole (by which I mean they are not even attempting to participate in the fictional pretence). End of story. No player should have that right. Players who stake the claim are almost certainly [email protected]#holes.
    Last edited by BurgerBeast; 2017-03-19 at 09:20 PM.

  10. - Top - End - #280
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Lombra View Post
    "the magnetic beauty of that elf (or kobold) captures your sight"; little hints to help the players understand what you are trying to express when you just can't get that description done right.
    I get what you're saying, but it's also the perfect example of why i don't think a DM should ever tell you how your character feel (baring mind control magic).

    You can assume that the slim petite blonde elf with 18 charisma will be extremely beautiful to most straight human male. But what if my character is actually into BBW (big beautiful women) or he's gay? Then it will take me out of the moment cause i'll have to correct the DM. Or he'll insist that no i find her perfect and i'm super attracted to her, in which case, he just changed my character.

    That's why it's better to say: "you see a beautiful slim petite blonde elf" then "you find the slim petite blonde elf beautiful".
    It's better to say: "A scary gnoll looks at you with murder in the eyes" then "you're scared of the gnoll looking at you with murder in the eyes."

    IMO, a DM's job should be to tell you how the thing is, not how you feel about it.

  11. - Top - End - #281
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    Shadroth's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Terra Australis Incognito

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by BurgerBeast View Post
    In the case of control of thoughts/feelings... this particularly absurd because they are asking for more control over their own character than they have over themselves.
    You mean, as a cooperative story teller (player), I can't role play a character that is many times stronger, tougher, better trained and disciplined than I am personally, implying that this character might have more control over themselves than I do personally as a human being?

    I'm not sure where you're going with this point, sorry.

    I am not my character. My character is not me. There might be aspects of my character I wish I could be more like, and there might be aspects of me in the character. But ultimately, the only person who knows everything about my character, is me. Other players will share their stories as our characters interact, adventure together, save each others lives and so on, but in all of that the one overriding factor is we control what they are thinking, how they react, and what they plan to do (even if it doesn't always work out).


    Quote Originally Posted by BurgerBeast View Post
    What? How could you not have a problem? The DM has taken control of the hair on your character's neck! That's not allowed!

    This is not hyperbole. I am with you. The special snowflakes cannot accept this if they wish to be consistent. In fact, this is more invasive of player freedom than the invasion that started this thread.


    Never, evil DM! How dare you decide what captivates my character? Also, only I can decide if I look away unless it is some mechanical effect.

    Again, not hyperbole.


    Which begs the question: Is there even such a thing as an involuntary reflex in the fantasy worlds of the special snowflakes? Well, there can't be. If the player chooses to have it, then it's not really involuntary, but if the DM enforces it, then it's violating the player's rights.

    (edit: I'm not being facetious, here. How far are you willing to take this? Can the DM enforce that you have to go to the bathroom twice a day? Or is that a violation of your rights to completely control your character's actions? There's nothing in the rules that says that characters have to go to the bathroom.)


    The screaming is an acton, so I'm with you in saying the DM can't make the PC scream. But feeling pain is not a choice in any context. If the player just says "I'm on fire, but I feel no pain since I decide what my character feels," then the character is an [email protected]#hole (by which I mean they are not even attempting to participate in the fictional pretence). End of story. No player should have that right. Players who stake the claim are almost certainly [email protected]#holes.
    I'm under the impression you're at least being overdramatic with the highlighted blue phrases, if not directly sarcastic. Please forgive me for being tone deaf if it means something different.

    I would normally imagine someone wanting to avoid what might otherwise be an involuntary reflex might offer some kind of interaction before being automatically applied. If your soldier fighter is filling in a latrine pit, and the stench is so foul it would make any normal person purge themselves, maybe a Constitution save is in order? Heroes are more stalwart than your average person after all, and a failed save might mean they give in to their instinctual need to barf. My group normally rolls a Constitution save in order wake yourself up if you're asleep and there's combat nearby making loud noises, maybe with advantage is a party member is trying to kick you awake.

    Not that most play groups would need to devote time to the banality of burying a latrine pit unless there's an opportunity for a story hook. My group doesn't even bother counting arrow expenditures, let alone other mundane details that have no bearing on the story. Where that line gets drawn can vary, absolutely, but you can't assume anything.


    The DM says "You attempted something cool, but failed. You fall off the table and land painfully, take XX damage. You will also notice that you are burning, and will start to take fire damage unless something is done about it quickly." The character takes some damage because of a consequence of their actions. That it is painful is objective. How painful that character notices it to be can be subjective. A fighter with 80 hit points won't care if they just took 5 damage by faceplanting on the floor. A wizard with only 30 hit points will be far more likely to care about it, particularly with combat raging around them. Likewise a raging barbarian may not notice they are on fire for several rounds, while a more sane character might immediately go jump in the river.


    I also think I may have stumbled across where part of the disconnect is coming from. "Feel" as in the sense of touch, and "feel" as in emotion. The DM can absolutely tell you what is around you that might be discernable or perceivable, be it wind brushing across your skin or the heat of the sun as you stand out in the field, the agonizing pain of having your leg chopped clean off. But the DM should never tell you how your character responds to that stimulus, what they think about it, why they think it, or what they plan to do about it. No?

    [Edit] In the case of losing a limb directly, again maybe a Constitution save not to straight up pass out as the blood flows out of your body. But that's still describing what is happening to you, not what you're doing about it or why.


    [Edit the 2nd]

    Expanding on this, your DM might say "You feel something bristly brush quickly against the back of your hand." That's cool.

    Character A might respond: "Ah! Is it a spider?!" <runs away quickly>

    Character B might respond: <absentmindedly brushed hand against leg>

    Character C might respond: <carefully raises and turns over hand, looking for what brushed against it>


    In all of these cases, the players have complete control over what their character feels about what happened, what they are thinking, and why. They are responding to something objective that happened.
    Last edited by Shadroth; 2017-03-19 at 10:06 PM.

  12. - Top - End - #282
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2017

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by BurgerBeast View Post
    If it's allowed, whether you like it or not, you need to shut up and get over it. That's how the world works. (Someone will inevitably misapply this and bring up social/political change, but this doesn't run counter to my point - it runs with it - because in the same way, you might not like people pursuing political and social change, but they have that right, so you need to shut up and let them.)



    It's socially inappropriate to stare at people, and it makes them uncomfortable, but it is not illegal. If you don't like to be started stared at, tough luck. People can stare at you all they want. Stay home if you don't like it.



    Fit in or [email protected]#k off. There are other games you can go to if you don't like it.





    I've noticed. If anyone became irate, then they're a special snowflake. They need to realize exactly how far their rights as a player extend. But they won't. They insist on asserting rights that they don't have, and they're willing to deny the rights of others in order to get their own way. They're babies, and most of them don't know it because society failed them. They never had a chance.


    I figure at this point you are either ignoring me or have me blocked so you might never see this, but holy #$%^ man, can you get more condescending and offensive? I mean, you probably could, but seriously this is just crazy.


    Just because a player wants to have a discussion, and may want more than "no, fit in or &^$% off" as an answer, doesn't mean they are a socially inept child who doesn't understand how to deal with people.

    I mean, good lord, you keep going on about immaturity in people who can't take no for an answer, it isn't only players who need to learn those sorts of skills.

  13. - Top - End - #283
    Banned
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    @Shadroth: your previous post deserves a reply so I will get to it all at once, and try to organize it for ease of reading. But you did misunderstand my comment about amount of control over a character. All I meant is that no one has complete control over what they feel or think. People do, however, have the ability to process their emotions differently and act differently.

    Also, yes, someone apparently started the convention on this forum that blue test refers to a sarcastic tone, so sarcasm is what I was going for.

    (edit: what follows is added after the fact)

    Quote Originally Posted by Chaosmancer View Post
    I figure at this point you are either ignoring me or have me blocked so you might never see this, but holy #$%^ man, can you get more condescending and offensive? I mean, you probably could, but seriously this is just crazy.
    I haven't blocked you, and I haven't been intentionally ignoring you (but it's possible that I dismissed some of it as irrelevant). I'll look back and get back to you. Also, just don't be offended.
    Last edited by BurgerBeast; 2017-03-19 at 10:11 PM.

  14. - Top - End - #284

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by BurgerBeast View Post
    What? How could you not have a problem? The DM has taken control of the hair on your character's neck! That's not allowed!

    This is not hyperbole. I am with you. The special snowflakes cannot accept this if they wish to be consistent. In fact, this is more invasive of player freedom than the invasion that started this thread.



    Never, evil DM! How dare you decide what captivates my character? Also, only I can decide if I look away unless it is some mechanical effect.

    Again, not hyperbole.
    You're deliberately using hyperbole and sarcasm to misrepresent the argument. Insulting people by calling them "snowflakes" really isn't helping you either.

    Quote Originally Posted by BurgerBeast View Post
    Which begs the question: Is there even such a thing as an involuntary reflex in the fantasy worlds of the special snowflakes? Well, there can't be. If the player chooses to have it, then it's not really involuntary, but if the DM enforces it, then it's violating the player's rights.
    The DM cannot "enforce" an involuntary reflex, because involuntary reflexes are not consistent from person to person. Some people are deathly afraid of spiders, some people keep them as pets. Some people are in agony if they get so much as a paper cut, some people can break a bone and still keep calm. I can't control my reaction to an injury or threat, but I do have an idea of how the fictional tough soldier I'm playing in a fantasy game might react to an injury. I certainly have a better idea of how my character would react to such a situation then the DM does, because it's not their character.

    Quote Originally Posted by BurgerBeast View Post
    (edit: I'm not being facetious, here. How far are you willing to take this? Can the DM enforce that you have to go to the bathroom twice a day? Or is that a violation of your rights to completely control your character's actions? There's nothing in the rules that says that characters have to go to the bathroom.)
    Do you actually track how many times your players have their characters use the bathroom? People don't generally track that stuff, not because their characters are "special snowflakes" who are too good to use the bathroom, but because this is a fantasy game that doesn't have to be a reflection of mundane life. I guess you would want the players to all stay home and be farmers, because only "special snowflakes" would want to go out and fight monsters instead of following the "reflex" of most people and avoiding the risk? PC Adventurers are not "normal" people, it's not Call of Cthulhu, it's D&D 5e and there's a basic assumption that the party are tougher then commoners, and rapidly become much tougher then even trained warriors.

    Quote Originally Posted by BurgerBeast View Post
    The screaming is an acton, so I'm with you in saying the DM can't make the PC scream. But feeling pain is not a choice in any context. If the player just says "I'm on fire, but I feel no pain since I decide what my character feels," then the character is an [email protected]#hole (by which I mean they are not even attempting to participate in the fictional pretence). End of story. No player should have that right. Players who stake the claim are almost certainly [email protected]#holes.
    Feeling pain is not a choice. How the character reacts to pain is a choice, not on the part of the character, but on the part of the person playing that character. In real life there's a huge variation in pain tolerance. I, as a pale pasty nerd can't handle even a hard poke. I'm in the same species as sports people who get punched in the face as part of their job, and soldiers who have been shot in combat and didn't even notice the wound for several minutes. I see no reason that variance wouldn't be even larger in a heroic magical fantasy world.

    Your claims to superior emotional maturity might be more credible if you could go two posts without name calling.

  15. - Top - End - #285
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    SaintRidley's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    The land of corn

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Putting it quite simply, players are the authors of their characters I'm a game of emergent narrative. They naturally have and should have more control over their character's emotional state than they would their own - that is how being an author works.

    If BurgerBeast's point were simply about the right of a DM to make determinations of a specific sort about how certain types of characters should feel about things as part of their world, the constant tone of condescension applied to his responses to everyone pointing out that that does not create a conducive environment for play would not be present. In fact, that tone suggests less that the DM's right is BurgerBeast's point and points more toward a point purely motivated by spite. At least that's how I see this. Frankly, I wouldn't want to play in a game run by him or alongside him as a player, considering the level of smug condescension dropping out of every word, at least in the sentences where the pretense isn't dropped entirely in favor of telling the other person to f off for disagreeing.

    I've got a character who recently multiclassed Barbarian, she grew up on a small sheep farm, but spent most of her time hunting in the nearby mountains. She headed out to start working as a raider to help provide for her family. 6 levels of champion fighter, and pretty comfortable with walls and towns. But she's more comfortable in the wild, getting up close and personal with her kills. Note that the earlier formulation that "less comfortable" with walls and cities means that there is discomfort doesn't hold logically. It only implies that there are more comfortable situations. My character is more comfortable in the wild, or less comfortable in a city depending on what emphasis we want to frame as important, but in no way is she actually uncomfortable in a city.

    Paragraphs one and three are the actual important bits of this post, but damn it felt good to type paragraph two after reading through this thread and suffering through pages of that tripe.
    Linguist and Invoker of Orcus of the Rudisplorker's Guild
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    Fantasy literature is ONLY worthwhile for what it can tell us about the real world; everything else is petty escapism.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    No author should have to take the time to say, "This little girl ISN'T evil, folks!" in order for the reader to understand that. It should be assumed that no first graders are irredeemably Evil unless the text tells you they are.

  16. - Top - End - #286
    Banned
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Spoiler: For Shadroth
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadroth View Post
    By contrast, the 5th Edition book doesn't specifically have that in Chapter 1: Step-By-Step Characters. The class entries include a segment "Creating a <class>" that has questions to ask yourself about what type of character you want to build. The only two entries that say "work with your DM" are the Barbarian and the Warlock. In a group that you haven't played with before, I would normally assume this to be required for any class, but to quote exactly from the Barbarian entry:

    "When creating your Barbarian character, think about where your character comes from and his or her place in the world. Talk with your DM about an appropriate origin for your barbarian."
    Good points that will continue to go ignored.

    If your character concept is a street thug with sever anger issues that he develops, channels and learns to control to gain better physical abilities than the average gang member, there are several Backgrounds that would potentially work with that. While discussing it with the DM, they can make suggestions about levels of appropriateness or say "my campaign setting does this differently and all Barbarians (class) are barbarians (culture)", but I would hope that there is room for both the player and DM to reach an agreement about what can/can't be contemplated, not just a flat out denial from either side that "I must have this" or "I won't allow that". Its much better to have "I'd like to do this, how can we make it fit" or "I'd prefer you didn't do that, lets see what we can do instead".
    I'm with you up until the hope part. This is just a smaller version of special snowflake syndrome. It boils down to "I really hope the world/other players/DM will bend to my will just a little, here." It's the hope that ultimately leads to problems. Stop getting your hopes up and you'll never be disappointed.

    As a personal opinion, I find it hard to believe that everyone who goes into a blood frenzy, and might want to use the Barbarian class to represent that, would have to be from a barbarian tribe to do so.
    Same here. But I also find it hard to believe that anyone who goes into a blood frenzy would actually gain physically transformative benefits from it. Which is sort of the point. Anyone can go berserk. But only people who belong to the Barbarian Class can enter a Rage and gain mechanical benefits (i.e. undergo tangible changes to their abilities).

    Beyond this, you're divorcing the mechanics of the class from the rest of the class, which is pretty clearly not the intention, as has been discussed. The ability to imagine similar mechanical abilities in similar circumstances does not mean you have the right to insert these mechanical abilities into the game, because you want to or because you're a player. You're overstepping your rights as a player. The fact that some DMs are cool with it does not mean it's your right to it.

    I would treat these as two separate things. What your character believes is entirely up to you as the player, within the overall framework of the game world, your character's history, and so on.
    Right, and the overall framework, and your character's history, etc, place limits on your freedom.

    Unless specified or discussed amongst the group first, sure, it would be jarring for a character to believe they come from another world or cosmos. There are still definitely ways for this to happen in D&D, specifically in the Forgotten Realms. This is where group and player discussions at character creation are important.
    Bingo. So there are limits placed on freedom, which means players do not have 100% freedom, which makes it bizarre that people demand it.

    I'll speak to the Barbarian issue by asking: why would it be so jarring for a rage-fuelled combatant to not have to come from a tribal culture?
    It depends on how far you're willing to take it. The two main factors to consider are:

    (1) We're not just talking about a rage fuelled-combatant. The world is full of rage-fuelled combatants. We're talking about rage-fuelled combatants that gain the mechanical benefits of Rage whenever they enter a rage.

    (2) We're not just talking about the Rage. We're talking about the entire class-package.

    Until that concept is discussed, how do you know its bad?
    Agreed. Discuss the concept. Just don't come in with the expectation that you will get the desired answer.

    No one can tell you that you shouldn't have fun by doing so.
    Two things here: (1) there are difference between doing something well and having fun doing it. (2) there is a difference between telling someone their idea is not permitted versus they can't have fun. If someone is so attached to a concept that they can't have fun unless they are allowed to play the concept, then they are a selfish baby.

    If you have any specific rules/guidelines in mind, you should make these clear with your group before play begins, possibly even before a "session zero" to give them as much up front information as possible.
    Agreed. But as player it can't do any harm to always check first.

    If you mean "Barbarians are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls and crowds" is some kind of rule that must be followed, I would question why you consider that to be a "rule" that must be followed or otherwise house-ruled. You're free to answer that how you wish, I'm free to disagree, and if we can't reach a compromise then obviously we won't play together.
    Bingo.

    Completely unrelated to whether anyone considers that a rule or not, there are better ways of going about it than a DM saying "your character feels this".
    There may be better ways but I don't care. I'm sorry to sound blunt but if people are so sensitive about such a small difference in wording, that's a big enough red flag for me to eliminate them from my life. I'm too old for that sh#t.

    A DM has control over the world and the NPCs in it. They should describe what is around and what happens from an objective viewpoint, and the players will respond. Saying "your character is afraid of dragons" for example, requires some kind of player control. In this case, most dragons have a fear aura. If the players haven't seen the dragon yet and fail their Wisdom saving throws, you can easily say "you are all uneasy. The dragon slowly moves into view, savouring its prey's fear." If some of the players pass their Wisdom saving throws, you might instead say "The dragon slowly moves into view, revealing its frightful visage. Those of you who failed their saves become Frightened, and will have disadvantage on their attack rolls against it." In either case, if they pass their Wisdom save, they're not actually afraid of the dragon. They might still think its scary and wants to eat them, but they get to make up their own mind about that.
    Okay, this is a point worth discussing. I have no problem with the DM telling players that they feel scared, because (1) it's a feeling - I'm sorry but people cannot control their feelings (which is a point that some people seem be arguing) and (2) you're not taking way their ability to decide how their character responds when afraid. The player still has complete control to decide what their character does in this circumstance.

    The Players have control over their characters, what their characters think, and what their characters want to do. Whether or not what they want to do is possible will be adjudicated by the DM at any given time. Whether or not what their character thinks bears any semblance to the game-world reality can always be questioned, even in-character, sometimes quite humourously.
    Human beings on earth do not have control over what they think. Consider the old "Imagine a pink elephant" trick. There is no good reason for a character in a TTRPG to have this ability when real people do not.

    ***

    As has materialized, my sarcastic remarks were really not hyperbolic at all. People do have a problem with them.

    ***

    I'm not sure where you're going with this point, sorry.

    I am not my character. My character is not me. There might be aspects of my character I wish I could be more like, and there might be aspects of me in the character. But ultimately, the only person who knows everything about my character, is me. Other players will share their stories as our characters interact, adventure together, save each others lives and so on, but in all of that the one overriding factor is we control what they are thinking, how they react, and what they plan to do (even if it doesn't always work out).
    I would say that, in order to role-play well, this can't be true. This is because "people" do not have complete control of what they think and feel. Thus, a TTRPG PC that does have this degree of control is less believable. I would say that the whole point of role-playing is that you can enter the mind of your character, and if entering that mind puts you in a position wherein you have more power over the character than the character would over his own mind, then you're really not doing it as well as you could. So much so that my suspension of disbelief is broken, because you're not entering the mind of a believable person anymore, but rather a robot who has the ability to turn feelings and thoughts on and off at his own whim. This is ridiculous.

    I would normally imagine someone wanting to avoid what might otherwise be an involuntary reflex might offer some kind of interaction before being automatically applied. If your soldier fighter is filling in a latrine pit, and the stench is so foul it would make any normal person purge themselves, maybe a Constitution save is in order?
    Again, here I would be okay with that. But the special snowflakes cannot be, if they are being true to their position. Why should the dice control their actions? The PC is their PC and only they can decide if he pukes.

    Heroes are more stalwart than your average person after all, and a failed save might mean they give in to their instinctual need to barf. My group normally rolls a Constitution save in order wake yourself up if you're asleep and there's combat nearby making loud noises, maybe with advantage is a party member is trying to kick you awake.
    Again, totally reasonable to me, but an affront to the special snowflakes. It's a wonder these characters ever sleep at all, since their players can just choose to have them never feel tired, and the DM has no right to declare them tired.

    I also think I may have stumbled across where part of the disconnect is coming from. "Feel" as in the sense of touch, and "feel" as in emotion. The DM can absolutely tell you what is around you that might be discernable or perceivable, be it wind brushing across your skin or the heat of the sun as you stand out in the field, the agonizing pain of having your leg chopped clean off. But the DM should never tell you how your character responds to that stimulus, what they think about it, why they think it, or what they plan to do about it. No?
    It's a fair distinction, but not relevant in the sense that I meant the part that happens i the brain (which I am not supposedly allowed to enter as the DM), and illustrates the point well. See, I can tell them the feel (touch) something sharp and then feel pain (in their brain). By their stance, I am not allowed to add the brain part. They are allowed to declare that they feel nothing.

    [Edit] In the case of losing a limb directly, again maybe a Constitution save not to straight up pass out as the blood flows out of your body. But that's still describing what is happening to you, not what you're doing about it or why.
    I'm pretty sure you'd have an argument here, since there are no rules about limbs nor blood loss causing loss of consciousness, and since you can't tell them how their PC feels.

    In all of these cases, the players have complete control over what their character feels about what happened, what they are thinking, and why. They are responding to something objective that happened.
    Yes, and I'm good with this.


    Quote Originally Posted by Chaosmancer View Post
    I figure at this point you are either ignoring me or have me blocked so you might never see this, but holy #$%^ man, can you get more condescending and offensive? I mean, you probably could, but seriously this is just crazy.
    It's really not.

    Just because a player wants to have a discussion, and may want more than "no, fit in or &^$% off" as an answer, doesn't mean they are a socially inept child who doesn't understand how to deal with people.
    I agree.

    I mean, good lord, you keep going on about immaturity in people who can't take no for an answer, it isn't only players who need to learn those sorts of skills.
    Agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by War_lord View Post
    You're deliberately using hyperbole and sarcasm to misrepresent the argument. Insulting people by calling them "snowflakes" really isn't helping you either.
    Sarcasm, yes. But sorry, there's no hyperbole, there. If you don;t believe me go back and read some of what RedMage125 wrote.

    The DM cannot "enforce" an involuntary reflex, because involuntary reflexes are not consistent from person to person. Some people are deathly afraid of spiders, some people keep them as pets. Some people are in agony if they get so much as a paper cut, some people can break a bone and still keep calm.
    This isn't even on the degree of significance that I was driving at. Goosebumps, hiccups, sneezes... etc. If you are telling me that my character never does any of these things unless I decide that he does, then you've lost me. I don't have control over those things because no one has control over those things.

    I can't control my reaction to an injury or threat, but I do have an idea of how the fictional tough soldier I'm playing in a fantasy game might react to an injury. I certainly have a better idea of how my character would react to such a situation then the DM does, because it's not their character.
    This is not contradictory to my position. In fact, you've taken my own point farther than I would have, because I would say that you do have control over your reaction to an injury or threat. But you would still have feelings that you couldn't control. And so would the tough soldier. The difference is not that the tough soldier doesn't feel these things. The difference is that he's better equipped to handle them.

    Do you actually track how many times your players have their characters use the bathroom? People don't generally track that stuff, not because their characters are "special snowflakes" who are too good to use the bathroom, but because this is a fantasy game that doesn't have to be a reflection of mundane life. I guess you would want the players to all stay home and be farmers, because only "special snowflakes" would want to go out and fight monsters instead of following the "reflex" of most people and avoiding the risk? PC Adventurers are not "normal" people, it's not Call of Cthulhu, it's D&D 5e and there's a basic assumption that the party are tougher then commoners, and rapidly become much tougher then even trained warriors.
    No, I don't. And I think we both know that. Also, you're not using special snowflakes in the way that I use it. My point is that, if you ascribe to the mentality that the player has 100% control over character thoughts, feelings, and emotions, then it follows that the player can decide that his character never feels the need to go to the washroom nor eat. And the DM can't tell the player, whose character hasn't been to the washroom in four days, that he is uncomfortable, because he is now controlling feelings. And the DM can't say the character sh#ts his pants, because then he's controlling the character's actions. It's absurd. I am not saying this because it comes up, I'm saying it because it's an implication of the advocated system. Whether anyone acknowledges it or not, it remains completely absurd.

    Feeling pain is not a choice. How the character reacts to pain is a choice, not on the part of the character, but on the part of the person playing that character. In real life there's a huge variation in pain tolerance. I, as a pale pasty nerd can't handle even a hard poke. I'm in the same species as sports people who get punched in the face as part of their job, and soldiers who have been shot in combat and didn't even notice the wound for several minutes. I see no reason that variance wouldn't be even larger in a heroic magical fantasy world.
    Complete agreement.

    Your claims to superior emotional maturity might be more credible if you could go two posts without name calling.
    I've never claimed superior emotional maturity.

    Also, you've just illustrated "special snowflake" syndrome very well. See, if the fact that you think I've insulted someone clouds the way you think about my points, then you're immature. Credibility is not dependent on manners. It's dependent on reasons and evidence. Grow up, special snowflake. You're not that important.

    Quote Originally Posted by SaintRidley View Post
    Putting it quite simply, players are the authors of their characters I'm a game of emergent narrative. They naturally have and should have more control over their character's emotional state than they would their own - that is how being an author works.
    No, players are not authors of their characters. You are completely and utterly wrong about this. Authors control outcomes. So, even though you're entirely correct about how being an author works, the problem is that being a player is not akin to being an author.

    Being a player means that you can enter the mind of a character and make decisions for the character. That's it. That's as far as it goes. You get the mind and the actions. You do not get any control of the world except insofar as your character can influence it. You are not an author. Not even close.

    If BurgerBeast's point were simply about the right of a DM to make determinations of a specific sort about how certain types of characters should feel about things as part of their world, the constant tone of condescension applied to his responses to everyone pointing out that that does not create a conducive environment for play would not be present. In fact, that tone suggests less that the DM's right is BurgerBeast's point and points more toward a point purely motivated by spite. At least that's how I see this. Frankly, I wouldn't want to play in a game run by him or alongside him as a player, considering the level of smug condescension dropping out of every word, at least in the sentences where the pretense isn't dropped entirely in favor of telling the other person to f off for disagreeing.
    And this is why you are a special snowflake who needs to grow up. "If Burgerbeast spoke to me the way I like to be spoken to, I might agree with him..." is just a passive aggressive way of trying to control how I speak. There's no spite, here. Trust me. It's just that anytime someone disagrees with a special snowflake, they interpret it personally as things such as spite.

    And I suppose there's no spite at all in what you've said. Grow up.

    I've got a character...
    I don't care.

    Paragraphs one and three are the actual important bits of this post, but damn it felt good to type paragraph two after reading through this thread and suffering through pages of that tripe.
    No spite here. None at all.

  17. - Top - End - #287
    Sheriff in the Playground Administrator
     
    Roland St. Jude's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Sheriff: Locked for review.
    Forum Rules

    Sheriff Roland by Chris the Pontifex

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •